SC gives right order on Haj subsidy…..now apply the same to Reservations

The SC has done the right thing by asking the Government of India to scrap the Haj subsidy over the next ten years. There are many things right in this order. First, unlike in some of the other orders the SC has given in the recent past (the cancellation of the 122 2G licenses for one), this one is balanced. It gives the government ten years to make the change. The second is that it shows a modernizing of thoughts of the SC – a more practical viewpoint as it were. The SC had earlier ruled in favor of the Haj subsidy. It has now changed its stance. And third, the fact that the order was passed by a judge of the minority community itself making it free of any possible accusations of bias of the majority community.

It’s clear the Haj subsidy – and any other similar subsidies provided directly or indirectly to people of any religion – is nothing but vote bank politics. It’s the kind of thing that is easy to start, but extremely difficult to shut off. It may benefit no one really (a story suggested that Air India first inflates the air bill and then the government passes on a discount), but its removal would still be a highly emotional and political matter. It’s good to hear that Justice Aftab Alam himself narrated portions of the Holy Koran to bring out the fact that the Haj should be paid for by the person taking the Haj himself. Only the SC could have scrapped this subsidy. No government could ever have done it – not a Congress government for sure but not even a BJP government (in fact, it didn’t in its six years of rule).

The wider implication of this order should be of more interest to us. The basic principle used by the SC here is that benefits should be phased out over a period of time. The SC had earlier upheld the Constitutional validity of the Haj subsidy, so one has to believe that there was nothing wrong in the subsidy per se. But the court found it wrong to have continued it for this long. The same principle must apply to the policy of Reservations for the underprivileged castes in education and government jobs.

I have been a staunch supporter of Reservations. I see it as a type of Affirmative Action that the Government was required to take keeping in mind the pathetic conditions of the underprivileged. The reason I was in favor of caste based reservations was that the denial of education and jobs to these people in the past had also been on grounds of caste. It wasn’t like “you are not competent; hence you cannot be admitted to this college” or “you are from a poor family; hence you cannot get this job”. The grounds for denial were clearly “you belong to a low caste; hence you cannot get the admission or the job”. Clearly, the damage had to be undone in the same manner.

The problem however with any such benefit scheme is what I mentioned earlier. It’s extremely easy (populist) to launch, but extremely difficult to shut off. In an era of competitive politics (and populism), no government has the guts to turn the tap off. Several governments have in fact tried to keep increasing the % of reservation. It was the SC itself that had to lay down the rule that Reservations couldn’t exceed 50% of all available seats.

It’s my fervent request to the SC that it should pass another similar order which reduces the % of reservations over a period of time (no matter how long that period is). The time period may be 50 years; I wouldn’t mind it if it were even longer. I would be perfectly ok if the time period was not specified in years, but in terms of important milestones being met. But whatever the parameter to do so, it is important that the crutch provided to the underprivileged be slowly but surely removed, as they become stronger as a group.

In fact, it is my belief, that if it was well known to policy makers and politicians that the benefits were going to reduce with time, it would force them to act more strongly on making them more effective. At present, no one cares. I am told that of the 22.5% reservation for SCs, the actual % of SCs employed in government jobs is only 7% or so. This is evidence that no one cares. But if it were known that the % would come down every year, the politicians would wake up and try to take the max advantage of the policy.

There is a strong reason to curtail reservations once the goals start to get achieved. As time passes, and as the underprivileged are given an opportunity to catch up, it is important for the country to recognize and reward nothing but true merit. Only the best should become engineers, doctors and architects. Only the best should join government service. This will have a dramatic impact on the quality of governance also. After all, if the best – no matter which caste they came from – are employed, it would be a fair assumption to make that the quality of governance would improve. I doubt if corruption will come down – that is dependent on several other factors – but at least governance will surely improve.

The real truth is that benefits are often required in an unequal society. But the benefits need to have a shelf life. It may be a benefit for those who are wealthy and fit or a benefit for the poor or the underprivileged. For example, the subsidized diesel that most of the wealthy pour into their SUVs and big cars is an inadvertent benefit they get as spillover (the policy is meant to subsidize the transport sector and the farmers). But government policy must evolve and such benefits must be denied over time. The benefits should be seen as a temporary crutch, not as a permanent entitlement….

