Honesty and Integrity

                                                                               

1. I was watching Dr. Subhash Chandra show on Z-TV, in which he was taking to IIM, Lucknow students and the topic as I gathered was related to honesty. He gave an example of a business owner who got a contract from the government and in executing the contract made a huge profit for the company. The means to obtain the contract was not a straight forward tender but by dubious means. The question was whether the person was honest or not. It was not the question but the answer given by a girl student which amazed me when she said that the person was honest as he made a huge profit for the company and the stake holders and the means to get the contract was not important. This gave me an insight into the new definition of honesty in the present young generation. Honesty in her opinion was related to only the narrow world of making profit. Another example quoted was that the owner of a company called for some persons for an interview in relation to a job in his company but after taking the interview he choose to select a person who was recommended to him by a public servant. In this case the answer was more relevant as the boy said that he should not have called the persons to interview and he has a right to choose the person of his choice. Here he said the end result was honest but the means to achieve the end were dishonest. These two examples brought forward a variety of conceptions and differences in opinion about honesty. It is the same trick being employed by the persons accused in 2G and coal gate scams where they said that they did their job honestly and in public interest and have made no money for themselves but still the government ended up losing huge amount of  money and Supreme Court calling it a scam.

2. This whole show put me thinking whether the present generation understands the difference between honesty and integrity or they are so wholly concerned about honesty that they do not know what integrity is. The whole show took me to the classes which I used to take on business ethics while teaching MBA students, where the first lecture used to be to explain the difference between honesty and integrity. It is not easy to explain the difference between honesty and integrity to young MBA students as they come from a society where a lot of things are accepted as honesty and it is very common to do them. It is very common to break a queue, or to break a traffic rule, or to drive on wrong side, to pay bribe to get a berth on a train or get a seat in a professional college, or to pay for getting a medical certificate or a driving license, hide the income from Income tax department by accepting in cash, or to buy a thing without a receipt so as to avoid tax and so on. The list is endless and majority of us do these things without batting an eyelid.

3. I use to start my lecture either by a story or give a situation and then derive the main subject from the lessons learnt in these. This normally initiated an interest and the students did remember the story/situation and hence the morale. In this case I used my favorite situation of you standing outside your house and a person comes running with torn clothes and blood on the clothes and asks you to help him as some persons are going to hurt him badly. You can either help him by asking him to hide in the basement or not and asking him to go away and that is not important because in either case the end result is the same. Within a minute or two some persons come running carrying a pole and knives and ask you whether you have seen the man and where he has gone. Here I ask my students as to what are they going to do. You can either tell them the truth that the person is hiding in the basement or show them the way he has run or you can deceive them by sending them in the wrong direction. In the first scenario you are honest but you have no integrity and in the second scenario you have integrity but you are not honest just because you have no right to judge whether the person is guilty or not and of what crime and does the crime justify the mob attacking or even killing him.

4. Another example I give is that I leave my purse on the table and tell the students that pretend I have gone home and then ask them as to what they are going to do. Invariably the answer is that the purse will be picked up and the person will come after me to give my purse back to me. Of course this is the ideal situation and probably in most case I will end up losing the purse or its contents. But that is another story. The main point then I explain is that by picking up my purse you act is dishonest as the purse does not belong to you but you have integrity as your intention was to return my purse and that my dear students is the difference between honesty and integrity. Honesty is a value but integrity is the principles. A value may change over a period of time or may change given different circumstances or environment but principles do not change. It is either you have them or you do not have them at all. Values are like a map of the city in which you live but the principle is the precise address of your house. It is when you do not understand the subtle differences between the two that confusion and contradictory answers arise and you are accused of changing values. If the honesty flows from integrity then the end result is right but not possible to derive integrity from honesty The answers given on the show brought out this fact very clearly that the public at large do not know the difference between the two and hence their off springs or students also grow up with the same confusion and end up thinking that it is only honesty and integrity and honesty are the same things.

5. Of course I can give the dictionary meaning and the difference between the two but the examples given above bring out the thin line dividing them more clearly. Honesty has been just defined as the quality of being honest and honest is being truthful, sincere, fairly earned, etc. It is defined in terms of the end results and not in terms of the process. Integrity on the other hand is defined as the quality of being honest and morally upright. The difference is hardly anything but the emphasis on being morally upright in integrity is the core thing. Honesty as it is understood nowadays is mainly concerned with the end result being truthful and fairly earned but in the integrity the emphasis is on the process of being morally upright. If the process is morally upright then the end result will always be right but if the process is not morally upright then even though the end result is fair or justified but you cannot call the person as having integrity even though other persons may label them as being honest. In the coal gate scam this is the main differences. All the accused may shout from the rooftops that they were and are honest and upright public servants but since the process employed was not morally right hence they have no integrity and the Supreme Court has rightly labeled as a scam.

