The bureaucratic inheritance

It often seems to me that, whether or not they are related by blood, people living together begin to resemble one another over time. Perhaps in eating the same foods and breathing the same air, sameness pervades. We might assume that people unconnected by blood or proximity, differ widely. And yet, in similar organizational structures, members begin to look alike, think alike and behave alike although separated geographically. Those that go before must leave behind something lasting in the structure to anchor time, because the sameness prevails over generations.

The bureaucratic structure, for instance, is our colonial legacy. In organizational shape, it is pyramidal, a hierarchy of levels. The flow of authority and information is top down, and bottom up, obedience is norm. The bureaucratic structure is meant to be impersonal, and the process theoretically, is to be rational, logical and impartial in governance. It was introduced into India by British colonizers. But the very nature of colonization superimposes the concept of the alpha male onto the organizational pyramid. In tune with the ascent of man on the evolutionary chart, the higher echelons of the hierarchical structure are considered superior to people on the rungs below.

The colonial bureaucracies overlaid superiority of race onto the caste hierarchy already prevalent in the region. The Indians realized that despite their knowledge and experience, their organizational aspirations were limited because even junior officers of the British civil service would lord it over the local populace.

The bureaucracies enabled imperialism keep a tight rein on their empire spreading overseas. Educated Indians were inducted to clerk for the colonizers, and to liaison between cultures in the sub-continent. They were called the ‘Baboos’ that looked and dressed Indian, but protected the Crown, furthering the imperialistic goals. Rather like the ‘trusties’ of the prison system, wherein certain prisoners elevated fractionally above others, serve to keep them in line. The Baboo culture was likewise despised by either side.

The colonizers used the Baboos to do their dirty work but hardly respected their racial differences, while the rest of the country hated them as stooges of the foreign establishments. The Baboos responded to the negativity by creating their own fiefdoms within the structure. They became the backbone of the system, indispensable to its functioning. On the one hand, they could interpret and translate communications as they wish, and on the other, withhold information and benefits to the public at large.

Indians are good with cultural traditions; we are loath to disturb the continuity with the past. Customs, practices, norms and habits handed down generation to generation are perceived sacrosanct. Despite the complete change in the social environment, bureaucracies in India meticulously preserve their 200-year old colonial traditions. They thus socialize into disrespect for subordinates, while the ordinary public is the common enemy to protect against.

Consequent to the colonial influence, the character of the pyramidal structure transforms to unfriendly, intimidating and prohibitive. Up and down the bureaucratic hierarchy, countenances are as grim and unbending today as they have been during the British Raj. Especially in the public interface, mistrust and impatience radiate. Communications base on anger management - that is, the lack of self-control characterize the hierarchy. Imagine a blend of parent-child behaviours, rigid and willful at the same time. Obviously, manners get lost in the upward mobility, and often also the work ethics.

Fact is technology thrives, but the traditional mindsets remain entrenched. The change with democracy and independence of the nation, is simply that nobody wants to be the low man on the totem pole anymore. As noted Indian entrepreneur Narayan Murti observes:

In India, we tend to look down on people who do jobs that require physical work or involve disciplined execution and accountability.

As a result, the first impression of any bureaucratic setup in India is poor. The ambience carries a general air of neglect. Governmental or government-related organizations in India may have expensive machinery or other goods strewn carelessly along the corridors. They may have the financial resources to fund other organizations. And yet, black cobwebs sway from the ceilings in the buildings, dust settles on every surface, and the stench of bathrooms hangs thick. Heaps of files, spill their contents onto desks, shelves and floor. Spatters of betel nut juice stain wall corners in the stairwell, while potted plants serve as ashtrays.

The dirty, unkempt look is likely also a façade to put off the public. The disorganization may be intentional, because almost hidden from view behind the mountains of paper files, the Baboos of today continue to protect their territory. Emotions otherwise denied, flow down and out in angry outbursts as individuals seek to assert themselves in the new India by demeaning others. The beat postmen express their angst by delaying or losing mail. The staffs in government offices pretend to be too busy to entertain queries or move files along. Railways employees mess with reservations, even on complimentary passes awarded to the elderly freedom fighters of India’s independence.

