Coalgate- Part-1: The Basic Facts

What is important- All the people in the country or the country's perception in the eyes of a few who will decide and certify the government as investor friendly, pro-active and supportive of development? What is the function of government- to protect the interests of the people or the interests of those who intend to destroy the environment for their private profit? What is development- a growth that delivers riches to the riches and misery to the poorest?

Let us not judge them without facts. So these are the facts-
The reason for allotting coal blocks to private companies was to boost coal production as Coal India Limited was unable to meet the huge demand in the country. Rather than allowing companies to become miners, the government decided to allot captive coal blocks, i.e, it allowed companies own and operate mines to meet their need for coal, the main industries being power and cement manufacturing. It is a wise decision since our power plants are working at low plant load factors due to unavailability of fuels. The government's decision not to auction coal blocks was to ensure low price for electricity.

So how did it determine who would get these coal blocks? A logical way would be to judge them on their ability to develop mining projects (since coal mining was nationalised, there is no point in considering coal mining experience or expertise), grant them without bias, take them back if fields are not utilised by the allottee and impose conditions on the price at which the output from coal is sold (electricity or cement) since they are getting the resource for free, make these conditions clear and keep them unchanged.

What actually happened was this- there was no logical way of choosing who should get these coal blocks. It was allotted in a completely opaque manner by a screening committee which has not made public the criteria it used to allot coal blocks. Therefore, the coal block allocation was arbitrary and opaque. Something that cannot be allowed in a democracy. The Government's defence- it used a screening committee and it was done by the state government. But how the screening committee decided who should be given coal blocks is also not clear.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20120921291803600.htm

Reliance power was allotted a captive coal block for its Sasan Ultra Mega Power Plant(UMPP), which means the coal from the Moher and Moher-Amlohri extension and Chhatrasal blocks should be used for generating power at Sasan and this was the condition on which all companies submitted applications for coal block allotment. After the block was allotted, government allowed Reliance power to divert the coal from this block to another of its power plant. This has 2 major issues-

1)This power plant supplied power to highest bidder and so the defence of low electricity price goes out the window. This means that Reliance made money out of it, whereas the government loses revenue.
2)Permission to divert coal to other locations was granted after it was allotted and so it is an undue benefit granted to Reliance since there would have been more applicants and others suitable to get the block had they known that such an option existed
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3784810.ece

Coal is a major mineral and central government has jurisdiction to decide policy on this matter. It had recommended auctioning as the route to allocating coal blocks as it was aware of windfall gains to private parties. Inspite of this, auctioning was not done and the government hides behind the "state government compulsion", perhaps a welcome change from "coal"ition compulsion.
 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3251983.ece

Since the reason for granting coal blocks without bidding was to ensure low electricity prices, there should have been the condition that those running power plants with coal from captive fields sell power at low rates. The government seems to have realised only now that such a step was necessary, in spite of it being so obvious. It is only going to regulate the price at which electricity is supplied by these companies.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/energy/power/power-tariff-charged-by-captive-coal-block-owners-to-be-regulated/articleshow/16360164.cms

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-09-09/news/33713621_1_coal-blocks-power-projects-jindal-power

The government has itself admitted that 57 blocks were allotted and only one has been developed so far and this means zero loss to the government.If the purpose was to meet the demand of industries, then not meeting this demand is a mistake and maladministration in itself. By not mining the coal, there is low capacity utilisation in power plants(remember the largest black-out in the world?) and thus loss of money to everyone!
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3815701.ece?homepage=true

I am yet to find out whether those who were granted coal blocks to manufacture cement made cement at lower prices. Since only 1mine has been developed, perhaps this has not happened. If this happens, there are issues galore.
1)If they sell cement at market prices, they are getting huge profit since others have to pay market price for coal and they get it almost for free
2)If they sell cement at lower prices, they have an unfair advantage of cheap raw material.

These are the issues CAG has brought out in its report about what is now the infamous Coalgate scam

Our World Should Not Be Owned

Gina Rinehart, one of the world's richest women, said that mining in Australia is becoming too costly and Africans are ready to work for 2 dollars a day. This shows the attitude of capital, it is only concerned about its profits and not about the well being of its workers or the country of the owners origin, let alone the country in which they work. All the management techniques that speak about employee motivation and satisfaction come to nothing because labour is essentially cheap and so workers can simply quit or are fired if not satisfied and hence not working to the satisfaction of supervisors, since there is always more labour available.