The Pedestrian Dilemma

                                                                                  

We are developing, expressways, flyovers and making everything possible so that the traffic moves smoothly and at a fast pace on the Indian roads.  We have all sorts of mixed traffic on our roads starting from bullock carts, cycles, rickshaws, motorcycles in plenty, some scooters, cars and big cars and finally the buses and trucks, which daily fight for their space on the Indian roads. Honking, lane cutting, jumping red light is the norm these days and the motorcycles and cars think it is their right to change lanes or take a turn without giving any turn indicator or signal. Probably they think it is below their dignity to do so. The result is a large number of accidents on the road. On any crossing you can easily see vehicles standing on or even beyond the zebra crossings. But in all this does the public or government think for a minute about the plight off the pedestrian. We are increasing pollution and increasing our import bill on the petroleum products due to increase use of vehicles even for short distance which can be easily covered by foot or on a cycle but it is considered unsafe and dangerous. The reason is the unruly traffic and a very poor planning for the pedestrian or cycles. On television we are shown a smart city like Berlin where people prefer to walk or cycle down to their offices from worker to the high official but in India people think it is below their dignity to walk or to use cycle.

The government is definitely thinking. They have constructed path for cycles in cities but unfortunately you can find everything on these except the cycles. Parked cars, hawkers, showrooms and even eating stalls dominate the place as if they own them but you cannot probably see a single cyclist on these paths. Similarly, the walking paths are also dominated with the same people and the pedestrian is forced to walk on road and fight for his space on these already crowded roads resulting in more death for the pedestrians. Pedestrian has a right of way in crossing the road but here the might is the right and the poor pedestrian is the last priority. Crossing the road is a nightmare even when the light has turned red for road traffic and green for the pedestrians where it is available and in most of the places it is not even present signifying that the pedestrian has no right to even cross the road and should cross on his own risk and responsibility. On expressways there is hardly any place for a pedestrian to cross over as the foot over bridges is too far apart or not even present and if present it becomes difficult for older people to climb them. The end result is that the poor pedestrian is faced with a dilemma as to whether walk or cycle the distance or to use his own vehicle and in the end the decision is always use the vehicle as there is no proper space to either cycle down or walk without risking your life. Crossing the road is like scaling mount Everest in India, so the end result is that be what others are and be reasonably safe inside a car or on a motorcycle where you can bulldoze your way past the other vehicles except the trucks and buses and where the try to compete with the trucks or buses the result is that they lose but no lesson is learnt as there is no life left, but who cares except the grieving family members.

The result is an increase in pollution, respiratory diseases even in children and an increase in death on roads and less people either walking on the road or cycling down to work or leisure. Is this the future we want to give it to our children? Definitely not but then what are the alternatives. The alternatives are the difficult and hard choices but we can definitely do a few small things and take a small step in that direction. Increase in public transport and motivating their use, car polling, ensuring that offices are near to residences, restricting the ownership of vehicles per person or family, no parking on the roads, cycle paths or pathways, ensure more use of electric cars by reducing duty and encouraging their use, sufficient charging points/solar charging points for them, metro rails in cities, taking big offices out of the cities and developing residences near then with other facilities, reducing flow of population to big cities by developing facilities in small cities,

Even in small country like Malaysia or Singapore, what to talk about advanced countries, it is the pedestrian who has the right of way and the cars stop well before the zebra crossing to allow a pedestrian to cross the street. At some places they even have pelican crossings where you can press a button on the road and the light will turn red allowing you to cross the street and on the other side you can push the button again to make it green for traffic to resume. Most of the busy crossings have intelligent traffic management system using fuzzy logic to manage the traffic better without creating long queues in one direction and empty road on other side. People take pride in walking to their destination or use public transport like metro, buses, etc, to go to work. FOB’s are there in plenty but with lifts or escalators for use on highways.  Public conveniences are there and they are clean and in good working conditions and food stalls which sell eatables are kept covered and workers wear plastic gloves, hats and use tongs to serve food on clean disposable plates with enough bins to drop the biodegradable and recycles things separately. They encourage people to use public transportation and curb the use of private vehicles and make sure that these are available in excellent conditions and in enough quantity. They make sure that the citizens take pride if they walk, or cycle or use public transport and ensure their safety and priorit y over other vehicular traffic.

Reservation Syndrome

The recent agitation by the Patel community in Gujarat and the Jat agitation in Rajasthan have brought the issue of reservation to the forefront. Today it is these two but tomorrow will bring more castes to agitate and demand reservation and hold the public and nation to ransom. This type of agitation will not only inconveniences the general public but also leads to loss of money for the nation in terms of loss of production but also loss of property of government but also of public at large. Does in the name of agitation some group of persons permitted to hold the public at large to ransom and loss of property? The time is right for the government to think whether the right to agitation and hold nation to ransom is a right at all or needs to be taken away and replaced by a public right to live peacefully devoid of such disruptive right. What about my right to peaceful enjoyment of the public services or my right to peaceful existence in the society?

