Whither Demographic Dividend

India's relatively benign and voluntary family planning approach is lauded for its expected demographic dividend, when the nation is relatively young with an average age around 25 and almost half the population below the age of 25. At first glance, this is a major advantage as other nations age, India's young work force will be welcomed and even required across the world and pension funds across the world will have to invest in a growing market like India which will lead to an economic boom. At least this is what Nandan Nilekani and most India- optimists and members of emerging India bandwagon are talking about. There are a few minor issues for this vision-

1) Firstly, the symbolic aspect- the youngest nation in the world has an 80 year old PM whose glory days came almost 20 years ago. The council of ministers is relatively younger at around 64 years of age (a). This statistic is brushed by bringing up the names of Jyotiraditya Scindia, Sachin Pilot or Murli Deora. Agatha Sangma was also in the list, but where have I heard these names before? Oh yes, they are second generation immigrants in Parliament. So this is the message we get- you are either THE old guard itself or you can succeed someone in the old guard.

2) We talk about demographic dividend, but apart from a plethora of schemes or ideas on Public Private Partnership and a lot of empty rhetoric on skill development, nothing has been done on this. One can talk of 17 new IITS, NITs in every state and over 10 IIMs, but they are struggling to find faculty and quality of academic work happening there is questionable. Credit should be given where due, IIST, IISER are doing a decent job, I hope they can increase scientific research in the country. There is little being done for Post Graduate courses, research and little to integrate industry and education and research. Vocation skills are seen as an inferior choice and so is learning by doing. Even primary education is a mess as report after report indicate pathetic learning outcomes and widespread teacher absenteeism in schools.

3) Major effort at labour reform is related to bringing down regulations and protection, which is fine since trade unions and employees unions focus only protecting permanent employees which has lead to the informalisation of formal sector where contract labourers outnumber permanent workers. Even the state is doing the same through recruiting and paying less than minimum wages for ASHA (Accredited Social Health Activists) and Anganwadi workers, Mid-day Meal cooks and even school teachers. This is where the reforms must happen by restricting the number of people who can be employed as contract labour and when employed for more than a specified period of time, making them permanent employees mandatory. The purpose of contract labour is to overcome short- term labour crunch and training, not to replace permanent employees. Even trade unions are in the clutches of permanent employees.

4) Demographic dividend will not come on the back of an empty stomach and a disease ravaged body. Infant and child mortality, low immunisation, undernutrition and almost non-existent health facilities in the government sector are not being addressed at the higher levels.

5) We will not have a young forever population and so no one is talking about what happens when this population gets old. In all probability, we will get old before we get rich.

Add to this disadvantages of caste and gender to which our political parties have no response except blaming each other or pandering to caste panchayats that restrict rights of women.

It is NGOs, citizen's groups and some committed government employees that are fighting the battle against these, not the political class or upper bureaucracy. We have enough and more economic and social experts, Amartya Sen, Aruna Roy and thousands of others are working on this field. It is time we listened to them rather than the blatantly open but stupid propaganda of religious leaders (leaders of all religious factions, I can't accept them as leaders of religion) who are not focused on demographic dividend but on demographic division where they exhort us to raise more children either to address population imbalance or to see everyone as children of god while resisting contraception and family planning.

Emerging Trend of Conservatism in India

During a quiz in college in 2011, my team was leading towards the end of a quiz and the quizmaster was informed by the organisers that there is a lack of time. I jumped at hearing that and suggested we don't mind stopping it then. But he said we could quickly finish off one more round of questions and finally we ended up second by a margin of 2 points (102 to 100 I think). I love quizzing, more the questions the better and I simply love answering them. But I wanted to end while I was ahead, while the result was in my favour, but it definitely would have been unfair to stop before completing all the rounds and I knew it well.

When we are leading, when we have what we want, we want things to stay the same. Any change could threaten our existence or hegemony and could even end it. We become conservatives in order to preserve the status quo. The more a society progresses and private capital expands its profits, the more it will want things to stay the same. It will only want change to advance itself or retain the conditions which promoted its growth. It is either advancement based on my terms or conservatism.

The 91 reforms did bring about an increase in economic activity, more jobs, foreign investment, better pay for an educated section, increase in informal employment which is the only reason why the situation has not exploded, technology, internet and more lifestyle choices for a large section of our population. There are those who were genuinely benefited by these reforms, we learned the taste of economic freedom due to these reforms. But the current direction is towards the promise of self- preservation for those who have benefited from these reforms, domination for those who have exploited the reforms through cronyism and corruption and utter neglect, apathy and continued exploitation for those who have been left out. Those who want to protect their modest gains are wary of anything and everything that could threaten their well-being and this is exploited by those who want to preserve their current domination.

We have economists and corporates trying to scare the public by blaming the Food Security Bill for a fall in the value of the rupee, we blame an overambitious CAG (doing the right job honestly is overambition in government service), over-reaching judiciary (trying to right a blatant wrong to ensure justice by cancelling spectrum licenses gained through not so honest methods is over reach) and environmentalism for policy paralysis. Conservatives are trying to build a strong base for conservative opinion in this country that uses the smokescreen of minimal governance that promotes entrepreneurs and reduce government inefficiency to actually promote a state that favours corporates and designs policies for them while ending all expenditure and its role towards a fair and just society. They are trying to curb government spending in health, education, infrastructure and regulation so that the only organisation that can represent the people and stand up to the combined might of corporates is either too defanged to work even with a set of idealists or too corrupted to bother about the people.

The rupee fell because of the mishandling of the economy by the government, global factors, unbalanced economy post 91 (chasing easy profit) and policy paralysis. It is not just because of a widening fiscal deficit but also the widening current account deficit created by rising purchases of gold, luxury cars, consumer goods and petroleum products, the benefit of which are mostly exploited by the middle and upper classes. Even if it is because of a widening fiscal deficit, no one bothers to take a look at the section in our budget on revenue foregone as a result of excise, tax and duty cuts to corporates, on luxury items and jewellery. Policy paralysis was created by the prevalence of cronyism and corruption in the system which went roughshod over legitimate environment and sustainability concerns.

Yet we do not want to counter these factors but we want the food security bill and such social interventions to be extinguished (I do agree that it was just a vote grabbing gimmick), reduce corporate taxes so that there is better compliance while there is no equivalent call for reducing income tax (not suggesting a policy measure, just saying that the objectives show the source of these arguments), curb all regulations since they are a barrier to business and remove constitutional authorities like CAG that point out government misdoings and curb the judiciary's role  in order to protect cronies and politicians that favour them.

Conservatism is gaining foothold in India and its vanguard are those who have exploited the system so far to reach dominant positions. They do not want any new players and challengers, they want to preserve their domination and manipulate the system for that while maintaining the label of a democracy which is why it tries to incite the middle class against government spending and welfare measures. The cure definitely is not in curbing the income of corporates and middle classes and overburdening people with taxes and redistribution of wealth, it is not about a reversion to a state controlled economy and no one is against plugging leakages in our social sector interventions. But by deliberately corrupting the government, introducing and forcing more and more leakages in order to discredit social sector interventions as wasteful expenditure (but at the same time chase favourable policies and allotments from the government), people are turned against their own interests and plays straight into the hands of the corrupt and corporates.

There are no simple explanations

We are all curious, we ask questions and we want to know why things are the way they are. We look for explanations and try to understand them. We want to know how things work, how people think and act and why they do so, we want to know how universe and space was created. But when I was asked at the age of 13 whether I knew what caused thunder, I confidently said I had read that it was caused by the sudden expansion and contraction of air by high temperature caused by the lightning. Too many heavy words there isn't it? So a relative of mine who was over sixty gently corrected me saying it was caused by collision of clouds.

I refused to accept that answer and it was a good decision since it prevented me from making a mistake at this year's Civil Service Prelims. But I was not confident enough about my answer which was in fact right. Why do most of us still think and accept that very simple explanation of clouds colliding against each other to cause thunder? We like explanations, but we prefer them to be simple ones which are easy to understand.

The same tendency characterises our debate on why there are sexual assaults in India- Indian men are sexually repressed, it is the caste system and poverty. I guess there are no rapes in USA (a) and rest of the world. No doubts that it is a crime and it reeks of inequality and a superiority complex of men, but it is also a worldwide problem. Simplistic explanations mean we do not address the real issue- the inability to respect equality! The solution should begin at home and like in all crimes, better policing can only deter such crimes, not prevent them physically. Majority of such crimes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim and that too in a place generally considered safe. So policing has little role here. One thing that we must stop is blaming the victim and further traumatising the person.

The simple explanation for India's economic trouble is conveniently heaped on a socialistic pattern. Only the completely ignorant would call India a socialist nation now. We needed the initial socialism which was also supported by the corporates of the time and it was the dominant worldview. But we went too far with it and did not make necessary corrections while running the course. We persisted with a good idea to turn sour and saw it become a villain (reminiscent of The Dark Knight- you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain). Socialism is not the issue, but is a convenient scapegoat.

