D Lal & Sons

With the trust vote as a backdrop, I am tempted to adapt one the most powerful lines uttered in Ram Gopal Verma's "Sarkar" by the chandraswami inspired Godman, - "Amar Singh ek insaan hai. Dalaali ek soch". Hence, to understand the phenomenon that is Amar Singh (and his ilk), it is important to internalize the concept of Power Broking. Before I proceed I must confess, I have enormous (though grudging) respect for Amar Singh. He is self-made, has achieved what he sought to in a very short span of time and in a profession where power is the end objective, he has defined a means of continually staying relevant. To gauge a man’s political stature simply by measuring the size of the electorate behind him is passé and in a fast maturing democracy like ours, voters are just one moving part of the overall engine. There is a place for mass leaders and likewise one for those who move and shake them in order to keep the political barometer stable.



The metamorphosis of the safari-clad hanger-on into the urbane deal-maker has been done to death. That is not what this post seeks to achieve. I attempt to explore and unravel the secrets behind their success given that their existence is not restricted to the political domain. Most management trainees in corporates get bullied by name-dropping, archaic distributors who know the corner office occupant from his hardship days. Journalistic circles have stories galore about some of their brethren having the ability to "manage" government corridors and most business houses have liaison specialists who revel in pressing the right buttons and not necessarily with dollars alone. So what is it that makes this breed tick?



1. Information is Power: I have never met Amar Singh but we once traversed a few floors together in a hotel elevator. The other occupants were a safari suited crony, the hotel attendant and the Head of State of an obscure country with his security detail. Mr Singh engaged in a rapidfire conversation with the attendant, enquired about the credentials of the dignitary, expressed surprise at the minimalist bandobast and also sought comparisons with the Clinton entourage. As we got off the elevator and he settled into the exclusive lounge with the head of a large PSU bank, I couldn't help admire the ease with which he struck a rapport with a social "unequal" and the comfort with which he slipped into schmoozing with a corporate chieftain minutes later. What did not escape me too was his insistence on gathering information albeit seemingly irrelevant. It is probably a sigma of several such titbits that add up to a potentially explosive armoury of facts. Examine most deal-makers closely and you will observe a startling attention to such details coupled with an elephantine memory.



2. Objective Emotion: In the days when the likes of Murli Deora and Rajni Patel stalked the corridors of power , affiliations were public but animosities were guardedly muted and at best, undercurrents were on public display. Pramod Mahajan broke the mould but even he often had the gloves on while throwing his punches. A Rajiv Shukla (or Rudy) on the other hand wear their supposed hates on their sleeve with dignity being thrown the wind when the game is in play. Defining these goalposts is an integral part of the battle strategy so as to ensure at least team formation for the immediate spat on hand is a little less complicated. A fierce exchange of adjectives (and the odd expletive), an embarrassing laundry of dirty linen and of course a steadfast refusal to capitulate on the grounds of pride and dignity is par for the the course till one step before end-game, at which stage objective considerations take over. The difference though is that an Ajit Singh or a Narayan Rane falter after a few weeks (or at best a month) but successful practitioners of the trade can shadow box for a few years before "realising" they wore the same uniform. In the ensuing period, rhetorical diatribe is raised to a point where the price of compromise for the player in need is astronomical. But in an era where a 180-degree turn from an "uncompromising position of principle" is fairly accepted (and in fact expected), tactical venom spitting is a winning strategy.

3. A Friend Indeed: Here one has to give it to the brokers. One cannot succeed in this profession unless one has really debited the favour bank for friends. It is unlikely that Amitabh Bachchan keeps Amar Singh's company because of a shared love for hindi poetry or Dhirubhai's legendary association with Murli Deora owed itself to a paucity of alternative congress connections. Most of us would help friends if it were no sweat off our backs but those with the relevant phone books would go that extra mile and seek a favour in turn to help those who they count as friends. A prominent Delhi-based journalist openly boasts that a record number of people would name him as the person they would try to reach if they were given one number to dial when caught in a crisis. It is tempting for cynics to attribute several of these connections to facilitating the oldest profession in the world but even if that were the case, the ability to subsequently honour Omerta is essential and praiseworthy. There need be no permanent enemies but it is essential to have a few all-weather friends.

4. No Pride to go before a fall: This enterprise is rather unforgiving on the way up. One has to stomach insults, gate-crash into parties , wait endlessly at office lobbies/living rooms and hope it will all add up in the long run. A senior government functionary told me several years ago how an instrumental power broker in the last trust vote had once landed uninvited to a do in his honour accompanied by a veteran Maharashtra politician. Not only was he comfortable doing so, he actually beamed proudly on being introduced as the biggest fixer in town. Moral of the story: if you have not inherited a powerful address book by birth, you have to keep pride aside while creating it. Secondly, one should never attempt to take moral high ground in public. In fact, it is the absence of stated principles that equip the power broker with the lethal stones to throw at the glass houses that everyone increasingly seems to reside in.