Do we need another terror attack to get NCTC….

Yesterday’s meeting of the CMs with the Prime Minister and the Home Minister was a mere formality. The CMs had already decided that they would oppose the NCTC. The CMs were more worried about their “autonomy” (I will argue that they have too much, not too little), not so much about providing a tough fight to terrorists and protecting their people. There is a simple reason for this – there has not been a major terrorist strike in the last few years, and hence the public pressure on the CMs is less. Today, if they oppose the NCTC, their people do not think of them as being callous. It’s a thing seen repeatedly in India – nothing gets done unless our backs are to the wall. Only another terrorist attack will push our recalcitrant politicians into acting on this matter.

The same is the case with the fight against Maoists. A few years back, there was expectation that the Union Home Ministry was launching a new strategy to eliminate the internal threat. The Army was to be used in a minor or major way as the reports indicated. Activities of various states were going to be co-ordinated by the Central government. But again, the pressure from the CMs – who were worried that the Center would take over in the name of fighting the Maoists (in reality they were worried that some of their dubious political friends could be arrested) – put paid to any such plans. Today, the scourge of Maoists has only increased. Every now and then, Maoists capture someone or the other – and a swap with kidnapped Maoists follows – rendering the entire fight irrelevant.

When I had first written a post on the Maoists issue, one of my readers had commented that Maoists should be declared terrorists. That would allow the Center to legally take over the fight – since the defence of the country is within the purview of the Center (while law and order is a state subject). But even if we had declared Maoists as terrorists, the NCTC episode shows that it would have made no difference. Here is a body conceived only to fight terrorism, and the CMs are won’t support it. For them terrorism is a state subject. Maoists are safe; they shouldn’t worry about a fight back from the Indian state. So shouldn’t the terrorists.

After the 26/11 episode, in a period of national uproar against terrorism, our parliamentarians cutting across party lines were under pressure to enact the amendment to the Unlawful Activites (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It now appears that that act was not a demonstration of the ability of our Parliamentarians to fight unitedly; that was just public pressure and the fear that opposing a National terror Act could be seen as being anti-national. The NCTC is nothing but a body created under the same act. Reports indicate that there is nothing in the NCTC’s powers that was not already covered under the Act. So if the Act was necessary, why is the NCTC not so? Maybe the NCTC should have been created earlier – while the public sentiment against terrorism was still high.

Why is NCTC a Center-State issue at all? Why is not seen as a national problem in which every person joins hands? Do our states really have too little autonomy? When the nuclear power plant in TN was ready for a launch in Koodankulam, a bunch of protestors went on a fast against the plant. The CM of the state decided to keep quiet, leaving it to the Central government to handle to crisis. The plant which costed some Rs 14000 crores to build, and which would have provided relief mostly to the people of TN only, was delayed by several months, thanks to the political posturing of the TN CM. Only when she decided to back the Center did the protestors get evicted. Is this an example of too much or too little autonomy – when the Center was totally dependent on the state to protect its huge investment? When Mamata Banerjee hijacks the Central government with her demands every now and then, she usually succeeds. Is this a case of too much or too little autonomy? When the center’s FDI in multi-brand retail policy envisages that the states can always refuse to allow foreign retailers in their states, is that too much or too little autonomy? When the states can resist forever the GST – a reform considered revolutionary by almost all – is that evidence of too much autonomy or too little?

This autonomy bogey has been created only to create pain points for the Central government, with no thought being paid to the pain points of the people who suffer from terror attacks. Since the name of Mamata Banerjee (an “ally” of the Congress) is usually thrown in to inflict pain on the Congress, it appears the NCTC is in reality a political fight between the Congress and the others (mostly the BJP). Why does it have to be a Congress v/s BJP fight? Is it the BJP’s belief and fear that the Congress will keep ruling at the center (or will rule for a longer period of time than itself) and hence their state governments will remain under “attack”? Because if they believed that they too could rule at the Center, then they wouldn’t worry so much, right?

