Author name: Shubranshu Singh

Facebook has been accused of bias and manipulation by those at either end of the political spectrum in India. They allege that Facebook edits flagrantly biased content selectively and favours the other side’. It doesn’t matter whose side Facebook is on. Pay attention to the larger issue. Can the algorithm game democracy’? This is a post-truth world. If the main parties in India accuse Facebook, surely it is an important thing to examine. The repercussions are very grave. Our society is indeed polarised. There is hardly any middle ground. But, this is endemic and unique to the human species. Nature itself has no polarity. It has predator and prey but even they comprise parts of one organic ecosystem. What is unique about human society is that we are in a position to form an opinion and proselytise it. The work of physicist Albert-Laszlo Barabasi is about networks – metabolic and genetic networks, social networks, internet networks and ecological systems as a web of interdependent species. By investigating the topology of the World Wide Web, Internet, cellular and social networks, he has discovered that networks follow a common blueprint, having scale-free characteristics. To that extent, Facebook and others are being accused of using the scale to artificially prompt a false sense of reality. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] The presumed eventual ‘near monopoly’ of WhatsApp-Facebook -Instagram is a concern for many. Yet, it’s very hard to break these companies on the basis of old industrial anti-trust benchmarks. The Guardian’s US correspondent Ganesh Sitaraman wrote this about the book ‘Zuck: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe’ by Roger McNamee. “An early investor in Facebook and an advisor to Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, McNamee’s central argument is that Facebook is a threat to the economy, public health, and democracy. It is being used to stoke confusion and division. The economic critique rests on the problems of monopoly capitalism, including, for example, Facebook’s ability to buy up potential rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp before they might have had a chance to challenge its dominance. Democracy cannot survive without debate and deliberation. ButNewsFeed pushes us into bubbles, so we increasingly are cut off from different opinions. And that is in addition to the trolls and bots, fake pages and groups, misinformation and outright lies.” The growth of online networks has not been a democratic force beyond the loud expression of divisive opinion. You hear more of what you like. Your opinion is heard by folks whose thinking and views are similar. This system is run by an algorithm. It’s that algorithm which has concentrated power beyond our comprehension. In America, these concerns have been voiced loudly. A huge percentage of American voters –almost half -rely on their social media feed as the primary source of news and opinion. The alleged manipulation of what gets served as news is the biggest threat to participative democracy. The algorithm can be tweaked. It is subject to commercial considerations, That is very serious power. Regulation of social media as publishers of content ought to be a universal requirement. Don’t forget that unlike a TV channel or a newspaper, Facebook has your data too. Social media companies must be accountable to the democracies that make their businesses possible. Major technology companies- such as Facebook, Twitter, Google – define the information ecosystem in much of the world. Barely regulated and hardly accountable, these companies are completely transforming the public sphere. Will we be condemned to be subjects of motivated machine intelligence that learns incomparably faster than us and has no restraint upon it? This is a classic ‘input-output’ issue. We, as a mass cohort, are gullible enough to believe the output but we have no visibility or understanding of what, or who is on the input side. This networking power is operating above national sovereignty.  These corporations –Facebook, Amazon, Google – are so huge that no national government can hope to individually control or restrict their behaviour. This includes the government of the United States of America. This is the grid on which surveillance capitalism operates. James Lovelock – the scientist who developed the “Gaia Theory” about Earth’s life and climate and who turned 100 this year -along with Bryan Appleyard has written ‘Novacene: The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence’ a brief but thought-provoking book that predicts that cyborgs may eventually evolve to supplant carbon-based humankind. If you don’t like that eventuality, take charge and hold your social networks accountable for a start.