With the passage of time and with our populace displaying greater maturity, I expect some of the activities that D Lal & Sons engage in to be legitimized. That will rid them of some of the sleaze in their imagery and also compel society to be less contemptuous of them than it currently is. One has to admire each of the deal-makers for being self-made with no Gandhi/Abdullah/Pilot surname to back them. For it to be a level playing field, we need to have the new darling of parliament, Omar Abdullah daring to contest from Aska (a constituency in my home state from where the sitting BJD MP was bought). Step back and remove the names involved and one realises the nation owes several progressive developments like Abdul Kalam's Presidency (read the first 10 pages of P C Alexander's autobiography if you dont believe me) and the eventual clear passage of the nuclear deal to machinations by members of "The Firm".

PLAYing to the Gallery

I just returned home after sitting through a terribly boring play. The play was directed by a well-known theatre personality (or so I am told by my Mumbaikar friends) who insisted on also being the main actor, the narrator et al and I could not comprehend a thing about the happenings on stage but I got the distinct impression that I was not in a minority. A few months ago, I had watched another play by the same director with identical consequences . Why then do I watch plays when I actually cant figure out most of them? And why is it that people readily describe movies as "good", "average" or "bad", but when it comes to theatre, its always platitudes like "it was so intense" or "the characterisation was really well thought through" or worse still " I could really identify with so-and-so" . In my view, plays, like a lot else around us, give us a false sense of intellectualism about ourselves. I must sheepishly confess that I never told people I thought a play was utterly boring for fear of being typecast as unintelligent. I must also concede that while I have at best run into an odd friend or colleague in a cinema, I do find myself seated amidst a few well-known lawyers, writers and painters while I watch a play. As I reluctantly stood up and joined the crowd applauding the actors after tonight's performance, I couldnt help laugh at my own pretentiousness at having come back to watch yet another Makarand Deshpande farce.



But why just theatre. Lets take reading habits for instance. I once had a leading south-Indian lawyer gatecrash into a do at my place and wax eloquent on Machiavelli's "Prince" and "The Arthashastra" being essential reading for all those who breathe. Given my limited intellect, I had taken about 3 months to read the former (mind you, a pithy 150-page book!) but I actually managed to hold an animated discussion with him about the latter, a book that I am yet to read. I was quoting from the former and I easily managed to get away with it! I had to look pleadingly at the wife every few minutes to prevent her from giving the game away. Later, she confessed she was most impressed with my ability to talk confidently on a subject I knew nothing of with someone who did so for a living. I borrow the title of my blog from a path-breaking book, "Fooled by Randomness" (again, I took a full 4 months to finish it). I recommended it to a colleague who was caught raving about the contents and radical ideas of the author a mere 48 hours later. So much for trying to fool with randomness.



Most of us would probably readily agree at having "acquired" tastes. In plainspeak what it means is we made an effort to like something because societal pressures forced us to. One such category is Art. Its typically patronised by two kinds of people. The first who do not know what to do with their money and the second who have to differentiate the decor in their homes and a painting ensures exclusivity of some kind. Quiz most art-lovers and you will discover their appreciation journey comprises going to galleries every weekend, speaking to the odd gallery owner for tips and familiarising themselves with names of prominent and promising artists. (The latter is typically a term used to describe painters whose work one can easily afford) Ultimately, a purchase decision is based on the universal set of all 3 i.e. painters one sees frequently, recommended by gallery owners/fellow buyers and subject to budget criteria being met. It is extremely rare to find a genuine art-lover, one who reads about the history of various styles of art, researches the work of specific painters and goes on to take an informed purchase decision about something one likes too. In fact, several purists do scoff at the vulgar dimensions that investment in art has taken. On the intellectual aspiration pecking order though, there are few interests to beat art at the moment.

Places to be seen at is another inexplicable one. Shopping at Khan Market is my favourite in this category. While the market has lost all its former character and is as crowded, commercial and yuppie as any other, there is a breed (the wife included) which still believes in shopping there for toothpaste even though a store 200 metres away from home stocks it. And while Midlands book shop in Aurobindo Market is better stocked, one buys books from Bahrisons because it affords the privilege of standing behind Mark Tully at the cash counter. Somehow, shopping here seems to provide people with a sense of elitism. My opinion on this subject though is disdainfully attributed to my lack of exposure to a LBZ address and consequent ignorance of this venerable institution.

Having lived in Delhi for a while, one has come to reconcile to material snobbery. The kind which lends itself to flashing a gold Rolex,the ubiquitous Mont Blanc or as I recently discovered, loafers with loud, gold lettering that scream "LV". These folks are so much simpler to deal with given that they frequently confess to their indulgences being no more than a means of showing off. Intellectual pretensions though tend to run much deeper and most practitioners of the game tend to violently defend their passions as a means of deep-rooted gratification. Do write to me when you catch a theatre "enthusiast" confessing to watching plays for the sake of being seen there. Ditto for those who cant "live without Khan Market". That will be the day.

