THE THREE TRILLION DOLLAR SMOG.

 While our Supreme Leader is accepting inconsequential awards in Nigeria and Guyana (do you even know where they are?-- Clue: they are nowhere near Manipur)) and hugging war criminals and their accomplices in Rio de Janeiro, his own capital is invisible from outer space, or from my balcony, blanketed in a toxic cocktail of dust, poisonous gases, PM 2.5, CO2 and God only knows what else; as I write this it's been six days and counting. AQI levels have crossed 1000 (more than twenty times safe levels as prescribed by the WHO) according to official reports. North India has been officially declared the most polluted region in the world. Two million Indians die of pollution every year (one fourth of the global figure) according to the WHO, but when was the last time you heard either this demi-god or his Environment Minister or any other leader of any consequence talk about the environment?

I wouldn't want to bore the reader with oft repeated statistics, but some figures are necessary to grasp what a waste of time the usual trope of blame-gaming- AAP vs BJP vs Congress vs Yogendra Yadav vs all- is. And that this is not just about the privileged and spoilt brats of Delhi but about the whole country. We ALL treat the natural environment like a piece of toilet paper: use it to serve our basest needs and just throw it away (incidentally, did you know that 28000 trees are cut every day for manufacturing toilet paper?). Consider some figures, if you can spare the time between your Muslim bashing, bridge game, gym workout, the Swiggy delivery or kitty party.

The country has lost 2.33 million hectares of tree cover since 2000 to so called development projects (Global Forest Watch). One hectare of moderately dense forest can capture 147 m.t. of CO2; if our Environment Minister can do the simple maths, that means we have lost about 300 million tonnes of carbon sequestration capacity per annum, one third of what we had promised to add in the last COP on climate change. And this does not even factor in the other benefits of forests- ecological services, water retention, dust and sound barriers, preservation of biodiversity. In addition, between 2015 and 2021, 3.13 million hectares of forests have been degraded from dense to open/scrub; 9.40 million trees have been felled for mining, road construction, power projects. In Delhi 77000 trees have been cut between 2019-21, according to a New Indian Express report by Prabhat Shukla dated 4th July 2024. The Lt. Governor of Delhi himself (he who is accountable to no one, not even his conscience, since that has been kept in hock in 7, Lok Kalyan Marg) is being investigated by the Supreme Court in a case of irregular felling of 1100 trees in Delhi's southern Ridge area. India has 28 trees per capita as against a global average of 422.

This environmental slaughter is an ongoing and continuous process under the benign gaze of the judiciary, National Green Tribunal, World Bank, IMF and the expanding roster of home made billionaires. Approval has been given for felling 800000 trees in the Andamans, 120000 in the Hasdeo forests, in the face of protests by tribals. 60000 trees have been cut for a wholly unnecessary road for Mr. Yogi Adithyanath's favourite kanwariyas. Even Shimla, which now has more Advisors to the Chief Minister than it has deodar trees, proposes to fell a few hundred trees to make fly-overs! I will not even talk about the Western Ghats, the horrendous Char Dham Highway, the wholly unnecessary four-laning madness that has gripped the Himachal government. Every single river has been poisoned beyond acceptable levels of drinking or even farming. Most of our wildlife and biodiversity are on the verge of extinction, never mind the figures cooked up by FRI, Project Tiger Authority or the Zoological Survey of India on their post retirement micro-waves. Why should we spare the air, when we are decimating ever other element of nature?

Environmental regulations that provide some limited protection to the environment even in a chronically corrupt country like ours are being relaxed on an almost daily basis to favour some crony or the other. The 10% upper classes, who contribute 90% of the pollution and degradation, are not bothered: they can insulate themselves with their Air conditioners and Air Purifiers, or jet off (like our PM) to exotic locales and count their fixed deposits there. Those who stay back to keep an eye on their fixed deposits here will suggest that a Lockdown should be imposed immediately- an absurd, elitist idea which will hit the most vulnerable most, just as they are recovering after the terrible effects of the COVID lockdown. The environment and ecology are never an election issue, no political party ever espouses it, no manifesto so much as mentions them even in passing, you and I never demand this. By the time we are done with issues relating to EVMs, caste reservations, free water, electricity and rations, "ghuspaitias", Rohingyas and demolishing of mosques, we have time and energy left only for discussing Salman Khan's latest film or Kangana Ranaut's most recent demo of her profound knowledge of history.

It is no coincidence that India has been ranked 176 out of 180 countries in the Global Nature Conservation Index in October 2024, one of the five worst performing countries in the world. So why should we be surprised at Delhi adorning this mantle of honour every year? And why should we be blaming an incompetent and environmentally illiterate government for it, considering that we ourselves don't give a s**t about the environment?