The political history of the state of Rajasthan, in its present form, is closely interwoven with that of the Indian National Congress. Though in the years since independence, Rajasthan has also been a proving ground for the Swatantra party and its people have embraced the BJP, as an alternative, and voted it into power on fouroccasionsnevertheless the Congress remained in a pole position. Rajasthan is a two party political fray. There have been multiple attempts at forming a third front but none could prove successful. No other political formation has nearly been as central to Rajasthan’s past and present as the Congress. But, will it be so in the future? [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] The Congress, led the freedom struggle and the people’s movements in various princely states and won us independence. It laid the foundations for legislative democracy. As the original party in power, it encompassed every shade of public opinion and gave representation to the full spectrum of communities in the state. Its electoral dominance was based on a concrete set of achievements in the social as well as political sphere. It could claim credit for industrial growth, land reforms, growth of basic infrastructure, extension of educational facilities and provision of public services. There was a fullstress on pro poor programs and redistributive justice. The political system was managed well andMohan LalSukhadiaremained Chief Minister for an unbroken 17 years. The Congress split in 1969. Indira Gandhi began to act against the old guard labelling them as conservative reactionaries. It amounted to a radicalisation of the Congress and led to the centralisation of power. A true ‘high command’ emerged. In Rajasthan, the new Congress leadership took place of the old but the caste equations were generally kept in place. Like elsewhere, the Congress party atrophied due to a command and control type authoritarian set up. This cost the party dearly when its uninterrupted rule of three decades endedin 1977 and the Janata Party an amalgam of the Jana Sangh, BharatiyaLok Dal, Congress O and the Socialist party rose to power. It won 151 of the 200 seats in the Rajasthan assembly. On the national stage, it was a blow from which the Congress never truly recovered. The anti-Congress coalition politics eventually paved the road to Delhi for the BJP led NDA and then the BJP’s single party majority victories in 2014 and 2019 In Rajasthan, despite the definitive changes in politics, economics and social realities the Congress adapted and carried on. It remained one out of the two alternatives that could be voted into power. Unlike in most states of the Hindi heartland where the Congress party was nominally alive, in Rajasthan its presence on ground was disarrayed but never destroyed. When we look back in history, the most significant moment for the post Indira Congress was 6th December, 1992 at the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. It marked the shift in the centre of gravity in Indian politics. It was a movement that led the BJP to become the party with energy and elevated it to power at the centre in 1998. The Ayodhya Ram temple movement redefined politics especially in North India. It spiralled out of the control of the Congress party. It made religious identity key to politics. In Rajasthan, Congress never recovered its ideological credentials. It was here onwards solely an ‘Anti BJP’ alternative. This mix of over centralisation, weakening on ground presence, rabid factionalism, smaller residual fiefdoms, erosion of the politics of policies and ideologies was generically true for the Congress and specifically true of the party in Rajasthan. The importance given to personal loyalty disabled the formation of a critical mass of effective leaders on ground. Lack of localisation of talentweakened the organisational fibre. Large chunks of its base were cannibalised by the BJP. Anticipations of revival were high, whatever may have been the probability, when the Gehlot government was sworn in with Pilot as deputy. But the advantage was totally frittered away with no delivery to show. The role of the organization was minimised or de-clutched from government. To my mind, it is a remarkable feature of Congress tacticsthat it has learnt to be flexible to emerging situations only by moving away from ideology! What doesit stand for? They cannot give aconvincing answer excepting mouthing clichés on secularism and social justice. The BJP, in contrast, has both ideology and strategy. The Congress should think hard and rightly blame itself. It shouldn’t have come to this.

A sign of relative economic underdevelopment in a state is that its politics dominates its economics and not the other way around. Rajasthan is currently in a frenzied swirl thanks to manoeuvres of power politics. It seems to be all about the ‘ease of forming government’ rather than the ‘ease of doing business’! Irrespective of how the politics shapes up, the economic heartbeat does not and must not stop. Rajasthan is the land which has given in this country exceptional leadership in the area of enterprise, entrepreneurship and business leadership. In every corner of our vast country, the mark of Rajasthan’s entrepreneurs can be seen. Unfortunately, the homeland has not reaped a rich harvest. In Rajasthan, economics has taken a backseat. It can get even more dismal. One glance at the  ‘post-Covid’ world scenario can tell us that .Travel and tourism at a standstill. New economic activity devastated. Large capital infusions improbable. Profitability badly squeezed. Tax revenues much poorer. One can visualise how difficult things may become for Rajasthan. We need a political leadership obsessed with growth and economic expansion. Economic growth is a matter of objective realism. Going beyond individual competence and charisma, it is about a relay race where separate institutions and individuals run for the same team. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] I am a corporate professional, marketing expert and have handled business operations across diverse industries. I look at ‘Brand Rajasthan’ from an investor’s eyes and ask what is the state of affairs? How should we judge the economic performance of a Chief Minister? The easiest way would be to rank performance according to aggregated statistics during a CM’s administration, such as the growth of real GDP, revenues and employment. Have major corporations set up operations in the state and has domain concentration grown? However, given that some Chief Ministers may face a larger economic crisis as against others who may govern in more favourable times it is important to also take note of the national conditions with reference to inflation, financial health and overall investment climate. The fruits of economic liberalisation in India ever since 1991 have gone in disproportionate measure to states such as Maharashtra , Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Why did Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad become hubs for Indian IT? Why not Jaipur? Why is there not a  booming culture industry -media, art and leisure pursuits- in the state? Why are Goa and Kerala gaining and edge in holistic tourism? Why does Haryana have such a large manufacturing base compared to us? It needs a will and ability to lead reform, drive catalysis through institutions, laws and regulations. Politicians are not trained economists or business professionals. Therefore, observe how the Chief Minister is going about making economic decisions. Who are the advisors? Who are the people chosen to head vital institutions and departments? Are they empowered to make decisions that have a bearing on economic growth? Successful Chief Ministers employ macroeconomic tools such as tax policy, labour policy and dip into fiscal and monetary broad stream to avoid crunches, foster real GDP growth and maintain economic stability. Secondly, we should consider whether the leadership improves the economic infrastructure of the state? Are they looking at good social policy as a precursor to good economic policy? Are they aware of the cost structures of doing business in the state?Dothey notice the conditions that impact productivity and strengthen competitiveness of businesses based in Rajasthan? Short term policy making can end up imposing excessive costs, reducing productivity, weakening of the state’s competitiveness and the decelerating long-term growth of real GDP for the state. What any CM must provide is political will and a social contract. Rajasthan ought to be known as a state that is active in those sectors where there is great growth, vibrancy and energy. Automotive, Telecom, Information Technology, Commercial Agriculture, Financial Services – these are boosters for job creation. When a chief minister reforms the economic infrastructure, it leads to economic freedom and fairness, revives confidence and provides support to those who seek growth. It is also crucial that poor, depressed classes in Rajasthan , particularly those who may have suffered from past discrimination, are participating fully, freely and energetically in the economy and enjoying the fruits of their labour. Of course Rajasthan’s backwardness has structural reasons but we must also reflect on whether political leadership in Rajasthan has done enough? Is our political leadership genuinely interested in business and economics? When these questions become part of public thought, Rajasthan will advance.

In 1948, in one of the last moves he made before his assassination, Mahatma Gandhi proposed the dissolution of the Congress as a political party and recommended its transformation into a social service organisation –the Lok Seva Sangh which would be devoted to the task of social regeneration and economic uplift through voluntary rural programmes. He wanted Congressmen to leave electoral politics, government and administration. Those interested in political power could leave the Lok Seva Sangh and join political parties or form them. Gandhi Jiwrote in his diary of May 21, 1947 (quoted by H.V.Kamath in Parliament on May7,1962 : Lok Sabha Debates ,Third Series,Vol II, cc 2931-32) as follows: [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] “The Congress has gained the trust of the people on account of its many sacrifices and penances. But, if at this moment it were to let the people down by becoming their overlord instead of their servant and arrogate to itself a position of master, I venture to prophecy on the strength of my experience of long years that though I may be alive or not, a revolution will sweep over the country and that the people will pick out the white capped ones individually and finish them and that a third power will stand to gain by this” The Congress not only stayed on in politics for the pursuit of power, it defined it. Amongst other things, its modus operandi included a brilliant management of power arithmetic through defections ever since the watershed election of 1967. If today its political opponents are beating it at the same game, the Congress cannot complain since its name is indelibly associated with the institutionalising of this practice .The phrase “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” is the stuff of legend. The politics of defection is a game of thrones. The Indian constitution doesn’t even recognize political parties. Yet, we have one of the most stringent anti –defection laws in force whereas it is interesting that none of the democracies in the West legally bar defections. Defection amounts to transfer of loyalty. However, it is pertinent to note that the words defection and dissent have distinct meanings and one may not use them synonymously. Political ‘Bossing’ can only survive with the support of vested interests and ‘status quo-ists’. The larger issue is not caste or group factionalism, polarisation or the lure of office. The underlying basic issue is the lack of ideological commitment. The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, “Faced with a choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.”  Moreover, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong. This is true both for those who leave a formation and those who stay on. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker has explained how the need for affiliation affects beliefs, “People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples, rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true.”  Changing beliefs to feel secure in belongingness is understandable. False beliefs can be useful in a social sense, the facts be damned! In a representative democracy, the primary loyalty of a representative is to the electorate. The very idea of incorporating provisions to enable defections implies a recognition of such a thing as free will and action. However, principled defections, as acts of conscience, are as rare as the sightings of the Yeti. Power is almost always seen to be the sought after prize. It is seen by the electorate as an immoral, opportunistic breach of faith. It negates the electoral outcome. The Constitution’s 52nd Amendment Act, 1985 and the 91stAmendment Act, 2003 -often referred to as the Anti-Defection Laws(s) – recognized that managing floor arithmetic is intrinsic to a democracy. But, the anti-defection pesticide has failed to prevent the rot. It has merely changed the rules and increased the stakes. The continuing contempt for the electorate shows us that the numbers game in representative institutions is only for grabbing and holding on to power. The politics of defection subverts the soul of constitutionalism. Yet, it is a reality. As a democracy, we must deal with the virus and not leave it to the constitutional doctors to attend only to the patients.