We then blame democracy for India's perils while we praise and aspire for an American Dream and superpower status, forgetting that it is a democracy. We say our government has too much power while forgetting that it is even bigger a government in the USA with the state hand in glove with corporate interests, violating human rights at every turn, perpetuating racism and killing with impunity.

Combined with the need for a simple explanation is the need to appear knowledgable and intellectually superior and so we gobble up these simplistic theories to satiate our appetite and to appear healthy. A little knowledge though is a dangerous and a simple explanation will do more harm than good.

Pointless Debates, Face Saving Distractions

Democracy is about debate, discussion and governance by consent of the people. In that view, arguing over policy or what is the right way to develop or how best to utilise government revenue is a good sign that this is still a democracy. But then the debate should not be about proving my side right and the other wrong, but understanding what the other side has to say, taking the right points from it and then coming up with a policy. I do not see such a step in the recent debate between Jagdish Bhagwati and his supporters and the supporters of Amartya Sen.

Before getting into what each side has to say, there are a few points which we must understand. India is not an equal country and this is not about everyone having the same amount of assets or income, leave that aside. But it is about availability of opportunity- women, lower castes and tribals suffer from severe social disabilities. If they attempt to own a motorbike or show signs of prosperity, they are attacked and assets destroyed (a), if landless farmers try to seek more rent, they are met with militias of landlords (b).

Imagine living in your home, going to your office on your car/bike, working on a computer. What if the government decides one fine day that your home, your bike, the road you travel on and the computer belongs to the state? What gives the state the power to take away my livelihood? Well, this has been the reality for ALL of India's tribals for over a century, a grievous injustice that was never rectified on independence but was only exacerbated. Earlier, it was only contractors, forest department and multi-purpose projects going after forests. Now, mining and steel plants seek the areas too. The people in these areas have little or no access to health, education and their livelihoods are being threatened.

Perhaps the situation of women in this country require a little less explanation since the nation has awakened post the protests in Delhi in Dec2012. Rightly so, but there are women in other lesser known parts of the country who still continue to suffer in silence and sometimes, not so silently but not loud enough for most of us to hear (c)

There are more MPI poor people in eight Indian states than in the 26 poorest African countries combined. 421 million people in the Indian States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, the 26 poorest African countries are home to 410 million MPI poor people. India has experienced strong economic growth in recent
years, yet the MPI reveals that extensive acute multidimensional poverty persists. (Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index, 2010, Sabina Elkire & Maria Emma Santos). Add to this how the recent poverty figures from the government is just a gimmick (d) and you get a picture of how the state has failed.

Even if this inequality or discrimination did not exist, let us assume the poor are poor because of their own fault (that it most definitely is not so has been proved). What of their children? By what fault of theirs are they denied what we take for granted- education, health and three meals a day. How can we forget the fact that we were born lucky and that is why we can know of Sen and Bhagwati let alone discuss who is right? There are definitely individuals who have overcome their hurdles and gone on to a better life. But in a nation where opportunities are limited, the number of people fighting for IIT, IIM, Medical seats and government jobs alone will tell you that it is a struggle every step of the way. There are many who miss out on it narrowly in spite of the average or above average facilities, then how can we expect the poor to completely overcome their state without any external intervention?

This brings me to the most debated and pointless intervention of all- reservation. Yes it is necessary to rectify past disabilities. But right now reservation benefits the same person twice or thrice- to get into an engineering college, to get into B-School and then to get a job. Is that fair? Their children too will continue to get reservation, is it fair? Right now the benefits of reservation are accessed by those relatively well-off among OBC,SCs and STs. It does not benefit the community and the well off have a stake in keeping the community backward since they have benefited most from it and will continue to benefit.

What this proves is that-
1) There is widespread poverty and this in spite of massive economic development over the last twenty years.
2) There is social inequality that prevent individuals from being able to take control of their own lives and grow out of poverty
3) There have been massive failures from the government side in eliminating economic and social inequalities

I am not saying that the Food Security Ordinance or NREGA will change their plight. Relegating the entire Sen-Bhagwati debate to that is ridiculous though. It is more like who is for what- Bhagwati is for no state interference and free run of capital and markets and Sen is purported to be for government control. Amartya Sen has not been debating, he simply expressed his opinions on why we need a food security bill, but he has regularly spoken about how the state has failed its people and what development should mean. His welfare economics does not mean government taxing the rich to satisfy the never ending needs of the infinite number of poor as is being suggested by many who debate on Bhagwati's side. His idea is that due to widespread inequalities, we require state intervention to set things right and that too mostly in the arena of health, education and infrastructure.

Why these three sectors?

 1)These are absolutely essential for the people
2) long gestation period which means there are no immediate returns and immediate returns are the ONLY concern of private capital (anyone who thinks who private capital or market mechanisms reward long-term view need only to look at Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and how a small bunch of speculators held the world economy to ransom and threatened US government with dire consequence if the government does not cover its losses)
3) Huge need of capital

Government or state intervention is also required in ensuring environmental laws are implemented, public interest is protected, to ensure fair competition and to prevent swindling like that of 2008. This means independent regulatory set-up for different sectors to determines ground rules and to ensure the players abide by them. This definitely should not be a method of control for the government which it can milk to obtain benefits and disburse favours.

Sen also said that pure economic growth is not an indicator of well-being of the people and obsession with that number is purely a trick to make us blind to reality. He never says that there should be no economic growth and he never asks for state control of the economy, all Sen says is that growth in economy should be used for well-being of the people or 'growth-mediated' development. What is so wrong or offensive about this?

A similar debate happened between Keynes and Hayek almost 60 years ago. Although not on the same scale, there certainly are lessons for us to learn. A free reign to market mechanisms will not address the issues since it is always on the look out for short term profits alone and people and environment do not figure in their list of priorities unless they are a good source of publicity through catchy slogans or glamorous Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives. We know this from experience. But private enterprise and market mechanisms do have a role- in producing goods and services and ensuring economic growth. It is the job of the government to ensure this goes on subject to some conditions and it would be prudent for the government to stay away from these activities as past experience has taught us this can only lead to stagnation. This is where Mr.Bhagwati is right, allow market mechanisms to run its course to a large extent, reduce red tape and eliminate government discretion over allocation of resources and reduce the size of government which interferes every step of the way. Here too past experience teaches us that the elimination of the License-Permit raj freed our entrepreneurs from being lost in the corridors of power and made the playing field level since until now those who could manipulate the bureaucracy could do what they pleased and got exceedingly good at it. They still exist and use their old contacts to win favours, contracts, resources- this is what we must eliminate.

Therefore, a large section of the population still requires government intervention- since they cannot possibly do it own their own and private capital has little interest in aiding them- to climb out of poverty and social inequality and in spite of various attempts by the government over the last 60 years, nothing has happened and this is due to state failure. We need the state or its regulators to make sure the environment is protected and there is fair competition. This is where we must unite and debate how this state failure can be addressed and rectified.

Then who is right? I would begin with an opinion that I have read -'why should my hard-earned money be used to feed the poor?'. This is the wrong question to ask since they are not poor by choice and most of them are poor due to historical inequalities and forces beyond their control and we are well-off due to the fact that we did not suffer from these inequalities every step of the way. We are also perhaps one step away from their situation- disease, accident, natural disaster or war can erase all our wealth and then what? We have already decided and put in stone that state intervention is unnecessary and hard earned tax payers money should not be spend on the poor. The discourse in the debate and what Mr.Sen and Mr.Bhagwati has important points for us to learn and implement.

The question we should ask then is 'why should my hard-earned money be used to garner votes by implementing a scheme full of holes and brings no benefit to my fellow citizens?'. Of course this requires more than just clamouring for attention on the internet and debating on the internet over RG-NaMo, it requires serious thinking and action rather than just listening to opinions of experts and vomiting it out. All this debate does is to give fuel for political eye-wash and distract us from the real issues.

Foreign Affairs- Selfish Interests, Mutual Gain

I have heard statements that the Non-Alignment Movement is well past its shelf life and is a relic of the cold war since there are no two sides to choose or not to choose. From the actions of NAM members, it seems even they believe it to be so. After the summit in Tehran last year and a statement, nothing has been heard of this organisation. Even the fact that there is little dispute about the validity or place of this organisation in the current world, especially when a purely investment oriented creation like the BRICS generates intense speculation on its viability, shows a clear lack of imagination, vision and enthusiasm for the idea.

When a nation wants to handle foreign affairs, it has a few choices. These are

1) Align with neighbours. But in India's case, a very unstable and not a very supportive neighbourhood, from 1950s to now, means that this is not possible. Generally, this would be the best method, like the US-Canada relation or the Latin American countries coming together, but it is not a comfort that everyone has.

