Posts

I was shocked to know the reason for the prolonged absence of Ranganath from office.

I was under the impression that Ranganath’s father had become critically sick once again. The whole office knew that Ranganath’s father had been in bed for over a year due to old age. But Ranganath’s absence this time had nothing to do with his father’s illness. He was at home for a strange reason – his teenage son had decided to stop going to school ever again. His son was sad, depressed and determined not to go back to school. Ranganath was trying in vain to grapple with the situation!

It was corporal punishment in school that had pushed his son to this situation. Apparently, he had been facing severe punishment at school for miscellaneous reasons. Extreme humiliation and repeated physical abuse at school had left a deep scar in his mind. The school appeared to him as a dreadful place. Ranganath was trying to persuade his son to speak out what exactly had happened at school; but his son would give no details. His son did not want Ranganath even to meet the school authorities, lest he should face the brunt of punishment again. His little mind could think of just one solution – he would never again step into that dreadful place called school.

Ranganath pleaded again and again with him: ‘punishment is a way of disciplining students, and it is in their (students’) interest’; ‘Ranganath was himself brought up with regular corporal punishment commonly used in schools in his childhood’; ‘teachers think of your future and do not intend to harm you physically’; ‘teachers know what is best for students and they must have the freedom to impose discipline’; etc.

Nothing could pacify his son. Ranganath was perhaps not convinced with his own arguments. He knew something was terribly wrong, but did not know how to deal with it.

Corporal punishment in schools is a menace that is not acknowledged well enough in our society. The pity is that most parents endorse teachers’ (so called) right to punish students physically in the name of disciplining them. No one knows when the line is crossed and the teacher turns a tyrant.

I remember my school days, when beating students in the classroom was common. A teacher could not be imagined who did not use a stick, a duster, a scale or even his own hands to hit students for various reasons. There were only a few exceptions. Punishment and abuse by teachers used to be our daily routine. We feared our teachers, which was considered as respect for the latter. Over three decades after passing out from school, whenever my classmates organise alumni get-togethers, our favourite discussions revolve around romanticising the classroom horror of the time. We remember our school days by recalling incidents of teachers hitting specific students or our glorified failed attempts to dodge likely punishments.

I thought times had changed and corporal punishment in schools had become a thing of the past; some incidents highlighted at times in news channels were perhaps sporadic exceptions. But the lessons from Ranganath’s experience and a little search over the Internet have unfolded the enormity of the problem.

A Government report of 2007 (commissioned by the Ministry of Women and Child Development) shows some horrible statistics: out of the sample surveyed by the Committee, 69% children reported physical abuse including corporal punishment in all settings including schools. The physical abuse was found to be more in the smaller age group (5 to 12 years) of children. Further, it was higher for boys compared to girls in the older age group. The same survey also elicited stakeholders’ views on corporal punishment. What is shocking is, over 44.5% of those surveyed felt it (corporal punishment) was necessary to discipline children while 30.0% expressed no opinion. A small 25.5% of the surveyed stakeholders disagreed with its necessity. There seems to be an inherent societal support to physical punishment in schools.

If you thought 2007 (the year when the Ministry’s survey was held) was too distant in time, there are many more surveys conducted subsequently by various organisations. The results unfortunately are no better. A 2014 document showing a survey (covering the period 2002 to 2009) of 3000 children on corporal punishment in Andhra Pradesh revealed the following: 92% of children aged 7-8 years reported having witnessed corporal punishment in the last typical week at school, while 77% said they had experienced it (http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/assets/pdfs/states-reports/India.pdf). Surveys held in West Bengal, Delhi (2014) and Lucknow (2015) are some more examples. The statistical information shows the enormity of the issue.

Corporal punishment in schools is against the dignity of a child as it inflicts insult, pain and causes emotional setbacks. The international community is alive to the cause of the child as can be seen from the overwhelming majority of countries joining the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted since 1989. It speaks about the right to protection of the child against abuse. The convention specifically states that school discipline should not be in violation of child rights. India has signed and ratified the convention in 1992. Despite international awareness, corporal punishment is still in practice, officially and non-officially in many countries; a report on global progress towards prohibiting all corporal punishment in schools prepared in September 2013 by the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children bears testimony to it.

