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.

Making Decentralisation Work for Public Interest

One of the solutions for delivery of public services and development that is being considered and is being implemented across the country is decentralised governance. It is based on the assumption that individuals will want to and can have a say in determining their life and will be interested in and capable of making sure that the services and facilities due to them are in fact available. Whether it be educating their children or building a road to their village, it is assumed that beneficiaries can and will want to make sure that the work is done and will take the effort to monitor or implement these programmes.

What this means is that democracy is limited not just to voting our representatives at various levels, but also in taking an active part in deciding and monitoring what they do while in power and ensuring access to decision-making. Is this a concept that we are ready for? Is this assuming too much? I am not sure since I have not studied this matter, but there are certain doubts on this model of governance or a naive assumption that this will solve everything. I am not ridiculing the idea nor am I suggesting a return to centralised model, but we need to approach this with caution and ensure accountability and transparency while embracing decentralised governance.

If devolution and decentralisation are to work, then there has to be individuals interested in taking up the responsibilities associated with this. For this to happen, these individuals should also be able to devote time and effort for this purpose and this is the responsibility of our panchayat representatives. But then is representation fully fair? In spite of SC/ST and women's reservation, it has been found that these representatives are on many occasions controlled by upper castes and women controlled by their husbands. This defeats the purpose of reservation and the voices of those who require public services the most might not be even part of the decision making process.

In this system, gram sabha is the arena where the panchayat members are held accountable. But if not everyone is aware of how the work is being implemented and cannot devote time to see if the schools are functioning or roads are built properly and cannot attend gram sabha meetings, since they are busy fending for themselves and ensuring their daily survival, how is accountability ensured?

Another assumption is about the skills of the elected representatives who are responsible for planning and implementation of several programmes. There are attempts to overcome this through several training and capacity building schemes, but in their five year tenure, significant time will go towards this and due to rotation of reserved seats, most of them will not be able to contest the next cycle of elections.

If individuals are not educated enough to know the power of each individual and develop their capabilities to contribute, to monitor and hold their representatives accountable through direct meetings and if their social position is a barrier to being granted access and contribute to decision-making, how can devolution and decentralisation ensure good governance? On top of this, there is also the issue of interest and motivation for each of us to take the time and effort to make the system work.

Education, access to levels of decision making, accountability, transparency and public scrutiny is essential to make decentralisation and devolution of powers work towards development and better delivery of public services. This does not mean that we have to wait till the entire population is literate, but it has to be a virtuous circle of greater public scrutiny ensuring better facilities for the people which in turn increases public interest in and accountability of the system.

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.

PRISMgate

Ed Snowden said that he does not want the focus to be shifted on to him, but to what he perceives as wrongdoings of the US government. But newspapers and government response has been disproportionately focussed on the rights available to Snowden, possible future scenarios regarding his extradition and nations willing to give him asylum. What it has not dwelt upon is how much we already knew about what was happening.

We have known for sometime that Google uses personalised ads that come after the servers scan through our conversations. The same is true for google searches with personalised search results based on previous searches and web history that google saves by default. Social networking sites work by selling customers and delivering tailor made ads for its users which required mining customer data, the only safety being that it is machines that do the job without human involvement. It was only a matter of time before this data was used for espionage or monitoring in the name of national security. Posting publicly about our location, likes, dislikes and political views is one thing, but scanning through personal communication and details is another, but both equally violate our privacy- in the first case we do it ourselves to gain attention while in the latter, it is done without our knowledge.

Anyone who has seen a decent spy movie or been enthralled by Tom Clancy, Forsyth, Ludlum or Le Carre and the classic 1984 would know that electronic surveillance by government is omniscient. Our telephone communications and financial transactions can be tracked quite easily and has been done without much civilian oversight. The current exposure is different for various reasons as the threat to privacy, data safety and even economies is larger.

1) Previously, social networks and e-mail service providers had not granted access to data on such a large scale to governments. It was targetted details about individuals and accounts and requests to take down certain videos and content. Here, these organisations are being provided unfettered access to data on anyone without any questions asked.

2) The e-mail service providers mentioned in the expose also provide corporate mailing service for almost all the organisations in the world. It would not be entirely inconceivable for the government to engage in corporate espionage to benefit corporations in the US or to target the economy of a foreign nation by destroying its corporates.

3) The US government's main excuse is that it does not spy on individuals in the US. Firstly, it is a small step up from the current scenario to snooping on US citizens. As of now, even conversations suspected to be one involving a foreigner is scanned, so suspecting more conversations would do the trick. The system is already in place, it is simply a matter of choice by the government to leave out citizens from this net and this may be thrown away anytime.

