On the BRICS Summit and other random thoughts

 

Only one of these 2 headlines is correct. In case there was any confusion, it is the second one. The PM of India got Xi Jinping to India, and then raised to his face, the issue of weaponising rare earth minerals. 

I don't think people have quite understand the magnitude of what happened at the BRICS Summit, so let me lay it out a little bit. 

1. Xi Jinping and Putin are two global leaders who are on the target list of every terror orgn and state led assassination agencies (except, perhaps, N Korea). These leaders do not "tour". Their security is a 24*7*365 race. 

India managed to bring these and other global leaders on a single stage, managed their security, without any incident. If RAW needed a coming of age certificate, this is IT. 

2. These leaders also do not issue statements. They do not share their thoughts. Ever. They are intensely private and very action oriented. 

These leaders came to a central platform and issued a JOINT, consensual statement with India, Iran, and other countries. These countries do not always see eye to eye on the global stage. India did this under clear and present threat of US Sanctions. Getting these leaders to SPEAK, and issue a joint statement, is not something that is easily achieved. 

Putin, as usual, slayed in one sentence - BRICS is 40% of the world's GDP, G7 is 29%. Why do they call themselves "great". 

3. The issue is not the use of the term G7 or % of GDP being the only metric for a country's economy. The issue is - the world has been benefitting purely from spotlight for a long time. When you remove the greasepaint, the substance beneath the paint has to be good. And more people are asking - Is it?

Is as much as the spotlight is on BRICS and who is in the room, it is also, imho, on the people who were NOT in that room. 

Completely off-topic:

As a random person, this week, my thoughts took me to a very different tangent - many great economies have been undone by democracy, but none as much as the UK. Yet, in ancient India, democracy was the norm. The janapadas were the first known political system. As the size and complexity grew, they had to move to monarchies and central control with ONE person. There were checks and balances - the Rajguru whose curse scared even the king, the group of ministers who exuded the same pressure that Gandhi exuded on the British. 

What, then, is the future of democracies like India and the US? These are great countries. And democracy is easily the best political system for the people. So, why do these two not lead to synergy? In Switzerland, by contrast, direct democracy has led to a country that is efficient, well-regulated, and extremely rich. What did Switzerland do so right that the rest of the world can learn from? How can we make democracy relevant, and also powerful? 

We are not the same

You read the AI generated summary of a research paper and then share it, expound on it, and use it to base an argument. 

I read the first 5 paragraphs of the paper and realise that: 

A.  The Sample is inadequate (2676 people representing 1.4 bn)

B. The sample is also incredibly skewed (one population group comprising 75% of population while paper claiming to represent the entire universal set of study) 

C. The stratification employed is irrelevant. 

We are not the same. 

PS: 

1. If you use a paper to base an entire argument, at least read the damn paper. When I call you out on it, don't say - eyes hurt, can't read more at the moment.  

2. Do NOT come to me with AI generated content. We can ALL tell AI content from the first 2 paragraphs. If i wanted to know what AI thinks, I would ask the AI. 

तुम्हारे बारे में

तुम्हारे बारे में पूछते होंगे 

वो सब लोग जिन से हंस कर मिला करती थीं तुम। 

वो कुछ लोग 

जो तुमसे मिल कर हंस दिया करते थे 

वो तुम्हारे बारे में 

अब पूछ नहीं सकते। 

Katran: Breakup ke baad

 कहाँ गई थीं?

कुछ सामान खरीदना था, तो आशीष साथ में चल पड़ा था।

हम्म। अच्छा, तो मैं चलता हूँ।

अरे? अचानक?

चाय पिलाने के लिए रवि, समान खरीदवाने के लिए आशीष, बातें सुनने के लिए राहुल। मेरे हर रोल में कोई न कोई नाम भर गया है। अब मेरी क्या जगह है यहाँ?

तुम्हारा एक ही रोल था हमेशा से – तुम। और उस रोल को कोई नहीं भर पाएगा।  

The Poverty Mindset (On Poverty - II)

This is the second part. The first part of the post is here. 

So, in doing some fieldwork, I have noticed a few things that ARE common to families that either remain in poverty, or enter poverty from a more affluent class. 

The Victim Mindset and...

This is the TOP common denominator. EVERYONE who remains in poverty has expressed deep anguish at being wronged - the agent of wrongdoing varies - the state, the community, the world, the family. But they are ALL victims. They have been wronged by the world. 

BUT not everyone who has a victim mindset remains poor. There is one more factor which has to be added to the mix - they truly believe that the wrong must be recompensed before they can do anything. I call this the victimhood paralysis - they find that they are unable/unwilling to act until the wrong done to them has been "corrected" or they have been somehow compensated. 

Entitlement

The second common factor is - they feel entitled to abuse - public infrastructure, other people. I stop people who are spitting and ask them - Why did you spit here? 

