Why do we need to belong to an nation state ?

A friend challenged my thought about identities in my life and it got me thinking. She subscribed to the idea that most modern anthropologist agree to: that nationalism or to put it simply that – the notion of taking pride of being part of a nation-state was flawed in many ways. Her arguments seem to be valid if we looked at the examples of modern history:

Nationalism when applied to social policy was at the root of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide in Turkey, Germany, Japan (in China), Cambodia, Rwanda, China (Tibet) and the former Yugoslavia.

Nationalism when applied to economics led to wars over resources that would have been more efficiently traded for than conquered. Germany’s invasion of Russia was largely motivated by the Nationalist/Autarkic view that trade was insecure and only through conquest could Germany assure access to needed resources. Japan had a similar motive for their invasions of neighboring countries.

Nationalism when applied to competitive politics justifies an endless list of abuses of liberty and civil rights. That’s why we were all so upset about Bush’s “War on Terror” jive. It’s also why Italians are upset about Berlusconi’s cooperation and abuse of his countries media.

“Anti-nationalism” views argue that Liberty is the key. Prosperity is the point. Long term, stable prosperity cannot be achieved through nationalism. They argue that only through economic and social liberty can such national happiness be attained. One of their strongest and almost irrefutable statements; “Ask the Germans and the Japanese how far their nationalist experiments got them. Then ask them how things have gone since 1945?”

When cynical leaders use nationalist appeals to distract their populations from bad government, they are risking a return to those horrible experiences. Bush was wrong to do it in America. Chavez is wrong to do it in Venezuela. The Chinese Communist Party is wrong to do it in China. And Putin is wrong to do it in Russia.

But are we wrong to do it in the subcontinent, particularly in Srilanka and Tamilnadu, when we have seen that no good has come out of it?

As I dwell on this question, I am torn between my idealistic acceptance of universal brotherhood and my emotional affinity to my ethnicity.

I have some basic problems with nationalism, the glorification of the nation state, or at the very least, the claim that it takes precedence over other claims of loyalty.

The way many Americans treat the concept of culture, flag, nation– well, borders on idolatry. Nowhere is this clearer than with discussions of the Iraq war. Priests have been accused of treason for merely preaching Pope John Paul’s opposition to the war from the pulpit. And in right-wing Catholic circles, one often sees more fealty shown toward the Bush administration than the pope! Many point that the Catechism seems to defer to the civil authorities when it notes that “The evaluation of these [just war] conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” Hence soldiers and draftees are morally obliged to obey orders, and civilians are urged to support the war effort lest they be accused of a bevy of abuses ranging from disloyalty to treason. We see this quite clearly in the ongoing debate today. But it’s wrong. It is certainly a necessary condition that the secular leadership evaluates the just war conditions, but it is not a sufficient one. The judgment could be wrong, immoral.

Were soldiers in Nazi Germany obliged to obey orders? Was the German population obliged to support the war effort? Of course not! The Austrian farmer Franz Jägerstätter died as a martyr when he refused to be drafted by the Nazis. He reasoned very clearly that while obedience to the government was ordinarily required, this was not the case in gravely evil situations. And the Nuremberg trials concurred, stating clearly that the “following orders” defense was invalid. ( I got this from watching “The Reader – purely for the sake of satisfying my obsession with Kate Winslet )

Where am I going with this? In earlier days, before the Enlightenment and the rise of the nation state, nationalism, at least as understood today, was non-existent. The ruler was regarded as having a divine mandate to rule, but this was contingent upon the ruler supporting the common good. There was never any obligation to support tyrants. Of course, the environment was very different, during a time when borders were in constant flux, and when there was no real concept of a “state” demanding allegiance. Loyalties were of a local nature. But the rise of nationalism changed the equation, as (absent any notion of the divine), the state itself became an end in itself. It is by no accident that many trace the birth of modern nationalism to the French Revolution. As Christianity waned, secular mythologies and ideologies arose take its place, and those ideologies often glorified country. In its extreme forms, this ideology quickly shifted into the venomous pseudo-religions that so marked the 20th century. Even its more benign forms (such as in the United States) it is, in its essence, an artificial concept prone to corruption.