Still surprised that we have this 3 trillion dollar economy smog over the Indo-Gangetic plains that has already knocked seven years off your lives, according to health experts? Don't be, for all this devastation is in pursuit of the holy grail of the 35 trillion dollar economy by 2050. Except that the smog will have killed us all by then, or rendered us comatose (if today's politics has not already done so).

So take a deep breath of the patriotic, made- in- India fumes, and while exhaling chant loudly: Hum Hindu Khatre Me Hain.

You will never say a truer word in your life-or what remains of it after the smog has lifted.

THE MORAL HAZARD OF WHATSAPP GROUPS

 There are more than 532 million Whatsapp users in India (July 2022 figures), which is 40% of the population. Most of them belong to some Whatsapp group or the other, usually to multiple ones. It would not be incorrect to state that the country, socially and politically, is divided into innumerable Whatsapp groups, which now provide the bricks and mortar for our society and polity. The sheer diversity of these groups is mind boggling, encompassing various categories of citizens, all dedicated to their particular niche- RWAs, bloggers, business entities, political parties, vloggers, civil services (both serving and retired), yoga, trekkers, civil society, family groups and many others.

These WA groups are an unparalleled medium for exchanging news and views- and therein lies the problem. Ever since the right wing juggernaut started rolling in 2014 we have been divided as a nation as never before, in our ideologies, political loyalties, religious proclivities, levels of inclusivity and tolerance. It was inevitable that these divisions would spill over into the WA groups too but the levels of toxicity and venom that has accompanied this process was perhaps not anticipated and presents some of us with a moral hazard.

The right wing elements, bound by a common Hindutva thread and an unquestioning adoration for the Supreme Leader, are by far the more aggressive component of these groups, supported and egged on by the BJP's I.T.Cell, a fawning media, fake news, an omnipotent and over-arching government whose spokespersons provide fresh ammunition to these "bhakts" on a daily basis. Most groups have been taken over by these elements.

This presents a problem for the more moderate elements, the much abused "sickulars" who would rather go by evidence and not mere claims, by cold figures and not ranting, respect history and not redact or rewrite it, do not subscribe to the view that the BJP and the nation are synonymous with each other, who are happy with our current Constitution and do not wish it to be dismembered, believe that India's strength lies in its diversity and not an imposed homogeneity, who abhor the deliberate differentiation  of majority and minority (whether by a government or an opposition party), are opposed to the oligarchs taking over the economy, believe that fundamental rights are the bedrock of any liberal democracy and do not believe that this country needs a Hindu rashtra. But they are usually shouted down by the majoritarian loyalists, whether the issue under discussion is Gaza, Canada, Kashmir, the hijab, CAA, madrasas, MSP, EVMs, partisan Governors, federalism, election bonds, denial of bail to thousands, bulldozers, Pegasus, Adani or Arundhati Roy.

The trolling can get vicious, abusive and even personal. Which is why one has to ask oneself the question: should one put up with the rabid rantings of these politically illiterate and ethically bankrupt elements, or should one quit the group? It is a question many of us have had to ask of ourselves sometime or the other in these last ten years. The standard response is to either fall silent in the face of these attacks, or to try to reason with these BJP shock troopers. Neither serves the purpose of defending what one stands for.

Silence is never an option in the face of bullying or intimidation, nor is it an adequate defence of what we stand for; in fact, it can even amount to passive collusion. As Martin Luther King Jr had said: In the end we will remember, not the hatred of our enemies but the silence of our friends. Silence only emboldens the oppressors. Reasoning with these lumpens also does not help, for their minds are as tightly shut as bear traps and the light is never allowed to penetrate there. It is also not a good idea to wrestle with pigs, as someone said, for they will drag you down into the mud and win with their superior experience in that element. Continuing as a member of these groups only provides their administrators a fig leaf facade of open mindedness and fair handedness, of intellectual inclusivity, whereas in reality these groups are actually being used to spread their messages of hate, Islamophobia and support of fascist ideas. Because the problem here is not one of mere differences of opinion or perspectives. One can certainly differ on policies, whether they relate to the economy, business, education curriculae, climate change, the creamy layer and reservation, defence strategies or a host of subjects that make up the fabric of daily living and governance. In fact, a diversity of views and debate is the mark of a healthy society. But there can certainly be no two views about the fundamental values of civilisation and democracy-pluralism, religious tolerance, human rights, secularism, freedom of speech, affirmative action for the disadvantaged, respect for the Constitution, and so on. These values have been arrived at after millenia of conflict, slaughter and suffering, form the bedrock of humanity, and are indivisible and inalienable. There should be no compromise on them, no give and take. They are, to use a phrase now famous, the basic structure of civilisation and cannot be allowed to be tampered with, least of all by a political party in search of a thousand year Reich. 