Some of them express surface level remorse. Only a few stop to really think. Most of them look at me like i am an alien. To them, defacing public property is the most natural thing to do. Their answer is the same as Hillary's answer to "Why climb a mountain?" - Because it is there!

And then I notice that in my most underprivileged contacts, the same mindset extends to people. They do not feel bad about abusing their network for short term gain, then wonder why they have "no friends" and why "no one supports them" 

Maybe there are more factors. But this is what I know so far. Every time I meet someone underprivileged, I ask "Why is this family poor?" (Because poverty is not an individual phenomenon. One is not poor alone. The lowest unit of poverty is the family. If one person gets out of poverty, they may get out alone. But if one person in the family becomes poor, the whole immediate family definitely follows suit.) 

On exodus

The exodus is rarely quick or en masse. Some people leave first - the ones who can see the shape of things to come. They make arrangements quietly, perhaps move the family first, and then move - lock, stock, and barrel. 

Then, some perceptive relatives and friends start asking themselves the same question - is this daily hate worth it? 

Then, the waves begin. 

The only ones who remain are the ones who do not have a choice. 

This is true of all types of exodus: 

A. Before partition, when the writing was on the wall but patriotism and Congress had made us blind. (And then, in Syria, Lebanon, etc.) 

B. When a country (or, in case of India, a state) runs anti-immigration campaigns 

C. When a company is doing layoffs. 

The conversation was not about politics. It was about why I was watching Filmfare and not National Film Awards, back in 1999. 

"Both the National Film Awards and the Padma awards were such a joke back then - only for political patronage. No one even read who got these awards. We only followed Filmfare awards. Now I really want to know the work done by Padma awardees because they are real changemakers. But back then we would not even read them for quizzes." 

.. And i paused.

We have gotten so used to living in an India where progress happens, that we have forgotten what India felt like before 2014. Of course, Cockroach Party reminds us once in a while, as do "public" protests. But in general, the experience of India has changed so much that its hard to remember what we lived through. 

Perhaps it is time to take a minute to appreciate how far we have come, India. 

On poverty - I

I am going to get brickbats for this one. 

Recently, i was at a railway station. India now has brilliant public infrastructure. The railway station was no exception. 

We have to climb stairs to reach platforms. At least 5 people walking in front of me spat or littered on their way to the platform. Without a care. 

And that anger led to a tsunami of processing data points that have been silently accumulated over decades. 

********** 

In 1947, Muslims from India reached Pakistan but instead of being welcomed, they were labelled Muhajirs. 

Hindus and Sikhs who managed to reach India alive were rich in their towns and villages (you had to be rich enough to pay for safe passage and reach this side alive, that is why every Punjabi in Delhi had grandparents who spoke about being wealthy. They were), but were put here in refugee camps in squalor, food itself being a luxury doled out at infrequent intervals. 

But, in 2004, the president of Pakistan was a Muhajir, and the Prime Minister of India was a refugee. 

They were not exceptional - on both sides of the border, the communities of these "refugees" had done well financially. 

********** 

In the 1960s -1970s India, lakhs of young men and women left homes for PSU jobs, govt jobs, IIT education, IIM education. They went on to reach "escape velocity" from poverty. 

********* 

When we speak about poverty, we address it as a single story - poverty is a result of circumstances out of an individual's control. It is a result of the evil capitalistic/oligarchic/regal system, which rely/ies on suppressing the poor for the benefit of the rich. 

Here is what is wrong with that single story: 

1. There ISN'T a single story of poverty. Poverty is a multi-headed hydra. There isn't a single cause of poverty. 

2. The narrative of capitalism/oligarchy/monarchy being solely responsible for poverty comes from socio-economic structures that truly did not have space for what is now called the "middle classes" - people who fill the middle role through education or specialised skill. In India, which was a mercantile civilisation from the start, trade was a good way to reach the middle class and this class has been a ubiquitous feature of our civilisation. 

3. There are people who exit poverty and take their families along. There are people who exit but do not take the family along. And then there are families that stay in the same loop - generation after generation. And families that enter the loop - from one of the "upper" classes. We know what helps those who reach escape velocity - education, enterprise, opportunity, community, etc. We never ask - what, if anything, is common to families that remain poor? Why is a poor person poor? 

************** 

So, let's ask the question - Why is a poor person poor? 

And i call this, the Poverty mindset. 

More in the next post. 

I am aware of my spiritual potential but not ready to live that truth. 

I take baby steps and my meditation waits. :) In a really really long existence, a few decades to accept one's spiritual place is not a catastrophe. Slows down the soul, yes, but not a catastrophe. The only casualty are the ppl who know they belong in ur journey, but you don't know that yet. 

Sometimes, your meditation deliberately derails you, like its having its fun with you. Maya.