UPSC GEETA: 1: INTERVIEW WITH THE SELF

"Uska Kya hua? Interview diya tha na wo?" or "What happened to his result? He had given interview this year, right?" My Grandfather inquired me. I am of course not the protagonist of this story. Who is? I intend to make it a protagonist-less story. That means, it has to be universal enough to not be a single hero centric. 

My grandfather, Jitendra Nath Sharma, a retired Engineer in the Jharkhand Electricity Board, used to live in a small town called Patratu, nearly 35 Km from Ranchi. 

I am his grandson, Vijit Kumar. I prefer not to be called Sharma since a healthy coincidence happened in school. It ended with only "Kumar" and which I later defended saying, I do not want any Caste Labels. But does this leave me of the Caste privileges already existing in the material reality? Of course not. 

My Grandfather is inquiring about a guy named, Akash Madan, A fellow senior, a UPSC aspirant, who gave his second interview this year, and whose result we were all been waiting. All includes me, My two friends and co-aspirants, Nikhil Kumar Kamal and Akhilesh Kumar. 

We all are preparing from home from quite a time. It is a weird hostage situation where we are captive to our own families. Not rich enough to afford living in fancy places like Delhi and not humble enough to not claim greatness through Civil services exam, we were struck in the time frames of ourselves. 

I was thinking what to tell my grandfather. I then told him that he could not qualify even this time. My Grandfather said with a hint of sadness in his voice, "Koi baat nahi, Itna prayas kiya kam baat hai, prayas bahut zaruri hai". or "No worries, he tried and this is what matters". 

I had learned it through my experiences that words are least informative about what a man thinks. The real information lies in his voice, in his actions, in the movement of his pupils and probably in his words when he is drunk. On one hand, I understood that the middle-class sadness of failure persisted in my grandfather. Probably, he had hoped success from him. A topic of boasting missed. On the other hand, what he said, I felt, was less about Akash Madan, but more for me, so that I do not get disheartened. Parents and guardians take care of all possibilities where you can get hurt and want to protect you. But What they cannot see is where you get hurt the most. That place is, an inner lack, a feeling whether I will need this protection forever or will I ever be able to develop a thick skin for life? 

I wanted to call Akash Madan, but I felt it would be rude of me. Result, I already know. Why to bother him asking? Give him space. Meanwhile, my grandfather asked me for Akash's number. I asked him why, to which he said, "Hausla bada denge" or "I will motivate him". I told him it is not required right now. This is not the right time. I departed my grandfather's room and came to mine. 

I have just started with my Preparation. I left my PhD in Physics for this. Why left? This is a long story which I will try to fit into this short story sometime later. My friends were preparing for quite some time. 2-3 attempts they had given with no final results. Some progresses like, once, Nikhil got to mains, Increase in Akhilesh's Anxieties and insecurities, increase in Nikhil's sadness over failures. This is what this fertile land of UPSC Civil services exam had offered us till now. 

I came to my room thinking if what I decided has any firm ground or what Akhilesh said that day was right? "Arey, isko laga ki PhD mein toh bahut din lag jayega, IAS ban jaate hain, isliye PhD chorr diya", Or "He thought PhD is time consuming, so he decided to shift to IAS". 

People and my Friends included in them, want to live a life of dignity but they forget to respect other people's dignity. I was thinking, "Am I this small? that I left my childhood passion for Physics for just a government job? Do security and social validation matter to me this much?" 

And moreover, What will happen to me if I could not qualify this exam? 

I was sitting in my room thinking this. My room is a part apart from my house. It is an interesting construction. It is constructed such that It is part of the house. You cannot enter into my room without entering through the main gate, but it is not connected to any other rooms through a gate. As if, the builder made it for someone who is a part apart. Someone who is family, but who does not inherit all traits of his family. 

Suddenly, I felt someone's presence in my room. It was weird and spooky since, My room was so small that no person could go unnoticed by the other if he is present there. How could I ignore the elephant in the room for this long? naturally, anyone becomes an elephant of a room when the room is small. 

I looked behind me. And there he was, He was me. Vijit Kumar, in flesh and soul. I was awestruck and I wanted to scream at this supernatural. I was looking at myself studying through a third person view and it was frightening the shit out of me. 