The only thing capital chases is profits which can be obtained through cheap labour, cheap resources like land, water, power, lower taxes and maximum subsidies and prices for its products. The flight of capital into the BRIC countries was simply because of the growth in economy of these nations, not out of any interest in developing these nations and we now know that this growth was boosted through free transfer of resources like coal, land, water and airwaves. Once the free lunch ran out, capital is also flooding out of these countries and according to international rating agencies, the guiding angels of capital, unless these countries resort to more reforms which transfer more resources to the hands of private profit makers, they will pull their capital out. This is the scenario we are witnessing now.

To these corporates, a country consists only of consumers who will shell out money for their products and then natural resources which can be used to make products that can be pushed down the throats of millions which will become billions in profit. India is becoming a fantasy land for such investors and it is not just foreign investors who are to blame. The only change from License-Permit Raj is Crony Capitalism and a middle class emerging on the back of those exploited for less than $2 a day, driven out of their homes to gain access to coal, bauxite and to establish SEZs and swanky super highways.

It is a win-win game for the parties involved. International investors spend money in profit making enterprises or set up their own organisations- banks, subsidiaries and retail chains. They are assured of profits by the powers that be who in turn receive their sustenance through these international locusts for favours done. They can also highlight various growth rates, increase in spending for public purposes- most of these projects again go to crony capitalists who corner resources or through the new panacea for all governmental shortcomings "Public Private Partnerships".

What can be done against such institutionalised exploitation which is the basis of the modern world? Our entire economy depends on preventing access to those without money from the essentials of life- only those with money can buy goods and services, essential services like health and education are being privatised and controlled by profit motives. We do have strong laws in India, but it remains only on paper. The fact that laws are observed only in their breach is not news, but what is surprising is framing rules and policies to favour exploitation and crony capitalism- what else can explain the post-bid benefits provided to certain corporates in the DIAL and Coal scam, what else can explain the interest corporates are now showing in opening up mines that were allocatted to them more than 5 years ago?

The more I learn about these, the more I realise that things will always remain the way the are. We have mountains of reports- on reforms in administration and defence, on starvation and malnutrition, maternal and child mortality, exploitation of poor and poor defence preparedness, commissions on accidents and disasters- but nothing being done about them. It will take time, effort and intelligence to make a change or perhaps a change that is beyond the control of everyone, perhaps a violent shaking down of things.

There is not doubt that we need to change, but how it will come I do not know. Are we too powerless to do anything about? Perhaps we can be the change, change ourselves slowly and just be good, responsible, responsive citizens and cast-off the regular attitude of cynicism and I have better things to do. One question I always hear what will I get out of discussing and knowing about all this, well you might just get better roads, better hospitals, schools and an environment to live in or if you want to just leave the country, better airports, flight services and a faster and better way to get your passport. I still do not know how it will happen, but it will happen if enough of us can try or atleast want to change.

A "Fishy" Story of Empowerment

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". This famous saying talks about the importance of building long-term capabilities that are more effective than giving short-term relief, but in spite of this being highly famous and so overused that a friend remarked give a mallu a fish, he will ask for two more, this seems to have escaped the ears of our policy makers.

Ours is a nation that spends nearly 1.9lakh crores on subsidies, mostly on fuel, food and fertilizer. Then there are dole-outs like free electricity to farmers and no tax on agricultural income, the benefits of which hardly reach the intended population. This is the fate of most affirmative action programmes, with reservations benefitting only the comparatively well-off among these sections and they alone perpetually flourish as the less fortunate in their own community continue to live without any improvement in their lives.

With beneficiaries not being reached, schemes being riddled with corruption and leakages and clamour for fiscal discipline from corporates, international organisations and trade bodies, subsidies are the first to face the axe. A cause exists in reducing fuel subsidies, but not completely and only under certain conditions. These conditions include providing the poor who use kerosene for lighting and cooking with alternative methods like solar lanterns and cookers, higher tax on diesel vehicles, better roads and public transport, prohibiting use of diesel in mobile towers, reducing the high taxes and a clear explanation of how these tax revenues are spend. There is a need to provide food subsidy and fertilizer subsidy to some extent because we have the worlds largest number of poor even by conservative estimates and we are not self-sufficient in fertilizer production and we need to import it.