India’s official position on abolition of corporal punishment in schools is evident for long. One cannot more than agree with what has been stated in the Education Policy that was revamped in 1986. Let me quote from the policy as it best expresses the policy intentions: “A warm, welcoming and encouraging approach, in which all concerned share a solicitude for the needs of the child, is the best motivation for the child to attend school and learn. A child-centred and activity-based process of learning should be adopted at the primary stage. First generation learners should be allowed to set their own pace and be given supplementary remedial instruction. As the child grows, the component of cognitive learning will be increased and skills organised through practice. The policy of non-detention at the primary stage will be retained, making evaluation as disaggregated as feasible. Corporal punishment will be firmly excluded from the educational system and school timings as well as vacations adjusted to the convenience of children.”

Unfortunately the above intentions have not translated into reality.

Teachers and parents need to be made aware of the need to abolish corporal punishment in schools. Social awareness is the key – not legislation and well-drafted policy intentions.

I hope Ranganath will soon restore hope and dignity to his son’s life.

****

Not everyone may have a glorious past. But why spoil the present by brooding over it? Well, you may succeed in forgetting some past events and decide to move on in life, but what if others around you do not forget your past and keep reminding the same to you and to the world?

The problem can be really acute in the digital age, as information is aplenty on all matters. A person may find several information about himself available on the Internet, which he would wish not to see at all – such information may emanate from social media posts, newspaper reports, court rulings, government publications, university records and so on. At the click of a button search engines collate all the relevant information and faithfully present the same. Whether a person likes it or not, his ‘not-so-glorious-past’ may keep haunting him. It is true that some of this information may have lost relevance over time and in some cases, the context may have changed completely.

Think about the greatest saint Valmiki, who authored the epic Ramayana. He had a notorious past of being a hunter and a dacoit. An incident, as the legend goes, changed his life as he made the best use of the second chance that came in his way. Valmiki’s notorious past and the transformation in his character are cited today as lessons for others – the lesser mortals in the present day world may not, however, be as fortunate. They would wish their past not to overhang on the present, especially if it is not perceived to be too good.

In 2010 the above problem came to the fore when a Spanish individual complained against a newspaper for having retained a report on the auction of his house several years ago, even though the dispute had long been settled and against Google, the search engine, for having made the information available through normal Internet searches. The courts upheld that an individual has the right, under certain conditions, to request a search engine to remove links containing personal information about him, especially when the information is inadequate, inaccurate, irrelevant or excessive for the purpose. This is referred to as the ‘right to be forgotten’.

The ‘right to be forgotten’ seems to be a great comfort to millions of individuals. This right will help a criminal under rehabilitation to quickly get back to a normal social life. It will also prevent misuse of old and irrelevant information and avoid damage to one’s reputation. Courts in more than one jurisdiction have recently found merits in upholding the right to be forgotten. The mighty US, however, is yet to grant this right.

But this right, if granted, may cause some collateral and perhaps unintentional damage to the cause of right to information. There have been thousands of applications from individuals to Google to delete links to past information about them. All requests have not been honored, but the question remains, how can Google exercise consistent and acceptable judgment about whether a particular past information has indeed become ‘irrelevant’ or ‘inadequate’? There could be a tendency on the part of a search engine to accept and honor requests (for deletion of links to past information) rather than face litigation later! In that case, information available in the public domain could be less credible. In a way, it is a sort of censored information, which would henceforth be available.

The advocates of ‘right to be forgotten’ argue that the information is actually not deleted from the Internet; the link to such information is only disabled. So the ‘censorship’ allegation is overblown. However, in the world of Internet, disabling the link to information is as good as erasing it from public memory.

Before Internet became all-pervasive, people had little control over information associated with their past. Though public memory is always short-lived, no one could stop the neighbourhood gossip about a person’s dubious past even during those times. Sometimes, a person’s reputation was prone to such gossips founded on false anecdotes and exaggerated interpretations. The age of Internet has made past information about a person easily accessible and has thereby provided legitimacy and authenticity to the so-called neighbourhood gossips. Thanks to search engines, a person’s reputation is no more controlled by exaggerated public gossip. However, by granting the ‘right to be forgotten’ and allowing censorship of information at the initiative of the person himself, we would dilute the power of Internet to help us form informed opinion about the person. With the ‘right to be forgotten’ are we trying to provide primacy to mundane public gossips and rumours once again?

The society must keep pace with the advent of Internet and people must mature to live with the plethora of information without censors. May be, the Internet will be able to discipline a probable errant in the society just as the threat of a bad credit history is able to enforce credit discipline in many. I find a lot of wrong in the right to be forgotten!