The lateral relationships within the pyramid are tight, however. These informal connections are assiduously cultivated to form the social buffer zones, safe to download in. Large numbers of employees unionize together. By themselves the unions may be weak, but they forge outside political affiliations, whose patronage strongly back their workplace confrontations. The attraction to employment in the bureaucracy is job permanence. Employees are confident they cannot be fired because of swift retaliatory union strikes; hence irrespective of actual work done, their wages shall be paid at fixed intervals. Further, the lack of conflict on the lateral plane ensures that the organizational boat remains on an even keel, with little competition between peers.

The Diva writes elsewhere:

For many organizations, conflict is bad - by definition - and they go out of their way to prevent it. The word ‘challenge’ itself becomes sensitive because it may question premises and upset comfort zones. However, the elimination of all discord has consequences. The organization may rarely or even never question its assumptions. It may turn off and lose its creative sparks … The ultimate danger is the rise of the mediocre, rewarded for lacking the ‘superstar quality’ to rock the boat.

The point is this carried forward in time existence tends to atrophy faculties of effective decision-making. The bureaucratic runaround is thus born as indecision is passed around, desk to desk. Members of the organization become champions at dithering. With sudden, unexpected changes in the global scenario, they are invariably caught on the wrong foot. Thus, the most recent downslide in the Indian markets has been attributed to faulty decisions and planning. India's much touted economic ascendancy is now falling behind.  

Bureaucratic structures in India need to wake up to the reality of their increasing incompetence with competition. Their people need to challenge outdated assumptions of leadership styles, philosophies and value systems that have become the unquestioned organizational traditions over the last couple of centuries. Unless the dependence on these outmoded systems and processes is changed, the colonial inheritance will ensure that bureaucracies in India remain locked in the mindsets of a different age.

Under the cover of lies

I heard the other day that a young man of my acquaintance fibs. He is now adult and working with a multinational concern in his campus-recruited first job. Educated at a reputed institution, he is the former frat boy who survived gruelling initiation rites to learn the ropes of organized living. The family is immigrant, which makes the achievements more impressive. Yet, He lies, says his father, matter-of-factly. I question a person's deceiving where he need not and even fabricating rationales to compound the lies - more from curiosity about the motivation behind the pastime, than from a moral high ground.

The saying is: You can fool all people some of the time, you can fool some people all the time, but you cannot fool all people all the time. But these old adages are hardly a deterrent! Lies have become an accepted form of social communication. Its practice is active across all of humanity, and knows no social barriers, age, education and gender. Although the purpose behind the action may vary in each case, do it enough times and lying becomes an end in itself.

For little children, their little untruths are a defence against a world where everybody towers over them. The motivation is fear, of being punished or deprived of rewards, mainly in physiological terms. They may give in easily to the joy of scribbling on walls or table tops, but the spirit is unwilling to take on adverse adult responses. Denial – even with the tell-tale crayon dust under the finger-nails, shows up their powerlessness. The same may be said for the poverty-stricken, the illiterate, the very elderly, and women that have no control over their lives. The lies are their survival technique before intimidating authority. The young man I mention is hardly in the same boat; he is of age, his destiny is in his own hands. Perhaps he has just not been weaned off the childish habit of fibbing.

It may also be that deception is the game he is now hooked on playing. In the age of information, new generations grow more accustomed to shades of grey than to the moralistic black and white of yesteryears. In the childhood of our time, the emphasis at home and in school is on honour, sacrifice and other virtues of righteous living – extensions of social collectivism in part, in part catechism. The story books we love to read transport us to the fantasy world of magical creatures, and each carries a lesson to learn. In school, to pass the class, we have to pass the moral science test. Right and wrong becomes clearly demarcated in the mind. Indeed, pithy proverbs pop out of long term memory at inopportune moments, to create doubt, dilemma, discomfort and the omnipresent burden of guilt. The moral science subject is now obsolete in schools, perhaps to reduce pressures on impressionable minds. The social learning at home too is in abeyance because families have shrunk, and both parents are employed. The books that fascinate the earlier generation have lost their allure. The young are left alone to role-play in the virtual reality that appears at the touch of a button. Fact is they know more about video game plots than they do about human values.