There is also a larger issue of basic morality involved here: should we continue to associate with people who oppose these fundamental truths and possess such toxic values which are completely antithetical with our own? Should we become complicit with their messaging by our silence or quiet acceptance with just some mild protest? Or should we quit these groups, whether they involve friends or relatives? For some wise guidance on these vexed questions we can do worse than heed these words of author and activist Ijeoma Oluo:

"We cannot be friends with those who actively support oppression and hate. Friendship requires a certain level of integrity."

Or these sentiments of the American talk show host, Jon Stewart: "If you're a friend of a bigot, you're a bigot."

Guilt by association is an accepted principle of law. Quitting such groups is  a statement, a positive and not a negative one, it makes clear where you stand, validates your conscience and frees you from the asphyxiation of toxic relationships.

Something to think about.

WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!

 The first rule of excavation is that when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. It appears, however, that our venerable Chief Justice, who has now seen the (saffron) light, has not heard of this truism, notwithstanding his vast knowledge and learning. He continues to excavate, somewhat like the Archeological Survey of India, probably hoping to  strike Hindutva bedrock. With his "legacy" already under the public scanner one would have expected him to lie low and weather the storm. Instead, just last week he has publicly gone on record to gloat that (a) he authored the Ayodhya Ram Mandir judgment and (b) that he had prayed to God for a solution to this thorny issue, and the "solution" was promptly sent to him by the deity, presumably via Blinkit or Zepto. Predictably, this confession has raised another fire storm, with eminent lawyers and even retired judges coming down on him like a ton of the famed Ram Mandir bricks.

His revelation, as far as I know, is only the second judicial epiphany after Moses was handed the Ten Commandments by a burning bush on Mount Sinai, with the difference that the Directive Principles of the Commandments have now been replaced with the binding Ayodhya judgment; after all, it is a tenet of spirituality that divine revelation always precedes divine authorship. And since the Chief Justice himself has implicitly attested to the authorship of this SC judgment, the epiphany itself must be acknowledged. But the fecundity of the implications of this spiritual communion is mind boggling; this piece attempts to unravel some of them.

India must be the only country in the world which now has two of its top leaders in direct communion with God: the Prime Minister (who is probably God incarnate himself) and the Chief Justice. We must consider ourselves exceptionally fortunate in this respect, though we still don't know with whom our third pillar of democracy- the Presiding officers of the two houses of Parliament- communicates. The evidence points to either Johnny Walker or Alfred E Neuman (of MAD magazine fame) but I could be wrong.

The Hindu pantheon reportedly has 30 million Gods (not including our Prime Minister) so it would be interesting to know which particular deity the Chief Justice had consulted. There is also a problematic dimension to this, as was raised by Karan Thapar in a question to retired Justice Rekha Sharma of the Delhi High Court: if it was indeed Ram lala (as most people suspect) then is not the whole Ayodhya judgment vitiated, since Ram lala, through his "next friend" is a party to the dispute? Even by our dismal standards of jurisprudence we can hardly have a judge consulting one of the petitioners in a case as to what type of order he should write! Justice Sharma would not be pinned down on this question, but she was obviously uncomfortable with the point raised by Thapar. It would be interesting now, wouldn't it, if some lawyer were to file a curative petition in the SC on this point to challenge the judgment?

Justice Sharma was, however, emphatic that Justice Chandrachud's admission had lowered the image of the court. What if it had been a Muslim or Christian or Sikh judge claiming that he/she had consulted his/her God before writing a judgment? There would have been a majoritarian outrage, charges of a "judicial jihad" would have been bandied about by the likes of the Assam Chief Minister whose career is based on his study of jihads, and all manner of bhakts would have descended on Jantar Mantar, like the proverbial "Shivjiji ki barat". In contrast, the present Chief Justice will in all probability be well rewarded for his epiphany. One good turn, or about-turn, deserves another.

Will every court now have a temple attached to it, for ease of doing judicial business? After reserving a judgment the concerned bench could repair to the temple (the five star hotel with the bar comes later), confer with the deity of choice, and then announce the order. Or, better still, why have these pesky and expensive courts at all, which are nothing but convenient venues for gangsters to shoot down their rivals?- replace them with temples and head priests who will function as the Registry and convey the divine orders. We could adopt the Himachal model for this, where the "devtas" speak through their spokesmen or "gurs" and tell the simple Himachalis what to do. I would suggest that a committee of judges should go to the remote Malana village in Kullu to study this model: right now the "gur" of Jamblu devta has told the government that the devta does not approve of the Kullu- Bijli Mahadev ropeway; in years past it was the "gur" who also approved the tour programmes of officials who wished to visit Malana on duty!

