Whither Demographic Dividend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging Trend of Conservatism in India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no simple explanations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning History and its Lessons

The job of a historian is to record events, analyse them and produce an objective version of what happened, how and why. Some also offer versions different from recorded and accepted history while others probe the 'what if' angle and how things would have turned out so different, so well and so pleasant if it hadn't been for a minor mistake, grudge or oversight. But these offer us academic closure and explain things neatly to be stored and retreived to analyse the present through the past or in my case currently, to answer questions for an exam. The reasons can be numbered, the events dated and the aftermath judged through influence of these events on the future.

Of late I have read books dealing with historical events, but viewed through the life of people. The fact that the movie 'Titanic' became a super-hit and won 11 academy awards proves the impact of telling a story through the lives of people which makes it different from a historical documentary. 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Schindler's List', 'Mother India' are among the long list of movies that recount real history through the life of people. Sometimes they are fictional characters, like in 'Titanic' and 'Saving Private Ryan', made to give order, structure and the human element to complex events which when viewed only objectively will mean something to us who are far away from them. Sometimes they are real, like in 'Schindler's List' or 'Gandhi'.

The fact remains, history through the life of people allows for better understanding and emotions than any objective work. It allows us to relive the pain, agony, joys, relief and hopes of the characters thus leaving a deeper and clearer impact on us than pure academic history. Whether books or movies, stories of people allow us to relate to events and emotions and get a clearer understanding. My sojourn through 'Unheard Voices' by Harsh Mander, 'Poor Little Rich Slum' by Rashmi Bansal and Deepak Gandhi (both non-fiction), 'Long Walk Home' by Manreet Sodhi Someshwar and 'Winter Nights' by Navtej Sarna (fiction) told me about incidents and realities in India- omnipresent injustice perpetuated on lower castes, tribals, women, farmers and apathy of state to their plight, communal riots, our prejudice and ignorance on issues of poverty, our snobbery and indifference towards urban poverty, our obsession towards a glitzy, glamorous model of development, partition and its violence, the loss of sons and daughters to wanton violence- all these were presented through the lives of people.

This is why artists, writers and performers require the freedom to express their views- to bring out the real human stories behind events and not be circumscribed by the need to present everything in a neatly written plot having a clear beginning and end with lot of song and dance and cliches thrown in. They need to write these so that those far away in time and space understand these events. We need to understand them because we have to learn to overcome our differences, live in peace and harmony with ourselves and the world and realise that to forget is to repeat. Human emotions and feelings are the same everywhere and although we cannot experience the same events, learning about the lives of others we relive it and it teaches us a lot more than objective history. There is no better way to learn the lessons of history than the words of those who lived it. This is why 'Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl' is read across the world in dozens of languages even 70 years after the author's death and remains a defiance and defence against despotism, hate and violence.

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.