I hope this missive finds you in the pink of health and the black of wealth.

I notice that you have been making attempts to help JPSK Sports get government funding for F1. But you must be aware that the sports ministry has firmly declared that anything expensive & entertaining cannot be called a sport. They prefer investing our tax money into activities that are cheap & boring (Kho Kho & Malkhamb to name a couple). In any case, hasn’t the Olympic telecast on DD conclusively proved to you, that in India, sport & entertainment do not mix.

I saw that you tried to take on the minister, MS Gill, on this issue, but you seem to have been sternly rebuffed. In other words you got a danda from gilli.*

But seriously, why on earth do the organisers want money from our government? I know that petrol prices have gone up, but still, isn’t F1 a rather prosperous pursuit? They say it has a global TV audience of 600 million. Surely such a venture would attract some capital. It’s like “Who wants to be a millionaire?” asking the government for a small subsidy.

And think of the perils you invite if you allow our government to get into the event. I can imagine a cabinet meeting where every ministry imposes its agenda on the race. Here is a partial list of possible policy decisions…

1. The race will not be called India F1. It will be renamed the Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Motor Vehicle Race.

2. The circuit will be built by NHAI (with labour drawn under NREGS). Which means, the earliest we can have the event is somewhere around 2025.

3. Instead of the 5 red lights being extinguished, the race will be inaugurated by Sonia Gandhi cutting a ribbon and then gracefully, ambling out of the track.

4. DD will be the host broadcaster and Anupam Gulati will provide the commentary. Which also means that you and your Force India team will have to act in a patriotic A/V set to the music of Chak De India.

5. The health ministry will want the exhausts sealed so that there is no smoking in public places.

6. The education minister will do away with the old-fashioned method of deciding the winner by seeing who comes first. Instead a complex method of continuous evaluation will be used.

7. The winners will not be allowed to drink champagne because that is deeply offensive to Indian sentiments. Coconut water will be served instead. However, it can still be branded Mumms because that goes well with our traditional values.

8. If the event is successful, the HRD ministry will soon start 17 more F1 races by the simple technique of renaming various existing events as F1.

So my advice to you is – stay away from the government. A sarkari Formula 1 is one formula for disaster.

You could however, go to Bollywood for funds. These days they are the biggest patrons of sport. You might have to plant a few trees in the circuit though, so that the cars can go round them. Or better still, ask BCCI. They will give you the money. They love making a lot of noise and going around in circles, anyway.

Warm regards

Ramesh

I’m sure you, dear reader, can offer up a lot more shudder-worthy scenarios. So do pen in your suggestions so that this list can be expanded.

*You can see a transcript of the conversation between Dr. Mallya & Dr. Gill here.

Manmohan Singh must be having a tough time priming so many ministers. Take a look at this. As of now there are 49 ministries & 2 departments being handled by him & 38 other ministers. Plus 40 Ministers of State (without independent charge). It’s time to trim. Here is a way to ensure that our cabinet bears less resemblance to a walk-in wardrobe…

1. The Ministry for Women & Child Development will be brought under the Home Ministry, which will then be renamed the Home & Hearth Ministry. After all, Indian Culture says that a woman’s place is in her home. The ‘food’ portfolio will also be brought under the Home & Hearth ministry, because within home, a woman’s place is specifically in the kitchen. Pramod Muthalik will run this ministry. And given his concerns about youth, the Ministry of Youth Affairs will also come in here. So will the Ministry of Environment & Forests. After all, Muthalik is well versed in jungle law.

2. The Ministry of Health will be merged with the Ministry of Culture as both are about bans & compulsions. Ramadoss remains the ideal man to run this. Consumer Affairs might as well come in here because he anyway keeps poking his nose into it. And Public Grievances will be a good addition as Ramadoss gives a lot of grief to the public. And finally, the Ministry of Statistics because he is, well, mean.

