Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Preserving India’s constitutional democracy is more important than a feel-good agitations

In my article in the September issue of Pragati-The Indian National interest Review, I argue that while Anna Hazare’s agitation has rightly focused the nation’s attention on the issue of corruption, its adoption of blatantly  unconstitutional means ultimately undermines Indian democracy and would only be counter-productive in the long-term,

Nevertheless, the methods adopted by Mr. Hazare must give pause to every Indian who retains faith in India’s constitutional democracy. As many other commentators have enumerated, his so-called Jan Lokpal bill itself suffers from many lacunae and is hardly the panacea to the ills of corruption. Worse, it appears to violate the constitutionally mandated division of power between different pillars of the state. In any case, no single body—howsoever constitutionally well-protected—can single-handedly tackle corruption which pervades virtually every aspect of Indian society.

But forget what may be wrong with Mr. Hazare’s bill for a moment. After all, the government’s proposed Lokpal bill is hardly perfect in itself and suffers from serious deficiencies which may severely handicap its functioning. What is truly troubling though is Mr. Hazare’s reliance on blatantly unconstitutional means to push forward his legislation. Instead of attempting to reform the system, he has harnessed populist disgust and attempted to hijack the entire political process. What is particularly offensive is his gimmickry resort to repeated bouts of fasting [link]

Download the latest issue of Pragati to read the rest.

Where is the money coming from?

Much is likely to be said about the Indian economic reforms as we approach the the 20th anniversary of the path breaking 1991 budget. With the ruling UPA in full socialist bloom—and the Lotus not too far behind—hardly anyone makes the political or intellectual case for economic reforms anymore. The naysayers primary argument amounts to this: The reforms have benefited only 20% of the population (And that’s dismissing about 250 million people!)  while they speak for the other 80% which has been left behind. According to the dominant left-liberal view, the economic reforms have only led to further deprivation of the poor who must be helped by gargantuan government schemes. Well, no one seems to asking how is the government paying for its populist schemes.

For instance from 1991 budget presented by Dr. Manmohan Singh,

The budget provision for total expenditure in 1991-92 is Rs.113422 crores,of which Rs.79697 crores is non-plan expenditure and Rs.33725 crores is plan expenditure. [link]

Total expenditure proposed at 12,57,729 crore. [link]

So in merely 20 years the budget size has increased by nearly 10 times. Indeed, the 2011-12 plan allocation for social sector spending at 160,000 crores is nearly 150% of total Indian budget of 1991.

So someone should ask those who disparage the success of Indian economic reforms—limited as they have been—who’s paying for the social schemes they are so fond of? And if the poor are still not benefiting, who’s to blame?

Is the Indian government serious about preventing terror attacks?

Prima facie, there isn’t anything particularly offensive about Rahul Gandhi’s recent comments that the government cannot stop every terror attack. India is a vast and diverse land where basic policing remains severely deficient. Comparisons with US are also largely meaningless. India doesn’t have the financial resources or the institutional capability to mount a a similar anti-terror campaign as the United States. And beyond the usual hand-wringing after every terror attack, India’s citizenry is simply not invested to a similar degree in preventing attacks on the Indian soil.

What gives pause, however, are questions over government’s willingness to fight terror with the fullest resources it commands. When the government run by Mr. Gandhi’s party continues with Mr. sartorial elegance despite multiple terror attacks—replacing him only after the massive Mumbai attack—it raises serious questions about the seriousness with which it approaches terror. And when Mr. Gandhi’s closest adviser openly stokes minority communalism, questions every police encounter, and attempts to run down Mr. Chidambaram—a man who has finally vested the home ministry with some authority—it reinforces the belief that beyond the usual platitudes, the government is not serious about terror.

And if all that wasn’t enough, when the government of Dr. Singh virtually dismisses the Mumbai attack as “ancient animosities” in its groveling attempts to “normalize” relationships with Pakistan, it is left with little credibility.

