Disruption for Common Good

The word ‘disruption’ didn’t stand for anything good until Clayton Christensen, in his famous 1995 article posted in the Harvard Business Review, repurposed it in a positive context. What exactly is disruption though? In business parlance, when an upstart, e.g. Uber takes on the limousine car market and then expands itself to take on taxis, and does it all through a simpler model and cheaper processes, it is disruptive innovation. In that respect disruptive innovation is just a strategy to help new entrants dislodge long-time incumbents. The success or failure of the strategy is reflected in the bottom line of the entrant’s financials.

And disruption is no longer limited to products and services. It is eminently relevant to bringing about social change. Its success takes a long time to show up after successive hiccups that invite disapprovals.

Today, what critical disruptions are needed in India?    

First, all Indians need to be convinced that the people living on this land have suffered a tremendous loss of self-confidence and sense of pride under the 190 years of British rule. It emanated from the fact that our culture and economy was systematically destroyed by the self-proclaimed British benefactors. That paradigm was further continued, if not bolstered, by our post-Independence leaders who were educated in England and were sold on their version of modernity and liberalism.

We now know for certain that there was no Aryan invasion, and we know that Harappan civilization was at least 8,000 years old. For instance, we know that European historians were definitely partial to the European invader, Alexander. He, after scoring over King Porus around River Jhelum, returned. And no; it wasn’t because his soldiers were home-sick and fatigued as Western historians would have you believe. It simply was that taking on Mahapad Nanda’s strong and sprawling empire to the east was just too forbidding a challenge to him. Besides, our history did not begin with Alexander’s invasion circa 326 BC; and it did not begin with the Islamic caliphate’s attacks on Raja Dahir of Sindh in the early eighth century either. There wasn’t any glory in the raider’s massive slaughter, defiling of women, razing of temples and brutal forced conversions, likes of which was unseen till then. Our history mentions it meekly and moves on glossing over what he did to the culture of our land. There are monuments in the name of Mohammed bin Qasim in present-day Pakistan. It is Pakistan’s call what they want to teach their children, but Indian children need to know the truth. The history, on which we and our older generations were brought up, is not our history. A massive disruption is needed here.     

Second, the Indian definition of secularism, or rather the way it shows up in practice, is an aberration. The wilfully-tainted definition of secularism is a corruption of our Constitution. It needs disrupting. It was as plain as the nose on our face that our secularism was a divisive tool used for earning minority votes. But we put up with it, and for short-term gains the minorities were taken in by the subterfuge. We have been made to think a certain way; and for a greater good we need to think in a different way. Social media has woken up to that argument and is running with it at a furious pace. It has gathered steam. Nothing less than disruption of the chicanery perpetrated in the name of secularism will satisfy.

All well-meaning Indians question the prevailing appeasement of minorities. Why should it be acceptable under the label of secularism, all should repeatedly ask? It is myopic, the thought goes, that the minorities will be at the mercy of the majority in a democracy. While the majority will legislate a certain way, the rights and privileges will be common to all citizens of the nation. Appeasement kicks in when that “common to all” is selectively not made available to any section of society or community. Any amount of liberal drum-beating in the name of secular dispensation cannot justify that.

Some will argue that democracies often have to go an extra mile to keep the minorities happy. But then, here is the thing. The clinching test is whether a particular sop given to minorities helping them in the long run? Placating the bigoted clergy at the cost of stunting the community’s economic well-being and ability to mainstream themselves is devious. No matter how cleverly cloaked in moral high ground, it is self-defeating and grossly unethical.

Such appeasement needs disruption.

Third, the thought that all economies have to live with a certain amount of corruption is rather weak kneed. I mean, how much corruption is to be tolerated because it apparently is unavoidable? Is it that the cost of arresting it is much higher than the hurt that corruption brings on? And then, is it that no attempt should be made to instil it in the youth that corruption is essentially an unfair practice that benefits the practitioner at the cost of all others. We in India have moved backwards from corruption-tolerating to a corruption-eulogizing society. This needs an emphatic disruption too.

These, and many other areas such as caste based reservations, continuing degradation in quality of education, gross inadequacies of existing health services, etc. need an urgent change.

These disruptions are likely to pull several sections of Indian society out of their comfort zones. The beneficiaries of the old paradigm are not giving in easily. Embarking on this course, the governments in India should expect rabid opposition, and violent protests all around. But then, change is always inconvenient when brought about, and only appreciated some years down the line upon retrospection.

So shall it be this time around.

 

***