Perhaps we need to reassess nationalism. The ruler in a modern democracy is obliged to protect the common good, chiefly to protecting basic human rights. Borders are necessary to establish administrative boundaries. But should these boundaries be accorded a mystical quality of their own?

Why do we require a Nationalist movement in the 21st Century? Why can we not peacefully co-exist without the worry of one community being a threat to another?

Very simple questions, but if I was to answer in such simplistic terms, I would be accused of making blind sweeping statements. For now, I would like to seek refuge in my “escapist” argument, that any utopian argument would only be valid in a world where a critical mass of people believed and practiced an ideal life. Artificial boundaries like national borders are needed purely for practical reasons of administration. After various discussions with my very intelligent friends, I have come to the conclusion that it is the best solution we have to get people to believe and work towards a common goal of national progress. This national pride fosters innovation and a competitive drive to make life simpler, smoother, faster which ultimately serves all of humanity. Yes, one can counter-argue that humanity can be served the same way without the existence of a nation state; but skimming through history, I haven’t found that to be true right from the days of our tribal origins.

I also see that subcontinent came out of oppressive colonialism and walked right into poverty and ignorance. This very diverse and confused population came into freedom with the only memory that they could remember to be stable – their identity. This identity of being part of something bigger than their caste, community, city and  linguistically divided nation-states excited them. It was imperative for them to forget their differences and work towards a common goal that would one day lift them out of poverty and ignorance. In a post-world war era, most of the developed world were still rebuilding their own nation to maintain the status-quo and couldn’t offer much to the developing world. I guess that this is where the idea of a nation-state along with an identity serves the purpose of common good more than anything else. The act of people getting under a flag and working together so that their future is stronger makes more sense than anarchy.

So my conclusion is this: yes, nation-state identities are divisive forces in humanity today and they probably will be true for some time.  However the idea of a border less planet where the entire human race works towards helping each other and the planet seems far less utopian and more plausible. But we are not there yet, but I am certain that we will be there soon.  Call me a dreamer, but I kind of like the idea of going to any place on earth, whenever I want, without going through a Visa procedure or security check. Also, it would nice to know that people are ‘not’ thinking they can ‘hurt’ other nationals by war, or blowing themselves with planes. Ah..I am but a dreamer…

Now I am really confused about the healthcare debate

President Obama once again pitched for the public option last night and the mainstream media once again cheered. On the face of it, it is easy to be carried away. You can keep your insurance, or you can take the government plan. Sounds innocuous, right?

Now the more I think, argue and learn about it from my economist pals, i am forced to concede that the reality of a public option is a lose-lose, unless you want a nationalized healthcare system. Here is why ?

For starters, even if the government plan is not subsidized by the taxpayer, it has several key advantages. One is that its cost of capital is much lower than any of its competitors, its debt being backed by the full faith of the US Government. The other is that since it does not have to make a profit, competition will kill returns in the private sector, driving us towards national healthcare.

Will we be able to keep the health plan we like? Absolutely not! Lets focus simply on the issue of those currently being covered by an employer-based health plan. If you are an employer, you can either buy health insurance from a private insurer, or you can pay a tax (if I remember the parts of HR3200 I read, it’s in the vicinity of 8% of gross income)

If the government plan is cheaper, most employers will simply abandon providing health coverage and instead pay the tax. But we are not in the clear even if the government plan is more expensive. After all, this means that the clientèle for the government plan will dispropriately be the unemployed, individuals with pre-existing conditions, and other high-risk groups. That would make a government plan unsustainable (after all, the point of insurance is to spread risk, not aggregate the risky) Any bets that politicians would stay true to their word and allow a government plan to fail?

The mainstream media has bought this along traditional lines, and failed to do much analysis. It is easily to be carried away by the brilliance of Obama’s oratorical skills, and by the extreme craziness from some on the right. But let’s not get carried away – if the public option passes, we’re coasting to a socialized medical system!