But doesn't it all sound so simple that a person with just basic common sense and knowledge without any political experience can come up with these? It seems obvious that these facts could not have escaped the attention of economists from Cambridge. So why do they continue on this is an obvious question and this is where the 'fishy' saying matters. If you teach him to fish, he no longer needs you and you would be out of the picture. But if you (contractors, Public Private Partnerships, Panchayats) continue to give him a fish and extract a fee for that from the government in the name of poverty alleviation or even better, continue to claim you are giving him a fish, but keep it for yourself and keep taking the fee, it is a highly profitable long term venture.

Should subsidies be totally be done away with? No. Some of it should be reduced, regulated with the use of technology like sensors in personal diesel vehicles and some done away with like diesel generators to run mobile communication towers. The case for food subsidy is strong because inspite of the growth our economy has witnessed, we have also seen depreciation in wages, rise in rich-poor divide and fall in purchasing power due to inflation. The first function of the government is to protect the lives of its citizens, not just the rich or those who want to trade with the west, but each and every citizen. Food is still a basic human requirement and cannot be replaced with Rs.10 recharge coupons or smart phones. Ensuring this basic need is met is the function of the government, especially in a time when we have lop-sided development. Some subsidies should be restructured, as in the case of fertilizers where nutrient based subsidies should be implemented completely in which use of fertilizer is determined on the base of condition of soil, climate, irrigation, requirement etc. Though in some cases, like food, a basic necessity for all, there should be universal coverage to ensure no one is left out.

By offering development and favours of subsidies and loan write-offs, government builds for itself a better image but benefit only the well-off. It gives hope to the poor which will translate as votes. If all our aspirations are met, if all our basic needs are satisfied, then we will start holding the government accountable and expect more from it. It is easier to manage a population that requires only the most basic of needs since they can be lured in with the most basic of campaign promises.

Therefore, all these schemes, in spite of being well-conceived and well thought out with good intentions, are being manipulated to keep people poor for economic and political profit and we will never grow out of it unless the poor take their destiny into their own hands. The anti-development thesis is especially about the poor coming together, organising themselves into a system that goes against the current form of development that benefits only those with money to make more money while there is little trickle down to the poorer sections.

Schemes should be reinvented to provide assistance, encourage self-empowerment, self-employment and formation of self-help groups. As I mentioned before, I am not talking about completely removing subsidies and poverty alleviation schemes or always going against loan write-offs, these may be necessary due to existing situations and also if there are unexpected occurances like droughts, floods etc. These are ad hoc measures to be pursued in the short term till the people are ready to take control of their own lives. For example, unless the society and government as a whole ensure protection, equality of opportunities and fair treatment for women and girl children, they cannot expect to empower themselves through education and attain financial independence.

Skill development, electricity, roads, communication technology and providing the basic services to all individuals should be the priority. The purpose of the scheme should be to enable individuals to take their fate into their own hands and overcome their dependence on the government for sustenance, become responsible individuals and hold the government accountable for its actions. It is not a minimalist government, but it is a government that provides the environment for individuals to become better citizens that we need.

Theory of Perpetual Instability

In a new organisation, the organisation itself is trying to find its feet, adjust and respond to situations that keep changing or situations that it is only becoming aware of. Therefore, just like employees, the organisation too goes through Immature-Mature phase.

The growth of organistaion is similar to growth of individuals and their needs. Starting from 'Break-Even Point' and getting the first profit which is similar to the physiological needs, it goes through phases of establishing itself in the market, gains market share, gains loyalty of consumers and tries to make its products better. These correspond to various steps in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

As the organisation grows, it faces immense challenges and it has a small workforce. Therefore, there is not just division of work, but also division of responsibilities. This leads to participative management, decision making that involves all workers, bottom to top communication and all this means decisions and orders are outcomes of exigencies, not command from an authority. This also follows McGregor's Theory Y where individuals can contribute their creativity, intelligence to solve problems, utilise their potential and seek responsibility and also addresses the concerns raised by Mary Parker Follett about decision making, control, power and authority in an organisation.