Furthermore, blatant lies have become the weapon of manipulation in today’s world. Lawyers, for instance are said to be liars by profession, scarcely concerned any more with justice. They weave webs of words to twist and turn perceptions of events, projecting as the absolute truth the perspectives of their own clients. In similar vein, the search for political power in any organization requires mastering the art of persuasion whereby a molehill may be made to assume the proportions of a mountain, and vice versa. The point is to bring down opponents wresting from them the reins of power. In corporate industry, the Madoffs, the Lehmans and the Lawsons of the world use their genius with numbers and technology with the same cynical disregard for human values to defraud their victims and even their own organizations of currency notes in the millions. They call it hustling, spinning elaborate cons to dupe the unsuspecting. There is no remorse in scamming the elderly and the financially weak out of their trust and their life savings.

Cynicism permeates the interactions of groups with other groups. There is take rather than give in this predatorial world that transposes going for the jugular from the wild into the organizational process. To use subterfuge to get close to the prey and to then move in swiftly for the kill is an act that plays out regularly in everyday life. People learn to be less disturbed by lies, which in fact interweave into their social masks. These hide their true natures or conceal their vulnerability. The motivation is again fear, but in psychological terms, because nobody wants to lose. To be the winner, the game must be played and played well. The humans tend to forget that their minds have evolved beyond that of the other animals; that they actually need to adapt to the world of other people, rather than to orders on the food chain.

The heroes the young emulate are in virtual reality, sometimes perceived as more real than real life may be. The ploy set up for immediate rewards can turn into the long term habit they wear like a second skin. They may begin to live the lie, believe in the illusion, and be caught up, unable to escape, in the traps they build for others. Like addicts, they seek the next score, the next adrenaline rush, and the next win in the games of their own making. Lies may become the compulsion that pushes people to deny their true self. Peel that cover of lies away and there might be a frightened child within, afraid to grow up, making believe his maturity. 

Social: 3. The use of advantage

Ever since I had gained a moderate amount of fame, I’d had women offering themselves to me. I’m not special; the same thing happens to every man who makes his living in sports, music, television or movies.

So says a love rat – although the term used to derogate an unfaithful husband actually insults the rodent. (The real rat merely follows the inherited code of its species, while cheating is definitely a human characteristic.) Upturns in economic and socio-cultural status appear to bring deceit and dysfunction into relationship equations.

With revelations continually appearing on global social networks, it assumes proportions of an emerging trend in celebrity marriages, especially in the West. Elsewhere, women are yet to be empowered to fight for gender equality.

In truth, the “fame” that biker James (quoted above) basked in was not quite his own achievement, but rather glory reflected off his famous wife. His illicit liaisons made a mockery of their marital union. He writes further:

After all, when you take money out of the equation, what’s the point of being famous besides having your pick of attractive partners? 

 

James is not alone in his proclivities. The Gropegate allegations, and the bombshell of wife and mistress both pregnant at the same time under the same roof reveal the "dark truth" behind the success saga of America's most famous Austrian immigrant. Leigh writes:

… the real Schwarzenegger —  an immoral, arrogantly reckless man with a monstrous  attitude to women and a propensity for having unprotected sex. Schwarzenegger’s rampant womanising has been known to me since 1988, as have his sleazy beginnings in the world of body building, his fondness for sadistic practical jokes, his delight in humiliating women … he often targeted unattractive women because they were more likely to worship him and his muscular physique.

Driven to sexual gratification to prove their own worth, the love rats have few qualms in breaking matrimonial vows, and family values. Men that attain the power of resources tend to assume that being famous puts them beyond the constraints of common social norms. It provides them the licence to unbridled willfulness, reducing the women around them to commodities to be used and abused.

Although gender equality is claimed in the post-feminist era, patriarchal attitudes remain embedded in the social structure. Men count on this organized bias for the tacit understanding that boys will be boys. In France, the cultural view is that affairs of sex are the man’s personal business.  Chrisafis reports:

Nicholas Demorand, editor of the daily Liberation, said his paper would continue to respect politicians' privacy. "It's a democratic principle – hypocritical in some people's eyes, but fundamental ... Ditching this principle would lead to encouraging short-term buzz and trash over quality news."

Despite the faint acknowledgement that “trash” does abound socially, the media defers to power, afraid of being denied access to crucial information. They prefer to focus reporting on more important matters, thus deliberately overlooking the predatory nature of privileged men. 