Disclaimer: On the other hand, I have not even thought deeply about the pros and cons of an socialized medical system, so don’t kill me with those arguments please

Recognising sexual diversity

I may not agree with  your opinion, but I shall defend to the death your right to have one – Voltaire

The Delhi High Court’s ruling decriminalising consensual adult homosexual acts has not only enabled gays to come out of the closet, but has also revealed many other strange bedfellows. Many leaders of different religions – Christians, Hindus, Muslims, find themselves united in expressing their disapproval. Many others who normally prefer to wear their secular credentials on their sleeves, some seem to have suddenly discovered their affinity to tradition and culture and come out strongly against this judgment, others seem to have discovered that ambiguity and silence are the better parts of valour. The communists, hardly the epitome of tolerance, seem to be the only group among the political class to have welcomed this verdict.

The opposition from the conservatives and the ambiguity among the “secular” political class  stems from a failure to distinguish between ethical values and legal implications of this judgment. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws. Not everything that one disagrees with need to be made illegal. One way to look at this is that while the law provides the floor, the basic framework for individual behaviour in a society, moral values represent the high ceiling, which one should aspire to, but which is well beyond the legal norm. Just as we may endorse the right of smokers or drinkers to pursue the freedom to exercise their choices without actually endorsing many of those behaviours, everyone can endorse the right of homosexuals to pursue their lifestyles, regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of homosexuality. In that context, the Delhi High Court’s ruling to decriminalise homosexual behaviour among consenting adults is a very welcome and long awaited step forward. We human beings have the right to make choices – that is what make us humans. As Voltaire is famously supposed to have said, “I may not agree with what you, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

The judgment says, “Respect for human rights requires that certain basic rights of individuals should not be capable in any circumstances of being overridden by the majority, even if they think that the public interest so requires. Other rights should be capable of being overridden only in very restricted circumstances. These are rights which belong to individuals simply by virtue of their humanity, independently of any utilitarian calculation.” This is a lofty and noble idea,  and if the Indian judiciary lives up to it, it will be an extraordinary step forward.

The socio-political question is that by making the present HC verdict as a symbol of the change, the gay community may have attracted upon themselves unnecessary attention, and now they may have to prepare to face their long dormant, but reactivated vocal critics. Needless to say that society progresses through such churnings, unpleasant ideas come to the fore, and one has to debate and decide to take sides, but one has to be prepared to pay the price that such churning may unfortunately demand at times.

The Delhi HC judgment profoundly notes, “The role of the judiciary is to protect the fundamental rights. A modern democracy while based on the principle of majority rule implicitly recognizes the need to protect the fundamental rights of those who may dissent or deviate from the majoritarian view. It is the job of the judiciary to balance the principles ensuring that the government on the basis of number does not override fundamental rights.”

This is an admirable sentiment.  For democracy to endure, majorities of the day could not be allowed to degenerate in to mob rule and suppress dissent. The basic feature of democratic functioning is to protect the right of the minority to engage in the debate, and to recognise the prospect that today’s minority opinion may become the majority view of tomorrow if it can peacefully persuade more people.

The right that the gay community claims is fundamentally a right to use their own body, their most fundamental property, in the way of their own choosing – the right to property, and freedom to express themselves. Why have two pieces of law have generated such diametrically opposite responses? What has changed?

In one there is a ground swell of popular support, in the other, there may be some voyeuristic curiosity, but not much popular support. In one, powerful governments have been brought to its knees. In the other an apparent non-issue has made the powers that be wary of disturbing the status quo. There is a very powerful political lesson in these two contrasting experiences. When the ground shifts, laws either have to reflect the new mood of the public, or become redundant. And without that change in the popular perception, even the most progressive law, may not carry the day. For all these years, the gay community had sought to bring attention to their cause by waving their flag, by standing apart, by claiming to be different. Today, they find themselves largely isolated, the support from the visible and vocal classes not amounting to much politically.

The difference is between legitimacy and legalization. Law is not what is on the statute, but what is perceived to be just. Even in their greatest victory till date, the gay community in India is unfortunately as far from gaining that legitimacy as ever.