Ever since it came into existence as a free country, India has not been challenged like in the present face off with China. This is because in our past conflicts – the two wars we fought with Pakistan and the one with China in 1962  -India did not face an opponent that could become an existential crisis. A nuclear armed India now takes on a China that is the undisputed number 2 power in the world. Or is it ? India must see the world as it exists for us -by role and relevance- and decide who matters ? First is the EU and USA representing a liberal order where security is guaranteed by military might but even more so by economic interdependence and the force of law. It is our largest economic partner bloc. Second comes the Islamic world consisting also of the Wahhabi fundamentalist forces which feed terrorism. Our dependence on Arab and Iranian oil makes it critical. Russia with its deep state run power apparatus is an important military supplier and partner. And then there is China! China is a vast country with economic dynamism, focused leadership and military might. It also sees India as an adversary. China, unlike the other world powers, has not promoted a worldview. While there is endless comment on its economic, political and military affairs but no one has seen it as a powerhouse of “ideas”. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] China – love or hate it – is an inexhaustible force whose economy rose fast enough for it to become the world’s largest economy in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms. It dominates the world supply chains and has managed to drag 400 million people from rural poverty to prosperity in less than 40 years. The ‘Made in China’ label was acquiring clout, till the Covid crisis began. The scale, speed and impact of material progress is prompting a deeper question. Will China rise to rule the world as a hegemon? Will India inevitably face ruinous conflict with China? As a professional marketer, content maker, business manager ,socio-economic observer and writer my assessment is that China lacks the soft power to dominate the world. It is acting aggressively and is being acquisitive but it does not inspire deep adoration. The world is wary of China. We remain uninspired by its intellectual output. Can we name even five contemporary Chinese writers, thinkers and artists ? China has got richer but has it got enriched holistically? China has not accommodated itself to the rules of a globalised world with democracy, privatisation and collaboration at its core. China’s government is a mega state business enterprise. This is what allows China to have the confidence to be a military aggressor and a political despot. State economics is their engine. On 15th April 1989, a memorial march for the former communist party Secretary General HuYaobang turned into a mass protest for political reform, workers rights and an end to official corruption. It dominated the heart of Beijing for six weeks but was abruptly crushed by soldiers and tanks on 4thJune 1989. The crackdown was a human tragedy and it showed us that China is ‘all economics no politics’. Deng Xiaoping  – China’s supreme leader after Mao Tse Tung had made his directive clear – “Tao guang Yang Hui” literally meaning “hide brightness, nourish obscurity”. The state media has officially translated this as “be patient and build capability“. Now China has decided that its time has arrived. However it still does not have “Soft power”. The Chinese state’s establishment rues its lack of exportable cultural dominance that they call “RuanQuan Li” This is where- I believe- currently India has a decisive edge over China. India is an intellectual power with credits to several large impact ideas and new cultural content that appeals to a larger world. We have a freedom of expression that leads to widespread dissemination. In my opinion China’s path to superpower status is not smooth. Beijing is formula of state capitalism, open market but a closed political system will not last the course of its attrition with powerful liberal democracies. Soft power will beat hard power eventually.