For the 2nd straight weekend we watched a movie at a cinema. I have long maintained that frequency of movie watching is inversely linked to quality of social life. In our case, it certainly holds true at least since we moved to Mumbai. Must concede I am a conversation- over -loud music person. Both of us are not fans of large dos and while I do indulge in Dumb Charades, Pictionary and the like, it's not really my scene. What compounds the matter further is being in the reverse situation while in Delhi and I look for half an excuse to retreat there on every 3-day weekend.
The irony is we probably have more people we count as friends in Mumbai than any other city in the world (well I have lived all my life in India but "world" sounds cooler ). And yet I struggle to create a "group" here. It's impossible for us to invite 8 of our friends together and not worry about somebody stepping on another' s toes or or an inebriated argument escalating into something more serious.
Heterogeneity is the thing I miss most. In Delhi our circle of friends comprised lawyers, journalists, the odd bureaucrat or politician, entrepreneurs and some people from the corporate world. 90% of people we know here are associated with the financial services industry. In turn, the people they seem to know are also the same! In the former, nobody competed with one another in any form. That made for way easier evenings. The diversity of conversation topics was an added bonus.
In Delhi one made friends thru friends. One got invited basis interaction at a common friend's place. In Mumbai that seems to happen only if your kids go the same school. (we have been fortunate with one exception ). People seem to guard their social circles with Masonic zealousness.
Some of our friends have moved here from other cities. We hung out together there too. Now, conversations inevitably move to budgets for home purchase, music systems, and the like. Either I didn't notice the materialistic streak earlier (which is unlikely),or it is the M-factor at work.
Coming back to the movies, "Kahaani" is a must-watch and "Paan Singh Tomar" can be given a miss.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Smelling not-so-good Coffee
Recent elections in U.P. and Punjab have ensured regional satraps dig in their heels firmly. This growing trend is bad news for the country since we are set to witness a reinforcement in the parliamentary elections.
An alliance begins with horse-trading and most regional parties walk away with a couple of plum ministries. Since the chieftain has to be based in the kingdom, an incompetent (and often inexperienced) stooge is typically placed in the capital. This leads to a serious compromise on administrative efficiency. A DMK is content with ministries like Telecom and Shipping so that coffers could be filled. Mulayam or a Jayalalitha will probably insist on an additional portfolio like Home given their extraordinary penchant to control the law and order machinery.
Given that anti-defection laws are restricted to parties and not alliances, a coalition breeds pockets of irresponsibility. So if a matter of national import runs at cross-purposes to regional interest, there is petulant stone-walling . This has been a significant contributor to the policy-making freeze that we are currently gripped by. The intra-coalition tug-of-war that such trade union tactics cause are beginning to hit at the root of the federal system. Mamata Banerjee has converted this into an art form and her subsequent electoral success will encourage many others to follow suit. This has serious consequences for industrial growth and expediting economic reform.
Regional leaders who are in the opposition in Parliament see a sporadic need to assert themselves as first-among-equals. They often tend to pick up irrelevant issues and rabble rouse them to a point of national distraction. Naveen Patnaik's passionate opposition to the proposed terrorism prevention structure is a classic example. Here is a CM who watched quietly as Naxals systematically took control of nearly half the state. There was no administrative or political will to curb the menace. But instead of setting his house in order, his advisers goaded him to pick an issue and create enough noise to position him as a "statesman" worthy of fighting a battle that went beyond state boundaries. Nitish Kumar does the same albeit with a more nuanced style. The Govt is left with no choice but to take two steps backward lest they create a 4th (or 5th) front.
One of the primary reasons for this phenomenon is the Congress' policy of weakening any strong local leader. In doing so, they have left the royal family intact but with a vastly eroded empire. The BJP on the other hand has created a structure with multiple state-leaders all of whom are consolidating their state bases impressively. But it has left them with nobody with national stature.
Unfortunately, no easy solutions come to mind. But amidst all the noise around the need to smell the coffee with the growing strength of regional parties, it is important to be concerned about the consequences. There are hardly any positive outcomes.
An alliance begins with horse-trading and most regional parties walk away with a couple of plum ministries. Since the chieftain has to be based in the kingdom, an incompetent (and often inexperienced) stooge is typically placed in the capital. This leads to a serious compromise on administrative efficiency. A DMK is content with ministries like Telecom and Shipping so that coffers could be filled. Mulayam or a Jayalalitha will probably insist on an additional portfolio like Home given their extraordinary penchant to control the law and order machinery.
Given that anti-defection laws are restricted to parties and not alliances, a coalition breeds pockets of irresponsibility. So if a matter of national import runs at cross-purposes to regional interest, there is petulant stone-walling . This has been a significant contributor to the policy-making freeze that we are currently gripped by. The intra-coalition tug-of-war that such trade union tactics cause are beginning to hit at the root of the federal system. Mamata Banerjee has converted this into an art form and her subsequent electoral success will encourage many others to follow suit. This has serious consequences for industrial growth and expediting economic reform.
Regional leaders who are in the opposition in Parliament see a sporadic need to assert themselves as first-among-equals. They often tend to pick up irrelevant issues and rabble rouse them to a point of national distraction. Naveen Patnaik's passionate opposition to the proposed terrorism prevention structure is a classic example. Here is a CM who watched quietly as Naxals systematically took control of nearly half the state. There was no administrative or political will to curb the menace. But instead of setting his house in order, his advisers goaded him to pick an issue and create enough noise to position him as a "statesman" worthy of fighting a battle that went beyond state boundaries. Nitish Kumar does the same albeit with a more nuanced style. The Govt is left with no choice but to take two steps backward lest they create a 4th (or 5th) front.
One of the primary reasons for this phenomenon is the Congress' policy of weakening any strong local leader. In doing so, they have left the royal family intact but with a vastly eroded empire. The BJP on the other hand has created a structure with multiple state-leaders all of whom are consolidating their state bases impressively. But it has left them with nobody with national stature.
Unfortunately, no easy solutions come to mind. But amidst all the noise around the need to smell the coffee with the growing strength of regional parties, it is important to be concerned about the consequences. There are hardly any positive outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
