The Winner Stands Alone

(thoughts provoked while reading 'The Winner Stands Alone' by Paulo Coelho where a character makes a list of the qualities necessary to be a normal person)

What does being normal mean? Of the sets of abnormal and normal people, which one is bigger? Are they even comparable?

Logically, the no. of abnormal people should be just a fraction of total population. And this is because abnormality is an exception in common sense. So here is a definition of normal people – whose acts can be predicted or explained on the basis of common sense. And who has common sense? – a reasonable and prudent person has common sense. Now, this reasonableness and prudency in thought process and behavior come from experiences of day-to-day life. These activities differ a lot across societies and so does the attributes of normal behavior. In colloquial language, the ‘aam junta – the Mango People’ are those people who are not at top, who need to be taken care of by the power invested, either by them or grabbed from them, in the others at top. But then, those who are at the top are they not normal? They must be the people who have ambitions and capabilities and have harnessed them well. And this is perfectly normal. So, maybe being normal has nothing to with the position in social hierarchy. Maybe psychologists can better define normal behavior, but then they will narrow it down to mental condition and there philosophers will clash with them. Psychologists will say that if you go on with life exactly doing what the median of the population does, you are perfectly normal. They will term you abnormal if your thoughts are different from the herd. They will treat exceptions as abnormal. On the contrary, philosophers will value those with exceptional thought process as the ones who are still normal. So the argument boils down to the factor that whether being normal means to stay in the herd or to rise above them. History has numerous examples of people with eccentricities who had built empires and had performed miracles. They were able to do so because their abnormality had set them apart from the others when they converted their weaknesses into strengths.

The main concern behind this random thinking of mine is our negligence towards people who are not like us. The attitude of terming them abnormal and making them outcast destroys the special gifts bestowed in them. Here is a call for a paradigm shift in our outlook towards all these people.

Democracy and Development

One of the major disadvantages of democracy is its failure to reward ruling parties for adopting long-term policies. Especially there is not much incentive to implement them in coalition era. we can count the number of times a government has determined to implement visionary ideas. During early Nehru raj, the thrust was on industrialization, higher education and NAM foreign policy. That they have a clear majority was an important factor behind their conviction. When India Gandhi assumed power, she was also be able to implement several long-term programs like closure of privy purse, nationalization of banks and agricultural revolution. But, post emergency, when her power deteriorated, there is an absence of long-term policies till her demise. There was a stagnation in reforms in every sector during 1975-84. Came Rajiv Gandhi into power with an overwhelming majority, and we again see a flow of path-breaking initiatives. Despite being a political novice, he tried to bring changes in telecommunication, education and basic livelihood. But after his 5-yr tenure, the lack of any single party majority rule has affected the policy making in India. I strongly assume that liberalization done by Manmohan Singh in 1991 was an act of compulsion, given the economic condition of that time, rather than a vision. There is a clear paucity of reforms in all areas including education, industry, poverty alleviation and agriculture.
I am here not claiming that there had been no efforts, initiatives on disinvestment, employment, primary education etc. are worth mentioning, but barring recent push on programs like NREGA and Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan, the conviction is missing everywhere else.
The source of this painful realization came when I was attending a lecture on Environmental and Economic policies, where the esteemed professor was making us realize how countries with political willpower had been able to transform the landscape. In particular, the East Asian countries and China has achieved so much in past 50 years even in the absence of democratic values in most of these countries. And here, we are still trying to figure out correct policies that can appease everyone. There is huge expenditure on reforms, but many of them are for short-term gains. The subsidies shelled out by government increased heavily prior to the run up to each election. Nothing substantial could be done to the major obstacle for reforms, the lax bureaucracy, because weak governments are more dependent upon bureaucrats for day-to-day activities so that politicians can remain indulge in power games.
Enough of complaints, but what can be done? Only two parties at center like US, or electoral reforms to get rid of by-elections, or even a multi-party ministries. I will think of something and post in the next blog.