The complexity of the Pandora's box opened by CJI Chandrachud is mind boggling. There are approximately 17000 judges in India; what if each one of them decides to consult his or her family God before passing judgment ? There is also a strict hierarchy of gods and goddesses in our religion, which you tamper with at your own peril. This shall make the whole appellate process of our jurisprudence chaotic. What if the god of the trial judge is superior in the divine hierarchy to the god of the appellate judge? Whose judgment will prevail? And how will a Bench ever come to a final conclusion on a matter if the respective gods of the member judges are unable to agree? What if the senior most god (not judge) on that Bench insists on exercising his veto, like the USA does on Israel?

No, sir, this new jurisprudence will not work, not even in Naya Bharat. The Ayodhya judgment must be struck down as non-est. A Joint Parliamentary Committee should be immediately constituted to investigate whether the gods were also consulted while passing orders on a host of other cases- rejection of the EVMs petitions, denial of bail to Omar Khalid, upholding of the abolition of Article 370, multiple rejections of the bail applications of the Bhima Koregaon "accused", junking the Rafale case on the basis of sealed covers and redacted statements, papering over the charges against Adani and SEBI in the  Hindenberg expose, giving the quietus to the  Pegasus inquiry report, the disembowelling of the Places of Worship Act, the refusal to investigate the mysterious death of Judge Loya, and so on. We must know whether we are still a democracy or have silently, through a judicial coup, become a theocracy.

And Justice Chandrachud, of course, should stop digging, for he will be sorely disappointed in his attempts to uncover a destroyed Hindu temple under the Supreme Court.

A BIRDIE IN HAND IS WORTH AN EAGLE IN THE BUSH - MUSINGS ON GOLF

 The ever effervescent PG Wodehouse once said that golf, like measles, should be caught young as it builds character. For it takes a strong character to hit the ball on to the wrong fairway and yell FORE instead of F--K ! Unfortunately, I missed the bus on that one and discovered the game quite late in life, which goes some way in explaining my many failings. I have been playing golf for the last fifteen years now, give or take a year or two when I ran out of balls. The word "playing", however, should not be taken literally but as a figure of speech, denoting intention rather than accomplishment. As in: going shopping without actually buying anything, or going fishing without catching any fish, or going electioneering without winning any seats (also known as the Rahul Gandhi SOP), or, as as in the case of Joe Biden, speaking without saying anything. So has it been for me. According to my life-caddy, Neerja, who accompanies me to the golf course to ensure that I don't do any bodily harm to myself with my wild swings, I spend roughly 10% of the time on the fairway, the rest of the time being spent in the bushes looking for-you got it- my balls.

I'm a human compass: it doesn't matter in which direction I aim to drive the ball-it always goes north, usually causing some minor damage, like a Hezbollah rocket. Once I almost decapitated two tourists  at the Naldehra course in Shimla, and I've clobbered my good friend Yatish Sood so many times that he now goes off to his lovely retreat in Kangra whenever I'm slotted for a game. The flag on the greens is lowered to half mast whenever I'm playing. The informal economy of the Naldehra Golf Club, which is surrounded by dense forests, ravines and gullies, is largely dependent on me: I usually lose ten balls every time I stride on to the fairways, these are retrieved by the caddies at night, and sold back to me the next day at heavily inflated prices. I am proud to have created the circular economy which economists have been striving for for so long!

I have a handicap of 18, but that's only because that's the maximum of the scale; without any capping I would go off the scale, like the soprano Maria Callas when she has dined well. Which brings me seamlessly to what I've actually been meaning to write about- the peculiarities of this ancient game.

                                      

Golf was apparently invented in Scotland in the 16th century, purely by accident: a Scotsman was hitting small round stones with a stick one day and one of them went into a rabbit hole and killed the rabbit. The wife was so impressed with the free meat for dinner that she encouraged her husband to whack stones the whole day; it also got him out of her hair, and wives all over the world have been grateful to this far-sighted lady ever since. Because now golf has spread globally, it is played in 206 countries, more than the number of countries in the United Nations: the remaining ones are too small to fit in a golf course. Contrary to popular belief, it is golf and not scotch whiskey which is Scotland's biggest export. It was called golf because the Scots had used up all the other four letter words to describe the English.