****

To err is human, to forgive divine.

On plain reading, this has two implications. First, humans are prone to make mistakes. One need not get upset over such mistakes. Second, it is a virtue to forgive – perhaps the implicit assumption is that it is difficult for humans to practice such forgiveness. While human error is mundane, forgiveness comes to those who rise to divinity. This sounds like a piece of preaching from the scriptures – authentic and irrefutable.

Human error has no more remained simple, as the world has grown in complexity.

Many may recall the report released by the US Institute of Medicine in 1999 entitled, “To Err is Human – Building a Safer Health System”, which showed that preventable medical error had led to large number of deaths in US.

You will agree, a mistake by a pilot may cause a fatal accident leading to death of hundreds of innocent passengers. In fact about 80% of commercial airline accidents occur due to pilot error as per an estimate put out by Boeing. Further, a WHO study on ‘road traffic injuries’ says, over 3400 people die on the world’s roads every day and tens of millions of people are injured or disabled every year. Most of these accidents are caused due to errant human behaviour. To add to this, a new dimension emerges out of the unbridled access to powerful weapons by some rogue nations and terrorist outfits and the possible disaster due to erroneous handling of the same.

Human error has far reaching consequences. It cannot simply be ignored let alone be forgiven.

Most human errors are execution errors caused due to omissions and commissions. These are operational lacunae. The simplest example is the ‘fat-finger’ error, where an operator presses a wrong key while inputting data into a computer system. One can build checks and balances to prevent or minimize errors of omission and commission. The other way is to bring in automation that helps in avoidance of human fatigue related errors in a repetitive work, say on the factory floor. Automation may not be an unmixed blessing unless continuous up-gradation of safeguards is assured.

I don’t intend to rediscover here, the theoretical literature on the types of errors. But, I need to bring into context the other human errors that occur due to failure of judgment. This is difficult to deal with. The consequences of such human errors are getting bitter by the day. The recent example is the bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan in October 2015 by the US forces where scores of innocent civilians lost their lives. The US clarified that it intended to eliminate terrorist outfits in the area but had made a mistake.

The impact of human error is magnified when it occurs within an inefficient and unresponsive environment. Thousands of buildings are built with inadequate safety standards. Factory workers are made to operate dangerous machines without explaining to them the risks of human errors. In Mumbai it is quite common for a vendor’s guy to dangerously step outside a flat in a multi-storied building to fix TV antennae while precariously balancing himself on small projections on the outside wall. This is no less than a daredevil act as the person hardly uses any safety equipment. A small error on his part would cost him his life. Accidents ascribed to human error in such an environment are primarily rooted in factors other than mere human error.

To err may be human, but to forgive may not be so divine.

****

The following information published in a World Bank Report (World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends) is amazing. On the average, 8 out of 10 individuals in the developing countries own a mobile phone. Further, within the bottom 20% population, 70% possess individual mobile phone connections. There is more access to mobile phones than to electricity and clean water in the developing countries!

It seems access to mobile phone is near universal and the coverage is growing very fast. What benefits may have motivated the poorest of the poor to seek a mobile phone connection even when basic amenities like water and electricity may have been near absent in their lives? Convenience of communication may have helped create more opportunities for them while affordable prices would have been the spur.

Alongside the spread of mobile phones, the world has witnessed growth of Internet connectivity, but at a much slower pace. About 31 percent of the population in developing countries has access to Internet while 80 percent of the population in the developed world enjoys such access. Most businesses (9 out of 10) have access to broadband Internet in high-income OECD countries. The coverage of businesses in low-income countries is woefully less (mere 4 out of 10). There is no doubt that benefits of digital revolution would accrue to the fullest when more and more people and businesses are connected to the Internet. However, people must be imparted minimum skills to use the Internet. The digital spread must be accompanied by appropriate public policy for everybody to benefit in a fair and competitive manner.

In this context, it is interesting to read what Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook had said while launching his ambitious internet.org services in India in February 2015: “ …to continue connecting the world, we have to connect India. More than a billion people in India don’t have access to the Internet. That means they can’t enjoy the same opportunities many of us take for granted, and the entire world is robbed of their ideas and creativity.” There is a compelling reason to get everybody connected, but the Facebook seeks to achieve this by providing free data access to people on their mobile phones so that they can take advantage of certain Internet services. This has subsequently been termed as ‘free basics’.