2) Align with those having similar problems, features- The one thing that attracted Jawaharlal Nehru to China was that both India and China were large nations with a long, rich and glorious history that had just been freed from colonial rule. It was only logical at that point of time that India and China should look at each other as friends following a common cause and travelling in the same path. Many criticise Nehru for his overtures towards China in the form of Panchsheel and 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai'. But we should ask ourselves, when lost in a new world, won't we feel a sense of relief and camaraderie when we see a mildly familiar face? But unfortunately for India, China was opportunistic and only wanted to expand its territory to assert its superiority. It still does this now through border incursions and no one in their right minds would suggest co-operation and cordial relationship between India and China- it is nothing less than fierce competition for resources, markets and influence, which China is winning. Out goes common interest buddies because there is just competition between them and no co-operation.

3) Align with those following similar principles- On the surface, this looks really good. A match of ideologies and principles and a cursory look at the real picture, it looks quite attractive.A US-India alignment is, to use a tagline, made for each other. The world's biggest democracy with the world's oldest democracy which is also a superpower in all senses. Except that this superpower has a very bad tendency to use this power in very wrong, self-destructive and mischevious ways, from unnecessary wars to snooping and prying open other economies for its own profit while bankrupting the host nation through tough conditions of IMF and World Bank loans, which it controls. If that sounds like mere leftist ideology, what about the idea of allowing investment and products to be exported freely but not services and also workers? Is that happening or is it just ideology? Not a good choice then, aligning with similar principles, and most other democracies are friends with the USA.

What then do we do? What we must understand is that no one is in the game for charity, each nation will only try to advance its own interests (whether these interests are decided by the corporates or the people is a different question) irrespective of the declared intention behind every action- right from alignment of historic allies to natural partners and playing to the crowd by affirming our status as an 'emerging power' or 'serious partner' or 'representing one-sixth of humanity that deserves a place at the high table/security council' and all the rhetoric that is dished up during foreign visit charades. The most significant aspect of the rhetoric are cultural exchanges, foreign student scholarships, soft power (I have had it with this word to be honest! One more 'Soft Phaar' statement and I will puke) and then joint statements about how successful the talk has been, how they will meet again and reaffirmation of strong ties. I really want to watch a discussion live, we are given access to court proceedings and parliament, but not meetings between various nations. Are they as boring and redundant as team meetings or do they really do something?

Usually, it is the commercial aspects that bear fruit and nothing else. By asking India to reform or to change its Intellectual Property laws or promote FDI, no one should be under any delusion why they do it- the real intention is to expand the market and increase profits for their companies. Most international visits are about government lobbying for their own companies without regard to the impact of these on the foreign economies. I am not sure whether those who represent us want to protect our own interests, but whatever I am expressing is based on the assumption that they are really our representatives in every aspect.

So, that takes me back to how and what to do when we choose our friends. Since everything is based on self interest, align with those nations that want to pursue their own interests without it being influenced or dictated by outsiders. This is not an alternate to anything or an exclusivist idea but a way to pursue an independent foreign policy which allows every nation to co-operate with others on a case by case basis where the relations are to the mutual benefit of each other and do not involve an exploitative or domineering angle. We should be allowed to co-operate with Iran on sourcing crude oil, Taiwan on electronics, Middle-east nations on energy and our expatriates, Myanmar on security and trade, USA and Europe on technology, defence immigration and IT, Latin America and Africa on development, poverty alleviation policies etc. Just because we are interacting with one, should not mean we cannot interact with another. We should be allowed to maintain relationships between nations based on merit, mutual benefit and promotion of peace, not based on a narrow definition of who is good and bad and promotion of narrow, selfish versions of development.

This is what NAM has been about, cultivating friendly relations with all countries and taking a stand on global issues based on merit without having to stick to the same side on all issues. We have no permanent friends nor permanent enemies and so being allowed to choose our friends is an important part of what is called 'strategic freedom', a word that is rarely used with full understanding of its meaning.

There will be times when we face a conflict between certain interests and principles. Those have to be dealt on a case to case basis by a balance between interest and principles because the purpose of foreign affairs is to protect and advance the life of our citizens, to be achieved without harming the life of other citizens and nations, which will fulfill our obligations as a rational, fair partner who can be trusted to act in the interest of people of both nations. But the question then comes, what to do when supporting or the co-operation of the dictator is essential to secure our interest? It would depend on our definition of interest because in the long run, the interest of the nation will align itself with the interest of the people and if we support a dictatorship, we are going to lose the people and the friendly relation once people have their say. So in the long term, it would be wise to stick to principles or co-operate with the conditions that we would want you to respect the rights of your people and we are co-operating under exceptional circumstances and we do not condone your rule/actions/governance/policies etc.

These relationships have the following aspects-

1) India cannot compete with China or other nations on the basis of military strength or financial muscle. All it will have is its credentials as a democracy that respects the rights of all citizens and minorities do not have to worry about their survival or opportunities as they are equal citizens. This cannot happen unless we fully implement these with respect to our tribals and the poor.

2) A relationship with India will be based on development for the people and better lives for all sections of society, not just for industrialists or those in power.

3) It will not be an exploitative relationship where we are in it only for the resources and benefits.

This is the path we must follow, a path set out by NAM, which we lost post the cold-war and globalisation, one which will become important since it is no longer going to be one super power but multiple superpowers and division of strengths based on military, science and technology, education, finance, culture, manufacturing, labourers and technocrats

PS- A rebuttal and silly argument for NAM against the criticism that it is an anachronism is that the current global political and economic organisations like UN Security Council, IMF, World Bank and WTO are dominated by a post World War global alignment which is also very much outdated.

From Entitlement to Responsibility

Continuing from my previous post on reforms, there are few issues that are not widely known and accepted by many who have benefited from the reforms and this is perhaps why some of their views might sound contemptuous and even cruel. This is only a legitimate criticism and is an attempt to describe how the reforms have been disappointing and left out most of the nation as it has been hijacked by a few.

Until 1991, due to constraints imposed on industries, they had to resort to bribing to speed up things and build contacts with bureaucrats and politicians. Their intentions initially might have been to meet a genuine legitimate concern, but gradually they learned to play the game and used these contacts to benefit themselves in illegal ways. This cozy relationship continues post 91 and so we have an industry-government nexus where resources are handed over cheaply and policy is sometimes tailor made to suit private parties and government contracts are given for favours received during elections. The biggest gain in post 91 has been made by real estate developers who also entered the telecom fray and got embroiled in the 2G Spectrum scam (Unitech, DB Realty being the prominent ones). Even now, this sector has no laws or regulations which leave the customer neck-deep in trouble, labourers are underpaid and land is either acquired by government for them or handed over at no cost at all.

This has two implications- first is that government revenue has not gone up as much as it should have, which means a high fiscal deficit and which is in turn used as an excuse to cut down on essential social sector investments. Secondly, there is no transfer benefit to the consumer (home-owner) or the labourer and so only a small elite section has benefited from these reforms.

There is a usual argument to justify the benefits being cornered by a few or some growing rich- it is because we deserved to and worked hard. They worked hard to cultivate contacts at the right places and thus amassed wealth which I cannot say is deserving since it is an illegitimate act. The government is meant for the benefit of all, we all gave them a responsibility to govern in the interest of the nation and entrusted our resources so that it can be used for all our good- not for the good of only a few. This is dereliction of duty and thievery and these are not the ways in which to deserve the wealth.

Another common feeling is a sense of entitlement and the belief that poor are poor because they are lazy and not interested in studying and working. The upwardly mobile middle-class believes that it is my hardwork that gave me an education and a job and those who do not have it are not worthy. Firstly, in an era when education is bought (crores in capitation fee to sell seats in medical colleges- I wonder what the priority of these doctors will be, will they see a patient or an ATM) it is not the student who deserves the education but its all about their parent's 'priceless' 'visa' power. Secondly, not everyone who did not go to a top school/college is unworthy. This is not only because there are many who miss out by a whisker or bad luck, and there are many who get through due to good luck or by the skin of their teeth, but also because opportunities are extremely limited in this country and many are denied these opportunities right from birth. When we consider the lives of those living in conflict zones- we do not have to go far to see those places, North-East India, Kashmir and now Central India- we must realise that for them, survival itself is a question mark.

The poor are poor not because they did not work hard, but they have been held down by thousands of forces beyond their control. It could be a drought which bankrupted a farmer, it could be an old debt that forced the farmer and his family into bonded labour at a brick kiln and even sign away the life of his children to repay the debt. In a nation where children are born into bondage, where they have no scope of escape even though child labour and bonded labour have been abolished under our fundamental rights, is it right to say that we are entitled to it because we were lucky to be born into comforts, access to education, healthcare and hope for a pleasant life? This sense of entitlement should be replaced by a sense of humility and responsibility towards our nation to make sure there are opportunities for all to create a better life for themselves and their children.

I am here not because I deserved to be here, I can write and express these things not because of my skills or interests alone, but because I was fortunate to be born where I was. I have a duty to use this opportunity not just to advance my own life, but to use it for those who cannot speak up and fight for their basic rights.If it wasn't for the opening up of the economy, we would still be in hopeless poverty and backwardness of ideas and beliefs but many of our brethren have still not been able to catch a glimpse of the ray of hope. We all have a duty to make sure development and opportunities generated are not for the benefit a few through exploitation and exclusion of many but there is justice and opportunities for all.