So yes, the government cannot possibly prevent all terror attacks but is it trying hard enough?

…Except when it does

Much has been said by senior ministers and super ministers on the “civil society’s” —it self a curious term—demand for a strengthened Lokpal bill. Little of what has been said has been charitable. However, much of this criticism is valid as an elected government cannot be expected to outsource the constitutional obligation of drafting laws to an amorphous group of self-styled warriors. However, it is curious to note how much the government of India and the Congress party has encouraged its own brand of civil society—conceivably more pliable than Mr. Hazare and Baba Ramdev.

Take the National Advisory Council (NAC) for example. None of its members save its chairperson, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, are elected. Yet from the National Rural Employement Guarantee Act (NREGA) to the proposed law to combat communal riots, its imprimatur on some of Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government most important and far-reaching policy decisions can be clearly seen. Not only that in case of conflicts between the government and NAC, this unelected cabal of civil society activists have invariably triumphed. The government’s abdication on the proposed food guarantee bill is just the latest instance,

The bill, which will give the poor the right to subsidised foodgrain entitlements, has accepted “most” suggestions of the National Advisory Council (NAC) and deviations, if any, are “minor”, said K.V. Thomas, the minister of state holding independent charge of food, consumer affairs and public distribution.

Two key recommendations of the NAC — coverage of above poverty line households and lifelong applicability — that did not find favour with the government appear to have found space in the draft. [link]

It is not clear why Mr. Digvijaya Singh’s eminently sensible suggestion that [the] “task of finalizing the draft of the Bill could not be left to a few members of civil society” is not applicable to the NAC. ” It is the Congress party which has provided “civil society” members with a virtual veto on important government decisions.

So why are they complaining now?

The patronizing attitude towards the poor must change

Bihar’s chief minister Nitish Kumar  just recently won the NDTV politician of the year award.  There is an interesting moment in the award ceremony where Prannoy Roy ,referring to Bihar’s much-touted bicycle scheme, asks Mr. Kumar: “Why did you prefer to give cash to the families instead of giving them bicycles? How do you know what families might do with the money? ” (Rough transcript.) Mr. Kumar laughs off Mr. Roy’s question suggesting that if his government had procured the bicycles, it would have merely led to a ‘bicycle scam.’

But Mr. Roy’s question deserves greater thought because it conveys much about the elitist disregard for the poor, and the utter contempt  in which the poor are held. Think of it this way: If the chief minister of Delhi went to Mr. Roy and suggested that she and some faceless bureaucrats cared more for his children than Mr. Roy himself, what would be Mr. Roy’s reaction: He would be greatly offended! As most of those belonging to the so-called elitist section of the population.

But it is perfectly okay for Mr. Roy to suggest—-and what else does his question really convey?—that the poor really don’t care for their children. That if afforded the resources to ensure a better life for  their children, they would probably fritter it away on some frivolous expenses. And therefore, the government needs to step in and micro-manage the resource allocation! Because the poor don’t know better. Because they don’t care enough!

The interesting thing of course is that if Mr. Roy was asked directly if he really thinks the poor don’t care about their children, he would dismiss the question off-hand, and would probably be offended. And so would most of the attendees of this glittering ceremony. And yet, their question suggests something exactly opposite. Clearly, what we have here is a classic case of subtle bias.

Now, biases are something which we all exhibit and are mostly a function of our idiosyncratic experiences. However, the bias which Mr. Roy and unfortunately the vast majority of his ilk exhibit is important because it has driven much of India’s public assistance program for the poor.

For those who stridently oppose cash transfers to the poor—and they occupy some of the most influential positions in the current government—attribute their opposition to multiple reasons: abdication of state’s larger role, intrusion of ‘evil’ market forces, and sometimes even efficiency. But what they are really suggesting is that the poor cannot be trusted to improve their status in life. That what they lack of is not resources but ambition. That some faceless people sitting in Delhi or Patna care more about the poor and their families then the poor themselves! This is not only nonsensical but dangerous nonsense.