The French are accused of showing more compassion for Strauss-Kahn than for the alleged victim in the rape case that caused his arrest in New York and also cost him his job as the IMF chief. Some women activists say that had the incident occurred in France, the story may not have surfaced at all.

Politicians strive to grasp the helm of a nation’s leadership and governance. In their speeches, they profess the very highest standards of integrity and ethics, and soundness of judgement. Yet in any country, political heavyweights flouting the same ideals are legion. Their public pronouncements appear to encourage self-control less, and more the assiduous maintenance of a false front.

The wealth and clout of their wives are often pressed into service to defend these public images.  These women, already victims of humiliation, demean themselves further denouncing the charges, perhaps only to preserve the appearance of family in the public spotlight.

The tenacity of investigative journalism has brought to light many of the transgressions over the years. In USA, in the 1980s, Senator Hart had declared his presidential candidature.   Then rumours began to circulate about his philandering on the campaign trail, which he robustly denied.

“Follow me around, I don't care, ” Hart was quoted as saying. “I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'd be very bored. ”

Journalists McGee et al initially had no leads and gave the senator the benefit of doubt. Later they acted on a tip from a woman who said she didn’t want to see another liar elected. Piecing together bits of information about his whereabouts, they discovered his secret hideaway. The journalists conducted round-the-clock surveillance to gather evidence of his feet of clay. In the middle of 1987, they published their scoop. The scandal that broke permanently sank Hart’s presidential aspirations.

A decade after Hart, and, Clinton perjured himself during the trial conducted while he was President.  The crucial evidence of “the dress” eventually demolished his defences, bringing him to the brink of impeachment. One of Clinton’s then harshest critics was Senator Gingrich, a member of the political opposition. The thrice-married Gingrich himself formed relationships with subsequent wives while still married to their predecessor. As a presidential hopeful in 2012 he now admits to have indulged in other flings also.

The men put the most effort into preventing their being outed.  Their advantage of resources and position in the organized hierarchy are used to the hilt to lie, bribe, intimidate, and in the new millennium, to invest in super injunctions to gag their socially unequal mistresses.  

England footballer Giggs had the image of a devoted family man at the time when the sleazy relationships of other players were exposed in the media. His paramour was discreet, and the affair might have remained so too, because she thought they were in love and he genuinely wanted to marry her.

However, his intentions being different, the fear of exposure got to him. He obtained a Court ruling, as he claimed, to forestall possible blackmail.  But in reality, his priority was  self-preservation, as writes Allen:

…to protect his reputation and privacy both personally and professionally. His teammates certainly would not have appreciated the press hovering around the team during workouts. While the legal mandate was in effect it could have helped his team focus and perform well, which gave them a shot at winning the championship. … He was probably also concerned about protecting his sponsorship deal with Reebok and DVD sales for his workout videos.

She was slapped with the order to prevent her ever mentioning him, while no such consideration was accorded her. She could be named and vilified – and indeed it so happened. 

Twitter users, however, refused to be muzzled. On the global platform, many of them were outside the purview of the local Courts.  They took up the challenge to assert rights to freedom of speech in virtual reality. Giggs’ identity was soon splashed across social networks on the Internet.  Hemming, a British parliamentarian then named the player in the House using parliamentary privilege to also bypass the injunction.  He promises that celebrities who have such injunctions face ‘death by a thousand cuts’. 

The drama has sparked power struggles within and between the organized and unorganized social units in UK – the judiciary, the parliament and the global social networks. The social networks have "made the law an ass" and the intrepid tweeters have been threatened legal recourse. Twitter service providers are being pressured to reveal their identities. Parliamentarians insist on their legislative privileges.  Judges, on the other hand, expect laws passed by Parliament to be binding also on its members. 

The question that arises is why, somewhere on their upwardly mobile pathways, men appear to catch the common malady. James gives his reasons for his actions:

Mentally at a loss, desperate for something to make me feel as if I had some freedom, I ran through the list of things I could do to assert my independence. Infidelity, unfortunately, was at the top of the list.

Gringrich explains why in an interview:

There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate…

Excuses for the lack of self-control seek to blame environmental pressures, rather than the individuals concerned. The point is fame and fortune brings into sharp focus the inherent character flaws of the men who so avidly pursue wealth and power. They are motivated by private logic that leads them to believe that thereby - one, they are entitled, and two, they are untouchable.  Perhaps by repeating cheating behaviours they hope to gain a sense of worth, and raise self-esteem enough to convince themselves more than others that they have indeed arrived. 