Post Reform Narratives in India

Post 91 India has two narratives- one is that of high economic growth, increased risk-taking by entrepreneurs, Indians- individuals and companies- going global and a confidence in ourselves thanks to the opening up of our boundaries, connectivity accelerated by internet and economic freedom. More and more Indians are growing rich, travelling by air, buying cars and rising into the upper and lower middle class. A good thing for the economy because with each job generated in the organised sector, dozens are benefitted in the unorganised sector ranging from construction workers to restaurants to auto-rickshaws. There definitely is a case for being glad about a high economic growth rate.

There has been significant increases in literacy rate, life expectancy and certain sectors in India are the envy of the world- IT and Pharma being the major ones. But along with the optimism, there has been stinging criticism of the economic growth citing reasons of inequality, still persisting poverty, lack of access to basic facilities like health , education and infrastructure to vast majority of the population and this is the second narrative of the post 91 era. In many of these criticisms, I find there is a lack of alternatives. I agree inequality has increased- it is because the incomes of those in the upper economic classes have increased while those in the lower sections have not increased at the same rate and inflation is eating into their ability to survive. But blaming or presenting an anti-reform front, only shows a lack of practical appraisal of the situation.

The current growth owes a lot to unregulated capitalism- throwing away resources like land, spectrum and fuel to those close to the decision makers, under-employment and even exploitation by paying little or no wages (a) and this has added weight to the argument that 91 reforms are evil and does us no good. Consider the alternative, what if we stayed the same way and continued with state owned enterprises that produce little or nothing for huge losses, there we no expansion of industries and we have a population of 1.2billion?

Completely ridiculing the benefits of the reforms is a mistake because without it, we wouldn't have generated employment and education and the gains, albeit incomplete, made in the social sector. Rather than blast the reforms, wouldn't it be better to must make sure the reforms and their benefit reach everyone? Rather than ridicule or view with contempt the malls or multiplexes or swanky cars, we should make sure this economic growth is sustainable- environment friendly, fair allocation of resources, compensation for those deprived of lands and protecting the rights of those who have been disadvantaged.

Right now these fair needs are paid only lip service or the criticism is stifled through token measures- attempts to pass a land acquisition bill that will be watered down through rules and pathetic implementation, Forest Rights Act that is poorly implemented, promises of reservation in government jobs (its funny though, over a century ago Gopal Krishna Gokhale asked Muslims and Hindus to unite and not be satisfied by the breadcrumbs offered by the British through communal electorates-their version of reservation in Legislative Councils- without any majority and law making powers) along with media campaigns that highlight these "achievements".

The focus should not be on vitriol against reforms, but on how incomplete it is and where we should do better. Education, health and infrastructure are three main areas where we have to do a lot more. If the population is not educated and healthy, if we do not build quality roads and supply electricity and water, we will not able to achieve sustainable and fair growth. Education provides better jobs, ensures accountability of the government and creates an alert citizenry who will not be swayed by emotional appeals to divisive politics and build our capacities for making use of the benefits of decentralised governance. We need better health so that we can live not just longer but also better, we need electricity not just to watch TV and rant away on the internet but so that our micro, small and medium scale enterprises are not hamstrung having to spend large part of their money on generators or have to shut down entirely. We need roads not just to speed away in a fancy car but for farmers to move their produce to the market before they are damaged. We need technology not just to send satellites but in retail supply chain and for farmers to preserve their produce, we need IT not just to provide services for the rest of the world but to ensure transparency, accountability and better delivery of public services through e-governance.

Rather than a polarised argument where one side calls for a rollback on reforms on ideological grounds or rhetoric like 'imperialism', 'western-imposed reform' while the other side asks for more reforms, doing away with all regulations (including environment protection) and talks about 'animal-spirits of the economy', 'investor sentiment' etc, we need an agenda where inclusive, sustainable development are not just economic terms, but are translated into real action.The two narratives must merge so we can implement the laws and rights properly, invest in areas of health, education and infrastructure so that the benefits of reform reach those who have been neglected by it, they are sustainable and devoid of nepotism and corruption that currently plagues our country.

Save our Government!

This is a tribute to the only organ of the state that is working well in this country, UPA-2. The others, including sports- BCCI is caught up in a spot of bother while the Indian Olympic Association has no recognition- are messing it up or are busy blocking the government from fulfilling its duties. Whether they are constitutional or statutory bodies, they are all evil. It is time to save our government from all these evils- either abolish them or modify their functioning in the ways that follow-

Let us start with the CAG- it has dictated policy, exceeded its constitutional mandate, cooked up humungous figures beyond our comprehension and devalued the currency as lakhs of crores have entered normal conversation. If the government is to function, CAG and the Indian Audits and Accounts Department should just stick to verifying and tallying the accounts and be happy with it. If they do not match, there must be something wrong with its calculator.

Supreme Court and Judiciary- it has no role in making laws, but in the absence of legislation to protect women from harassment in the workplace, it framed its own guidelines as an interim measure. This is obviously trespassing and should be prosecuted. If that was not enough, cancelling (supposedly) unfair telecom licenses, criticising the government for having huge buffer stocks when there are hunger deaths, granting people in tribal areas the right to determine whether their land should be taken over for mining etc is just intolerable. This has lead to policy paralysis, low economic growth and animal spirits of the industry has been restrained. It should simply come to verdicts on issues that do not affect the government and not paralyse it.

Election Commission- by going in to the actual election expenditure, election commission is taking over the functions of an accountant. It should just be satisfied with whether the expenditure receipts have been filed, whether it is right or wrong is not something the EC should bother about. It should also stop worrying about what appears in the media during elections, how dare it trample on our right to paid I mean free press!

Information Commission- this is the latest entity to start bothering the polity of our nation. Why should there be any information about political parties in a democracy? Aren't they revealing all their agenda and intentions through manifestos that are implemented promptly? It should simply concentrate on dissemination of information about how well our government is implementing 'Bharat Nirman' and not give out information that will go against the dictum 'ignorance is bliss'.

CBI- well, they are actually doing their job, but not well enough perhaps. Why should it obey the Supreme Court when it is actually under the Prime Minister's office? Obey your boss, not a constitutional authority that is obstructing government functioning!

Why can't these bodies get their act right? They should aid the government, not paralyse its functioning. Sad time to live in, some simply abuse their power or have no idea how to use it.

Local versus Regional Conflicts

One of the remarks very often received by me is why bother reading the newspaper, why bother discussing about issues in our country and why waste our time when we have other things to do which can make money. The same people will complain about how unfair this country is, how corruption is a cancer and how the middle class has to carry the burden of high prices all the while using their blackberry or iphone or driving their cars running on subsidised diesel or petrol.

Whatever structures for accountability and participatory governance established by the government, it will work only when people use them. This is true whether it is voting, RTI, panchayats or NGOs. In the book 'Illicit Happiness of Other People', there is struck me - an idea that overrates human character is bound to fail. Democracy is based on the belief that people will choose the best person to represent them and not consider communal or short term gains. It is based on the belief that those who seek to represent people will be honest. Communalism believed in the collective spirit of mankind, but it did not consider much about how some individuals can exploit this for their own benefit and how it overrates the fact that we are social animals. We are social as long as it fits into our personal freedoms.

Socialism in India distrusted industrialists and put its faith in the bureaucracy and labourers who were assumed to be patriotic enough to give it their best. All we have from that era is a Hindu rate of growth and the balance of payment crisis which lead to reforms in 1991. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as far as national policy is concerned because all these policies overrates human character. It is impossible to frame policies that suit everyone. Bigger the population of the country, more will be the population that stand against a policy. I am not advocating balkanisation or separatism, but perhaps more decentralisation and self-government.

But with greater localisation or decentralisation, there is bound to be conflict of interest and opposition to larger interests of the nation. For example, there is a conflict between local and regional interest- the attempts to construct an fly-over at Edappally junction, one of the busiest in Kerala, is facing stiff opposition from local traders whereas the cost of fuel wasted while waiting for green light at the signal is certain to be in hundreds of crores each year. I agree with the policy of reducing our demand on fossil fuels and individual transport, but this is an urgent matter- the city's jugular vein is being constricted and needs circulation urgently. In the long term interest, it is better to build the fly-over. Therefore, a regional will is required to overcome vested local interests in the greater common good.

Another example is the issue of waste disposal in Trivandrum. The Municipal Corporation of Trivandrum set up a garbage treatment plant OUTSIDE its limits at Vilappilsala while the residents and office bearers of the Panchayat in the area resisted and blocked the efforts because it was affecting their health and the place was becoming inhospitable. This is the result of dereliction of duty by the Municipal Corporation since the purpose of devolution and decentralisation is to find local solutions to local problems, not export them or in this case dump them outside.

Right now garbage is rotting on the streets at many places and the imminent monsoon rains will make matters worse. The solution is more decentralisation, setting up multiple small waste handling units in the neighbourhoods that generate them. If they resist, then they better stop generating waste. This is where more localisation holds the solution and community ownership is required.