But once the organisation has established itself, due to shareholders' interests it goes back to basic physiological need of profit. This might happen even at an earlier stange. Therefore, there is a distortion of growth and self-actualisation of organisation.

This applies for private organisations and in gorvernment organisations too. Once the tradition is set, it stays there. Whether private or government organisations, their paths diverge from that of individuals. This creates a conflict of interest. This is what happens when organisations have consolidated their working. The goals become mere words as they lose their meaning or the intention of framing the words (the spirit) is lost, enthusiasm wanes, complacency creeps in- all due to lack of participation and responsibility.

This might also happen with new government programmes, legislations, orders etc. Here, during the initial phase of these systems, it could be the initial shock, surprise and destabilisation along with optimism that spurs on the system. But complacency, external pressure in the form of protest by affected individuals, corruption, resistance etc can retard it and make it ineffective gradually.

Therefore, we might never reach a stable society. We might have to go through the process of initiation, growth and decay continuously. We might have to continuously reinvent our institutions, redefine our freedom and our world. We might be in a continuous state of flux, always changing and the purpose of change is not stability but merely prevent us from losing sight of our purpose, our rights, freedoms and the meaning of everything that we hold dear.

Generalist Administration In India

The debate on Generalist versus Specialist in the administrative hierarchy of India has been on since the time of independence. We place the generalist IAS office above specialists in almost all departments and rare is the occasion when an outsider occupies a Secretary post in the Union and State governments and the promotion to the post of Joint Secretary is virtually assured to all in the IAS. This has lead to discontent among the specialists as, for example, the Indian Audit and Accounts Service is headed by the CAG who is an IAS officer, department made of IA&AS officers lead by an IAS officer. Complaints of civilian administrators not heeding the demands of the armed forces chief are common. The question has come up again in my mind due to an article in the Economic Times and the book 'The Honest Always Stand Alone' (by C.G.Somiah who joined IAS in the early 1950s and was the CAG from 1990 to 1996).

I have read about the disagreement artists, writers, social activists and intelligentsia have against banning of certain books and works of art. I have always thought artistic freedom should be absolutely uninhibited and only then will we have a free country. But while reading C.G.Somiah's book, I got a perspective of the other side that has to take the decision on whether to ban the book or not, when he narrated the banning of 'Satanic Verses' in India before it was even banned in Pakistan. To say that administrators are pandering to wishes of fundamentalists and pretentious religious sentiments would border on the blasphemous and be totally unfair to them. Artists, while trying to defend freedom of expression, do not realise that it is not their freedom that is being restricted by the government on behalf of narrow-minded sentiments nor are these sentiments attempting to attack this freedom. What happens is an attempt to defend a blind belief based on false and uninformed interpretation.

I would like to explain using an example. During the Anna Hazare strike in August 2011, there were several individuals who took part in processions and wore support badges for Anna Hazare. But very few of them had taken the effort to go through the Jan Lokpal Bill and the Bill introduced by the government in Parliament. These individuals were also mistaken in their understanding of the bill as they thought this would end everyday corruption that we as the common man experienced. They were also unaware of the severe deficiencies in the bill civil society had come up with. What this shows is that, individuals follow the herd, we accept popular opinion and this may or not be correct and this becomes the voice of the masses, which may or may not reasonable. (I do not attempt to tarnish the power and importance of mass opinion, but I am merely trying to show the dynamics of what happens and how)

Based on this understanding and acceptance, it becomes clear that the demands to ban books and other creative works do not stem always from a reasonable, informed and logical demand but a mass opinion. So the demand is not against artistic freedom but against hurt to their beliefs and we all know that in India and elsewhere in the world, religion is an emotional subject which can get out of control. In the interest of maintaining law and order and protecting society from such out of control interests, the government has had to act at times. Only administrators and government can take a whole view of the situation and come to a decision. Only a generalist can come to such a decision and that is why they are important to any administration as it deals with multitudes of divergent interests that can come into conflict with each other, which if not contained or settled at the earliest, can spread causing widespread chaos and uncertainty. The basic purpose of any administration is to maintain law and order in the country and it is merely fulfilling its duties while taking such decisions on sensitive issues.