The reservation was brought by the framers of constitution for the upliftment of marginalized section off society to occupy their useful place in the society and was initially expected to be only for a few years. Successive government instead of finishing this after 10 years not only kept on extending it but also added more and more people not on the basis of economic criteria but on the basis of caste. The basket or reservation kept on increasing and now as per Supreme Court it is restricted to 50%. But people are not happy with it and more and more castes are demanding the reservation and this basket is set to grow larger and larger. The dilemma is that the benefit of reservation is going to a few people who are already well off or had become well off after taking benefit of reservation but not to other persons in the caste. It is being cornered by some persons in that caste and a majority of persons are denied this benefit.  Why could not the government come out with a policy that once the benefit of reservation has been given to a person then his son and daughters will not get any benefit and it should go only to those families who have not so far availed it? But the politics demands that such a move will not get them votes and hence vote bank policy forces them not to bring out such a bold move.

Is the reservation answer to all our ills of the past? People think so, that is past mistakes can be corrected by making more mistakes. It is the famous Sunk Cost dilemma and we are very good at it. Whatever mistakes we have committed in the past cannot be corrected by making more mistakes of the same kind or sinking more costs in the same mistake. More reservation is definitely not the answer.  Either, you take away the reservation for caste by replacing it with economic criteria only and that too for one generation only or the other option is to say that all tribes and castes will come under the reservation and it will be 100% for all citizens of India. The third option is to remove the reservation at all so that there is no reservation for any person in India and all are equal. This will remove the problem of inefficient persons from occupying high positions and will bring in efficiency, expertise and boldness in the government machinery. Of course there will be still the issue of persons belonging to marginalized section of society. There issue can be addressed by giving them the right to food, shelter and education so that they or their sons and daughters can become responsible persons the society and can contribute with their intelligence and expertise.

Either way it will have to be a bold decision and this will shape the destiny of the country in years to come and for this all political parties will have to come together and rise above their vote bank politics and shed their personal agenda in favor of a national agenda for making a better, more educated, skilled and prosperous India..

The Amazing Judgement

We have seen High Courts giving judgment of sending  persons to jail, converting death penalty to life imprisonment and sometime even letting convicts off due to lack of evidence. We have seen cases dragging on for years all together and sometimes even to the next generation and there is usually a big back log of cases in various courts. Even Supreme Court is not above all this. To top it all there are cases where even after decision of the Supreme Court the government is yet to implement those decisions. Our Judicial system has also at time been accused of favoring the government in power and there are instances of corruption at the highest places. The curious part is that of the cases of corruption against judges are also being heard by them only. The most curious case is that of Judicial Accountability where the Supreme Court was hearing the case in the vacation time to decide whether the judges have the sole responsibility of appointing the future judges or the government or public at large has a say in it also. There have been instances where the judges much after they demitted office have admitted to being wrong during their tenure as judges and regretting. Take the case of right to die. The Supreme Court changed its decision thrice and still the right to die is not settled yet or the famous case of imposition of emergency (the Habeas Corpus Case).

The most amazing judgment in my opinion and which will be a landmark judgment and may become a game changer is that of what the Allahabad High Court, which is famous for its bold, innovative judgments, gave a few days back. Yes I am referring to the judgment where the lordships  passed an order that the wards ( sons and daughters) of MLA, MP, Judges and public servants should study in government run school and if they choose a private school then a 20% cut in pay will be done.  The public servants will definitely call it as an invasion to their privacy, their right to educate and choose school for their children, etc., etc. and may even label it as judicial activism and going beyond the case and encroaching on the authority sphere of the executive. The blame game and trying to find escape route will go on and it will be challenged in the Supreme Court also but what they cannot even deny is that it is one of its kind judgment or what we may call a true social judgment.

It is not only a judgment which is a step towards eliminating the class barrier but also in the direction of right to education by giving all persons the same kind of education. It is a step forward in creating a class less society and also ensuring that all children get the same education irrespective of whether he is from a poor or rich family. It is another matter that the quality of facilities and education imparted in a majority of government, corporation school is rather poor. But if the facilities are bad or quality is bad, then it is these persons whose children should study in these schools, are responsible for these poor conditions. Now at least they will pay attention and try to improve the quality of facilities and education in these schools since their own children will be studying there. Thinking from this point of view it is an excellent judgment and all praise for the Judges who gave it and for their foresight.

I was also in Government service and due to my very frequent transfers during my short stint there my children had to study in Central Schools and I have till now never regretted and I am sure my children will also agree with me as they are doing good in their life and are successful and are proud to have studied in Central Schools. It is another matter that at two places I had to pitch in as well as some of my fellow officer’s wives due to shortage of teachers in that particular subject but we never regretted it and enjoyed being with them.