What is the right mix then?

1) Greater devolution of powers to the local bodies

2) This must be used by the people and not just left to civil society activists and politicians to seek solutions to local problems, ensuring their accountability and scrutinising their work. This is the local answer

3) The regional or national solution is in meeting needs of the local community while meeting regional/national interest too.

The Place for Religion

I have read some of the arguments raised by Atheists, I agree with some of them and there are perplexing questions regarding religion. I cannot reconcile the beliefs that there is a heaven and hell and yet our actions are guided by fate. Although at first look these do look unfair and even ridiculous, there could be a deeper meaning. How can there be heaven and hell and how can we be held responsible for our actions if what we are supposed to do, what we have done and what we are doing have already been decided? It may be because who and what we are ordained to meet are already determined, but how we react to these are under our own control and that makes a lot of difference. It is in decision making that we might have the freedom to do as we wish based on our morals or lack thereof, priorities and interests.

Just like I inherited property, genes and character from my parents, I also inherited religion. No one is blamed for being born in one country or for not declaring oneself to be free of the man-made notion of nationality. Similarly, I was born into one religion and unlike nationality, it does not confer on me any special rights or powers. It is a path, a way to handle crises and success, a way to reconcile with many of the contradictions in life. I am not proud of it or do not believe my religion to be the only true religion or in its superiority. If you ask me, religion is a far less harmful concept than nationality- after the crusades, Indo-Pak partition and sporadic but localised incidents of communal violence, the hysteria and arms race promoted by nations have quite evidently prioritised weapons over meeting urgent needs of health and hunger. Globalisation of weapons trade happened much before the idea entered the minds of multi-national corporations in search of monopolies. AK-47s are found in the US and Latin America, in Europe as well as in the Middle-east.

One could point to religion-encouraged terrorism, but we should also realise that the base of this was definitely exploitation of religion to further national aims- US funding of mujahideen during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, US support for Israel to maintain stability in the middle-east and intentional British suppression of Palestine immediately after WW2, US intervention that ousted democratic rule in Iran to set-up a puppet regime which was overthrown by a revolution that still runs the country, petro-dollars propping up a regime that uses hostile religious ideas to shore up support for itself in Saudi Arabia, divide and rule in India by the British are the obvious examples. The seeds of discord between religions were sown by nations with a vested interest in keeping the people busy fighting each other while they exploited resources. Therefore, intense patriotism by the powerful is what has lead to religious conflict across the world.

As to my religious beliefs, I believe in a god and since I inherited a religion, I give the same names, forms, methods and ideas to religion that my parents inherited. But just like I can sell of property and move to another place or build a new and better home in the same property or buy more property, I can change my beliefs, reinterpret them or have alternate beliefs. This is called humanism, a religion based on our own interpretation of ideas and one which does the follower good rather than restricting access to god or enforcing an idea of a god that is meant to punish and keep individuals from being free under the threat of punishments- an idea well exploited by India's caste system.

I believe in a god to make sense of factors like butterfly effect which I consider as another form of luck because science maybe able to explain how the flutter of a butterfly's wings can cause a tornado thousands of miles away, but it cannot explain the why. Similarly, many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics are observations, we do not know how it happens and why(like how an electron wave can exist on either side of a node without crossing the node). The seemingly impossible connection between various events and some inexplicable answers I have been able to come up with in quizzes all prompt me to believe in god which balances out good and evil in the world and makes sure that those who deserve and desire something actually get it. Religion and god is a provider of hope.

It does not matter to me whether god exists or not, all that matters is I believe and it is a comfort to believe. Atheism has a role to play so that this belief does not take us to violence, prevent us from being preyed on by unscrupulous elements claiming divine sanction and to prevent exploitation in the name of religion. It is a very personal concept and it should never matter in our dealings with the world and it is the duty of the atheists to remind us that too much of a good thing can be bad.

I was prompted to write this by the Supreme Court's ruling that interpreted our Right to Freedom Religion under article 25 and 26 to provide Dongria Kodh tribe in Orissa the power to decide, through constitutionally mandated Gram Sabhas, whether they want to allow an MNC to mine bauxite from Niyamgiri hill. Although the ostensible reason for such a decision is the fundamental right of the tribe to worship the Niyam Raja deity that resides on the Niyamgiri hills, the belief itself is rooted in the fact that this is ecologically important for the rivers that originate from the hills and for the livelihood of the tribe. Kerala has thousands of sacred groves where environment is preserved only because they are related to religion. This perhaps was not an unintentional consequence, the very purpose of divine sanction could have been to protect environment and livelihood, to preserve natural habitats essential for our survival and make sure they are not diverted for other purposes. Religion does have a purpose when used well and it is a force that can create a lot of good or destroy when not used carefully. 

Ramblings and Government Bashing

Firstly on CBI- the superintendance on corruption cases lie with CVC. CBI was started as Delhi Special Police during world war 2 to prevent corruption in government procurement at that time since officials had a lot of discretion and were using it to make a lot of money for themselves. It was established under the Viceroy's control to protect the queen's money, since it was the British government in India at that time, and this money was being protected from Indians misusing it.It was truly an independent authority at that time since it was attached to an entity that wanted to prevent swindling of money and not under an authority which was embezzling money. All the real powers of the Viceroy went to the Prime Minister in some, the Viceregal Palace but became the Presidential residence and he also became head of the state. So, keeping the CBI under Prime Minister who actually heads the government against which there are charges of corruption simply because of a historical oversight while transferring power is unreasonable.

Article 75 of the Constitution of India says, inter alia, that the council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This collective responsibility is the bedrock of Parliamentary democracy and it means that whatever the internal differences between the council of ministers, they should act as one and in one voice under the leadership of the Prime Minister. The Council of Ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister and it says nothing about coalition compulsions or the need to satisfy the party leader of a coalition member and so the acts of the coalition party's minister is also an action of the Cabinet which it cannot dismiss or distance itself from in Parliament. Swiftly correcting any mistake by removing the minister and reversing the decisions is essential if the minister has gone against the Council Of Minister's judgement or has acted unilaterally. This is to enforce decisions within the cabinet and is the principle of individual responsibility. This also enforces discipline and collective decision making. These are basic principles of parliamentary democracy and the current government has observed these principles only in breach- hiding behind coalision dharma, a very childish mastermind of mischief excuse of "he did it, I didn't know anything about" used by the squeeky clean goody goody boy in class and bursts of activity to prove it has life while manipulating parliamentary politics by forcing abstentions are all an insult to democracy

Sometime in early 2011(during the debate on 2G I think), Manmohan Singh had made a statement that the people had given them a mandate and so they can continue with the government. In India, the parliament is not supreme, the government is not supreme but it is the constitution that is Supreme. Parliament cannot make amendments that alter basic structure of the constitution and laws that take away fundamental rights or goes against the constitution. Parliament that has the mandate of the people there are not supreme and the government has to be responsible to the Lok Sabha. Institutions like the CAG and Supreme court are meant to uphold the constitution and act as checks against transgressions by the executive. So clamouring about people's mandate is a sad excuse- it was a people's government that imposed emergency and made a mockery of the same mandate.



The trigger for this post is this http://www.indianexpress.com/news/phantom-democracy/1113222/0 and some ideas that have been lying around in my mind.

Media, Wars and Friends

For a little over a week, the hot news in Kerala was the allegations of domestic violence against a Minister by his wife and what unfolded involved more drama than the usual menu of soaps and reached the standards of jam-packed action in some of the male protagonists movies. Newspapers had nothing else to report, there were live panel discussions and the defence minister remarked that it shouldn't turn into a state celebration. Once the minister resigned, panel discussions were about the drop in the price of gold and its various nuances. Now that gold prices are hovering at the same level, it has turned to Chinese "infiltrations" on the border. While the first two issues were restricted to Kerala the last one was a celebration of national scale and by the time the Chinese had camped in Daulat Beg Oldi, my mother had already fallen prey to panel discussionomania so much so that she asked me whether an India-China war was possible.

Then I see a sensible view take on the issue (a) and there is also the obvious fact that it is nothing more than  a boundary issue and differences of perspective- I say the boundary is there, but he is saying it is here and there is nothing more to it than that. Television panel debates have only served to vitiate the atmosphere and it was most evident during the issue over beheading of soldiers at the India-Pakistan border. Fuelled by the fact that anyone who spits out anti-Pakistan vituperations would receive ample airtime and be able to appeal to or increase nationalistic feelings to boost their popularity and appear (merely appear) strong against old adversaries. But one forgets that it is easier to shout while in the opposition (or while supporting the government from outside) but an entirely different job to get work done while occupying power. Mamata Banerji and V.S.Achuthanandan are the ones who have found such transitions difficult in India recently.