Of course, it is a political fight and nothing else. If there were another terror attack, our media would turn it into an attack on India, and blame the Center for not doing enough to fight terrorism. When the 26/11 attack happened, how many people blamed the state government? Almost no one. It was shown to be the Center’s problem. And yet the states won’t allow the Center to act in their best interests and that of the country. In the US – a far more federal country than India – the Patriot Act as well as the NCTC (of the US) are empowered to work against terrorism with the states supporting the Federal government in any manner required. Why can’t we do the same in India? Do our state governments have enough sophistication in their police forces to be able to fight the most motivated, and most well armed terrorists on their own? Just ask anyone – the image that we carry of the police is that of pot bellied traffic cops who wouldn’t be able to run 100 meters to nab a culprit. Just think of the Noida police which trampled over evidence in the Aarushi murder case. A police force which has no budgetary support to even arm its force with modern guns. We expect the state governments to protect the country against terrorism?

And what about the poorer states? Those that cannot afford to even provide their people with employment and two square meals a day? Are we expecting them to equip and arm their police forces to be able to take on the might of the global terrorists? Or are we saying that the poor deserve lesser protection compared to the richer states?

The real truth is that terrorism is a national problem – not a state problem – and so is Maoism. Both should be treated as exclusive Central government responsibilities and the Center should be allowed to do its duty. The states should have no or little say in this. Even if there is a degree of harassment to a few political leaders in the states because of abuse of authority by the Center, it is ok. The larger focus should be on avoiding harassment for the people. That’s all that should matter….

Not enough IAS officers to run the country….

As per a tiny newspaper report in the TOI today, there is a shortage of 1777 IAS officers in the country. Add to this the shortage of 1327 IPS officers and the picture becomes eminently clear – no one wants to join the government services. There have also been similar reports of shortages in Army officers. Why does no one want to work for the Government?

Honeslty, it’s not that difficult to figure out the reasons. People work either for money or for the pride and prestige (power?) that comes with the job. In the years following independence and all the way until the beginning of the economic liberalization cycle in 1991, IAS and IPS jobs were the most coveted of all jobs. These roles provided aspirants the opportunity to serve their country and engage in nation building. Of course, the fact that there was a very small private sector – and that entrepreneurs as a class had not been truly invented – also helped push most able people towards government jobs. There was also a lot of “power” associated with government jobs, especially the IAS and IPS (as manifested in the high dowry sums they commanded in the market). Now take whatever you want from the word power; but the fact is that that was a strong reason for attracting the best.

There was another reason why government jobs were considered the best. The salary was decent; and largely comparable with what the private sector provided. The private sector itself had been caged by the License Raj; and private sector salaries were much muted. Government jobs also came with “job protection”. All factors put together, there were enough entrants into the IAS cadre. I remember when I graduated from IIM, and joined a large private bank, some of my older relatives were curious to know if I had taken up a private sector job because I hadn’t managed to get a government one!

Since 1991 however, the times have changed. There is a huge amount of consumerism all around. The shops are filled with tempting goods; and there is so much that money can buy. Today, more than ever before, money plays a crucial role in a person’s life. A person’s stature today is determined by the car he drives and the address claims as his home; not by the “powers” or “pride” his job may carry. And here’s the reality – government jobs simply do not pay enough. Especially in comparison to private sector jobs – where a shortage of talent in the last decade and a half – has led to a huge increase in salary levels. CEOs earning a crore of rupees in salaries is not uncommon. And yet the seniormost IAS officer – the Cabinet Secretary – has a take-home salary of less than Rs 1 lac a month.

Many people object to taking “take home salary” as the way to measure salaries. IAS officers get mansions to live in. They have loads of “helpers” available all the time. All that’s fine, but all that doesn’t help buy the goodies. And all that disappears the moment one retires. Having come from a family where my dad was a banker in a government bank, I know exactly how it feels post retirement.

There is also this dangerous trend of recent times to attack the character of eminent bureaucrats that has to be factored in. In today’s world, a bureaucrat who takes a wrong decision (as every manager does once in a while), is first and foremost accused of being corrupt. In our uneducated and illiterate minds, the only reason a person makes a mistake (even a genuine one) is when he is motivated by bribes. In the lifetime of a bureaucrat, the hundreds of good decisions he takes go unnoticed; the rare mistakes get magnified. In today’s world, there is active encouragement to those bureaucrats who refuse to take decisions; as long as they avoid any taint of being corrupt. Who wants to work in such an environment? High performers seek assignments where they can do a lot; not just sit on their back sides.