3. Our tribal belt is more or less controlled by naxalites (with whom we even have ceasefires once in a while). The Ministry of External Affairs will therefore take over the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. And for the same reason, the Ministry for Development of the North Eastern Region too. Mamata Bannerjee will take over this portfolio. She may not know much about tribes but is wonderful at diatribe.

4. Our national defence appears to largely constitute of words, threats, accusations & codemnations. The I&B Ministry will therefore be brought under the aegis of the Defence Ministry. Kalyan Singh can head this because he currently seems to be sitting on de-fence. He will also be given the Ministry of Petroleum to fuel rumours. And the Ministry of Textiles to effect cover-ups. Kalyan will get the added responsibility of Sports because he seems to show some potential in the triple-jump.

5. The Ministry of HRD and the Ministry for Social Justice & Empowerment are euphemisms for imposing reservation. They will hence be subsumed into the Ministry for Railways. Lalu can continue to head this as he is …er…well-trained.

6. The Ministry of Power will become a giant ministry. Parliamentary Affairs will be added to it, as political power is the only kind of power that is available in this country. And once Parliamentary Affairs is added, Natural Gas obviously comes in. Our government is usually formed by parties with no majority. Hence Minority Affairs is added here. And the constant rifts & alliances make this the logical place for the fission & fusion of the Dept. of Atomic Energy. This mega-ministry can, however, lead to megalomania. So Sharad Pawar will run it. He has a reassuring name that sounds like ‘shared power’.

7. In line with the various subsidies, sops & waivers, the Ministry of Finance will now also include Public Distribution (or redistribution, to be precise). The Ministry of Steel will be renamed the Ministry of Steal, and added to this portfolio. The Ministry of Mines will also be brought in here. In any case, whatever we earn, the FM thinks, “It’s mine.” Ramalinga Raju will be put in charge of this ministry because he is an expert in…er…‘creating’ wealth.

8. The Ministry of Agriculture shall merge with the Ministry for Water Resources and the Ministry for Chemicals & Fertilizers. After all our farmers need water for their crops to drink and chemicals for er… themselves. Indra Nooyi can be invited to run this. Her stint in Pepsi has given her great understanding of sugar, water & pesticides.

9. The Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation will be merged. After all, a lot of the urban poor are currently staying in our monuments. Noting the fact that more people visit Infosys than Taj Mahal, Narayanmoorthy will assume charge of this ministry. And because of that, we shall also bung in the Ministry of Science & Technology as well as the Ministry of Communication & IT. May he bring ROM Rajya to our country.

10. The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways and the Ministry for Civil Aviation will be brought under The Ministry for Overseas Indian Affairs. This is because, if an Indian wants to see roads, highways or some civility in aviation, he has to go overseas anyway. Sonia Gandhi will run this augmented Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs because she even married an overseas Indian.

11. The Ministry for Urban Development with be merged with Ministry for Food Processing Industries because all our cities are one big jam. Deve Gowda can head this one and continue to put us all in a pickle. The Ministry of Space will be added here because he has a lot of it (between his ears). Deve Gowda will also get the Ministry for Rural Development because he has painstakingly converted many cities into rural areas.

12. The Ministry for Commerce & Industry will be made part of the Ministry for Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. This is because our government diligently ensures that all our industries stay small & medium. Prakash Karat will run this ministry because he has the right attitude – he views every growth as a cancer. The Ministry of Labour & Employment will be added here to help him push his agenda. And the Ministry of Pensions because a lot of people wish that Karat took his and retired.

13. The Ministry for Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises will now also include the Ministry of Planning. This would enable them to do some heavy planning with little industry. The Ministry of Personnel will be added here because our public enterprises have a lot of public but no enterprise. Vijay Mallya will run this as he his very heavy and very public.

14. We often wonder why on earth we are still harping on Panchayat Raj. So it is logical to merge the Ministry for Panchayat Raj with the Ministry of Earth Sciences. Raj Thackeray can run this because he could also be called Punch-ayat Raj. And he is good at slinging mud. A true son of the soil.