I have no intention of entering into a debate on the policy makers’ dilemma on ‘free basics’, nor do I intend to comment on any orchestered opinion poll by Facebook, which apparently has mired the process of public consultations in this country. Let me rather go back to the basic debate on whether Internet should be made available free of cost as if it is a public good? And.. whether Facebook’s offer of ‘free basics’ can be treated as a public good? Will the Digital Dividend as described in the above mentioned Word Development Report be accelerated in India through the offer of ‘free basics’?

Let me try to answer these three questions:

Internet is a form of public good but not in the traditional sense: A public good essentially is one, which once provided, is available to all, whether they pay for it or not. Typical examples of public good are street lights, defence or policing services, etc. provided by public authorities. Internet in that sense is not a public good in itself as access to the net is usually subject to a fee. The providers of internet services are mostly in the private sector, and the private sector is least inclined to produce a public good. However, the traditional text-book definition of public good based on ‘non-rivalrous’ and ‘non-excludable’ characters do not appeal in the modern context. A public good is rather something that creates enormous positive externalities and contributes significantly to common good making a case for its universal availability. This availability may be ensured free of cost or at an affordable price irrespective of whether it is provided by a private entity or a public authority. Access to Internet could fall in the category of public good in this modern sense.

Facebook’s ‘free basics’ is made out to be a public good in the modern sense as above, but does it appear reasonable? ‘Free basics’ is a bouque of Internet services that Facebook thinks are essential for the common good of the society and it thinks that the same should be made available free of cost. Without going into what exactly is the proposed content of this bouquet of services, there is a prima facie question: how does Facebook determine what should come to the customers free of cost? What is the guarantee that it is really going to promote the ‘positive externality’ aspect of the public good argument? As a private entity is trying to determine the contents, the positive externality character of ‘free basics’ comes under suspicion. Remember, it is the fundamental access to internet that may qualify as a public good, not the access to certain specific services by exclusion of certain others. Thus the public good character of ‘free basics’ appears dubious.

Digital Dividend from ‘free basics’ appears vague and taken for granted. Mere access to Internet is not enough to guarantee economic and social upliftment of the people it intends to address. There is a lot more that needs to be ensured. The World Development Report articulates this aspect very well. It says that the impact of digital revolution has not fully fructified, as its ‘analog complements’ have not made commensurate progress, such components being mainly the right kind of regulations on entry and competition for operators and enabling people’s skills to reap the benefits of the digital revolution. Here comes the role of public authorities in India to see if ‘free basics’ is indeed a public good with enormous positive externality. Available information in the public domain does not tell us the exact positive externality that ‘free basics’ proposes to provide.

Universal access to Internet is a public good of a different kind and it needs calibrated intervention by the public authority.

****

It was a seminar on ‘Corporate Ethics’ meant for an exclusive group of senior executives of a public sector company. The HR Department had spent a lot of time and resources in its planning and execution. The best of speakers were invited to share their thoughts on the nuances of corporate ethics. One of the speakers was the author of an internationally acclaimed book on the subject. The participants too were deeply involved in the seminar.

It was an excellent atmosphere – the seminar site was an exclusive resort on the slopes of the Western Ghats near Lonavala. As usual during that time of the year, nature was at its best in Lonavala. The executives had started a lazy morning after a good night’s rest. There was no rush to steer through Mumbai’s clumsy traffic to reach office, no keeping up with meeting schedules, no encounter with the yelling boss – in fact, some of them were enjoying in months, a mild hangover from partying the previous evening.

The lectures were lined up in a logical sequence; from conceptual foundation on morals versus ethics to modern day interpretations, from bribery to frauds covering the perennial dilemma of ethics each business faces, and so on. There was a case study as well. The day was well spent. There were some participants, who were quite vocal and too willing to share real-life examples. The HR Manager was a happy guy to see the response of the senior executives to the seminar conceived and executed under him. Some were heard saying that HR should hold more such discussions on other relevant topics as well; after all a public sector executive is seldom exposed to such well-arranged seminars. Participants were looking forward to the next day’s deliberations. The seminar was scheduled to be over the next day after a special lunch with the Managing Director. The MD was expected to arrive sometime in the morning.