Yet, I must add that such decisions must only be sparingly be used in situations like the one I mentioned. Frequently conceding to such demands would give the impression of a weak administration that has little authority over the country or state. It must be used only when situations can spread out of control over an area  beyond the capacity of our law enforcement agencies. Politically twisting such situations for petty gains are also common, as we saw when Salman Rushdie had to withdraw from Jaipur Literary Festival as a death threat was purported to have been issued against him by some religious factions. This was merely done to avoid a law and order issue, which although could be interpreted as a smart way to avert a crisis. It was the threat of violence that prohibited the screening of the movie 'Dam 999' in Tamil Nadu, whereas the Supreme Court in its judgement in the case related to prohibition of the screening of the movie 'Oru Gramathinte Katha' had said that possibility of law and order issues is not a valid reason for such bans. Such ad hoc measures would not do, the government must assert its authority over such issues and should be able to control law and order issues and not be held hostage by threats of violence, law and order and politics.

This is a justification as well as an explanation for the need for generalist administrators in our country. Administrators are in a position to take a neutral view of issues only because of their generalist specialisation and this is absolutely important in a country as diverse geographically, culturally and linguistically as ours. But there definitely is a need to overcome politics, vulnerabilities in enforcing the rule of law and authority over mob mentality and all the facts on the ground must be considered while taking a balanced decision which is what the IAS is meant to do and has been doing (albeit with a few exceptions and individual misfits) in its history.


http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/editorial/ias-officials-expertise-is-administration-not-finance-banking-technicalities/articleshow/15176674.cms - article in ET blasting IAS officers who are not specialists and the comments show a certain degree of animosity towards them from the public, albeit misinformed and unreasonable

Emotional Authority and Fraternity

The infant mortality rate is 47 in India, that is, 47 children out of 1000 die within 42 days of their birth. 212, the number of maternal deaths per lakh live births. 237 million or one fifth of the whole of India remain hungry, 29.8% or 36 crore Indians are classified officially as poor by the planning commission. 44%, proportion of children under five who are underweight in India and only 4 countries outside of Africa have figures worse than India. Global Hunger Index ranks India 67th out of 88 developing nations. I could go on and on with numbers and statistics, they never end as each day brings more than I can ever comprehend.

Under this flood of numbers, I am losing my sense of reality. Sufferings and situations become mere numbers, numbers to be analysed, quoted and used to make a point. The fact that these numbers correspond to individuals- each and every one of them with the same set of feelings and emotions as me, all of them with parents and perhaps brothers and sisters, all of them suffering in ways I can hardly imagine- is seldom registered. It simply cannot be comprehended since it is too huge and too frequent that my brain does not have the ability to see beyond the numbers.

This is what happens to everyone beyond a certain point, a numbness at first and perhaps indifference and then they merely stay as numbers. They become an end in itself, to change those numbers we can modify their measurements, throw in some money hoping that it will change and we merely chase results. Our intension change to merely changing the numbers without understanding what lies beneath- the pain and suffering is too deep to be ever realised.

When policies are made under such circumstances, by those with no understanding of the true meaning of those numbers, then their impact too will be limited. We can talk on and on about developing administrative mindset to be more people-friendly and people-oriented, we can build complex policies to wish away these numbers, there can be reforms in the structure of administration to take it to the grassroots and more responsive to the people's needs, but if they lack the commitment to eradicate the underlying cause of suffering- which can happen only if the policy makers have some humanity and kindness in them along with the ability to realise the extent of the pain and suffering- then these become merely an exercise in futility.


Max Weber's legal rational theory of Authority is the model of administration and government we follow- a set of rules that prescribe the relationship between those who rule, those who are ruled and the system that implements these rules. Initially it was merely about implementing rules and regulations and we have now reached development administration where it is about delivery of services and ensuring socio-economic development. In theory, these are given as objective goals to be achieved, but I find the lack of emotion quite disturbing.