My voice choked in my throat with fear, My shoulders stretched. My flight and fright response were kicking in. I wanted to run but could not. He was busy writing something, I know not what. He was writing a blog. He looked up on me. He smiled. He said, "Surprised?" 

I could not speak. He said, "I know, pages will go spent in extravagance if I start telling why and from where I am from. But know for sure that I mean no harm. I am here to help. I am here to help you with your doubts. I am here to guide you." 

"Who are you?" I shouted. I am Vijit, I am you, silly, cannot you see?" I was taken aback. It was difficult for me to recognize this. Yes, I knew it was me. But, If I would have seen him in some marketplace I would have probably ignored him. He had a forgettable face. Does that mean I have a forgettable face?

He said, "No silly, you are not forgettable, see, I am here. I did not forget you. That is why I came to help you. Sit down, ask me. Treat me like I am some supernatural entity. I almost am but not quite. Ask whatever small or big doubts you have, would you?" 

I was unsure if I wanted to do it. But, not everyday such unusual happens to you, so I postponed the schedule for the day and sat down. I asked him, "Where and how did you reach here when the room was locked from outside?" 

"You went outside and asked me only to close the door from outside while I was busy writing this new book I am working on, "UPSC GEETA" as I provisionally call it". 

What, wait, What? What did he say? Am I turning lunatic. I did not understand anything about what he said. 

He further continued, "Do not ask supernatural questions, Silly." "Are you going to kill me?" "Come on, man, please do not waste my time, please ask the relevant question". 

I took the bottle from the table, took some water in my mouth. I felt a bit relaxed. I was sweating. Fan was running. I sat down. I caught my breath back. 

"Ready?" He asked me. I was ready. There was no need to delay now. Somehow I felt I was waiting for someone like me for centuries. I gathered myself. I was ready to ask myself questions. 

"Ok, I am ready". 

"First question please..."

Ok...Ok...ok...

"Will I be able to clear this year's UPSC CSE exam?"

He smiled as if he knew. He smiled as if he is smirking at the materialistic aspect of my question. He smiled as if he knew something bigger than the question. He smiled, I felt something positive gravelling in my stomach. Butterflies of first love, it seemed. I sat there for his look to end and answer to begin. I think this is going to be a book worthy session. 

CAN WE CRITICISE DEMOCRACY AS A POLITICAL SYSTEM?

Criticism has been a key part of democracy. But Can criticism critique the very foundation that allows criticism might be the biggest test of the system itself. The cat eating its own tail argument. Can we criticize democracy as a political system? And another question, Should we? Also, one more question, Will I automatically be a supporter of Dictatorship if I wish to critique Democracy? 

We see some ancient critiques of Democracy in Plato and Aristotle. Since then, No one dares to critique the system of democracy even though, there still exists curtailing of freedoms and rights in democratic countries. Why is that? Why no intellectual dares stand against it? I have seen Western thinkers being more open in these regards than Indian thinkers. Indian thinkers are so hell bent in preserving democracy in this country. I am not saying that it should not be preserved. I am saying something similar to what Ram Jethmalani, the famous Advocate of supreme court said once, "I do not care if I am defending a criminal, this is my job, I am doing my job, and before the judgement of court, my client is not a criminal for me."

I say, the job of a thinker should not derive from emotions. That is why I am not a very big fan of phenomenological thinking. It seems to me that a lot of emotional bias creeps in when someone wishes to see "phenomenon" as it is. How can you? There are always layers of reasons under which the truly the phenomenon derives its meaning. 

So, In my opinion, It is not only in implementation that Democratic countries lack, but I think it is in the foundations of Democracy that the problem lies. I mean, Democracy as a political theory, as a political philosophy. 

So, my aim, here onwards, is to try to develop a sound critique in the way we understand democracy today and how it fails to deliver what it promises. 

And I approach here is going to be Beyond Aristotle. Already what he said or wrote should not be my concern. My concern should be what I can write. This is part of my understanding of how a thinker should operate. Not of course on emotions and needs. You should not write because you think the world needs something. You should write like a poet write poems. Creativity. A thinker should only mind himself to thinking creatively. Not to describe material reality. Not to diagnose like a medical doctor. But just dreaming innovative flaws that can exist in systems and theories. 

I come from a most "Anti-Sowell" version of thinkers. Thomas Sowell, the famous anti-communist economist, he used to say, there is no one to fix the accountability of these thinkers who just cook any thought in their head and then think it will work. 