The gay community, just like any other minority, need to move away from their sense of collective right as gay, nor flaunt their sense of victimhood. Framing the issue as collective rights invariably leads to pitting one collective against the other, and in such conflict it is not easy to overturn the collective that claims to represent the majority. But the smallest minority in any society is the individual, and his rights need to be protected, so that all minorities may enjoy the same protection, and are treated as equals before the law.

To gain that legitimacy, however, one has to discover the fundamental right, the right to property, which means to recognize and respect that right of every individual human being.

Once society begins to recognise the value of property rights, gays along with the rest of us will find that we can live together respecting each others’ choices and values, even when those values apparently conflict with each other. That would be a victory which all of us would be able to celebrate irrespective of our various identities, status and inclinations. And then the law will not merely be legislation in the statue book, but also legitimate in the popular eye.

A day with the impressionists..

Thanks to the nature of the “job”, I had to opportunity to spend an afternoon at a renowned Impressionism gallery. I have never thought too much about that particular style of painting, until that day, when my eyes were deflowered by the audacity of the experience.

I really enjoyed the Impressionistic art. I like being able to make my own interpretation of it and it still being right. I think that the way the brush movements are intricately placed makes it very easy to just get lost in the painting. The way they blend the colors changes the traditional ideals of the placement of colors. It seems the older day philosophy was to stay in the lines; with the new impressionistic ideas, this wasn’t so much of a rule anymore. However, the neat thing about it is that there is still a subject to the painting. You can still figure out what the painting is supposed to be about. It takes an artist to create art in the past, but it takes an artist with an imagination to create impressionistic art.

For instance, in Monet’s painting of the Festival in Paris, looking from far away, you can clearly see what it is. However, the closer you get to the painting, the easier it is to get lost in it. Between the vast amount of flags or people, the colors and way each one is painted is different from the rest. Each brush stroke is clearly defined and  unique. The styles he uses make it look almost 3D. You feel like you can look down the long streetway is if you were there.

Having said what I have to say, now do i loved it ? Hmm, I wonder…

To Love or to hate an art style such as Impressionism both seem too extreme of descriptions for how I view it, maybe indifference would be better.  I do not see Impressionism as special enough to pay a lot of attention to when there are so many other styles that just knock me over with creative shock.

I find myself much more impressed with artwork that has a lot of detail and the longer to you look at a piece, the more of a story unfolds and the more you find in it. Perhaps it’s the “where’s Waldo?” book loving child in me, but finding hidden objects and hidden meanings seems like the most fun part! Like, in Van Eyck’s Wedding Portrait titled Arnolfini Marriage, Bruges,  I feel like I could look at their facial expressions and body language for hours (okay, maybe 10 minutes at least) and wonder why they look so grim in a wedding portrait? What conversation just took place to make them so bummed?

Or even better: I was psyched to find out that there is more depth to fruit basket paintings than just needing something still to paint! The background I found out drove me to go back and examine each one to find the bugs which I overlooked the first time and really soak in the message the painter was getting across. This feeling makes me feel like Tom Hanks in the Di Vinci code, and unfortunately Impressionism does not give me this feeling.

When I read the description of Impressionism I was excited to get started looking at some paintings, and while the descriptions supplied in this description were not incorrect, I was mislead into thinking they would look like the Rococo style which I loved so much. I found the Impressionism pieces (while colorful and upbeat), to look blurry when you look close… and looking closely is my favorite part.

Don’t get me wrong, not all paintings have to be really deep with a hidden meaning for me to like it. As long as I look at it and it makes me smile, or take a deep breath, or wish I were in the same room painted, that’s good enough for me. The Rococo style is the one that really did that for me. Perhaps not all the portraits, but the Rococo architecture gave me a detailed look at elaborate and exotic things which I will probably never experience firsthand. Elisabeth-Louise Vigee-Le Brun’s The Artist and Her Daughter, made me wish we lived in a time where I could wear scarves on a daily basis .

A “nicer” bank…

I often am not easily persuaded to make a plug for anybody in my blog, but here is one and I do mean it with all seriousness..