As for me, I belong to both categories of wannabes. Little wonder then that the wife considers me to be one of the toughest people in the world to put up with. But hey, at least I confess. I also confess to having watched one excellent play in the last two years. Slainte to that!

To Be or Not To Be

In the wake of the Nuclear deal, the absurd political theatre that one is witnessing leads to a few interesting observations/conclusions both, about the conduct of the Indian polity and the metamorphosis of the “aam aadmi”.


1. Its about time we saw through the charade that is Manmohan Singh. If one were to objectively look beneath the impressive professional credentials, gentle demeanour and apparently apolitical conduct, one would instantly discover the canny manipulator devoid of any lasting principles. If Vajpayee introduced the “I-don’t-need-to-be-PM-but-I-will-do all-it-takes-to-stay-there” brand of politics in our country, Manmohan Singh has converted it into a sublime art form. From embarrassing Abdul Kalam with dubious President’s Rule recommendations in Bihar to aiding a petty legislation aimed at merely dethroning a doctor (coincidentally his personal cardiac consultant) to cozying up to anyone who promised him support in a trust vote for the nuclear deal, Manmohan Singh has displayed a near Machiavellian penchant for expediency. Unfortunately for him, the nuclear deal forced him to reveal his hand and he can no longer hide behind the garb of being a non-playing captain with little control over a team which has a rule-book of its own. Having said that, his exemplary handling of his public image should merit closer examination from global political leaders most of whom would do well to have an image like our PM that is completely de-linked from their actions. Even the opposition chooses to call him “weak” at best, a clear pointer that it is still considered politically unwise to publicly demean the face behind the “mukhota” (oops, wasn’t that a Congress favourite?)

2. Never before have Central or State Agencies been so unabashed in their subservience. Political re-alignments at the centre lead to overnight action from the CBI/Customs Authorities against opponents. This is also a departure from the past where at least an attempt to display adherence to procedure could be expected and actions at the behest of political masters would not be as obvious and immediate as one has seen in the last few weeks. Add to this the whimsical re-opening or dropping of cases by state agencies and the plot thickens. As an aside, for all their officer associations etc, the police cadre does not even attempt a feeble protest when their brethren get shifted on the basis of say, media coverage of a murder. It is justifiable for this to happen if there is organized crime prevailing for a considerable length of time but rampant transfers in the wake of unfavourable media reports on an odd crime investigation is a little inexplicable. In certain states, civil servants are moved on mere rumours of corruption since it helps protect a clean image for the political class in the run-up to the elections. For a bureaucracy that steadfastly closes ranks when it comes to protecting their ilk, this helplessness is intriguing. Judicial activism has also become a thing of the past and the judiciary seems more intent on flexing its muscles on matters of far less import like declaration of assets by judges and insulating brother judges from alleged dishonourable acts of the past.

3. This may raise the hackles of feminists but contrary to their behaviour in civil society where the fairer sex is generally more mature, tolerant and sensitive, women leaders seem incapable of handling power sensibly and consistently overplay their hand and effortlessly convert opportunity into adversity. Mayawati, just a few months ago had both, a strong electoral result and favourable initial overtures from the centre going for her. Contrast it with the potential mess she has landed herself in with strengthened political alignments in her state, CBI back to baying for her blood et al. This, after having had the carpet pulled from under her feet by the BJP whilst trying to pull off a similar feat in the days of power-sharing by rotation. In the not so recent past, Jayalalitha had landed herself in a similar situation largely by demanding more than her rightful pound of flesh in her parleys with George Fernandes and Mulayam Singh only to end up with egg on her face. It is not only in the face of victory that one has seen displays of avoidable rash behaviour. Uma Bharti did her cause no good by initially playing hardball and then throwing a messy tantrum when things did not go her way. From being an important player in the saffron scheme of things, she has only seen herself getting increasingly marginalized and has to now eat humble pie in order to engineer a comeback from the wilderness. Is it a deep rooted need to prove that they are not the weaker sex in the big bad world of politics that one sees such frequent displays of mindless aggression and bad timing? I do not have an answer yet but perhaps this will form the subject of a research thesis by another observer of politics (or maybe psychology).

4. What is interesting though is that the only people who seem overtly outraged by the lack of spine in the recent political re-alignments are a few TV journalists in perpetual search of sound bites. The rest of the country could not care less and has accepted this as par for the course. Most involved citizens are more concerned with discussing the pros and cons of the nuclear deal, impact of inflation or at best life of the current government. There is hardly any anguish at the volte face of the ruling class and one does not see anyone sympathise with the Left as they moan at the “betrayal”. Sympathy towards the Left, if any, seems to derive itself from their foolhardiness at staying married to a position once pregnant with it. Is this a growing indifference of the Indian middle class towards seemingly earth-shattering goings-on in their country? Or is it the coming of age of Indian citizenry who have objectively accepted the fact that politicians have a job to do and part of it entails doing all it takes to govern the country regardless of any moral considerations whatsoever?

Time (and the next elections) will tell.