15. There are a few things that we completely lack today but we fondly wish we had sometime in the future. Like wind power, solar power & justice. These will be clubbed into one Ministry. Comprising what was previously the Ministry for New & Renewable Energy and the Ministry for Law & Justice. Bejan Daruwala will run this futuristic ministry.

Phew. Finally we are down to just 15 ministries. This honest, simplified structure would make our government leaner and enable them to become meaner.

Oops, I forgot about the Ministry of Coal. Let’s close it down and transfer its responsibilities to the Election Commissioner Navin Chawla. After all, he’s constantly answering nature’s coal.

Disclaimer : Obviously this is fictional. Look at the title. How can anything that has rational & government in the same sentence be true? After all, if we demand rationality from politicians, they’ll ask us to try the ration shop.

From apathy, to shock, to rage, to indignance, to disgust, to weariness, to apathy. The cycle continues.

The same words are being said. The same issues are being bickered over. The same solutions are being debated.

“Why can’t we have better intelligence?” “Isn’t it appalling that politicians have cornered the best cops for their own security?” “What do we do to bring Muslims into the mainstream of development & prosperity?” “Why can’t we have harsher laws?” “Why is the Indian state so much about power and so little about governance?”

Every one of us has been asking some of these questions. All of us have answers for some of them. The same old answers. We talk of citizens taking up arms. We drape ourselves in our national flag. We resolve to vote next time. We light candles. We wear white shirts. You know what we’re actually doing? We are just deluding ourselves that our anger, our patriotism and our temporary activism will somehow create a mythical force that would lead to an efficient government. A government that will guarantee security, ensure prosperity, build infrastructure, protect our heritage, preserve our environment, regulate our industry, administer justice and promote harmony & equality.

But what is government? It is not an abstract entity that is filled with good intentions and endless talent.

We feel that government by definition, is good, but our politicians are bad. We feel that government is efficient, but our bureaucrats are not. But what is government other than politicians and bureaucrats? Government is made up of nothing more and nothing less than people like you or me, who have the added desire and the stamina to seek public office. How can any government be more selfless than its politicians, or more efficient than its bureaucrats?

Throwing one bunch of politicians out and bringing another set in is not really going to change anything, is it? There isn’t any superhero in the opposition parties, or indeed in the world, who can efficiently deliver all the myriad expectations we have from our government. A government, like any organization, can only do what it is capable of doing. It cannot achieve things that it is not designed to achieve. Regardless of our expectations.

The point therefore is not to make our expectations greater and louder. It is, in fact, to reduce our expectation from government, so that the state can concentrate on a few important things, and perhaps do it with excellence. Let’s therefore take a step back and see what our reduced expectation could be. What are our core needs from government?

The biggest reason why individuals voluntarily organize themselves into societies is physical security. The right to life. At a day-to-day level, this is to prevent anyone from harming us physically or coercing us through the initiation of force. The right to life can be extended into the right to freedom of action. After all life is not just the absence of death. It is the freedom and ability to think, say and do what we want. This in turn leads to the right to property. Which is nothing but the right to enjoy the result of our actions – the fruits of our labour – and to dispose of it as we please. We need government to protect these core rights of ours.

This would mean that at a fundamental level, we need government to run a police force and justice system. We also need to protect our society from other societies which may use force on us. Thus the army. If we define the role of government as these key things, and nothing more, we may perhaps, have a chance of getting security & justice. After all, when the expectations are few and well-defined, the politicians and bureaucrats become accountable, and more importantly the task becomes possible. As a side effect, if the power of government is limited to these areas, the avenues for corruption are few, and there is therefore no incentive for thugs and crooks to run for office.

But we don’t stop here, do we? We want government to do everything for us. We want some bureaucrat to control our industrialists (instead of exercising our right of not buying his product). We want a minister to protect local industry (by imposing tariffs and reducing efficiency at the cost of the consumer). We want government to provide us with cheap gasoline (thereby allowing us to waste resources). We want a dictator to ban smoking in restaurants (instead of us hurting the owner by denying him our patronage). We want government to protect our culture (by holding society ransom to a few people’s moral standards). Every one of us tries to use government to live off somebody else. Every one of us tries to use government to impose our personal views on others. Government, as a result, becomes just an instrument for the mutual violation of rights. Exercised by whichever group is committed enough to vote as a gang.

