But Nobel for Obama? Come on! For what ?

I too like some of the attempts his administration is making to improve relations with other countries including Iran and Cuba. But these are just attempts and good intentions.

Problem is, my kids are now going to ask for rewards every time they have a good thought or intention. No results required.

Unfortunately this may even back fire on his efforts. Expectations were high anyway, but now it has been raised to unrealistic proportions.

Bad decision by the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

One interesting direction changer possibly is the number of new candidates contesting the election. Some kind of a barrier has been broken. Probably an Obama effect being felt in India. Yes, even a novice can! seem to be the refrain. Which may be a good think, in the short run.

It is easy to forget how hard Obama worked and for many years towards the Presidency. That brings me to the matter at hand. There is an annoying trend especially this election cycle. Annoying, but hopefully not very harmful. This annoying trend seem to be fueled by the ease with which people can email and send documents over the internet. The educated and the elite among us seem to take politicians and their profession very lightly. To some it seems like–all you need is a good man or woman to contest and win, every thing else will fall into place.I don’t think we reserve this kind of naive contempt for any other profession.

So here is my thought on who succeeds in politics, if at all. I believe only two kinds of politicians succeed — either a Karunanidhi/Jayalalitha (K/J) type or a Rahul Gandhi/Rajiv Gandhi type. (For this discussion it does not matter whether you vote for them or like them or not).

What does it take to succeed in politics, assuming you have the natural abilities? You need a vast array of teams, organisations, contacts, networks, etc. etc. How long does it take to get all this? A very long time indeed. It takes years of toiling, speeches, plotting, begging, cajoling, coercing, etc. to even have a shot at doing anything worth doing in politics.

K/J, for example, have been in politics for years. Both are considered accomplished politicians, good administrators, nationally respected players. But they got here after spending much of their time in isolation, in opposition, sometimes even declared politically finished. Yet they have survived and stayed relevant. In power or in opposition, they have complete control, or as much as humanly possible, over their party, the state machinery, etc. They have to use all these just to stay relevant, but they also have to constantly work to expand their base, party, network, organisation, etc.

Now ask yourself, with all this–natural ability, control over the machinery and party which are absolutely required to get anything done–are they able to get all that they want? Clearly a big no. In fact I would be surprised if they are able to deliver a fraction of what they probably dream of doing.

The point is, it takes a lot of deliver even a little bit. Especially in a complex, chaotic and democratic society like India. Come to think of it, it takes a lot to deliver a bit in any society. Otherwise all dictators would be delivering amazing societies. (I am just playing along with people who think politics or govt can deliver everything in society, if only we had good political leaders. Govt/politics has a very important yet limited Or limited yet important role in society. There is only so much it can or should do. Even though there are things it must do and do well.)

Now take the example of Rahul or Rajiv Gandhi. It may be too early to judge Rahul Gandhi. But Rajiv Gandhi (RG) we can judge. RG was not the most naturally gifted politician of his times. Yet he did succeed in many ways. Much of the reform, IT revolution in India, talk about youth and twenty first century started when RG was Prime Minister.

He succeeded because what K/J worked to build–party, network, contacts, power, etc.–RG inherited. Which means even if he does not know how to do something, there would be enough competent veterans around him, at his service, to get the job done. Of couse this is not to take anything away from RG or other similar politicians who inherit. It takes talent to manage anything, especially a massive organisation like the Congresss or the Prime Minister’s office.

The moral of the story as I see it is, if with all this power, K/J or RG can deliver only so much, how much can some middle class or rich, more importantly Independent candidate deliver? Have you estimated the time it takes for a group of middle class citizens, with no prior experience in politics, to establish a new, functioning and election-winning party. (By the way, in my opinion, with all due respect, if your party cannot win elections, then it is no different from any another NGO.)

These are some serious questions all arm chair politicians should consider seriously. Otherwise we cheapen politics and the fact of how difficult it really is to succeed in politics.

I have not read Chekhov.  I am ashamed and I promise to read his works ASAP.  But I have read Amos Oz.  Brilliant stuff.

