Fashion victims

Getting front row seats at fashion shows can be a cut-throat business.

Do you know the most stressful part of organising a fashion show, asked a designer at the recently concluded Wills Lifestyle India Fashion Week. Before one could guess it must be designing the clothes or finishing them in time for the show, he revealed, "It's the stress of whom to seat in the front row!" Another designer groaned in agreement, "Why don't people understand somebody has to sit in the second, third and fourth rows as well! How can everyone be in the front row?"


A third designer helpfully offered, "Let's do away with the front row! We should start seating from the second row!" All guffawed.


So coveted are front row seats that people have been known to walk out in a huff if these are denied to them. It's not enough that you get invited; where you are seated is indicative of your status vis-a-vis others at the show! And so, many would rather not watch the show than be seen sitting second row onwards.

So critical is the seating chart issue that at times FDCI president Sunil Sethi has been known to extend the standard 60-foot ramp to 80 feet just so that some more front row seats could be created to salvage fragile egos!


The front row normally seats around 100 persons. The demand for some of the coveted shows goes up to 200 - double the availability. Designers obviously do not want to upset anyone, so they leave it to the organisers to step on designer-shod toes. Clients, buyers, society doyens, Page 3 regulars and fashionistas, sponsors, media and immediate family are the usual front row claimants. In Delhi, add to that bureaucrats, politicians and cops, and you have a political situation!


Around 20-plus seats are reserved for sponsors, a similar number for the media, approximately 33 for the designers' guests and 20 for buyers.


Media focus on first rowers makes the situation worse. A senior designer accused the FDCI president of showing lack of respect when she couldn't find place in the front row; a beauty doyen flounced out when the coveted row couldn't accommodate her and her entourage. An art gallery owner insisted on her right to sit in the media section front seat till she was forcibly convinced otherwise. Two Page 3 regulars in front row seats squeezed in a couple of friends in between. "Please shift a bit, we can all fit in," they assured the disapproving lady next to them. Miss Afghanistan of 10-15 years ago sashayed in and walked out just as elegantly when offered a second row seat!


Disturbed by the constant shifting and adjustments a person's neighbour was making, he finally asked, "Are you alright?" Flashing him a smile she confessed, "Oh, it's the problem of wearing a short dress in the front row." Pulling yet again at the impossibly shrinky fabric, she added with a wink, "I surely don't want to be flashing at the front seaters opposite me!" Now he shifted uncomfortably, worried he might be sitting right next to a potential wardrobe malfunction. Hazards of the trade.


It is de rigueur to seat some prominent people in the front row because the presence of A-listers indicates the success of a designer and his show. But then there are those lesser ones who plonk themselves in premium seats without invitation, refusing to budge to the most polite requests.


At one of the shows sat two wide-eyed, middle-aged guys in the most premium seats. Their eyes never moved up from the legs of the models walking the ramp. Up and down the eyeballs rolled as they swallowed convulsively and forgot to shut their hanging jaws, to the delight of the frontbenchers across the ramp. Upon enquiry, the media was not surprised to know they were officials from some prominent ministries, taking time off for a look at the leggy lasses, design and designers be damned!


Ah, the vagaries of fashion as seen from the front row.

The other crusade

The government blinked. Anna Hazare broke his fast. Representatives from civil society are sitting with some central ministers to draft a new Lokpal Bill. The Bill will still have to be passed by Parliament before it becomes law. But, given the tremendous groundswell of support amongst middle India, it is a safe bet that major political parties will pass the Bill in some form.

What exactly have we won? In the best of scenarios, a Lokpal Bill will curb the incidence of highly visible scams such as the ones associated with the Commonwealth Games and 2G licences. But these instances of corruption, however repulsive they are, represent only a tiny fraction of illegal economic activities which have resulted in a gigantic parallel economy. Estimates about the size of the black economy vary from 50 to 70% of the "white" economy. Since the Lokpal Bill will have a tiny effect on the size of the black economy, we will only have won a match in the plate division of the Ranji Trophy! And even this victory may come at a cost.

Many columnists have pointed out that if civil society activists are allowed to dictate terms, then the new institution will give unbridled powers to the Lokpal. What are the safeguards which will ensure that the Lokpal will not be corrupt? In other words, who will monitor the monitor? In environments where even former chief justices of the Supreme Court have been accused of corruption, it is extremely dangerous to create anything resembling a Leviathan.
 
Most other established democracies are significantly less corrupt than ours. So, there is no reason why we cannot reduce the level of corruption without sacrificing basic democratic principles. Common sense suggests that the government either reduces the scope for citizens to indulge in illegal activities or it slashes the incentive for generating incomes through such activities.

The government has made some fledgling progress in the first respect by, for instance, making the use of PAN cards mandatory for a large number of financial transactions. Increased computerisation in the income tax department has also resulted in lower levels of income tax evasion.

Of course, huge holes still need to be plugged. Consider, for instance, how difficult it is to buy any property in Delhi without paying large sums in black, or the film industry where incomes are grossly underreported (although many film stars tweeted their support to Anna Hazare!).

While we are all incensed when politicians and senior bureaucrats indulge in corrupt practices, we seem to meekly accept the necessity to bribe government officials for services which are due to us, be they ration cards, income tax refunds or clearances to the corporate sector to start new plants. The amounts involved in most instances may be small. But, since bribes have become more or less standard practice in virtually all interactions with government babus, the total sum involved is inordinately large.

In most cases, bribes originate as a result of mindless bureaucracy. Consider, for instance, a recent order of the Delhi government banning the registration of all transactions of houses unless they had a certificate of "structural safety issued by competent authority". Although the order, subsequently revoked, was ostensibly designed to curb the construction of unsafe buildings, it did not stipulate that it was restricted to new buildings. However, the MCD did not have enough engineers to issue structural safety certificates for even a minuscule fraction of existing buildings in the city.
 
One is forced to conclude that orders of such monumental stupidity - of which there are far too many - are designed precisely to extract bribes from helpless citizens. It does not need any Lokpal to simplify bureaucratic procedures so as to reduce the scope for extraction of bribes.

It also makes sense for the government to turn the direction of incentives completely. That is, instead of citizens running from pillar to post, it should be in the interest of the government babus to make sure that their performance is par for the course.

The government can use the internet to announce the maximum time within which specific services will be delivered. It can also pass orders or legislation imposing steep penalties on the government if these deadlines are not honoured, and reward officials if they adhere to these deadlines. NGOs can help in implementing such schemes by ensuring that the government actually pays the penalties whenever services are not delivered within the promised period.

Lastly, it is imperative for the government to ensure that crime does not pay. In other words, the government has to make it increasingly difficult for individuals to spend what they stash away illegally. Consider a world where all goods and services need to be bought by issuing cheques or with credit cards. Then, it would be practically useless to hold stocks of "black money". What would you spend them on?

Of course, such a world is a utopian ideal. But a reasonably close approximation would be an economy where cash cannot be used in any high-value transactions such as purchase of jewellery, airline tickets or bills in five-star hotels.