Because this deeply patronizing attitude towards the poor extracts real costs in terms of wrong public policy. And that is why it important to explore it, and understand its troubling moral and policy implications.

Trust the poor. They are not really different from the rest of us! And if any evidence was required, Mr. Kumar provided it: Bihar’s bicycle scheme has a success rate of 92%!

Political discourse has become too election-centric. It needs to move beyond it.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s latest Indian Express column is unusual in many ways. Apart from the stinging critique of prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, it is notable for its anguished tone. It appears that after delivering mild rebukes to the government over the past year, Dr. Mehta’s patience  has finally run out.

And who can blame him? This is the season of scams with the government lurching from one crisis to another. If anything, the audacity of the scams has been matched by the brazenness of Singh-Gandhi duo who have substituted even the modicum of accountability with rhetorical punches—some of which Dr. Mehta so admirably demolishes. So many scams have surfaced in recent months that one frequently hears that it is all part of a conspiracy to take the attention away from the previous case of graft: Think of how ridiculous that sounds. That such conspiracies are even entertained is a pointer to the depths the current government has plumbed to.

(more…)

Barkha Dutt ko gussa kyun aata hai

Much debate has happened in the US recently on “objective journalism.” Some journalists, citing the examples of the likes of Fox news and MSNBC, lament the death of non-partisan journalism with shrill anchors like Keith Olberman and Bill O’Reilly dominating the ratings. Others argue that objective journalism is a meaningless goal—indeed, in their opinion,  the likes of Olberman have actually improved public discourse since their biases are not hidden but find the fullest expression.

But even within the realms of opinionated TV journalism, there are some differences. For instance, Olberman bats openly for the progressive cause and by default the Democratic party. O’Reilly on the other hand adopts a more populist tone ranting against all the bums in Washington D.C. (Of course, in practical terms, there is little difference since in  O’Reilly’s world view, most of the bums tend to congregate on one side of the political divide.)

(more…)

Congress was right to go it alone in Bihar

Leave aside the Rahul Gandhi debate for a while: Politics is almost never binary and every election result reflects multiple factors. So whether the so-called Rahul Gandhi magic worked in Bihar or not is really a secondary issue. What about Congress’ decision to travel alone in Bihar?

First, it’s important to understand Congress’ options in Bihar. It’s only alternative to fighting the election alone was to align with Laloo-Paswan combine. While it is possible that a chastened Laloo Yadav may have treated the Congress party with more respect vis-a-vis the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, it would still have been the number three party in the alliance. An alliance crafted and led by men who have been rejected three times by Bihar’s electorate—in increasingly strong numbers. It is not merely an electoral defeat though; it has been as much a rejection of Laloo’s ideas and increasingly borrowed idioms. Associating with discredited partners would have done little to help the Congress part save perhaps alleviate the margin of defeat.

More importantly, look at the vote share. Even at the height of its electoral success, NDA has won merely 40% of total votes. Clearly, there is a large oppositional space available in Bihar politics. While Laloo Yadav remains a formidable opponent, it is possible that his party, facing its first long-spell in political wilderness in two decades, may simply wither away. With identity playing a more subtle role in Bihar politics, Congress is well positioned to seize the advantage. Congress also has one distinct advantage: institutional memory. With its long history, it always has access to voters with memories of having voted for the Congress party. They may have drifted away in recent decades, but it only takes the slightest political realignment to lure them back. Perhaps, this factor more than anything else explains Congress’ resounding success in the last Lok Sabha elections in UP.