So the IAS offers pathetic salaries; and a very hostile environment for taking decisions and “building the nation”. Not surprising then that there is a dearth of talent. Not surprising also that the dearth of talent is especially high in states that are known for highly politicized and inefficient governance – 216 short in UP, 128 in Bihar, 118 in MP, 112 in Rajasthan and 100 in Jharkhand. Who wants to work in these states, where in addition to all that has been discussed earlier, there is the threat of person safety as well – with active Maoist movements and the ever present mafia as well. Not surprising therefore that the caliber of people joining the IAS has plummeted dramatically. And with this has plummeted the personal ethics of the cadre. Today, corruption in the IAS is a big issue – but the reasons are well known.

India needs the most talented people to join public life and government service. That’s what happens in the developed world. The European government jobs pay more than private sector ones (of course, that has created its own problems). In the US, the salaries are at least as good as, if not better than, private sector salaries. A cop in NY earns as much as 75-80,000 dollars a year after putting in 5-7 years of service. The US President earns upwards of 250,000 dollars – at least a decent sum of money (our PM earns less than Rs 1 lac a month). In Singapore, bureaucrat salaries are linked to market opportunities. It’s time that India also considers rewarding its bureaucrats much better.

In order to reward bureaucrats better, we will need to reduce headcount. The Government cannot become the job provider of the last resort. The Indian Railways employs some 16 lac people and that is supposed to be a proud statistic. Air India has some 45000 people working for it; while its rival has a number than is perhaps one quarter of that. All India Radio has some 17000 engineers on its rolls (one wonders if engineers run a media organization), while the biggest TV and radio stations have not even 1% of that number.

The real truth is that the government needs to employ fewer people, pay better, and provide a better work environment if it wants to attract better people. All simple suggestions, but extremely difficult to implement!

Rescue Telecom from politics and everything else.….

The sordid telecom saga continues and in fact gets worse by the day. It all started off with the totally sensationalized assertion by the CAG that the government had lost revenues of Rs 1.76 lac crores by not auctioning 2G spectrum (On the other hand, I have always argued that maximizing revenues could never be the government’s sole objective when it came to policy making). Then the Supreme Court went overboard in canceling the 122 licenses that had been allotted to the nine new operators – paying no consideration to our international obligations or the suffering that this decision would cause honest telecom operators which made the mistake of trusting the government. Now the TRAI has thrown another googly – by recommending that only 5 MHz of spectrum be auctioned in this year. This means that only one of the nine affected operators will be able to come back into business.

It’s a crazy situation really. It’s designed to kill the telecom sector. What was once touted as the most successful liberalization program of the government (along with IT) will soon become the sickest of them all.

What could possibly be the logic of allowing the auction of only one slot of 5 Mhz this year when the government has recovered so much more spectrum by canceling the licenses? How would it be fair if eight out of the nine affected operators who rolled out their networks all over India are disallowed from protecting their investments by winning back their licenses? Just think about it. The government announced a policy and went out to invite the operators. The operators dutifully rolled out their networks. Suddenly, their licenses were canceled. And now they are not even being allowed to win back their licenses. It’s bizarre – in fact a loud statement to foreign investors that they are absolutely not welcome in India.

But then the politics in this country has been headed southwards for some time now. In a country where there is zero focus on good governance (how many agitations have taken place which demand that government projects be completed on time?), but 100% on corruption, we have developed a culture where it’s better not to take decisions. The bureaucrat who thinks big also trips at times. There is a very good chance he would be called corrupt. We are ok with bureaucrats who sit on decisions and pull the country back from the path of progress. This is acceptable to us. The Anna movement has caused a huge disservice to the country, by making this feature even more prominent (By the way, even former President Kalam believes that the Lokpal is no solution to the problem of corruption). Today, the bureaucracy (and the political class) is happy to avoid decision making; and if it does take decisions, it wants to be absolutely safe. Countries that play safe do not progress.