To some extent I agree with Sowell but with a twist. I think critiques should be done without accountability. Constructive programmes and constructive theories which tend to establish a particular way of order should be scrutinized and the thinker should be held accountable. Because in these seemingly positive theories lies the biggest problems. 

When Mao comes with the program of cultural revolution, it is a program not of thinking but of doing. We should be skeptical of all those "doers" who are very desperate to do something. 

Thinkers should be anti-doers. Thinkers should scrutinize. Criticize all hitherto existing. Even the non-existent should be critiqued. 

One of my critiques of Democracy is what I call "Lack of substantive accountability", 

What is that? 

My prime concern has been at the interface of plan and action. Why, in politics, the dichotomy of ideal and practical exists. Why implementation always lacks the ideal? 

And I am avoiding to just simply say, "Oh humans are not perfect". These kind of common sensical answers are anti-theory and anti-philosophy, they should be avoided at all costs. Come up with more creative answers. 

Amartya Sen argues, in his dichotomy of Niti and Nyaya, That Niti, the procedural aspect of Justice is always kept at ideal while Nyaya, the substantive aspect of justice always lags. He gives the example of policies of affirmative action. How the policies of reservations are there in procedural aspects but still in substance, in reality, we still find those sections marginalized. 

Why this dichotomy of Procedure and Substance exists? In my opinion, the answer lies in the very way we conceptualize aspects of Polity and economy in our democracy. Who is the implementer of policies? Bureaucracy, yes. Say, politicians are policymakers, but they are also held accountable through Voting. Bureaucrats are held accountable via the representatives, the politicians. But the real problem is in the nature of this accountability. 

I think, this accountability is in itself, Procedural and not substantive. The answer to why only procedural accountability exists; I will attempt to give below. But let us understand what I mean by this. 

Suppose there is a homeless woman, who could not arrange for herself a ration card, a BPL for that matter. Now, a bureaucrat who does not act via his conscience, might just reject her saying, Die, I don't care, no card, no ration. Or No Aadhaar card, No provision for ration card for you. Yes, I know, no Bureaucrat talks like that, but they might behave like that because it is not illegal. They are following their duty. This is what their job is. To follow procedure. In substance whether the woman needed it, whether she is the real needy of that policy, is immaterial to the bureaucrat. This, in essence, is the lack of substantive accountability. 

Then, Politicians act on a macroscopic scale. When a politician claims, that this many gas connections I ensured, these many houses I ensured for the homeless. Understand that this is what the data he has been given by his bureaucrat. He also does not know whether this distribution of residence or gas connection has been done to in substance or just in procedure. 

I claim, this is in the concept of democracy that this lack of substantive accountability exists. Let me expand on that. Let us compare Monarchy of ancient India and Democracy of Post-colonial India. 

A typical king of ancient India had enough discretion. In fact, more than enough would be appropriate phrase to describe it. But, ask yourself, do you think a post-colonial powerholder, be it a bureaucrat or a Chief minister has that much of discretion. Compare only in terms of discretion and nothing else. 

It seems like as a reaction to thousands of years of arbitrary power in hands of one person, or one group, we are now hell bent to just avoid any kind of discretion in hands of powerholders. We want to make enough, sometimes more than enough rules to ensure that power is not misused in anyway. 

But we could not take this into our minds that, absence of rules can be misused through discretion by power holders but also, along with that, Presence of rules can be misused through non-discretion by the powerholders. 

Just imagine, If the friend of the bureaucrat, a powerful builder, forges and arranges all documents to get favors of Aavaas yojana, and a needy homeless person could not, did not, here, the rule of having proper documents act as an area of misuse for the bureaucrat for giving his friend some Favours. This might be unethical, but it is not illegal, is it? This is what he might say. 

This Lack to ensure substantive accountability has roots in the modern obsession of the democratic system to make proper procedures and reduce human discretion to the maximum. It renders even the honest power holders, who would have used their discretion in the favor of substantive justice toothless. They are bound to bear the burden of rules in the favor of the powerful and not the needy. 

So, one prominent critique of democracy, is the lack of substantive accountability, which is related to the aspect of discretion. Where non-discretion of powerholders in modern democracy is also a way to misuse power. 

''Even doing your duty can be a way to not doing your duty, Mr. Bureaucrat".