As is to be expected, golf is just as peculiar as the country of its origin, where men wear skirts (you can get kilt if you laugh about it), dragons are unapologetically named after women, and the sausages are square shaped; Scotland is also the only country which is happy about global warming and rising sea levels: you see, they can sit on their cairns or sgurrs (mountains) and watch the English drown. The Mecca of golf is St. Andrews; Neerja had visited it once to watch the burly Scots playing there in their kilts. She told me that she saw more balls in one hour than what one can count in a day in a rugby locker room full of jocks. She brought me a St. Andrews golf cap; I've never worn it, it's too precious. 

There are other strange aspects of this game. Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at it. If you hit the ball to the left it's a hook, if to the right it's a slice, if by some chance you hit it straight it's a miracle. It's the only game I know of where the chappie with the lowest score is the winner. The lower your handicap the better player you are. The more books you read about golf, the worse your game becomes. A hole-in-one is  rarer than a triple century in cricket, and far more expensive because then you have to pay for the drinks. Shots are named after birds, the larger the bird-name the better the shot- birdie (one under par), eagle (two under), albatross (three under), condor (four under). I've never heard of anybody hitting a condor, because that would mean hitting a hole- in- one on a five par stretch- an impossibility. But miracles do happen, you know- who thought, for example, that BJP would win the Haryana elections? Or that the Ayodhya judgment was written by God, not judges?

If you're thoroughly confused by now, dear reader, you will realise why I hit more cows and fire engines than birdies. But I'm not giving up-didn't someone say that the greatest oak was once a little nut which held its ground?

A LEGACY THAT IS BEST FORGOTTEN

 These days Mr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India,  is talking of, and worrying about, the legacy he will leave behind when he retires from the job next month. And well he might. He was elevated to this position at perhaps the most critical juncture in the nation's recent history, when every democratic and humanist principle was being crushed under an unstoppable electoral machine and a government on steroids. When his last four predecessors had let down the country and had walked away into an inglorious sunset with their sinecures and post retiral benefits. Never before had the nation nurtured such high expectations and vested so much hope in an heir apparent to the Chief Justice's chair. The legacy of Mr. Chandrachud will be that he too let the nation down.

Honesty, said Shakespeare, is the best legacy; sadly, his Lordship has been less than honest, with us, and to himself. At seminars, key-note speeches, valedictory functions, convocations- even in his obiter dicta- he has always hit the right notes: stressing on individual liberty, freedom of speech, religious pluralism, constitutional safeguards, the responsibilities of the court to hold the executive accountable. But within the sanitised confines of his courtroom he seemed to lack the courage of his convictions, leading many to wonder whether he had any convictions at all. In the words of Alexander Pope: he was willing to wound but afraid to strike. That is not the proper foundation for a judge's legacy.

The Supreme Court's records will speak for themselves in times to come. Justice Chandrachud had many opportunities to do the right thing, to restore the autonomy of institutions (appointment of Election Commissioners), to reign in rampaging state governments (the bulldozers of U.P., Nuh and Uttarakhand), to prevent the illegal surveillance of citizens (the Pegasus "inquiry" where the Union govt. dared to tell him that it would not cooperate!), the restoration of statehood (in Jammu and Kashmir), to restore legitimately elected governments brought down by totally illegal means (Maharashtra), to restore faith and credibility in the electoral process (the repeated petitions to return to paper ballots or do a hundred percent verification and matching of VVPATS), to question an unaccountable Election Commission on its dubious actions and decisions ( delay in uploading voter counts, non-issue of Forms 17C, mismatch in the votes cast and votes counted, failure to take action under the Model Code of Conduct against high functionaries of the government).                                                                                                                                                   Perhaps the worst of all was that, under his Lordship's watch, thousands of social activists, journalists. dissenters, academics continue to languish in jails without a trial or even bail. Omar Khalid's bail petitions have been adjourned, I believe, 14 times with a succession of judges recusing themselves without any explanation. The Koregaon accused are being released on bail in instalments, as if justice is a divisible commodity. Some of them have even died under these conditions (the 80 year old Stan Swami), or as a result of the inhuman treatment meted out to them while in custody, the most recent being Prof G.N. Saibaba, a man with 90% disability who was kept in jail for almost a decade without being convicted of any offence. And the most outrageous of all these stains on the court is that, when he was acquitted by the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court took the unprecedented action of convening the very next day on a holiday, and stayed the High Court order! And which historian can ever forget the Ram Janam Bhoomi order, in which faith of the majority community, not legal evidence, was made the basis of a judgment that should shame any country or its judiciary? Or the photo of the Hon'ble judges celebrating the judgment with a dinner and wine at a five star hotel, a judgment which (as per press reports at the time) none of them signed- another first in our sorry history.