 References for this post:

1. Allen, Amber. “Imogen Thomas’s Married Lover Finally Exposed – Footballer Ryan Giggs” wakeywakeynews.com.  Wakey Wakey News. com. 12 May 2011.  
2. Bowcott, Owen, and Halliday, Josh. “Twitter users and the courts go to war over footballer’s injunction” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 20 May 2011. 
3. Chrisafis, Angelique.“Strauss-Kahn case sparks debate about French media's deference to power” guardian.co.uk. The Guardian. 19 May 2011. 
4. Devlin, Kate. “Giggs sets courts at war with Parliament” heraldscotland.com The Herald. 24 May 2011. 
5. “Gingrich: Working 'too hard' led to affair” upi.com. Newsreport. US News. UPI.com. March. 9, 2011. 
6. James, Jesse. “Tattooed biker Jesse James reveals how fame and his weakness ruined their unlikely love” Newsreport. dailymail.co.uk. Daily Mail. 22nd May 2011. 
7. Leigh, Wendy. “How many more love children are there, Arnie? Schwarzenegger's biographer says the dark truth about the star is still to emerge...” dailymail.co.uk. The Daily Mail. 23rd May 2011. 
8. Linder, Douglas “The Stained Blue Dress that Almost Lost a Presidency” umkc.edu. Famous Trials. Clinton  Trial 1999. Dated 2005. 
9. McGee, Jim; Fiedler, Tom; Savage, James. “THE GARY HART STORY: HOW IT HAPPENED” unc.edu. First published The Miami Herald May 10, 1987.  Reprint undated. 

Denial: the shift of focus

Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.



The dictionary defines the word as the act of gainsaying, refusing, or disowning; negation; the contrary of affirmation. In psychology, it is termed a defence mechanism. Essentially, denial signals the desire to maintain a certain status quo.

Denial is amongst the favoured modes of operation of many people at home and in society. In each case a certain image of self or the organization is being protected. At home, it becomes useful when the standing with other members of the family is perceived in jeopardy. In bureaucratic circles, image preservation before the world at large becomes important.

The trouble with denial is that it does little to change reality. It simply allows the doer to extend his or her stay in the world of fantasy wherein all proceedings play out according to one’s personal fable, or an official line being held sacrosanct. People seek to live out their lies, while issues of actuality develop unchecked.

Used in tandem with denial (of reality) is projection, another defence mechanism that claims that one’s faults are actually the faults of another. Literally it is the act of throwing or shooting forward in attributions. In the process, introspection at home is eliminated.

Of great concern to India and to the expat community are reports that the attacks on Indians in Australia are racially motivated. Australian governmental officials play down implications that that country may not be safe for Indians by insisting that the events in question are merely criminal acts. In response to the Indian advisory to students seeking education abroad that they need to exercise caution in moving about freely, they accuse their counterparts of fueling “hysteria”. Crime, they say, exists in Australian metropolitan cities in the same way that it does in Mumbai, Delhi or Kolkata.

The reality is that the acts are criminal – robbery, assault and battery, and so on. The reality also is that Indians are targets, specifically because they are considered potentially soft when compared to others. In that sense, the cases reported on are criminal as well as racially motivated. In the ensuing diplomatic acrimony, an important fact evades attention – that most of the attackers are minors.

The Hindu reports:

According to the dossier submitted to the government, nearly half of those arrested so far or on the run are juvenile or under 18 years of age.

It is possible that the global economic downturn has created frustration anger in the new generation perceiving a bleak future in adult working life. The bureaucratic response of denial of the issue will not make these events disappear. This growing phenomenon of minors taking to crime as a solution to their problems should be of a greater concern to the people and governments of any nation.

Children are the future of a nation, and in these cases, a noticeable complement of them is being neglected or misguided. It is clear that their nurturance is in need of focus. The protection of an apparent image through denial is hardly the best way to combat the rise of racial profiling for criminal intent. Full-blown racism is only a flea skip away.

Links:

Denial

Projection

Most attackers of Indians in Australia are youth