The need to ensure political-social-economic development is not just to make it a fair deal so that everyone has a set of basic rights, access to health, safety, education and purchasing power. I believe what should drive us is an acceptance and understanding that when there is even one person left on this planet who is suffering, the entire human race cannot be free of that pain and suffering. It might be emotional, but then that is what we are, social and emotional beings which cannot be denied. If our siblings or parents are in pain, we too are affected and we try to relieve that pain. It must be the same with all human beings, see them as our own self and as part of our lives.

It is with such emotions that we need to work, one could say it lacks the objectivity needed to work without succumbing to weaknesses, for sympathy and fraternity is exactly what we need to better our world. I say it is better to understand the need, purpose and impact of our actions than to deal in cold, detached and indifferent observations, recommendations and proposals. Policies for development should be made and implemented with such feelings and understanding of its purpose, this will surely achieve results.

A humanistic attitude towards life, towards everything we do is all I am talking about. But then, it is too silly to expect it from everyone because if everyone thought like this, we would never have had to make rules and regulations in the first place. The answer to those who do not think of humanity as one family lies in those who believe in "Vasudhaiva Kudumbakam" and lives accordingly. The answer to all the problems of the world lie in us, in each of us becoming better individuals and enabling others to be the same too. It is naive and simple and so the practical way is to deal with the good, poor and nice people in the world in simple terms (or even naively) but use our brains and all its devious learnings while dealing with the devious.

Poor and Unfair Standards

S&P has issued warnings that it might downgrade India's rating to junk unless the government wakes up from slumber and implements much needed reforms. The recent confusion due to policy paralysis on what is considered essential and urgent reforms in fields like FDI in multi-brand retail, high budget deficits and current account deficit and poor investor sentiment is the reason being suggested for such a downgrade. In fact, it is being suggested that the 'I' in BRICS, an acronym for countries with high growth rate which are expected to be world economic leaders, should be replaced by Indonesia for it has shown robust growth.

S&P had rated Lehman Brothers AAA (the best possible rating) until the bank crashed which triggered the global financial crisis in 2008, merely an example of the ineptitude of the organisation or perhaps its wrong priorities. S&P is not an organisation that is meant to identify well-being or welfare of the people, it does not really care and hence a credit rating downgrade shouldn't raise as much issue as the fact that India's Human Development Index is lower than that of Iraq, Nicaragua and China. We have more starvation and poverty than sub-saharan Africa and the S&P ( Standard & Poor- what an ironic name and strange surname for one of the co-founders who started the rating systeM) rating is only about credit-worthiness, whether giving credit to a country or a company is safe and whether it will be able to repay these loans.

The claim that our growth rate is low and so Indonesia should be the 'I' BRICS is too hollow because Indonesia's growth is 4.8% and when we consider other BRICS, South Africa around 3% (with unemployment close to 25%), Brazil estimates 2.5% growth, the picture doesn't look that bad and the story is not so different for other nations too, but this downgrade threat applies only to India and China's growth story is also facing questions with corruption scandals coming to light and lower scope for export driven growth.

A government exists for the people, priority of the government should be the welfare of the people, not the profits of foreign enterprises. Its duty should be to protect the people from vicissitudes of international economics and step in where prices of essential goods are highly volatile. It must levy taxes and duties to encourage or discourage consumption of certain goods and invest it to adopt technologies and implement projects necessary for the people, but this money should not to be siphoned and distributed through poorly implemented dole-outs and favours for cronies, domestic or foreign. Diesel and Petroleum subsidies are necessitated by high taxes levied by centre, but these taxes are not used for the good of the people but are then given back to Oil Marketing Companies so that they are profitable.

This current downgrade warning could merely be an effort to push the government to introduce reforms that would benefit large corporations in the west that have no chance of increasing revenues in their home countries and force their terms of business on India. It also exposes the true face of nations that intend to be friends of India, they merely see India as a trading and investment partner where they can make money. The downgrade threat is obviously out of place, not just because in terms of priorities of the organisation which does the rating or its righteousness or its ineptitude, but it is an attempt to interfere in the internal economy of a nation through unfair pressure and threats.