At a time when it takes a little inner saint to not cuss at banks, I stumbled on a bank that actually makes the world a better place. Now, now, in this day and time, that almost seems impossible, unless you’re talking of some international microfinance bank like the Grameen Bank, which isn’t the type of bank you or I would necessarily do business with (although we might chose to give our charitable $ that way).

But skepticism step aside – here’s the Shore Bank of Chicago. It’s a bank formed with an express motive of achieving social and environmental goals while making a profit. Now, normally when I see something like that, I think it’s a tired cliche every business now uses nowadays, but turns out the Newshour with Jim Lehrer did a piece on them. Watch the piece and become a convert, like I did!

Oh, one more thing – they currently offer one of the highest yields on online savings in the country! Make money and help disadvantaged communities … God, I feel like Superman!!

I think the “effieciency” argument is flawed.

I’ve been thinking about fuel efficiency standards this evening. The intent is to force auto makers to make more fuel friendly cards. Every automaker essentially has to meet quotas for fuel efficient cars. Especially as the economy worsens, new CAFE standards will kill the auto makers. With fuel prices so low, there is little incentive for the average consumer to chose to buy fuel sippers. Suddenly, the already delicately positioned auto makers may be left with huge inventories of small vehicles that they will have to sell at small, if any, profit.

Environmental advocates will protest that there is a need to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. But really, even if we accept those goals, CAFE standards are the wrong way to go. They are the spineless politicians’ way to avoid what is the truly effective solution – raise the cost of fuel! If fuel is more expensive, there is consumer demand for smaller cars (think a few months ago), and automakers will respond. This way, the government is not forcing them to make low-demand vehicles, but achieves the same result with a lot less economic pain.

Isn’t it strange that politicians were complaining about high fuel prices and global warming at the same time?

I was thinking about a concept in transportation planning called latent demand. It goes something like this. A city determines travel times are too much in their community. So they build new freeways, wider roads, that in the short term reduce travel times. But people then start to buy property in areas previously considered too far from the city center, and kaboom, their travel times are back up where they were, or often higher!

That’s the flaw in the implicit assumption that forcing smaller cars on the public is the solution to our transportation energy needs. You don’t have to look too far from your circle of friends to realize the person with a new fuel-sipping Honda is more likely to take a long road trip than one who takes a gas-guzzling old pickup.

I’m a pseudo tree-hugger, but I do want to see true environmental change, but this is not the way. In the end, for true progress, we have to get past the cliched simplistic solutions, and a solution not based in government but societal change of less consumption.

Now “Fairness” needs to be doctrined by the goverment

One of the items on the Congressional agenda is the Fairness Doctrine, where the Government would require broadcasters to provide equal time for both sides. While it sounds good at first listen, the Fairness Doctrine is, to borrow from the Jurassic Park movies, the dumbest idea in the history of dumb ideas!! First, the government mandating coverage flies in the face of the First Amendment. Second, who gets to decide if something is a liberal/conservative view point or a balanced view point? Some bureaucrat gets to decide if Wolf Blitzer is being a liberal or just a neutral commentator? Come on!!

It appears to me that if there is any place for the Fairness Doctrine, it should be NPR and PBS, which are directly funded by taxpayers. And yet, any unbiased listener recognizes that these organizations are loaded with liberals. Virtually every show at these networks, with the exception of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, takes a decidedly biased view on the issues. Maybe we can start with dictating that such organizations need to be more balanced or lose taxpayer funding?

Full Disclosure: I listen to NPR and PBS extensively, and have contributed to NPR in the past. I have however decided against further support for NPR until their editorial content changes to present more view points.

Welcome again,

After the absolutely ridiculous and avoidable effects of my previous blogs, I have since decided to start with a clean slate and keep my views on sensitive subjects to the privacy of my trusted circles. I apologize to my more rational readers that the cost of keeping my previous blogs alive, are just not worth the pain. Someday, when our world gets more rationalistic, I will re-post them.
Thanks for your overwhelming support in the comment sections in the past, but due to the bitter events this debate has led to, I will no longer support  the comment section on my virtual real estate…for my inner circle, you know how to email me..