None of this means that Congress is set for an automatic revival in Bihar. The party will have to start from the scratch as Mrs. Sonia Gandhi suggested. With its reluctance towards admitting alternate power centers, the party would always remains disadvantaged in presidential style state elections. Nevertheless, by refusing to ally with Laloo-Paswan, it has at least taken the first step right. Nitish Kumar’s position remains contested in his own party; if these disgruntled leaders view Congress as a serious long-term player in Bihar, they may consider it as a viable alternative. If the Congress can construct a proper organization in the next 5 years and attract a few popular local leaders, it has the potential to occupy the empty oppositional space.

The withering of accountability and other stories

So A. Raja has finally been forced out of the Union cabinet. The collective might of CAG reports, media onslaught and a determined opposition proved too much even for the UPA government which was finally forced to drag Mr Raja out screaming and kicking. As Retributions had argued, DMK was unlikely to rock the UPA government solely on the A Raja issue. The UPA government would have survived anyways and who really wants to be in the opposition?

Before the media moves on to the next scam—and by the stellar record of the UPA government, the next one can’t be too for off—it is important to pause and consider the important issues at stake here. Three things.

(more…)

Throwing out the bums is no solution

If there was any remaining doubt about A. Raja’s culpability in the massive 2G spectrum scam, the damning Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG ) report should suffice to convince the most skeptical. While it is possible that the purported loss to the exchequer—1.71 lakh crore—may be an exaggeration, there is little doubt about the flagrant violation of all government norms by Mr. Raja’s ministry to reward the chosen few.

And yet Mr. Raja soldiers on with full support of his party and acquiescence of the Congress leadership and the prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. It is easy to understand why Mr. Raja’s party doesn’t give two hoots about his corruption. The Indian voter has generally proven to be highly tolerant of corruption particularly in case of regional parties. In Southern states there is wide-spread acceptance of entrepreneurial corruption where politicians enrich themselves but some benefits flow to the people too. Besides, Mr. Karunanidhi’s principal opposition, Ms. Jayalalita, is so deeply mired in corruption that it is hard to imagine that she has any moral standing left to question his party.

The reasons for Congress party’s reluctance to act against Mr. Raja may be more complex. The obvious reason of course is the compulsion of coalition politics; the UPA government at the centre needs DMK’s support for its survival. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that if the Congress party really put its foot down, DMK would rock the boat only to ensure Mr. Raja’s survival. Another DMK minister is likely to replace Mr. Raja and the ATM of telecom ministry can be expected to produce unhindered. Equally, DMK it self needs the support of Congress party for its government’s survival in Tamil Nadu.

By acing against Ashok Chavan, the Congress party has shown that it cares for its image among the middle class—the only constituency in India which even marginally votes on corruption. And yet it feels no compulsion to act against A Raja whose scale of corruption can only be described as monumental. Perhaps the answer lies in UPA government’s first avatar. UPA-1 faced an obscurantist Left which appeared to dictate government policies in lieu of its support. Despite a wavering prime minister repeatedly heckled as weak by BJP, and the dormant policy agenda, the general elections were a resounding success for the Congress party while the Left was virtually wiped out. It appeared that Indian voter, long enamoured with intent rather than concrete policy, successfully bought the Congress’ claim of being a “victim” and punished what it perceived to be a hectoring opposition.

The same equation may be at play here. The case the Congress party is making to the middle class voter is simple: “Look, we are against corruption. We are ready to act against the corrupt in our own party. We would have acted against A Raja only if we did not need his party’s support. Next time, make sure we don’t need the support of such elements.” It won’t be surprising that instances like A Raja may actually result in Congress emerging with a larger majority in 2014. The Congress party deserves praise for transforming weakness and victim hood in to a successful political formula.  Now, it is possible that a relentless opposition, constant media spotlight, and legal compulsions force the resignation of Mr. Raja but it is hard to see any political downside to his continuation in the cabinet.

Milton Friedman once argued that the answer to political corruption is not “throwing the bums out”—rather, it is to provide incentives for the wrong people to make the right decisions. Till the Indian voter provides those political incentives, expect the likes of Mr. Raja to thrive.