xxxxx      xxxxx      xxxxx      xxxxx

The MD came into the seminar room when a lecture was in progress. He was accompanied by a couple of senior officials, few of them, participants from the previous day, who were conspicuously missing since morning. The participants stood up with utmost respect but seemed to have forgotten the speaker, who had suddenly stopped overwhelmed by the VIP entry. The HR manager welcomed the MD with chosen few words and a lady participant handed over an oversized flower bouquet to him. The MD, however, did not look amused; an eternal frown stubbornly occupied his expressions. The guest speaker was a senior bank supervisor, who was talking about business ethics in the financial sector. As this incident unfolded before him in the middle of his lecture, he lost the threads and decided to sit on the sidelines. The senior executives indeed forgot about the ongoing lecture and got immensely busy in attracting the MD’s attention in some way or the other.

Someone suggested that the MD should speak a few words of wisdom. The HR Manager faithfully invited the MD saying that the participants were eagerly waiting since morning to hear him. He made an administrative announcement that a soft copy of the incomplete presentation would be sent to the participants in due course. The guest speaker knew that the stage no longer belonged to him and left the room unnoticed.

It was raining outside. The large glass doors and windows of the seminar room were trying to keep the participants closer to the lovely natural beauty outside.

The environment in the seminar room had changed in minutes. The debates and discussions of the previous day on corporate ethics had given way; the primary focus then was to face the MD. The MD was known to be a difficult person. A retired civil servant, he was appointed MD only a month ago based on the recommendations of a highly placed Search Panel.

The MD started speaking his mind, ‘If an organization can afford its senior executives to stay missing from the headquarters, even if it is a week-end in the name of a seminar, I am afraid, that organization is doomed…. and by the way, who has chosen this topic? Was there nothing more tangible to discuss?’

The HR Manager tried to murmur, ‘Sir, you had approved this programme. The list of participants and speakers was also shared with you! You know it beforehand!’ But the HR Manager did not utter a word. He pretended to be busy wading through a bunch of papers.

The MD continued; ‘Can any one tell me the expenditure on a lavish venue of this kind? I am indeed aghast by the culture in your organization.”

It sounded odd that the MD was referring to the institution he was heading as ‘your’ organization. He spoke in very general terms in an abusive language. He was unable to find anything positive about the seminar. In fact, he had no intention of listening to any feedback from the participants. He went on and on shouting, yelling and insulting the senior executives. Most were bewildered at the MD’s manner of dealing. They were wondering what could be the provocation. There was not a word from him on the topic of the seminar.

He was no different from many public sector CEOs, who believe in this style of functioning – arrogant, abusive, illogical with a false sense of superiority. Many of them hide their ignorance behind the aura of fear they create around them by constantly crushing others’ self-esteem.

The seminar came to a formal end after lunch. The enthusiasm in the participants had vanished; they were recovering from the shock and insult meted out to them by their own MD. Someone whispered to the HR Manager whether the MD’s lecture was designed to ignite ethical reaction to an abusive boss. Mistreating and insulting subordinates by taking advantage of one’s position is definitely unethical.

The MD was not available after the session, even for the special lunch of which he was the official host. The HR Manager was rushing to the reception desk of the resort to ensure that the MD’s family was looked after well. The MD had chosen to spend some quality time with his family for two more days in the resort. His office was actively monitoring all arrangements.

xxxxx      xxxxx      xxxxx      xxxxx

‘May be, he should have suggested a different topic for the seminar’, thought the HR Manager while preparing to check out.

*****

I was going to meet Sovan after over three decades. His last image in my mind was that of a chubby-cheeked boy in school uniform – playful and studious. I remember his father had shifted with family to some country in the Gulf when we were in class IX.

We discovered each other on Facebook just a couple of days back and reconnected. In the meantime, he had come to Mumbai for some work and we had decided to meet up over dinner. He was waiting for me in the restaurant by the time I arrived. That was indeed good, because I could not have recognized him on my own. There was not even an iota of similarity between the Sovan who sat before me and the one I remembered from my school days. He looked pretty much old and matured with an over-weight large body and an expanding baldness. I felt dwarfed when he got up to greet me, his voice deep and heavy.

Soon we got immersed in reminiscing the past. There were some common memories about the class teacher, about some prominent students of our time, and so on. Sovan seemed to be completely out of touch with the other classmates though he had vivid memory of our school life. He remembered every small incident that had happened so many years ago. I was indeed surprised that he treasured his school memories so well. He laughingly admitted how he tried his best but could never surpass me in the merit list and how his parents would always compare his performance with mine and would scold him for lagging behind. While it was a great pleasure catching up with him, what struck me was his imposing view on ‘spirituality’ (that is how he described it).