On to the Pakistan issue, I have read that delaying visas and suspending dialogue is of absolutely no help and we must increase people to people contact to solve the animosity. These are really good theoretical points that appeal to the peace brigade and idealists, but one forgets that even if India were to make any and all concessions to Pakistan, it would not help even in the slightest because it is not the civilian government that calls the shots in Pakistan but the army and it needs the bogey of India to cement its position, irrespective of the changes in the "Green Book" (b) in Pakistan. So, the theory that once the issues are resolved, the army in Pakistan will fade into insignificance is just wishful thinking. Let us make no mistake about the fact that the existence and power the army enjoys in Pakistan and the free reign it has and its ability to use "non-state" actors in Indian Kashmir or Afghanistan owes far less to the civilian government's strategy and the official India-Pakistan stand on Kashmir, but more to the civilian leadership's helplessness.

People to people contact and border trade can promote good relations between the people, promote economic welfare and a better life for the people in the border towns and so it is an end in itself, it cannot lead to anything more, just like cricket can only bring in advertising revenue and a few days of passion and tension without really building up confidence in any measure. What this also means is that they should be isolated from the talks and relations with Pakistan since they have little positive or negative impact and must be seen as separate issues. Let the dialogue process with a civilian government continue too, except under extreme circumstances, since it is quite obvious that they have little say in what the army, intelligence agencies or its proxies do. If there is some untoward incident, do not go roll back the gains, but simply freeze them for the time being and resume from where it was left off. The decision not to send our cricket team to Pakistan is fine since the security situation is not favourable there, but preventing Pakistani players from coming to India is as silly as not permitting Srilankan players from playing in Tamilnadu.

Apart from media antics, there is little to suggest anything seriously alarming along the border with China. It has other bigger worries and battles to fight and a cost to benefit analysis says that there are only costs but no benefits at all by raising a conflict with India. China's disputes against Japan and all the South-East Asian nations is part of its race for resources with cleverly, although not too subtly and effectively, masked historical claims (c) . These are more important, worthwhile and urgent for China to win and the world to resolve and has the potential to draw in the rest of the world as America is intent on acting as the protector of Asia against a rising China. Any conflict has drastic implications for China as it is dependent on exports, and shipping lanes across the South China sea is its lifeline which cannot be kept open by waging a war, but only by a threatening posture.

The cost of conflict with India is minimal for China, but the benefits are almost nothing. Of course, China has attacked India in the past and the signs were missed by the establishment due to its soft corner for a fellow developing nation with problems similar to the one that was confronting India at the time. Our army was ill-equipped and not acclimatised for the war and this holds lessons for us. Let our army be prepared for the eventualities as it should always be, while the civilian leadership tries to settle out the issue by dialogue and removing misunderstandings. China's intention could be not so straight-forward as territorial gains, but to blow the whistle on current world alliances- bring out secret alliances into the open and reveal who stands where and with who and then comfortably go back to its side of the boundary to prevent the conflict from growing out of control. As China advances into India, it can realise who is with itself and who is on the other side- perhaps the US will help India and Russia will side with China (a slight reversal from 1962) and once this is out in the open, China will be able to dominate proceedings freely with energy and resources from Russia to satisfy its growing needs and less dependency on South China sea.

We do not need military alliances, but strong relations with the South-East Asian nations including Myanmar will mean that we have more leverage in the area than China. ASEAN, Myanmar and APEC have sought India's partnership actively and persistently not as just a market or economic partner but to counter an assertive China that is dictating terms, to whom these nations want to say that we have other partners who respect us. This in itself will be a strong deterrent against China and India does not have to grudgingly accept US foothold in the region due to the Chinese threat. Close ties with Russia is also imperative since a China-Russia alliance is a strong possibility as has been recently witnessed with Russia giving China weapons more advanced than the one it delivered to India (d).

India's strategic co-operation with the US involving economic, scientific, technological and educational issues along with its defence co-operation with Russia is actually a wise strategy since it allows India to maintain friendly relations to all without antagonising anyone. It is better to maintain strong ties and lines of communication rather then pissing them off like China is doing to everyone except Russia now. The question what use are friends who will not aid you in times of conflict is pertinent. But it might not come to war, it is true that India's trade relations with these nations are no where near the one they have with China, but it is seen as an exploitative relation- China takes over US manufacturing jobs, there are voices in Russia raising concern over whether it will just be a sparsely populated resource backyard for China which China could easily run over with its large army and population. India must publicise the model of development and co-operation it stands for and contrast it with how others provide aid and support, in return for an exploitative resource extraction hardly benefiting the host country and its people apart from money, without directly pointing fingers. Mitigating climate change is one area where India must take the leadership for its own domestic benefit as well as to built very strong ties with the third world, island states and countries with a coast, but India has only hidden behind the excuse of low per-capita emission rather than take charge and forge ahead by adopting clean technology and working with other nations that too are threatened by climate change.

There is little scope for co-operation with China since our paths conflict almost always and rather than the co-operation due to the common concerns that Jawaharlal Nehru wanted, it is a scramble for resources and development and this is a fact rarely accepted or talked about. One can talk about soft power and diplomatic skills, but without real power to back it up, soft power is useless. It will be a tough balancing act and the priority is in preventing conflict, but our army has to be ready, our diplomats and politician's have to realise these and be ready to protect India's relations with all major nations without making enemies. Our news media must realise that amateurish and jingoistic reporting and ratcheting up the tension will not take us anywhere and calls for war will cost us more than China because, let us accept it, they are militarily and economically far ahead of us and we might have to wage a two-front war.

To sum up, let the people to people contact, trade, cricket and Track 2 diplomacy go on with Pakistan regardless of the dialogue process and except under extreme circumstances since these are ends in themselves. Also allow the dialogue process to move ahead and not backward and not be held hostage to incidents beyond civilian administration's control. As for China, strengthening our border defences and army, better ties with South-East Asian nations and neighbours and maintaining good relations with the major powers will only benefit India and tilt the world to view India favourably and China as more of a reckless rich resource hunter- all of which will add to India's benefit and attempts must be to prevent conflict by building strong relationships rather than using this to raise a conflict.

Growth as a Goal

"Growth is a necessary condition and we must unhesitatingly embrace growth as the highest mantra"said Finance Minister P. Chidambaram during his budget and he also said inclusive and sustainable development as ultimate mate goal.. Although it is not the right thing to begin with a quote, I must do so here because the quote signifies and hides many things at the same. I am okay with growth as long as this is not only economic growth that signifies an increase in GDP and a bull run at the stock exchange. I am all for growth if the increase in government revenues leads to higher spending in the social sector- health, education and social safety for the poor- and better outcomes. I am all for growth if it means better public transport, law and order, electricity and safe boundaries.

India has had a decent spell of growth in the last twenty years and even the "disappointing" 5% growth in 2012-2013 is not something to be scoffed at- any of the non-German europeans would be gladly willing take that growth rate and the US too. But then why is it that India has more poverty than sub-saharan africa, more children malnourished than the poorest of the poorest and a 136th rank in th Human Development Index?

The growth that India has witnessed has been the growth of the middle class and also the growth of a few individuals with good contacts with the government. The wealth of the richest Indians have grown mostly in the real estate, energy or natural resources sector and not in creation of advanced technology products or manufacturing. This was mainly gained as a result of exploitation of natural resources that belonged to the nation given away for dirt cheap prices. There are attempts to gain more of these at the cost of displacement of millions in Central India which has given rise to the red-corridor- more than anything, the red-corridor is a result of land grabbing under state sanction under the guise of development and when this is resisted, the state uses "eminent-domain" or weapons to silence the voices who try to fight back with a rag-tag army and an ideology.

The only real growth has been restricted to IT, Banking, some Public Sector Undertakings and even retail(but this merely fed on the other growth sectors) which do create products and deliver services without the need for government sops. The growth in the stock market creates no real assets as it is just the money that money makes making more money. A hoax message on twitter about a White House attacks show how volatile and unreasonable it is (a).

It is true that the government revenue has increased as a result of the growth, but not due to high taxes paid by the rich since there are only 42,800 crorepatis in the country according to the government. The increase in corporate taxes is only matched by the revenue foregone by the government (b) and so the real increase in revenue comes in large part from income taxes and indirect taxes. This from the middle-classes benefitted by the growth in a few sectors. But does the increase in revenue translate into better outcome in the social sector? Not really since we still have more poverty than sub-saharan africa, 44% of our children are undernourished and the government is nowhere near providing any sort of adequate healthcare for its people. The much lauded Right to Education has not been implemented and in places where implemented, the learning outcomes have been poor. Merely having more revenues do not translate into better social sector outcomes because sufficient money must be allocated and it must be spend accordingly.

There was a clamour that growth is necessary for national security. Well, I guess when we forget to build submarines to launch underwater missiles (c) or face inexcusable delays in delivery of defence equipment (d) it really is growth and better defence capabilities.

I do not see a growth here. I see growth in farmer suicides and in unsustainable exploitation of our environment as projects clear forests, pollute water bodies, damage eco-systems and more of the very same are offered in the name of growth. The growth that we have is coming at the cost of our environment and is not reaching the majority of our population. When Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze spoke about growth-mediated development, they meant development for everyone and not merely insane riches for a few that can remove roadblocks to access precious national resources and developing a small middle class large enough to buffer the government against nation-wide outrage.