Under Justice Chandrachud's watch the Center was allowed to defenestrate the Collegium even further, with its tactics of delays, pick and choose, or simply sitting on the recommendations: he did make some noises initially, but then adopted a strategic silence. The same fate has met the dozens of habeas corpus petitions now interred in the registry of the court. The SEBI (Hindenberg) and Pegasus inquiries were never followed up to their logical conclusion, and the can of worms opened up with the Electoral bonds judgment was hastily shut again, an enforced closure of what had begun to look very much like a sovereign extortion racket. 

For all his high oratory about the majesty of the court and accountability of the executive, not a single govt functionary has actually been punished, to the best of my knowledge, not even the Returning Officer of the Chandigarh mayoral election who was caught red handed in an electoral "flagrante delicto" in an official video. Not the encounter specialists, the bulldozer bureaucrats, or the regulatory agencies, even when the Court held the arrests to be illegal both procedurally and on merits. It is true that Mr. Chandrachud himself was not directly responsible for all these commissions and omissions, dictated by other benches, but as the Chief Justice of the court he has to share the blame. He is, after all, the head of the institution, its chief administrator, the primus inter pares, and most important, the Master of the Roster. If you take credit for the thunder you must take the blame for the drought.

He watched in silence the creeping politicisation of some of the High Courts, their judges openly expressing allegiance to religions, the religious biases in their judgments, judges joining political parties and even standing for elections immediately after retiring, retired judges attending religious conclaves. The issue here is not about the legality of these predilections but about the spirit of the constitutional values they are supposed to uphold. As Justice Chandrachud himself was wont to remind us often, the spirit of a law is just as important as its letter. And therefore it was important for him to have spoken out loud and clear, to remind his brother judges of the inappropriateness of their behaviour, of the judiciary's own Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, which the Supreme Court had issued in 1997. The Chief Justice of India occupies a position on the country's moral pedestal much higher than his position on the  Warrant of Precedence- his every word carries weight and has the capacity to influence the nation's discourse. Given his fondness for preaching from the pulpit, it was incumbent upon him to have reiterated the moral and ethical red lines for the conduct of judges. By not doing so, he has, by default, become a party to the judiciary's decline during his tenure. 

To be fair, he has passed some praise-worthy judgments, as on decriminalising homosexuality, rights of transgenders etc. But the true test of a superior judge lies in his ability to stand up to the executive, and in this respect his judgments have been few and far between; in fact, it requires an effort to recall them. Far too much time was spent in grandstanding, wasting the court's time on issues it had no business getting into- the farmers' protest and the RG Kar Medical College cases are just two instances where he seemed to be playing to the gallery. Both cases have diminished the court's image- the farmers refused to heed its suggestions in the first one, and the doctors summarily rejected the orders to return to work. Perhaps someone should have reminded the Chief Justice of the first law of public administration- do not seek to expand your area of concern beyond your area of influence.

And even while he is on his way out, Justice Chandrachud will not give up his penchant for empty symbolism: just this week he has inaugurated his version of the statue of Justice, he calls it Lady Justice. The lady now does not have any blindfolds ( "justice is not blind"), and instead of a sword she now holds a copy of the Indian Constitution. I for one am unmoved by these histrionics, for to me the three monkeys of the Mahatma are today more reflective of the state of our justice system- blind, deaf and speechless.

One does not write this piece with any joy, but with a deep sense of regret at what could have been. Here was a man, a judge, who is a scholar, a decent human being, a compassionate individual, a penetrative legal acumen who could have done much to bring the country out of the morass it is being shoved into. The tragedy is not that he failed to do so, but that he chose not to. If only he had learnt from the words of that exemplar of virtuous service whose legacy will live on for generations, Mother Teresa: 

The world is changed by your example, not your opinions.

Farewell, your Lordship; we wish you well, notwithstanding your betrayal of the nation.    

VOODOO ECONOMICS - DON'T ILLEGALISE THE BRIBE- TAX IT !

 Many years ago, more years than I care to remember, I was posted as a probationer under district training in Mandi district of Himachal. On two days every week I had to sit with the Deputy Commissioner (DC) in his court when he heard grievances and received petitions from the public. The purpose was to give me an idea of the issues which concerned the public and how to deal with them on a one to one basis. One day a distraught PWD contractor presented himself before the DC and wanted to know what the officially approved rate for a bribe was in the department! He explained that he could not balance his budget for various works with any predictability as different officers wanted different amounts as bribes. He requested the DC to give him a copy of the G.O ( Government Order) in which the rates were specified. The DC assured the poor chap that he would try to get the order but in the interim he should not pay any bribe to anyone.

That was 50 years ago and nothing has changed during this period, it would appear, except that now the rates have gone up manifold under the effect of demonetisation, GST, digitisation of all transactions and PayTM. It is an axiom of the financial underworld that, the more difficult governments make the process of bribery, the higher the rates. Especially if most of this undeclared wealth is sucked out of the system by one entity through sophisticated and sovereign instruments like Electoral bonds and PM Cares!