Add to this bureaucratic play-safe, the over-zealousness of Constitutional authorities like the CAG. The CAG has been eager to step into policy making territory. After all, the highlight of its 2G investigation should have been to unearth corruption (of Raja and the bureaucrats), not comment on the FCFS policy. In so many countries, FCFS is the preferred route to allocate natural resources- this ensures that consumers get the benefits of those services and products at low prices. When the entire country is the beneficiary of such a policy (there are nearly 900 million telecom subscribers today), it should be called a good government policy. But the CAG had a different plan. The SC did no better. It should have ruled on charges of corruption. But instead it chose to cancel the licenses. After all, what was the fault of the companies that bought into the extant government policy? In future, do we expect global corporates to question government policy when it is announced? Does the Government of India have no credibility? Does the SC realize what damage its decision has done to the country’s reputation?

And what is the logic for TRAI’s restriction on license auctions this year if it is not to dramatically increase spectrum fees? Any half intelligent person will tell you that auctions should not be carried out under scarcity conditions. It will create anomalies in pricing. But that is precisely what TRAI wants. The TRAI’s objective appears to be to help the government maximize revenues. By raising bid prices through artificial scarcity, it will set the ground for similar high prices in subsequent rounds. It appears that the TRAI has lost its independence and is kowtowing the government line. This is warped logic. If prices do increase that much, telecom prices will rise dramatically and the telecom revolution will be over. It will be the modern day killing of the golden goose. Besides, what happened to the TRAI’s job of protecting the consumer?

That’s why I am happy that Telenor has appealed against this TRAI decision in the Supreme Court. Hopefully the court will undo some of the damage its earlier decision has inflicted on the sector.

The real truth is that the telecom sector is in doldrums. It needs to be rescued from the politicians and the politics they play. The biggest losers are going to be 900 million common citizens of this country. It’s time saner counsel prevails and we all collectively pull back from the brink. But given the destructive politics that prevails in the country at the moment, I have few hopes….

Let there be elections (for the President)!

When the government does not consult the opposition, it is accused of being authoritarian. When it does consult, its offer is spurned by a wily BJP. We’re seeing that today in the matter of the Presidential elections, where the BJP has declared that its only guiding principle would be to oppose the Congress’s nomination, no matter who the nominated candidate is. It wouldn’t mind supporting a third front candidate, but there was no possibility of supporting a Congress candidate…..so the party won’t allow a consensus candidate.

Now that the Presidential election has been politicized, let there be a proper fight. After all, the President does play a crucial political role in our set-up. Why should there even be an attempt to find a consensus candidate? Why do we set such lofty goals when we live in a political set-up where even more ordinary goals are difficult to meet? In a set-up like this, life is all about politics and politics is part of all life.

The Congress for long has behaved in a pusillanimous manner fearing both the known and the unknown. For years, it has been on the back foot, put there by both the opposition and its own allies. Now it can choose to either complain or fight back. The problem that the Congress faces is that it hardly has any full-blooded politicians in its political think-tank. Neither Sonia, nor the PM, nor Pranab, nor Kapil Sibal, Ambika Soni, Jairam Ramesh…..none of these guys are politicians, with the make up that politicians are supposed to have. Most of these people are technocrats, bureaucrats or professionals. Its surprising how many lawyers have managed to find their way into the administration. These people may be able to run the government, but they need to be ringfenced by clever politicians. The Congress doesn’t seem to be having enough of those.

The Anna movement has made the political class look like lepers. A politician is considered to be a corrupt, evil and even dangerous. That is why (at least at the Center), the classic politician has yielded way to the more suave, sophisticated and glib English speaking person. Even today, a Narayansamy, Sharad Pawar and Beni Prasad Verma are considered misfits in a modern political system, though in reality it is politicians like them who bring a government to life. If it were left to the Jairam Rameshs of the world, the party would be reduced to rubble.

The larger message from the Presidential election consensus-building exercise is that the Congress must re-invent itself as a political machine. It needs strong politicians to be part of its government. It needs mass leaders who can take on challenges like the Anna one. It needs glib Hindi speakers, not English sophisticates who can operate only out of comfy airconditioned chambers. Someone who can roll up his or her sleeves, and engage in a dog fight. In this context, names like Digvijay Singh stand out. This man may be much reviled in certain circles, but if there is someone who can play politics the old fashioned way, it is him.