The Democratic Debate – Please turn off the “commentators”

Anyone else tired of the crap political commentators put out after every debate? After the last edition, one I watched because I was finally done with my final paper, I couldn’t help but notice how disparate my views were from those of the “experts”.

Hillary, they told us, put in a stellar performance. Really? I must have missed that. What I saw were soft questions (including the most ridiculous question about diamonds or pearls, one it turns out CNN encouraged an audience member to ask), and a failure to commit to specific policies. Sen. Clinton is best when she has to play the old pol’s game of being everything to everyone.

Obama, we are told, stumbled. I’m not that impressed with him, but at least he did on occasion commit to where he stands on issues. Of course, that was few and far between, as the top tier candidates largely deflected every question to a beration of the Bush administration.

The sidelined candidates, on the other hand, did a stellar job. Richardson and Dodd were very good in talking about specifics, and Biden had flashes of brilliance when asked about foreign policy. But the media just writes a few brief lines about them – after all, a Pakistan policy isn’t as exciting as how Hillary snapped at Edwards!

What are we doing for India ?

Events in the last few months have left most of us disillusioned. Unabated inflation, a difficult economic scenario, unbridled terrorism and debauched politics has left all of us, especially the middle class of the country, questioning the very existence of this nation as a political entity.

And all these doubts are not without valid reasons. But first one must hasten to add that we are also a nation of sceptics. Self-flagellation is our national pastime. Defeatism dominates our conversation. Pessimism permeates our mindset. We have genetically modified ourselves to believe in doubt, gloom and doom.

If at all there was one set of people in India which is entirely responsible for the disorder that prevails in the country, it is the educated Indians — a class that loves to pontificate, yet would not put its hand up and be counted for anything, definitely not for being an instrument of change.

It is all the more paradoxical considering that it is the educated Indian (comprising largely lawyers but not limited to that profession) who led our Independence movement. Strangely the spirit of building the nation seems to have evaporated within years of India becoming a free country.

It is for this reason since Independence that one does not recall any of the Indian middle class, especially the educated, displaying the same spirit and verve as they did during our freedom struggle.

To amplify further, what else would explain as to why our educated class submitted to the outlandish idea of Fabian socialism in the fifties or the imposition of Emergency in the mid-seventies without any demur?

And it is this class that after benefiting for forty years of socialism became free market converts overnight, when it was found that the socialist cow could no longer be milked. For forty years this class believed that the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would build India and for the next twenty it believed that the United States of America would develop India.

In the process we forget that never in the history of mankind has one nation developed another, especially a nation of India’s size. Little do we realize that India can be ‘built’ only by the Indians.

Naturally we are engulfed by a rage caused by our collective impotency in remedying the extant situation. And that coupled with supine indifference on all local, national or international matters fuels our collective deprecation of India. It is often held that when the instruments of change refuse to operate it is imperative to change these very instruments.

And for India at 61, changing this defeatist mindset of the Indian middle class and making it believe that only Indians can build India has remained as the singular challenge to the development of India. It is for this reason that following story I came across is indeed inspirational.

The inspirational tale of Elango and Kuthampakkam village

It was not too long ago that it was called Kutrampakkam (a place of crime). Located a mere 40 km from the center of the city of Chennai, Kuthampakkam like any other Indian village was only dependent on its two (paddy) crops every year for its income. That meant insufficient and unsustainable income. Thus, people there had to resort to unlawful social activities to augment their income.

But that was not all. On all social and development indices the village was a laggard even by Indian standards. Further, governments came and went and grand promises were made and broken.

The net effect: despite sixty years of independence locals there did not even know what was primary infrastructure: roads, primary healthcare or schools.

What accentuated the problem of Kuthampakkam was the caste clashes between the Harijans and others. In short, a place on the outskirts of Chennai (one of the major engines of information technology growth in India) resembled sub-Saharan Africa with its repeated group clashes, abject poverty and abysmal infrastructure.