Who says there's no transparency in this government? Last year local papers published an alleged rate list of the prevailing "baksheesh" in one of the police stations of a western UP district. Now, this is exactly what that supplicant in Mandi wanted, as an important element of ease of doing business. In another reported case in our most progressive state, this year itself, the peon or "chaprasi" of a Naib Tehsildar wrote a letter to the District Magistrate complaining that he was not being given his fair share of the bribes received in that office! He stated that it was his job to extract/collect the bribes, for which the going rate for peons was Rs. 1000/ per day, but he was being paid only Rs.500/- He also demanded that the going rate should be enhanced to keep pace with inflation. Both legitimate grievances, to my mind, when even the Finance Minister cannot afford to eat onions. ( Predictably, the said minion denied that he had written such a letter).

Just last week the press was agog with reports that some thieves had stolen Rs. 65 crores from the house of a retired but still powerful IAS officer from U.P. in a north India hill station. Now, that is the quantum of alleged bribes which brought down Rajiv Gandhi's government, but it is a sign of the Ram Rajya times that it cannot now lay low even a bureaucrat. The officer has not filed any police complaint- he's not stupid, see, that's why he got into the IAS. But efforts are reportedly being made behind the scenes to get his hard earned money back; I would not be surprised if Mossad is roped in to do the job, once they have finished off killing what remains of the Hezbollah leadership, that is.

Bribery-both the giving and taking-is inbuilt into our DNA, even before we evolved from the apes. As definitive proof one just has to go to the monkey infested Jakhoo temple in Shimla. Nine out of ten visitors there will have their handbag or phone snatched by a monkey: the ape will promptly climb a tree and will return your item only after you have proffered a bribe of a banana or orange ( these days they insist on hamburgers or pizza slices.) So bribery is nothing to be ashamed of- it is an inherited evolutionary trait, like stupidity and the urge to beat up wives.

Which is why I strongly believe that the government should stop fighting it and legitimise it. Economists, as usual, cannot agree on whether corruption is good or bad for a country's economy. One group maintains that it lowers GDP growth rates by discouraging foreign and even domestic investments. The other lot differs-it opines that in a heavily regulated and policed economy (like India), corruption should be viewed as "virtuous bribery"- it acts as a deregulation instrument, greases the wheels of the economy, cuts red tape, promotes quick decision making. A third lot feels that there is something like a Laffer's curve in corruption, i.e. bribery is good for the economy up to a certain point, but beyond that it becomes extortion and its benefits to the economy start declining. The jury is still out on this, just like it is in the bail applications of Umar Khalid.

I tend to go with the second lot, after observing the phenomenon at close quarters (sometimes too close!) for 35 years. In our country, without this grease nothing would ever get done- no roads, no bridges, no recruitments, no projects, no welfare schemes. So (and I'm applying for a patent for this idea), why should the government not get a slice of this virtuous pie? According to Prof Bibek Debroy and Laveesh Bhandari in their seminal book, Corruption in India: the DNA and RNA, the total quantum of bribery in India could add up to 1.26% of India's GDP, and at current levels  would be 300 billion US dollars. My suggestion, arrived at after much burning of the single malt, is that the govt. should make bribery legal and impose GST on it. The GST rate would, of course, have to be 28% since bribery is a " sin goods". This would net the exchequer almost 90 billion dollars per annum ! More than enough to pay for the PM's planes, cars, foreign peregrinations, self-publicity, Central Vistas, statues and even the dreaded MSP. A win-win if ever there was one.

The collateral benefits would also be welcome- winding up of the Enforcement Directorate, down sizing the Election Commission and the CBI, a full stop to arresting opposition Chief Ministers, etc. And do spare a thought for that poor IAS chap deprived of his hard-earned 65 crores- he will finally be able to lodge an FIR- after paying a bribe, of course.