The Congress must remember that it has the largest vote share in the electoral college. A full 30% odd against the BJP’s 21% odd. The UPA together has a 41% share. All it needs is the additional 10% to get a UPA candidate through. It’s silly to have even attempted to get a consensus candidate, given the BJP’s headstrong instinct to base its political philosophy on merely opposing the Congress. The Congress should make sure a consensus candidate emerges within the UPA. It cannot be a Congress candidate; it must be a UPA candidate. Once that emerges, the UPA will be able to cobble together a majority.

The BJP’s only strategy appears to be to put up a Muslim candidate. It won’t allow Muslims in the prime positions of power in the Executive; so it cleanses its soul by proposing Muslim names to the Presidential post. By propping a Muslim candidate, the BJP hopes to rope in the SP. I doubt if the SP would like to go anywhere close to the BJP at all. If the politics in our country is polarized, it is polarized first on religious lines. Which is why anti-BJP is a stronger plank than anti-Congress in this country. Without the SP’s support, the BJP’s candidate will lose even before filing his or her nomination.

What about a 3^rd party candidate? Frankly, there is no concept called third front. Is the BSP going to support an SP candidate, all under the noble excuse of setting up a 3^rd front? In any case, the biggest proponents of the third front – the Left parties – are sad losers electorally and totally out of flavor. The 3^rd party is a non-starter from the word go.

If the unattached political parties have to choose between supporting a Congress candidate and a BJP one, I think they will choose the Congress candidate. For one, the BJP’s exclusivist and isolationist agenda upsets many parties. This alone should be able to see the Congress candidate through.

The Congress must seize this opportunity to teach the BJP a lesson. Out of the President’s election, it must get the courage to fight another fight. It must be willing to give up its own choice, in order to support a consensual UPA candidate. To that extent the recent moves made by the party – of meeting its allies – are in the right direction. Given the preferences of the various allies, maybe Hamid Ansari is the best choice. I don’t think the Congress should field Pranab Mukherjee. The party needs him for its political survival.

The real truth is that we middle class urban people have this habit of dreaming of this utopian world of sensible political discussions; of a consensus. However, in reality, it’s a dirty and bad world out there. Political parties fight with narrow self interests, not caring about national interests. To expect them to bury such narrow agendas is impossible. The BJP in particular has shown this repeatedly. It was silly media chatter that built expectations of a consensus candidate. That’s not going to happen. Now let there be a fight!

Maoists or Mamata – both extort - so who’s worse???

There have been recent cases of foreign tourists being kidnapped by Maoists in Odisha. An MLA was also kidnapped. All of them were later released after suitable deal terms were worked out with the state government. While these kidnappings generated anger across the country – a similar almost-daily kidnap drama enacted by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) on the UPA Government hardly seems to do so. Is there a difference at all between the two types of hostage taking? Which of the two is worse?

When the Maoists kidnap, they hold up the working of a state government for several days. The result of the kidnapping is almost always preordained. The state will negotiate, the Maoists will demand the release of some of their buddies, the state will demur, but eventually the state will give up and settle. There is no give and take. It’s only take and take. It’s a preditable pattern.

The exact same thing happens every time Mamata makes a demand on the central government and takes it hostage. Her latest is the demand for a moratorium on interest payments on loans that the state is burdened by. She may have a point. The state may well need such help in order to be able to show some tangible progress in her state. Presumably, the interest saved would be deployed into productive asset creation which in turn would lead to an increase in state GDP, jobs etc, starting off a virtuous cycle of growth. The problem of course is that the central government would then be left holding the debt. And it’s in no position to do so. There would also be similar demands made by the other states; how could the central government decline that demand once it has conceded a simlar one to Mamata?

A state government is alright in making its demand and the central government should have the flexibility to decide on the basis of merits. If it were an opposition state, the central government would be under no pressure to oblige. But Mamata occupies a special position. She is a part of the UPA, and every time she attacks the Congress, it creates a great media story. It also gives the opposition another stick to beat the ruling party with. It hardly matters to the BJP that it too had suffered similar humiliation from Mamata (and Jayalalitha) when it was ruling at the center. Rather than work with the Congress to try and find a solution to such tactics of extortion, it is happy to just sit back and enjoy the moment and take a few more digs at the Congress.