And all this was as recent as mid-nineties when Rangasamy Elango became the president of the village panchayat. Elango had to walk for 7 km each way everyday for his high school education. But that was a cakewalk considering the challenges he had to face later in his life.

A socially conscious person, Elango even as a teenager had started working on homegrown solutions for the problems confronting his village. So he was able to visualise the transformation that he sought to achieve.

It was these initial experiences that Elango would put to devastating effect years later in his life. After a stint at employment till the mid-1990s, Elango returned to his village. Kuthampakkam has not looked back since then. Neither has Elango.

In the process he experienced opposition from the local politicians, corrupt officials, illicit arrack brewers, land grabbers and others. Yet all this did not deter him from his march to liberate Kuthampakkam. Crucially, he did not offer excuses, like many other middle class Indians.

Luckily for him, in 1994 the Tamil Nadu government passed the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. It was at this point in time that he started working with the groups in various parts of the State in creating awareness about the new Panchayat Raj system.

In 1996, he contested in the local elections and became the President of the Kuthampakkam village panchayat. His goal: to make Kuthampakkam a role model for other village panchayats. Interestingly, with the participation of the Gram Shaba, Kuthampakkam Panchayat prepared the five-year plan for the term 1996 to 2001 — a first perhaps in the entire country!

The planning process gave him the opportunity to understand the diverse needs of his community and the outlay required to meet these aspirations. Importantly, to meet the shortfall he prescribed various cost-effective techniques and innovative methods.

Contrast this with the manner in which the governments fail to link outlays and outcomes — a fact admitted by our Union finance minister, no less.

Instantly, people started realising the growth potential associated with this movement. Naturally this increased their participation further. Leveraging this participation of people, the Kuthampakkam Panchayat successfully mobilised huge support under the various schemes offered by the state government.

Using these schemes all the inner roads were upgraded to concrete roads. Likewise drains were constructed with proper slope at all the required places. A samathuvapuram was constructed where fifty twin houses were constructed to accommodate 100 families. In every twin house, a Harijan family was allocated one side and the other side was allocated to an ‘upper caste’ family.

That’s the extraordinary story of an ordinary man

Of course, this certainly involved delicate handling of sensitive issues, and Elango tells us that this was achieved ‘not by debunking castes, but by accepting various castes and persuading each caste to respect the other while not wishing it away.’

What a refreshing contrast to the manner in which our polity pits one caste against the other for narrow electoral gains!

Needless to emphasize it is the samathuvapuram at Kuthampakkam that has become a role model for the whole of Tamil Nadu, a remarkable achievement indeed in a state known for being highly sensitive to castes and related issues.

In October 2001, Elango was reelected. This term, Elango concentrated on providing sustainable employment opportunities within the village. He has designed a process called ‘Network Growth Economy Model.’ The idea of this scheme is to ensure that virtually all value additions of every village product take place within the network so that the income of the village is well augmented.

And for this Elango identifies and uses appropriate local technology, materials and imparts valuable skills to his people. No wonder, the village became hunger-free last year — an achievement that eludes many of our villages, towns and perhaps cities.

Further, Elango seeks to network with ‘good panchayats’ across the states for this purpose. For this he had identified more than 500 good panchayat leaders. He is now running a panchayat academy in order to create a common platform to share good practices.

Elango is targetting to make 200 role model villages before 2011. Likewise, he is aiming to make 2,000 role model villages by 2016 after which he believes that the threshold having been reached, the momentum created by the democratic process will automatically take care of the rest.

The story of Elango is the extraordinary story of an ordinary middle class Indian silently transforming the life of thousands of Indians.

It is indeed shameful that the media, government and the intelligentsia of the country do not even recognize such agents of monumental change. No wonder we feel dejected and disillusioned.

But Elango and the people of Kuthampakkam have demonstrated to us that it is we, the people, who have to be the instruments of change, else we will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

On the eve of our Independence day, the least we can do is salute Elango and the people of Kuthampakkam for it is they who provide us hope and inspiration and once again reminding us that India can be built only by Indians.