" SLOW LIVING" AND THE BOB DYLAN PARAPROSDOKIAN

 At about this time last year my elder son quit his very well paying job as a senior executive in a multi-national: he had had enough of the El Dorado mirage sold by the IIMs and IITs. He had been working 14 hour days non-stop for 16 years, paying Rs. 65000 a month for a flat in Gurgaon where he just went to sleep, lunched and dined exclusively on Zomato and Food Panda, could never find the time to relax in our Purani Koti retreat near Shimla, his liver was beginning to get pickled in Blender's Pride. In short, he was on the verge of a burn out, maybe a couple of puffs away from being stubbed out like a cigarette. One day he saw the light, ignored Mr. Narayan Murthy's exhortation to work 70 hour weeks, regarding with justified suspicion Ms Sitharaman's pious advice to fight work pressure through "inner strength by reaching out to God." His decision to ignore her too was made easier, he told me later, by the possibility that by "God" she meant Mr. Modi, and since he himself "worked" 18 hours, reaching out to him would be futile (as Kangana Ranaut has recently discovered).                                                                                                                                      So, one fine foggy morning in Gurgaon he pinged his boss that he was quitting (that's how they do the hiring, firing and resigning these days, no "Dear sir, it is with profound regret that ..." letters as in our days), packed his suitcase and pooch in his car and joined us in Purani Koti. He now lives off his savings, work-from-home consultancy projects, articles on the auto world, and "revdis" from my pension whenever the state govt. periodically emerges from bankruptcy and doles it out to me. He now has the time to indulge in his passion for photography and gardening, and is currently trying to grow bananas and "peepul" trees at 7000 feet in an area which gets three feet of snow every winter! I'm personally sceptical of that last bit, but who knows- after all, they laughed at Satyanand Stokes when he brought apple plants from the USA, didn't they? And today Himachal is an apple state. If my son succeeds we may yet be a banana republic soon.

Welcome to the world of "Slow Living", the latest concept that is catching on with Gen X (or Gen Z) across the world. More and more of them are just chucking the rat race with its slave-driving, toxic work culture and sweat shop values which just last month took the lives of Anna Sebastian in Mangalore and Sadaf Fatima in Lucknow. These bright youngsters prefer to return back to nature, renewing relationships with family and friends, and doing what they WANT to do- not what neo-capitalism, voodoo economics and the Sanjiv Sanyals of the world expect them to do. Slow Living is the next best thing to a govt. job where you can effectively retire the day you join and nobody will even notice even as Pay Commissions keep hiking your salary and pension with predictable regularity. He has my full support: it is this generation which can perhaps save our once blue planet since my generation has completely abdicated its responsibility. 

This choice of life-style, however, is not all fun and games: it requires the making of responsible choices- in consumption, expenditure, manner of living- since one's income levels drop substantially. It forces one to make an inventory of the important things in life and discard the redundant, superfluous and the wasteful materialism inherent in the "keeping up with the Junejas " South Delhi mentality. It goes hand-in-hand with another trend being increasingly embraced by planet conscious Gen X- Minimalism.

Minimalism is simply "living with less" by decluttering one's physical spaces, reducing unnecessary consumption, seeking quality over quantity, travelling less, curation of possessions to have only the essentials, focusing on personal values rather than reacting to competitive pressures. This is what Slow Living is in essence, and I am now witnessing more and more youngsters consciously opting for this life style and minimalist framework. Just to cite examples of how this works: there is the "sniff test" for clothes- do your clothes need to be washed so frequently, consuming more water, soap, power? Sniff the clothes for malodorous smells- this will probably tell you that you could wear them for another couple of days before consigning them to the washing machine. (A single washing machine discharges 480 kgs of green house gases every year). Then there's the "one in, one out" principle: don't keep adding to your possessions unnecessarily- buy an item only as a replacement, not as an addition, discard the first before buying the second. "Tiny living" is another idea that is gaining traction- small homes (why do you need five bedrooms when it's just you and your wife and maybe one kid?), away from the congestion and pollution of metros, off-grid as regards power and water, self sufficient with solar and rain water harvesting.

A  minimalist life style is good for mother Earth too- the culture of over-consumption, so assiduously promoted by economists, governments and big corporates, has led to the depletion of natural resources and ravaging of forests, rivers, lakes and mountains. Reducing this demand for goods and products and minimising possessions lowers the strain on the natural environment, reduces waste, cuts down on carbon emissions. It is a far more sustainable model of life than the blind GDP growth driven models being foisted on us; in fact, I would go further and say that it is the ONLY life style choice which can save us and the planet from another extinction.

And here's the final, clinching argument which has eluded us but has been instinctively grasped by the younger generation- you are happier as a person when you have minimised your needs. This has been scientifically captured now in a concept which is known as the Easterlin Paradox. This states that happiness does not increase with more money. Happiness is directly proportionate to money up to a certain point, but once your basic needs are met more money does not mean more happiness. After this point happiness is defined, not by money, but by meaning of life, purpose, relationships, contribution to society. (The reader is probably reminded here of Maslow's theory of Hierarchy of Needs). In fact, without the latter components, after that point more money means more worries, tensions, fears and even depression. Bob Dylan put it in a much simpler, easy-to-understand language six decades ago when he sang: "When you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose...."

I'm glad our sons and daughters are beginning to hear this music.