This unique advantage that Mamata enjoys is exploited to no end by her party. Every month; sometimes more often; a new threat is issued. In all cases, she succeeds. It all started with the TMC’s opposition to the Lok Ayukta clause of the Lokpal Bill passed by the Lok Sabha. The TMC refused to support the government in the Rajya Sabha. No one – including most famously the BJP – bothered about having given a word to Anna in the “Sense of the House” resolution that the Lok Ayuktas would be created by a single act of Parliament. As expected, the Lok Ayukta clause is likely to be dropped. More recently came the opposition to the creation of the NCTC – again in tango with the opposition – forgetting that almost all parties had voted for the Act which envisioned the setting up of the NCTC in the first place. The NCTC has not yet been set up. Then came her opposition to amendments to the RPF Act – again the same have been put on the back burner.

Her opposition to liberal economic policies is well known too. She opposed FDI in multi-brand retail; continues to oppose higher FDI limits in Banking, Insurance etc. Now she’s opposed diesel price increases. In all case, she has succeeded with her demands. Just like the Maoists succeed every single time. Sometimes, one wonders if Mamata even understands economics. She should rely on her able Finance Minister for this. But for Mamata, everything is politics. She sees ghosts everywhere. She recently barred her party workers from having any personal liason (marriages) with workers of the Left parties. Very soon, she may go further and demand an amendment to the various Indian marriage acts – legally preventing marriages between families belonging to opposition parties!

The central government has been held hostage for many months now; by an ally called Mamata Banerjee. That’s what makes it so impactful a story. Central governments are used to battling the opposition, and usually have the numbers to carry on the fight. But how can a ruling alliance fight an ally without without whose support it may not have a majority? It’s pure blackmail and extortion. Just like the Maoists are used to doing.

Eventually, all terrorists get vanquished. Soon after independence, the violent secession movement of the Razakars in Hyderabad state was vanquished. More recently, the Khalistan movement was vanquished. Eventually, the Maoists will be vanquished too. If it continues down the path of extortion, so too will the TMC one day. In many cases, extortionists start off as being friends of people. Just look at Gaddafi. He was brought into power as the very popular “Brother Leader” – throwing out the tyrant king Idris. But abuse of power made him one of the world’s worst terrorists. What happened in the end? The message to Mamata should be clear.

The real truth is that there is no difference between the kidnap-and-extort techniques of Mamata and the Maoists. She needs to be contained just as much as the Maoists need to be. Today, she’s in the UPA. Tomorrow, she may be in the NDA creating problems for that alliance. A legislation that binds partners together for the full duration of the government is what we need. Just like the anti-defection law binds an MP or MLA to a political party, we need a similar anti-defection law which binds a political party to its alliance for five years. This will bring in some degree of stability to politics.

A toast to India…..

Two recent stories should bring cheer to us. The first one was that India had become the world’s 3^rd largest economy in PPP terms, inching ahead of Japan in 2011. The 2^nd one was about the Agni-5 missile that India successfully test fired yesterday. Both these stories taken together – along with several others in the recent past – highlight yet again that India continues to be the toast of the world; its progress may be doubted by some at times, but its surety of progress never!

Add to it the story of how India is negotiating hard for being granted an entry into the four multilateral institutions that regulate nuclear trade worldwide (the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Control Technology Regime, the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement). As well as the smart maneuvers India is making at getting into the UN Security Council as a permanent member and it becomes clear that India is starting to move and get noticed. The stories also provide a relief from the usual badgering that the internal politics of the country seem to be doling out. Since this blog is very much about the positive things in the country and prefers to look at the glass as half full rather than half empty, today’s post is perfectly apt.