Although coming with dubious intentions from an organisation that has committed grave errors, it does raise some pertinent points related to maladministration and policy paralysis within the government and these are issues that must be tackled urgently if the nation is not to slip into chaos and confusion. Urgent reforms are required, but they are in the areas of pension reform, allotment and clearance for projects that are environmentally sustainable, infrastructure bottle-necks, anti-corruption legislation, expanding education, delivery of services and clearing of several bills that are pending in parliament. For this, parliament needs to function, government must show some urgency in identifying and implementing reforms for the good of our people and show some spine by coming out from the comfortable shade of  "coalition-dharma" and identify and declare that certain elements in the alloy are blocking essential reasonable reforms and lay out what it intends to do for the country and how it would go about that task, rather than just projecting fantasies for the future and evoking glory of the past. Only then will we have stability and a government of the people, by the people for the people.

Myth of the Infallible Great

While reading history, one of my simmering questions was what exactly happened during some events in our history (especially our struggle for independence) and also I couldn't fully accept that events were always planned out and happened accordingly and discerned with absolute clarity, but this was the view one got from reading most textbooks I was familiar with in school. The uncertainty and suspense that was the order of the day is painted over with glorious achievements and simplification of events with mere irrefutable facts, dates, distances covered on foot and number of protestors arrested.

The torment and questions that individuals faced, the uncertainty that gripped the nation, games of intrigue that were played and influences that some characters had in the course of events due to obsessions and idiosyncrasies and personal motives are all hidden when we read history in the larger context of mere happenings. There are records of how many soldiers were killed and by how many in each war, but we should be more interested in knowing why, which is rarely answered in our books except in bullet points, with an easily explained set of reasons, as if the actions of men can be explained ever in such simple terms. One glance back at our day will prove that we have taken numerous decisions without reason, many of them against reason and logic and many of them defying our own understanding of self. It is this inconsistency that history covers up with an objective rendering of events.

When I read "The Great Indian Novel", although a work of fiction, I was introduced to such an aspect of story-telling. Rather than just the 'hows', it also dwelt on the 'whys' in a subtle and funny way. I accept that it is a work of fiction because not even the movers of events of the time knew fully why they did it and what its outcomes would be, but the fact that they didn't always (perhaps only very rarely) comprehend events completely itself is never realised by us while studying history. Individuals portrayed as larger than life figures with honorific titles mean that their human aspect is not an angle explored by many, which in itself is not an issue because we do not concern ourselves with the lives of individuals but with events.

But this simplification of actions and subsequent beatification of individuals due to the result of actions and events they were part of has lead to the infallibility of the individual. We see personality cults regularly and politicians exploit it to perpetuate their hold on the people, for some of them cannot accept these leaders as humans who will be affected by old age and disease and vicissitudes of fate and temptation like every human being. Perhaps we would like to believe there are certain individuals who know things for certain, we would like to believe that there is someone in charge who is absolutely sure of what he is doing and what its effects will be, whereas the truth is, no one in this world is sure of anything except the breath we are taking at this moment, right now.

Perhaps our history books should be rewritten to present our great leaders and thinkers and scientists as humans, it might shatter a few idols, but it would also allow us to understand them better and we could use that to be better individuals ourselves. Perhaps we need to see them as ourselves and our fellow beings, understand that they had flaws and faced doubts and uncertainties like us, but also realise they are remembered for contributing to humanity with a life circumscribed by human-hood. It is possible for us to be the next Steve Jobs or Vishwanathan Anand or Dennis Ritchie or Vivekananda, we just need to understand that our limitations in one aspect does not have to stand in the hundreds of ways in which we can achieve success and happiness and contribute to humanity.

Satyameva Jayate:Simple and Effective

We elect members to our parliament, state legislatures and local governing bodies regularly and they form the government, frame laws, rules, regulations and policy. The judiciary interprets and pronounces judgements based on these laws, but these organs of state have little power to decide what we think, what we aspire to become and what our attitudes are. It cannot decide for us what jobs we will take up or what sort of education we want, but can only provide us with options and ensure fairness and freedom to choose. We make our own decisions and in this aspect, the state has little role to play.

Our country has seen several instances of crimes against those belonging to lower castes, women, tribes and minorities. The government can only act by prescribing punishments for such acts and cannot be expected to mark its presence in every street corner or in every home and probe our activities. It is true that government can encourage and promote development of those belonging to lower castes, women etc but ultimately it is up us, the individuals, to treat our brethren with respect, dignity and honour. This is where Amir Khan's television endeavour "Satyameva Jayate" has its place, in influencing and educating the public, in generating awareness about the evils that plague us, in a simple yet effective language of a common man and one, thanks to his celebrity status, people will listen to more than they will heed the words of our politicians.