Having given government so many things to do, so many departments to run, and so many contradictory claims to cater to, why are we surprised when we find that we have a government that cannot perform its core functions effectively? Why are we surprised that our politicians are good-for-nothing? Why are we frustrated whenever we deal with the state apparatus. It’s time we understood that politicians will be self-serving and bureaucrats will be lazy. They are humans like you and me, and will only do what serves their chances of individual growth. They are simply not qualified to do most of the things we expect from them.

The mistake we have made therefore, is not in electing lousy people. It is in giving them too much power over our lives. It is in being dependent on government for all the wrong things. For every thing. Thereby endangering our real needs like our physical security.

Let us see what would happen if we limited government to the protection of the three key rights. Especially in the light of the attack on Mumbai. Firstly, freedom of speech would ensure that religious beliefs and fanaticism can be openly discussed. In today’s world, the moment something becomes a question of ‘faith’, it becomes a taboo subject. We tread gingerly in order to avoid hurting anyone’s sentiments. Not because we are sensitive, but because we are scared. The moment any group of people decides to get offended, they are free to unleash mob violence. Sometimes, this is even enforced by the state itself, through censorship and bans. If government protected freedom of speech (action), we could have a free and frank discussion on our various communities and practices. So that there is mutual tolerance based on knowledge. Not mutual toleration based on fear. A community cannot feel alienated if everybody is discussing it. It feels alienated when nobody wants to understand it.

Secondly, the right to property would encourage individuals and entrepreneurs to take whatever measures they deem fit to protect their belongings. Of course, the police will be there to augment safety. I understand that no private security force may have the skills to resist attacks of this scale. But a true notion of private property would also motivate individuals and businesses to take some steps for preventive protection. This can only help. We will not have the current trend of shoving all responsibility to the government and then just whining when things go wrong.

And thirdly, the police force would be efficient. After all, they don’t have to worry about when bars are closing and whether women are singing and whether people are listening to music in their cars. Their goal will be focused and they’ll be equipped, trained and paid well for performing their one important task.

Incidentally, once we detach government from notions of ideology, and abstracts like socialism, secularism and other such things, there is no concept of ‘terrorism’ either. Terrorism will be stripped off its garb of ‘ideology’. Terrorists will be captured and punished for what they are – armed thugs who are violating other people’s rights to life and property. The political dimension can be completely removed.

A police force that only focuses on protecting people from harm would also ensure better community involvement in the process. Most people hate policemen these days. After all, the cops take protection money from traders. They harass couples in the night. They represent the might of a bully government. We fear them and suspect them because we see that their primary job is to control us. But imagine if the police were our friends. If their only job is to protect us, we would help them help us. People would report suspicious people or activities. We would approach the cops if something bothers us. We will not hesitate to ‘get involved’. This community awareness and participation would in turn reinforce the efficiency of the police and a positive loop can be created towards greater security.

We would then become a society that uses government to liberate itself. But what do we have now? We have the government we deserve. We have a sheepdog because we choose to be sheep. We bleat impotently because that is the only power we have retained. We use platitudes like the spirit of Mumbai’ because we want to hide our helplessness behind euphemisms. Why do you think we carry on with our lives after every attack and atrocity? Not because of some noble spirit. Simply because we have no choice. What else is there to do.

I’ve heard many arguments against limited government. Once the security threat is forgotten, people will still want to impose their views through governmental force. They will ask, “How do we ensure that common resources are protected?” “How can we achieve social justice (whatever that means)?” “Isn’t this anarchy?”