Take the Agni-5 story first. What is particularly interesting is the amount of concern the Agni-5 launch has aroused in our neighbour China. At first, the country made attempts to underplay its importance; saying that the two countries were not in a race against each other; that both were fast growing emerging economies and both had a place in the world. But soon the Chinese media ran stories warning India subtly to not alter the balance of power in the region. But later the most intriguing of all Chinese responses was visible. The Chinese added a huge conspiracy dimension to the story by claiming that the real range of the Agni-5 was 8000 kms and that India was intentionally making a lower claim. That China felt concerned enough to try and raise the hackles of the Europeans is in a way, a certificate of the success of the Agni-5! It appears, as per the Chinese, that the Agni-5 can target all of Asia and 70% of Europe. The Chinese have also grudgingly admitted that India has entered a select club of countries that have such advanced technologies. Of course, they have also rubbished our infrastructure facilities and have claimed that it will take several years for India to deploy the Agni-5. Whatever the truth, it’s clear that we have rattled the Chinese!

Military strength plays an important role in a country’s global positioning. A militarily stronger country has a bigger swagger; no one ignores it. Of course, military strength alone is not enough, as the Russians learnt after several decades of being a military superpower. Military power accompanied by economic success is what gets a nation noticed.

That brings me to the next story. That India’s GDP has gone ahead of Japan’s in 2011 as per an IMF report. The GDP is measured in PPP terms – simplistically meaning that we remove the impact of pricing differences between countries. The same McDonald’s burger costs Rs 50 in India (approx), but $2.2 or some such thing in the US (Rs 110 if the exchange rate were taken as Rs 50 or so). In reality, since a burger fulfils the exact same need in both countries and by the exact same amount, the two should be brought down to the same price. On average, the exchange rate needs to be deflated by a factor of more about 2.5 for India. This makes the Indian GDP some $4.5 trillion in size. The Japanese GDP actually comes down a bit because of its high pricing differential. As a result, India inches ahead of the Japanese.

Now, the cynics will jump to say that we should look at per capita incomes and not absolute GDP. Of course this is correct, but in the path to progress, one of the important milestones is when the overall size of the economy grows bigger and bigger and crosses other bigger daddies. In order to remove poverty visibly and to ensure all citizens get a decent life to live, we need to grow some 8-9 times more than at present. Even so, crossing every milestone along the way should be celebrated with full gusto, not with criticism.

Over the last couple of years, we have been too critical of ourselves. Even Ratan Tata said the same thing. We have been beset by a series of scams – and even before they have been proved or disproved, political opponents of the government have put it in the dock. The CAG has added fuel to the fire by bringing out one damaging report after the other, publishing ever-rising scam figures – not bothering about not getting into policy areas. In many cases – say the subsidy policy, or the fuel pricing policy, or the FCFS policy – the government may prefer a policy of not maximizing its own revenues. As long as it ensures that its policy benefits reach the masses, it cannot be called a scam. The CAG thinks otherwise. Further, a competitive media has found the CAG’s reports to be cannon fodder for headline grabbing stories. In the meantime, the Anna struggle – fuelled again by TV channels mostly – brought much of the country to a standstill. Collectively, India was stopped in its tracks. Instead of reaching out to the world with strength, the country was hit by rigor mortis in decision making. Since every decision taken could later be considered a scam, no one wants to take decisions any longer. In the world of bureaucrats, it’s ok not to take decisions; it’s not ok to make honest mistakes. Not surprising then that the GDP growth has slowed down recently and the India story is starting to get questioned in some quarters.

But such bogus scams are starting to unravel. Earlier this week, the Adarsh scam was proved to be anything but. The land that supposedly belonged to the Army – and on which a building for Kargil veterans was supposed to be built – was shown never to belong to the Army at all. None of the former CMs who had been slurred against had any knowledge of the land’s ownership pattern when they cleared concessions to it. That should give relief to the Congress. If the Supreme Court now rules that auctions is not the only way to dispose off national assets, it will provide relief to the Central government on the 2G scam as well. In any case, apart from a Rs 200 crores charge against Raja in the DB Realty – Kalaignar TV, there is no other accusation of corruption made against any party….

The real truth is that while it’s good to be critical and clean up the system, it’s another thing to go witchhunting. It’s time our institutions – like the CAG and media – played a more responsible role. Creating an environment of sensational scams may help the opposition, but it harms us all. If decision making stops, the opposition may benefit, but the people of the country suffer.