Another landmark judgment of Allahabad High Court was when they ordered the demolition of the illegally constructed twin towers constructed by the builder Supertech in sector 93 -A of NOIDA. It was the first judgment of its kind in India and has become another landmark judgment which will benefit a lot of persons. As usual it has been challenged in Supreme Court where the hearing is still going on.

I hope that Allahabad High court where my father, brother practiced and even sat as a judge and where my son and daughter in law are practicing will keep up its reputation of giving such bold, innovative and social judgments. Allahabad High court I am proud of you.

Okhla Bird Sanctuary

Okhla Bird Sanctuary was notified in 2002 and is a home to a large variety of migratory birds in the winter season. It is located on the wet lands of Yamuna river in between NOIDA in UP and Delhi. I have been a frequent visitor to this sanctuary since its inception and even before that. It used to be a treat to walk around the sanctuary in the morning hours and see all the birds in their natural surroundings. The watch towers were located at a good spot and gave unrestricted view of the whole wetland. The walk over the bamboo bridge to go to the watch tower was an entirely new experience. The information board on the roads gave details of all the migratory birds visiting the wetlands and was very informative. The broucher provided at the entrance was equally helpful and one did not mind paying the small entrance fee of Rs.10/= and now Rs.20/= per head and the Rs.100/= entry fee for the car. Benches provided at various place not only helped in taking rest but also gave a view of the wetland for observing the birds and suitable places for photography enthusiasts. It was also a good place to spread your mats and take a picnic lunch break for the whole family in the nature’s lap. It was here that my granddaughters saw their first migratory bird. One could go there in the evening also but mornings were the best for bird watching.

All this changed sometime in 2006 and later with the construction of Prerna Sthal by the then chief minister Mayawati. The noise and the constant arrival of trucks, the hammering of drill,  the noise of the saws and the human noise forced these migratory birds to change their annual pilgrimage to this place. The number and type of birds decreased considerably. The sighting of the birds became rarer and rarer and some of the birds stopped coming all together. Only the information board provided an insight into what this sanctuary   was in earlier days. Of course the morning die hard walkers continued but the birds changed their habitat. It was the start of the decline of this once beautiful bird sanctuary. Of course one cannot compare it to the Bharatpur bird sanctuary but this sanctuary provided the same enjoyment to the visitors as Bharatpur bird sanctuary. Now it is not even 5 % of what Bharatpur is and it is not even 10 % of what this sanctuary earlier was. Such is the greed of humans that they did not even stop to think about these poor winged creatures in depriving them of their habitat just to make a memorial and now to make a home for themselves. It is true that we humans have not learned to live in peace with nature and its other inhabitants. We do not share but we forcibly create for ourselves so as to deprive others of their natural habitat which they have been using for centuries. Sad but true.

The UP government did not specify the Eco- friendly zone for this area even after they declared it a bird sanctuary. This non specification prompted other government agencies to permit the construction of memorials, housing projects, commercial areas very close to this sanctuary and this further led to the decline of migratory birds. Nobody ever thought about these poor winged creatures and their habitat. The greed of money in the name of development was so strong that it overrode all objections from the nature lovers and environmentalists. Even the Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL for stopping all this construction activity of the memorial. Successive government whether in state or in center only talked about protecting the environment but did little to protect it on ground and used all used their powers to destroy it. In hindsight one gets the impression that probably all this was done deliberately in the name of development to enhance the government and their personal wealth of some persons. Some skeleton are now tumbling out but a majority will never come out probably.

In order to overcome the tough decision of the National Green Tribunal of a 10 km radius of eco- friendly zone the state government submitted a proposal which has now been notified by the central government by restricting the Eco- friendly zone to just barely 1.7 km in the north and a pathetic 100 meters on all other sides. This 100 meters does not even cover the wetland fully and a large portion of it towards NOIDA is outside the Eco- friendly zone. It even does not cover the road which forms a bund on this wetland and the gate of the sanctuary.  It is death warrant being issued by the central government for the once famous Okhla Bird sanctuary. It would have been better if the government has de-notified this sanctuary to a bird park only rather than coming out with this pathetic, and anti- migratory bird’s notification. At least then this will not be quoted as a precedent in other sanctuaries and their sanctity would still be preserved. This notification may start a spate of other similar notification if human greed and the builder’s lobby have their say. Surely after the few years the only thing left in the sanctuary will be the ever decreasing wetlands and we will be forced to raise another memorial there in honor of the migratory birds which once used to make this as their habitat. The other question is whether the forest department should now maintain it as sanctuary, spent government money on it and charge entry fee for it when an individual cannot even enter the eco- friendly zone even what to talk about the sanctuary.