India Positive Read online

  Of course, they may have been foolish to believe that the Indian government and legal system will protect businesses. Because while we may make ads about ‘Make in India’, once a businessman actually invests his money, the policy often changes to ‘make life hell’ for him.

  However, the only apparent casualty so far seems to be people who sell and consume alcohol. And since they are seen as participating in a business that only creates ‘pleasure’ or ‘fun’, we seem to think it is morally okay to bash them. Of course, we are not interested in the damage it causes us.

  One, it harms India’s business-friendly image abroad. It shows foreign investors that we are a banana republic which changes rules on a weekly basis and that we cannot protect our investments. Two, it hits the economy of states which rely on tax revenues from alcohol to finance welfare sectors such as education and healthcare (yes, this sinful alcohol pays for many Indians’ healthcare).

  Three, it encourages an illicit liquor economy to crop up, because those who want alcohol will find a way to get it. Prohibition, or even restricted sales, has always failed worldwide. It only encourages bribes, corruption and under-the-counter alcohol-selling dhabas on the highway.

  The funny part is, this 500 metre measure will not achieve its desired goal—to prevent people from drinking and driving on the state highways. If I have a vehicle, it will take me less than two minutes to take a 500 metre detour to get my fix of alcohol for the road. You really think this rule would deter anyone?

  Another pointless add-on to the rule is there can be no signs pointing to liquor shops on the highway. Whoever thought of this idea has clearly never heard of Google Maps. Wherever you may happen to be, it will give you the location of every shop in the vicinity, not to mention helping you navigate the shortest route to get there.

  Yes, drivers will soon have apps on their phones with signs that will say ‘Refreshment Centre, wink, wink’ all over the highway. They won’t mention alcohol, but they will ensure you get to the right place.

  Of course, the fact that state highways now pass through densely populated cities like Mumbai, and hundreds of establishments in malls and 5-star hotels had to close down for no reason, shows that the rule wasn’t well drafted. It harms tourism, local economies, revenue collection and employment prospects on the one hand, and doesn’t reduce the number of drunk drivers on the other. Pretty pointless, isn’t it?

  The only ways to keep drunk drivers off the road is by imposing heavy penalties and punishments on offenders, and to design an effective nationwide campaign highlighting the dangers of drunk driving. This is what is done all over the civilised world and there is no reason we shouldn’t try the same approach.

  Which brings us to the overall issue of the blanket bans and restrictions that India tends to announce every few weeks. Shouldn’t we also consider, before we announce a draconian rule, the global standard? If India aspires to be one of the modern, developed and civilised nations of the world, can we adopt and adhere to some enlightened practices followed in other such countries? Alcohol sale is not restricted at all in many countries, and yet they have managed to reduce drunk driving to a large extent.

  Rules of the 500 metre type only create chaos and damage the economy, while offenders can easily find ways to circumvent the new arbitrariness. Former US President Barack Obama used to meet people over a beer in the presence of the media. Achievers in every field, including CEOs of multinational companies, occasionally have a drink or two and still function pretty well. To judge alcohol only by its abusers seems pretty narrow-minded, at least so far as modern lifestyles and habits go. It is time India grew up and took notice of these changing attitudes and global standards.

  Alcohol use should be moderate, of course, and drunk driving is a serious offence. While measures should exist to curb it, they should be sensible and directed towards solving the problem. In short, laws should not be arbitrary and pointless, and drafted so hastily that people might suspect the lawmakers themselves were under the influence.

  @chetan_bhagat

  You can’t ban your way to a better society. Change is slow, and requires consensus, empathy towards the other side, education and love.

  261 replies/ 564 retweets/ 4,363 likes

  @chetan_bhagat

  The Sikh police officer who saved the Muslim man. I don’t care who’s in power or what is your politics. That’s the India I want and ever will want. Even if I am the only one left wanting it.

  996 replies/ 1,634 retweets/ 11,340 likes

  Fifty Shades of Intolerance

  Too bad if you don’t like something; you can’t let go of civil behaviour

  One of the most misunderstood, out of control and inconclusive debates we have had in recent times in India is on tolerance. A section of people are concerned, and many have returned awards and made statements in the media, citing specific incidents including the Dadri killing and the Kalburgi murder. Others feel India is a tolerant place.

  The fact remains that we can freely discuss rising intolerance, or even attack the government for it. That a billion-plus people with tremendous differences in culture go about their daily lives in the same country shows that we are, in fact, a tolerant nation.

  Yet, people on both sides of the debate make their point vehemently and are unwilling to listen to the other side. This alone is a kind of intolerance.

  The question remains. Is India tolerant or intolerant? Can we be tolerant enough to say both the statements are true at the same time?

  The confusion comes from the question itself. There is no one kind of tolerance. There can be religious intolerance, caste intolerance, intolerance of economic inequality, the internet trolls’ variety of intolerance, political intolerance, traffic intolerance, and intolerance of alternate opinions.

  The fact that we blare horns in traffic shows clearly who we are as a society (all developed and most other Asian countries don’t have horn-blarers on their roads). If you have a Twitter account, then the crude, insensitive comments that rule Twitter clearly suggest we are unwilling to treat differing opinions with dignity.

  At the same time, it is unfair to suggest we are all intolerant.

  Many Indians do not blare horns (a few idiots are enough to make the roads intolerably noisy). Most people on Twitter have a positive attitude. The same goes for religious intolerance. Most Indians may not believe in every religion, but they are happy to co-exist with people of other faiths.

  Should we label such a society ‘intolerant’? Should we blindly defend it as tolerant, despite being aware of the unpleasant things that are happening in our country? Or should we simply call it a real society where all shades exist, one that could work on being better? It is funny how neither side in the debate wants to come to a real conclusion.

  How do we make India more tolerant? To answer this, it is important to understand the psychology of tolerance and keep it as independent of politics as possible. The dictionary defines tolerance as ‘the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with’.

  Tolerance or intolerance in a society unfolds in a three-step process. One, there are things that bother us. Two, we choose to react to these bothersome things in specific ways. Three, these reactions can create certain perceptions and fears in society.

  The first step, what bothers us, is most important. It’s also the hardest to fix. We don’t have to become a society where nothing bothers us. Bad roads, corruption, inefficiency, mediocrity and poverty should bother us. However, in these areas, we seem to be quite tolerant. We often elect corrupt or inept leaders.

  What shouldn’t bother you are people whose belief systems are different from yours—those who don’t believe in your religion, culture, politics, and so on. You don’t have to love them. However, you have to learn to live and let live. If our differences didn’t bother us so much in the first place, intolerance would be nipped in the bud.

  The only way this can happen, however, is