Secondly, this fact may satisfy US citizens, but the rest of the world should be rightly angry and fuming at the domination of the internet by one nation and application of US laws to an entity that has no boundaries. Considering all foreign citizens as enemies is only indicative of the insecurity and paranoia that exists in a declining superpower which is also manifested in the racist and bigotted ideas exposed through patting down of Asians in the airport and social network discourse in the aftermath of the Boston marathon bombing. Also, India has reasons to be offended for being spied on more than China and it must raise this issue with the US on why a nation considered friendly is being spied upon with such high frequency.

4) Lack of civilian oversight- a special secret court actually provides permission to engage in espionage and it provides this permission almost as a rule. This means that who and why they are targetted is never asked.

A pandora's box has been opened and all attempts are being made to defend such unaccountability and state-intrusion into our lives  in the name of protecting freedom and keeping away terrorists. We are slowly signing away our freedoms to corporates and governments who rule us through illusions of choice, freedom and social acceptance. Perhaps we were better off not knowing about it, Mr.Snowden has only made our fears real.

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.

Sreeshanth is Innocent

Although the media circus, social and mainstream media in Kerala especially, are making a mockery of the innocent until proven guilty norm and are filled with daily reports of the spot-fixing scam and the three guilty men, I have reasons to believe that they are all innocent. This is why-

1) Rahul Dravid, the captain of the Rajasthan Royals team and its owners Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra have not been accused of any wrongdoing

2) There was arms-length between Sreeshanth and the ball, quite literally. Otherwise he would have been pulled up by the ICC for suspect action

3) There was zero-loss. Rajasthan Royals won the matches involved in spot-fixing and even qualified to the eliminator. Hence no loss. A case could be made for immense gain to the economy as the spot fixing money would increase liquidity, consumption and lead to economic growth.

4) Where is the spot-fixing Mr.Delhi Police?- There was no spot-fixing in the eliminator, but RR lost to Mumbai in the match. What this means is that spot-fixing was good for the team.

5) Delhi Police exceeded its constitutional mandate- the job of Delhi police is to use water cannons against innocent protestors who demand that state provide legitimate protection for women. Although it has to maintain security inside the stadium, it has no business in a cricket field.

6) Delhi Police cannot dictate bowling tactics- Delhi police has no expertise in bowling, at best it has some skill in batting through the regular use of lathi against protestors. How can it dictate policy, I mean bowling tactics?

The best way to investigate this is by appointing a Joint BCCI Committee consisting of Srinivasan, Shilpa Shetty, Lalit Modi, Subrato Roy, Sreeshanth's brother, Chandila and Mohammad Azharuddin as government representative. During the hearings, the three players, Delhi Police, Srinivasan and bookies will not be summoned. The report will then question why Rajasthan Royals purchased Sreeshanth and the other players at the auctions and why Dravid allotted that specific over to them, due to which Shilpa Shetty will resign in protest.



Statutory Disclaimer- if the post resembles any other scam in India, it is purely co-incidental. The names used have been changed.

PS- a serious disclaimer- Among the names, I mentioned Dravid, but comparing him to the original "arms-length" guy was definitely unfair and I mean no disrespect to him. Apologies.

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.

A Response to Mr.Panagiriya

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/no-use-in-blaming-multinational-retailers-for-industrial-tragedies-in-bangladesh/articleshow/20282015.cms


In the sourcing relationship between a clothing brand, contractor and the labourer, the brand outsources production not out of philanthropic intention but merely to get the product at the lowest possible price. By using clever manipulations, Mr.Panagiriya says that implementing better prices will mean exodus of contracts to other countries. The arrogant mindset of those advocating unbridled capitalism and globalisation is revealed here. First, he implicitly accepts a race to bottom where owners do anything to cut down cost of production. Secondly, by saying that I have other cheap places to produce from, he means these nations will also not demand better contract prices but never says that it should be done by all nations. Market is a better way to price discovery, but this happens between unequal systems with huge disparities in economic conditions and power. Corporates like Walmart are more powerful, not just financially but by lobbying with foreign governments, forcing them to accept unfair deals through pressure from US government and most recently  a  than most other 3rd world nations to which they outsource production contracts. Such a market is obviously lopsided and so price discovery is obviously a scam.

By comparing a apartment owner-real estate builder-labourer, he forgets several things-
1) There is always a transfer of adversities by the contractor/builder but never a transfer of benefits. He implicitly accepts this by saying that we need government regulations to ensure better workplace safety and ensuring better payment to contractors is not enough. The builder has a benefit in the real estate deal, but in the case of the garment factory, unless there is a benefit, it cannot be transferred

2) there is no real estate regulator in India as of now. The consumer is duped through lack of promised facilities, inordinate delays, need for regular maintenance and repair and hidden costs. The builder has benefits, which is clearly not transferred

The new age of globalisation and capitalism can lead to loss of lives if not regulated in the interest of the public, but when there are sound regulations and a fair deal- in this case, better payments to the contractor who transfers the benefits to the workers- it will benefit the labourer, contractor, brand owner and the consumer.