His central theme was that we are living in an illusion in this world and we need to understand the true meaning of life so as to achieve real happiness. He insisted that the way to discover the meaning of life is by following a guru who is supremely blessed with wisdom. He even promised to introduce me to his guru who was likely to visit Mumbai sometime later in the year.

Sovan is entitled to his opinion. If he has discovered the so-called true meaning of life, let him stay happy with that. The problem was, he was becoming increasingly imposing as the conversation advanced. We gradually got into serious, philosophic stuff for our discussion. I was mostly listening to him and wondering about the complete transformation in his personality. I was thinking what would have pushed him into such serious pursuits in life – a major personal failure in life? Or was it because he had achieved enough in the mundane world and would thereafter like to transcend to a different state?

I was just thinking, why should one seek to understand the ‘true’ meaning of life? By the way, is there a hidden meaning at all? The seekers and gurus play with semantics and create puzzles for themselves. If the intention is to lead a good life, one has to lead a life full of sincerity and respect for all; it does not matter what religious belief one subscribes to and what profession one chooses. The semantics of the gurus’ discourse may in fact present a non-problem as a complex, unsolvable issue. The more one gets into gurus’ discourse, the more entangled one becomes and feels a greater urge to cling on to the guru.

When I was not able to divert his attention from the topic that was stealing our time, I decided to contribute to it in my own way. I asked him, why he thought we are in illusion and hence in misery? I find this world to be wonderful with my family and friends around – it may not be perfect in every way I desire, but it definitely is not a miserable place. I keep myself busy with my work, my hobbies and of course, with my friends. I have not felt the need for a serious pursuit of spirituality in any known sense. In fact, I do not even know what is spirituality. Is spirituality, in whatever way it is understood, expected to make a person’s life qualitatively better by ushering in desirable qualities in human beings, say, kindness, sincerity, being helpful and respectful to others, and so on? Well, I need no guru to imbibe those qualities. Such qualities comprise the essence of one’s personality; they are often inborn and seldom acquired through conscious training by a guru. I admit there is no harm getting a lesson or two in improving one’s attitude to life.

While I was making these points in the course of the conversation, Sovan was not very amused. ‘Arguments would seldom take you towards truth; you need to completely surrender yourself before the guru to understand his teachings’, argued Sovan.

By the time we took leave of each other, Sovan appeared to have got a sense of superiority with the conviction that he knew and understood a lot more in life than I could even comprehend.

***

Who does not seek attention? Even a kid resorts to fake crying for the purpose. Remember that extrovert in your school who would do anything to be noticed? It is perhaps normal to seek attention though the degree may vary from person to person. We all get used to and take for granted, certain degree of attention from the surrounding, as we grow.

When I last visited my native town, I spent most of my time with my childhood friend, Manav. Well, he is not a celebrity, but he is known to most in the town. The roadside fast food vendor welcomes him with personal affection just as the steward does to him at the top-rated restaurant in town. I am sure it is not reciprocation for the hefty tips that he might be paying them in each of his visits. They have been seeing him being there for long; they know him for years. The temple priest calls Manav by name, the traffic police acknowledges him pass by the busy road near the High Court building. It appears as if the whole town knows him and he knows them all.

I am not sure if I correctly sensed a sign of arrogance in him, coming out of his being familiar with most people, places and processes that mattered in town.

I think he is missing the joy of being anonymous.

The anonymous is a free person; he lives his natural self. He has no social stereotype associated with his personality, and has no worries to meet others’ expectations at all times. It is wonderful to be one’s own self and enjoy true freedom.

I would not say that the anonymous does not seek attention. He creates his own small world of close friends and associates and goes in and out of it at will. The rest of the world is not unknown, but consists of individuals, who are strangers. A civic society is one where strangers respect each other and anonymity becomes a virtue.

A good civic society presupposes that the needs of the anonymous are met on merits rather than influences and connections. For example, if I have a problem in my fixed-line telephone connection, I should not be looking for a tout (middleman) or a known official in the telephone department for rectification; the matter should get resolved through a self-supporting system. Such a society empowers the anonymous and promotes the joy of living.

I am afraid Manav would disagree.