The solution to a skewed sex ratio is very simple, treat girls as equal to boys. The government cannot frame a law for this, go to every home and ensure this happens, our society must change because it feels the need to change and not because there are rules and regulations and incentives to promote the birth of girls. The role of government in these areas is limited, the role of public discussions, awareness, debates and opinions extremely important and such visible forms of discussion as envisaged by Amir Khan should get people thinking because it is in a form people can understand, relate to and most importantly gets their attention. It is much better than the cacophony and extremely annoying professional news presenters that rule prime time television, as "Satyameva Jayate" consists of sensible discussions without any animosity and hot-headedness, shows real problems of real people and not merely expert views of those residing in ivory towers, detached from reality. It deserves appreciation since it goes much beyond tokenism and PR exercises of celebrities and it is evident that there has been some genuine effort from the actor's part to bring an issue to the public.

For all the talk of his actions being amateurish, perhaps that is exactly what the country needs now. A known face coming out and asking questions of us, our lives and attitudes which will be understood by all, an attempt to find simple, elegant yet obvious solutions to the problem that face our country. In my opinion, Amir Khan has succeeded in that and I hope the initial enthusiasm the programme received continues and we too start thinking about the issues in our society to which we alone hold the answer.

Highly Inflammable Inflation

At times, it will be necessary for governments to take hugely unpopular decisions for the greater good and long term positive results. Only a decisive government can take such decisions and we need governments who can make such calls. The price of petrol was deregulated and Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) were given freedom to decide on prices on June 2010 and it has been the cause of public outrage ever since, but it was a step in the right direction. The last bout of revision meant prices went up by over Rs.7. This price hike is definitely justified in the light of fall in the value of rupee, high international prices the world over due to tension over Iranian issue and huge current account deficits. The need for sound financial management is beyond questioning, we have already experienced what such crunches can do since it was such a crisis in 1991 that pushed our nation's financial stability to the brink forcing us to adopt revolutionary economic reforms.

There are a few other reasons to justify higher price for petrol- world over, consumption is rising at such a rapid rate that we will see end of oil within the century, burning of fossil fuels also add to global warming and higher pollution levels and we also see lop-sided power and influence for a few countries that own oil wealth and for those that have influence over these oil producing countries. By keeping the price of oil high, it is assumed that consumption is discouraged but this is rarely true in the case of petroleum products since this is what moves the country, its people and its economy and so no matter how high the price, we will pay for it and there are no viable alternatives either.

In spite of the fact that price rises are justified for petrol (and also for other petroleum products, the prices for which are still under government control), the government must do its part to protect citizens from such hardships. The price of petrol that consumers pay consists of not just the cost of production and margins of OMCs as almost of 50% of it goes to the government (both central and state) in the form various taxes and duties. In the short-term, government can reduce taxes it levies on the consumer by not just forgoing additional revenue from the hiked prices, but a cut in the tax rates themselves. Revenue forgone by reducing and not levying taxes and duties on gold and diamond for the years 2010-2012 was more than 1 lakh crores and during 2012-2013, the government withdrew its own budget proposals to levy a nominal 2% tax on these items which shows that cutting taxes is not something the government is averse to. The majority of petroleum products is produced by the public sector and so there is little meaning to competition among these OMCs since the money is anyway going to the same destination and so costs on marketing and advertisements also make little sense which can be reduced or even done away with.

The revenue generated by government and OMCs from petroleum products must be used to invest in other sources of fuel and energy and to encourage the use of electric cars and also to encourage renewable sources of energy. Only then will our country have long term energy and financial stability. By taxing non-essential items like gold and jewellery, reducing taxes on this essential product and by investing the revenue generated to fund future stability and security, the government can protect the people, address financial issues and clearly show its commitment to good governance that keeps the interest of the people at heart. Only such an all round effort, can completely justify unpopular actions like increase in prices of essential items without inviting the people's angst against the government, will convince the people that short-term pains will evolve into long term gains and only then will the people reward the government with its support and confidence.