No. It isn’t. The government that we discussed so far is the central government (with the state governments thrown in for administrative purposes). This does not mean communities cannot voluntarily organize themselves into cities and make whatever rules they think is for their good. A community can decide that it wants to pool-in money and build a park. It can decide that it will not allow loud music after 11pm or whatever. It can make any rules as long as the fundamental rights of the individual are not violated. The difference between a voluntary community (like a neighbourhood or a city) making rules and a country doing so is very simple. Communities compete for the talent of people. If I do not like the rules of a community, I can move somewhere else. I can take my talent, my innovation and my hard work elsewhere. Sheer competition for human resources will make every community strive towards providing a great quality of life to its voluntary inhabitants. But countries don’t work like that. I was born in this entity called India and I am only eligible for an Indian passport. Of course I can emigrate, but that involves a huge cost and effort. Even if I can pay it, not everyone can. Most people have no choice but to live in their country of birth. There is nothing voluntary about it. So a government, which runs a non-voluntary community, has no incentive to compete and provide a better quality of life to its citizens. Which means that the politicians will not do it. Let’s have a thousand cities that make rules. Let government just provide the underpinning of laws and rights. And do that well.

Another objection is the developmental one. The fact that private enterprise will not get into projects that are good for all but do not give profits immediately. Like roads or dams or whatever. Perhaps this is true. Let government get into this. But why as a monopoly? Maybe our country needed the government to run air services sixty years back (though I doubt it). But if the stated reason is that private enterprise aren’t capable of providing air services, then why use licenses and quotas to prevent them from trying in the first place? Isn’t that some kind of weird self-fulfilling logic? Let me reluctantly concede that in a large and poor country like ours, we need government investment in some areas. But why on earth do we need tax money spent on these areas after private players have come in and are providing great service. Why, for instance, do we need BSNL now? Gratitude? Isn’t that bizarre, considering it’s our tax money that was spent earlier and is being spent now? So let the government invest in infra-structure, but till and only till private enterprise is in a position to take over. A private monopoly is still threatened by nimble competition. A legalized government monopoly has absolutely no reason to be efficient. As Milton Friedman said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

A third objection is the so-called humanitarian one. How do we help the ‘have-nots’ or the victims of natural disasters? Don’t we need government for that? So the government will magnanimously donate resources. But excuse me. The government doesn’t have any resources. It does not create any wealth. The only money it has is the tax that is coerced from us. So what gives it the right to use my money for charity without my consent. Let’s put it this way. If a person wants to give charity he can do so anyway. If he doesn’t want to give charity, then nobody can force it out of him. If the majority wants to give charity let them do so by all means. But how can even one person be looted of his money (through tax) because the majority wants to give it to someone else? How is it humanitarian to rob one human and give it to another? There is a related argument that government is needed to channelize the charity. This is absurd because there are more than enough voluntary organizations that will probably do a better job. If the market allows it, there may even be meta-charity outfits that specialize in coordinating the efforts of other smaller charities.

The point is that we do not need government to make rules, we don’t need it for development and we don’t it them for redistribution. We need it to protect our life and liberty.

We have been through a traumatic week. But let us come out of this with some real changes. A few mindless heads rolling and a million symbolic gestures are not going to change anything. In these times of trouble let us not call for more government, more laws and more control. The more government we have, the less we feel the need to protect ourselves, be self-reliant, give charity, be considerate, be tolerant or be social. Because every law that is made makes us hand over some human virtue to the state. Every decree that we accept makes us a little less human.

The less government we have, the better we will live together. And most importantly, the more efficient that government would be, in protecting our life, our property and our freedom of action.

Note : There are numerous people writing about liberty on the internet. As I am a diligent reader of these posts, I am sure that I have borrowed many arguments and perhaps even exact phrases from them. Unfortunately I have no clue what I have borrowed from whom. My apologies to all of them for not being able to give credit where it is due.
While I have written one long, perhaps drawling article, Sauvik Chakraverti has written over three hundred beautiful ones on this subject. One of the best days I have had, is the day I spent going through his archive.

Update : I just read an article posted by K.M. which makes a related argument in a powerful manner. Here it is.