The government does say a lot about inclusive growth, increase in social sector spending and allocation for health, education and sanitation- it has been nothing more than words. Once these words are put into action and their outcomes show they have achieved the necessary goals, then we can say that it is inclusive growth and growth is the ultimate goal. When the green cover is maintained and environment is protected, when growth is in the wealth, health and safety of all individuals, when there is access to education and jobs for all, when no one is deprived of their traditional lands, beliefs, social ties and culture to make way for a short cut to growth- then we can say India has grown.

Books that Deserve More of our Attention

I am not a voracious reader or a literary critic, but there are a few books that I think should be more popular and discussed more often. These include fiction as well as non-fiction, have some interesting ideas, a different insight into what we thought we knew or is just a plain good read. Some of these are-

1) Zahir by Paulo Coelho - After reading 'The Alchemist', since it was suggested by everyone who I came across, I was slightly disappointed. But Zahir made me a Paulo Coelho fan in spite of the fact that his other works have been slightly over my head since I did not have the experience or maturity to understand them. This is a must read and told me how human experience, emotions, uncertainties and fear is the same everywhere and for everyone, just the direction, intensity or the issue varies. It was Zahir that convinced me that if we desire something strong enough and if we deserve it, we will get it.

2) The Great Indian Novel by Shashi Tharoor- Although a "work of fiction", it gives us a different perspective of history as the author has used the liberty afforded by a work of fiction to criticise and blend our freedom movement and post independence politics of India with the Mahabharata. Read it to know that history actually is not the stuff of legends but merely the decisions taken by individuals based on their own perceptions with all its imperfections, uncertainties and clouded by their egos.

3) Constitution of India- although the real document is too hard for us, books by D.D.Basu or Laxmikanth is good enough to give us an understanding of the enormous efforts taken in framing our constitution and how comprehensive a document it is. This is significant today since we are becoming more and more ignorant of our rights, freedoms and duties and all we care about is how to get a passport to 'Quit India'.

4) Hot, Flat and Crowded World by Thomas Friedman- Although the title suggests its a sequel to Friedman's highly acclaimed 'The World is Flat', this book is actually an independent work on the issues- economy, environment, education- the world is facing currently. Written during the Global Financial Crisis, this book initially talks about over utilisation of resources, out of control responses of both market forces and nature. It then goes on to how we need to wean away from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy and improve the capacity of our people and pursue technological development. If 'The World is Flat' describes where the world is now, then 'Hot, Flat and Crowded World' talks about where the world should go and what it must do to get there.

5) Imagining India by Nandan Nilekani- The book is divided into ideas that have arrived, ideas that are becoming popular, ideas being debated and those ideas that have not received sufficient attention in spite of their imminent importance. By dividing the book in such a manner, Nandan Nilekani takes us through the past, present, future of India and what we should for a better future. He presents ideas that have arrived and their widespread positive impacts as strong arguments for embracing change, casting away our reticence towards new ideas and shows what are the areas where change is urgently required.

6) Everyone Loves a Good Drought by P. Sainath- published in 1996, it is based on the author's experience while documenting and studying the issues faced by the tribals in India. He covers the states of Bihar (mostly parts of present day Jharkhand), Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, the plight of tribals who have been neglected by the state and its bureaucratic machinery, or worse, exploited by those who should be protecting them. Although it does not talk at length about naxalism (currently called left-wing extremism), it hints at how and why the movement has struck a chord with those who have been left behind by the development band wagon.

Most of these are not easy reads since they require us to dwell upon the issues that have been mentioned. Perhaps that is what a book should do, stimulate our thoughts and make us ask questions about ourselves, the world and think about the truth without bias and preconceived notions. I found them enjoyable and was quite a learning experience and hope some of these books stimulate more thought, ideas and change.

One incident, one thousand opinions

There is a saying in Malayalam that 'even if the mother is slapped, there are two views'. There have been several opinions going around the rape that took place in Delhi and the protests it sparked off. The facts are that the woman deserves justice, I hope she recovers and the perpetrators are punished and all of these happen soon. It is also obvious that women in our world are treated as inferior to men and this attitude must change, which is not possible through legislation but can happen only through women empowerment, independence and respecting women- a change that all of us must embrace.

I would like to dwell on some of the views that have been expressed. Internet and avenues like blogs have meant that everyone has their own opinion and unique insight into every event and can express them, but I cannot fail to mention the fact that internet also gives vent to a large amount of passionate, one-sided and ill considered stupidity. The sort of comments that appear at the end of each newspaper article and the personal attacks on the author suggest a good measure of intellectual poverty that causes the individual to swear, insult or personally attack the author. Internet is only a medium- it can transmit good as well as bad, bigotry as well tolerance, stupidity as well as wisdom! I have tried to be free of these blinding emotions as I write this, but writing without passion could perhaps be like sex without love.

I noticed a view going round that it is because the victim of the rape hailed from the middle class in Delhi the protests have been so vocal and evident and that such crimes occur all over the country without any attention and fail to evince any amount of protest. I must admit this is true- Soni Suri, Women in Manipur and J&K, incidents in Rajasthan etc have not lead to any protests of the same scale. But does it mean the protests were unfair and illegal? Does it mean they were fighting only for the urban middle-class woman? I do not think so. This incident woke them up and brought them together, just like the death of one man brought together thousands to demand for regime change in Tunisia.

It is true that they did not specifically mention or call for justice to victims of alleged state sponsored rape that occur in many places and victims in remote parts of the country. But this is an opportunity to fight for stricter enforcement of laws, stricter legislation ("Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill" is still in the doldrums), faster trials and to sensitise police personnel to the mental trauma undergone by a victim and to treat them with respect rather than viewing them as the culprit. This is also an opportunity for us to combat not just rape, but the unequal status that women are subjected to in the country and to make it our priority to treat them with respect and even admiration, for all of us are the result of the pain, anxieties and sacrifices of a woman.

I also read this and since I cannot reply to the author directly, I am posting my reply here-

The protests of Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev and the current one at Delhi came about not because citizens wanted the government to make concessions, but merely wanted an honest, responsive and effective government that could protect its citizens without robbing them. There was and still is corruption of mind-boggling proportions in our country, women are still treated unfairly and rapes do happen- these are facts, not allegations leveled to pull down the government. True, some amount of political self-serving happened at some of the protests, but if the government had acted before letting the situation deteriorate, we would not have had Baba Ramdev protesting on stage, we would not have had citizens digging in for over 2 days at Vijay Chowk and policemen and protestors injured unnecessarily. If protesting against a government that is failing in its duty is chaos and anarchy, it should be welcomed and it is the duty of a citizen as much as their right.

Mr.Khare also fails to understand that any protest that has a legitimate reason behind it will gather more support and if not addressed by the government in a civilised manner, it could grow violent and stronger. But it should definitely not be allowed to grow in a violent direction. But there is a difference between doing this by engaging with the protestors and just beating them off. But the crowd in Delhi were not just about castration or death penalty for rapists(there were definitely calls for this form of punishment) and definitely not about bringing down the government, but was a protest against a government that has failed half the population of our country. The people are smart enough to know it cannot be fixed quickly, but they also know not doing anything or mere tokenism will simply not do anymore.

Therefore, it is upto the government to do its job and to the people to protest and mobilise themselves if their government is failing the nation. It is then upto the government to rectify itself and talk to the people and protestors to tell them what they are going to do about it and earnestly go ahead with changing itself and working for the nation. But merely resorting to the power of the state against legitimate demands of the people and then lecturing about the need for order and rule of law is just a lame excuse to evade and escape true culpability.

In this current instance, the protestors were first met with water cannons, teargas and lathi charges. This only hardened their resolve to get an answer from the government and a cursory statement would not pacify a crowd that was punished for demanding justice. Along with a statement on what it was doing in the current case, government's stand and measures to improve safety for women, the government should have also explained the harsh steps it took to disperse the crowd rather than labelling the protest as a harbinger of anarchy and chaos.

I would like to add that the crowd did follow its emotions and the anger was definitely evident as some of the demands were not fully reasonable and well thought out. Calling for capital punishment and castration is clearly one step too far since none of these act as deterrents but will only serve as revenge- this is different from justice. We need to understand that in almost 90% of the rape cases, the perpetrators are known to the victim. What this means is that there will be tremendous pressure on the victim by family or friends to not file charges since a person they know will be send to the gallows. There is also the argument that since the perpetrator knows he will be sentenced to death anyway, it might be better to silence the victim- both are strong arguments against the death sentence.

But that does not negate the fact that the protestors did ask for timely justice- faster investigation, speedy trials and convictions. Promptly registering cases and investigations involving scientific methods and concluding the trials on time will mean not only that there is justice but also will change the feeling of impunity that men can get away with rape since the conviction rate is an abysmal 3%. This step will reduce rapes as well as provide justice to the victim. But this is a radical step and will require police reform and judicial reform, needed not only in rape cases, but also in our entire police force and judiciary.