Anyway, I remember seeing Amos Oz on TV, January 23rd, 2002 on
Newshour with Jim Leher to be precise. (I did a search on Yahoo! to
refresh my memory, in case you are wondering). Oz, an Israeli peace
activist and author, was commenting on his hope that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a Chekhovian tragedy.

ELIZABETH
FARNSWORTH (from the Newshour): You once said that you hoped that the
tragedy of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians would
be Chekhovian and not a Shakespearean tragedy. What did you mean, and
is it becoming more Shakespearean?

AMOS OZ: Well, my definition of a tragedy is a clash between
right and right. And in this respect, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
has been a tragedy, a clash between one very powerful, very convincing,
very painful claim over this land and another no less powerful, no less
convincing claim. Now such a clash between right claims can be revolved
in one of two manners. There’s the Shakespeare tradition of resolving a
tragedy with the stage hewed with dead bodies and justice of sorts
prevails. But there is also the Chekhov tradition. In the conclusion of
the tragedy by Chekhov, everyone is disappointed, disillusioned,
embittered, heartbroken, but alive. And my colleagues and I have been
working, trying…not to find the sentimental happy ending, a brotherly
love, a sudden honeymoon to the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy, but a
Chekhovian ending, which means clenched teeth compromise.

How
anyone can think in such elegant ways is beyond me. Well, it occurred
to me a few days ago that Indian cities are a Chekhovian tragedy – a
clenched teeth compromise. Everything on the road is slowed down to a
grinding crawl. Everyone is forced to accept the anarchy. In fact,
everyone, even the most gentle law abiding among us, is transformed
into an anarchist.  Not a violent one, but a meek one. Breaking road
rules meekly. While the traffic police looks the other way meekly,
pretending not to see. With clenched teeth, of course.

Even the joy of seeing new roads, laid just before the
monsoon season starts, is crushed when you see that it comes with
pre-fitted potholes. Smooth black tar roads with giant manholes
protruding into thin air. If by luck, the road has no potholes or
protruding holes, there comes the water or electricity department next
day. Or an arrogant nearby building owner. With pickaxes and shovels,
tearing into the fine shiny surface. Bringing the pickax down with a
callous rhythm in a manner only irresponsible, insensitive morons can.

Roads that flood at the slightest drizzle. Traffic lights
that conk out when someone sneezes. Forcing pedestrians, cows, cars,
cycles, cops, sewage, drainage, rain, auto-rickshaws, buses, minivans,
vendors, temples, protesters, bus stop waiters, beggars, nouveau
come-from-village-looking-for-jobber, sales-children selling at traffic
stoplight, lepers (you don’t see many of them now a days), gypsies -
well you get the picture – forcing all of them to move an inch to the
right, then to the left, inch by inch moving forward by sometimes
moving backward.  Watch out for the cyclist trying to slip into the
crack between two vehicles deadlocked.

Slums next to mansions. Mansions in the middle of slum.
All accepting the mysterious ways of the Lord. All accepting their
place in this society, in this world. Begrudging the other’s existence,
at least the proximity if not their very existence. Sometimes
acknowledging the other courteously, with clenched teeth. Other times,
pretending they don’t see.

I cautioned our American friend and her daughter on
holiday in India when I picked them at the airport. “Prepare to be
shocked and awed”. New comers to India can have only one of two
reactions. Either shocked or awed. Some vow never to return. Some stay
and become more Indian than Indians. The paradox is that with all the
extremes that is the Indian city, it is a compromise.

Long ago an Israeli colleague of mine described to me the
India he saw. He had visited Mumbai (Bombay) after his compulsory duty
in the army. He spoke about the man who slept peacefully on a bench in
the middle of the day. About the man, who when asked for direction,
walked for more than an hour with the Israeli just to make sure he
found his destination. About the peace and tranquility that radiated
beyond all the chaos and confusion. About patience and tolerance amidst
all the pushing and shoving. I wonder if the Israeli noticed the
clenched teeth.

I am very sure Chekhov was an Indian. If not, at least he
had visited the Indian city and that inspired him to describe his
tragedies. Amos Oz would appreciate the Indian city. As a man who
yearns for clenched teeth compromises, he will recognise it in the
Indian city.