The protestors should have also asked for more sensitive handling of the victim by the police as well as the medical staff, trained policewomen to register rape cases and meet the victim, treating the victim with respect and compassion and a rapid cure to the misconception held by many that women invite rape and their dressing has a lot to do with it. But what if rape is a state sponsored weapon used against its own people as in the red-corridor, north-east and J&K? Here too justice must be delivered if our nation must justify itself as the world's biggest democracy. More policing is required in certain areas, not in numbers but in their ability to respond to citizen who are under threat.

They also sought social change by questioning the way we view women as mere objects to be controlled and used. They asserted the independence of women and men did come out in support of these ideas- conveying a message that there are honest, decent men and we are with you- something the government failed to convey. If discrimination and threats women face right from the womb to the grave is to end, more than anything, it is our attitude that must change. Parents, teachers and society must teach our children that boys and girls are all equal and must respect each other.But before we can do that, we grown-ups must learn that lesson first and practice it in our lives.

Far off from the People

A little over two years ago, a street vendor in Tunisia named Mohamed Bouazizi protested against the municipal official and her aides who seized his wares, in the only way he could in a land that was being ruled by an autocrat for 23 years- he set himself on fire. The wave of protests that it sparked off lead to what has been dubbed as the 'Arab Spring'. In spite of the fact that it has not been fully successful in establishing democracies and answerable governments in the region, that single incident sparked off a series of protests and were met with heavy government force injuring and killing many- to be expected in an area filled with dictators who had been ruling these nations with an iron first for decades.

No one in their right minds would consider these protests as only about demanding a 'judicial inquiry' into the death of Mohamed Bouazizi or about punishing those responsible for his death. These protests were about justice for the entire society, Bouazizi became a symbol for the entire nation and especially for the youth who were struggling in Tunisia under the autocratic regime of Abidine Ben Ali. The protests were about freedom, against tyranny and the heavy hand of the state that could not be tolerated any more.

Last week, India too witnessed protests that were compared to the 'Tahrir Square' protests in Egypt. These protests held near the President's residence and close to the buildings of various Ministries and also the Parliament building demanded justice for not just one person, but for all women. Just like the protests in the Arab world, it was about changing the status quo and not just about one incident. It was not about capturing the criminals who assaulted a woman, but about justice for all our sisters, mothers, wives and daughters. The government failed to realise these truths and reacted in a manner that suggested it was out of touch with the people.

What was the need of a judicial enquiry when the police had already apprehended all the suspects? Why did the government not make any movement for two days and treat it as just a law and order problem when there is a fundamental right to protest? Why could not the President or the Prime Minister defuse the situation by making a clear and bold statement as soon as possible rather than the emotionless statement and banal appeals for calm that it released only two days after the protests? In fact, it beats common sense that at a time when the nation was united in outrage against a heinous crime (quite unlike previous protests which were against corruption in the government), the government did not seize the opportunity to stand with the people and understand their anger.

Even now,attempts are on in certain sections of the media to project that policemen were attacked killed by a violent mob. The protests were highly peaceful with only a few incidents of vandalism and stone-throwing, but most of these too were instigated by police lathi charges and teargas firing. Anyone questioning the protests, their intentions and political motivation has got a highly perverted moral compass since they were only asking for justice and not for resignation or arrest of any political figure. But just like in an autocracy, we have a government out of touch with the people that saw their genuine grievance as just a law and order threat which had to be quashed. Hence the teargas firing, lathi charges and closing down of metro stations. What we saw was the heavy hand of a state repressing an honest, sincere and people driven protest and the protests turned violent only because of the government's refusal to leave their ivory towers and engage with the people.

If the government was sincere and smart, it would have realised crowds that do not have a political affiliation and created by spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment, do not have a well-defined set of rules, demands and a clear leader. They protest not just about one specific incident, but about the horrors plaguing our country. The best way to deal with it, or rather face the situation is to actually listen to the people and understand what they are trying to say. Then come out and make a statement, not read out from a prepared script, that says I understand you, your grievances and we will work together to solve this issue and then putting those words into practice. But to do this, the government must be able to understand the people, not stay away from them while going to them only once in five years. I do not think we have such a government of the people, by the people and for the people, the government response to these protests prove just that.

Here is the 1.76lakh crore Mr.Sibal

The government and the relevant political parties have attacked only the financial impact part of the report (Chapter 5) while ignoring other parts like how advice of Minister of Law and Justice and suggestions of Prime Minister to reconsider pricing was ignored, how licenses were issued to ineligible entities, undue advantages given to Swan telecom and non fulfillment of roll out obligations by the new telecom companies (Chapter 4 of the report). Therefore, this post explains only the Financial Impact part of the report.

If someone has the patience and brains to understand the report, it would be easy to realise that it does not state Rs.1.76lakh crore IS THE LOSS. Under Chapter 5 of the Performance Audit Report on the "Issue of Licences and Allocation of 2G spectrum" ( http://cag.gov.in/html/reports/civil/2010-11_19PA/Telecommunication%20Report.pdf ), the financial impact is assessed. It says the following points-

1) The price of Rs.1659 crore was fixed in 2001 at a time when teledensity was low and cost to consumers was high. So a low price would increase accessibility and reduce prices. But in 2008, the situation had changed- the prices were low, there was a steadily increasing demand from consumers and penetration was increasing. Under this situation, the price should have been revised.

2)S TEL voluntarily agreed to pay Rs.6,000 crore to Rs.13,752 crore for 6.2MHz spectrum and increase the amount in case of others offering a higher price. This alone works out to more than Rs.65,000crore and a loss of Rs.53,000crore (the government collected a grand total of Rs.12,386crore based on 2001 price)

3) By comparing the prices obtained in 3G spectrum, considering the demand for spectrum, its scarcity during 2007-2008 and opportunity, the price should have been Rs.1.52lakh crore against Rs.12,386crore obtained. A loss of 1.39lakh crore

4) Swan got license for INR1,537 crore (US$279.73 million) and then it sold 45% stake to UAE based company Etisalat for INR4,200 crore (US$764.4 million). Unitech Wireless, a subsidiary of the Unitech Group, got license for INR1,661 crore (US$302.3 million) and later sold 60% stake for INR6,200 crore (US$1.13 billion) to Norway based company Telenor. Calculation based on sale by Unitech gives a loss of 69,000crore or and that by Swan gives 57,000crore.

The government also allotted to existing operators, additional 3.6MHz (1.8MHz+1.8HMHz) spectrum based on usage, justification and availability at no cost(operator reaching subscriber base of 5lakh or more in a service are - page 24 of the report). To each of the above loss figures, the CAG added price of this additional spectrum. The amount of this loss was based on the recommendation of the Technical Committee appointed by Ministry for Communication and Information Technology for "Allocation of Access spectrum and pricing" that additional spectrum assigned beyond contracted 6.2MHz+6.2MHz should attract upfront charge equivalent to 3G auction price. TRAI also recommended in May2010 for charging the additional spectrum held by operators beyond the licensed quantity. This loss amount is 36,993 crore and is then added to 3. For the 2 and 4, the price of this additional spectrum is calculate at the same rate as that of the contracted 6.2MHz.

 

The loss calculations have been shown above and is taken from the CAG report.

These companies did not invest in setting up infrastructure and marketing, but still got extremely high prices while selling off shares and this was because of the only asset they possessed- spectrum. For companies like Telenor, they have trained manpower and technical know-how to establish a mobile telecom service provider, if they have the spectrum and they paid Unitech dearly for it.

"Audit reiterates that specific value of 2G spectrum could have been discovered only through an efficient market drawn process and in its absence, these are indicators available which give the hints towards the loss Government could have suffered. The revenue realised through auction of 3G at the rate fetched through a market process is highlighted in this report to project the benefits of resorting to an open price discovery process and the value that spectrum could command without compromising with the policy of open competition. The fact also remains that the Government got 1.03lakh crore from the auction of 3G and BWA spectrum against their own estimate of Rs.35,000crore"

This is from the report and what this means is that the auditor is not saying the loss is this much, but is indicating the magnitude of the loss the government suffered when it did not use market forces, which it had infact used in sale of 3G and Broadband Wireless Access spectrum(BWA). This is all the more important since the price fetched at 3G+BWA was almost the three times the estimated price.

So the CAG has not said the government lost 1.76lakh crore and has provided three different estimates of losses. Report also says that for better price discovery, market forces could have been used and when it was used in 3G spectrum auction, the government received an amount greater than its own estimate. It also says that the price received by the government by selling spectrum at 2001 rates is much lower than the real price of spectrum in 2007-2008 and such mistakes should be avoided in the future. It is high time the government ends this charade as it turns a blind eye to what is being said in the report and obfuscates the facts, attacks small parts of the report, denies it in spite of clear and simple evidence along with attacking the credibility of a constitutional authority using high-end rhetoric and puppets fueled by nothing but a lot of hot air.