How Pakistan upstaged India in forging ties with Trump

India's foreign policy establishment is in shock. In a matter of months, Indo-US ties have soured and Pak- US ties have soared. It is not clear how this has happened. 

First, the deterioration in Indo-US ties.

For Mr Trump, the aggravations from India's side are many. India is not willing to make certain concessions on trade, such as allowing entry of American agricultural and dairy products, so a trade deal has proved elusive over several months. India has refused to accept Mr Trump's line that it was he who mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after the skirmish last May. Mr Trump, we are told, is deeply miffed on that account. 

Then there is the business of oil purchases from Russia. Mr Trump and his colleagues say India along with China is financing the Russian war machine. But the point is that the sanctions on Russian oil apply only to the US and the EU. Other nations are not barred from buying Russian oil, they are subject to the price cap of $60. Very recently,  a new formula has been applied which causes the cap to fall to around $47. The US was okay with India's purchase of oil from Russia because it kept global oil prices from shooting up. Mr Trump's turnaround is extraordinary, to say the least.

The Economist notes:

This (a tariff of 50 per cent on Indian exports to the US) marks a striking change from Mr Trump’s first term, when the American president and Indian prime minister filled stadiums from Texas to Gujarat in celebration of a blossoming bond between the two countries. India clinched deals for defence equipment and tech usually reserved for NATO allies and some exemptions from sanctions on its dealings with Russia. A mutual disquiet about China’s rise lent the relationship urgency. As a result, India welcomed Mr Trump’s comeback. According to a poll in 2024 by the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank, 84% of Indians believed Mr Trump was good news for their own country—the highest among all 24 countries polled.

But despite Mr Modi’s outwardly friendly reception at the White House in February, one journalist briefed on the visit describes Indian diplomats as “stunned” by the “lack of respect” America’s president showed India’s prime minister behind closed doors.

Now for the improvement in Pak-US ties. FT has a detailed story on how it turned its relationship with the US around:

The newfound US admiration for Pakistan is partly the fruit of a charm offensive concocted by Pakistan’s senior generals, leveraging counterterrorism co-operation, outreach to business people close to Trump and deals covering energy, critical minerals and cryptocurrencies — all accompanied by a cascade of flattery for the White House.

 ....Pakistan’s turnaround was helped early on by what the US saw as an important arrest. In March Asim Malik, the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency, delivered a high-value Isis-K operative who the US said was behind a 2021 bombing in Kabul that killed more than 180 people, including 13 US soldiers. His capture earned Pakistan Trump’s praise in his March State of the Union address, when the US president also lambasted India over high tariffs.

......World Liberty Financial, a Trump-backed cryptocurrency venture, signed a letter of intent with Pakistan’s crypto council in April, when its co-founders visited Pakistan. Zach Witkoff, the son of US special envoy Steve Witkoff, said during the trip that Pakistan had “trillions of dollars” of mineral wealth ripe for tokenisation.

....Islamabad also gave credit to Trump for brokering the truce with New Delhi — to the point of nominating the US president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trading his khakis for a suit and tie this weekend, Munir again heaped praise on the US president when speaking to a group of Pakistani-Americans in Tampa.

Pakistan's stars are clearly on the ascendant.  At least in the immediate future, India has its task cut out in dealing with Mr Trump and the US.

Loophole in Places of Worship Act 1991?

The Places of Worship Act 1991 has been in the news. Very simply, it is Act of Parliament whereby the religious character of any place of worship, as it existed in 1947, cannot be disturbed. An exception made to the Act was the dispute site in Ayodhya.

If that is so, how could  the mosque in Varanasi (Gyanvapi) come under challenge? Meaning, how could any court entertain a challenge? That is the stand of prominent Muslim groups. Since the character of the place cannot be changed due to the Act, where is the question of any court entertaining any petition related to the mosque?

I can't pretend to be a legal expert. From what I have read in the papers, it appears the Act has another exemption. It exempts places of worship that qualify as ancient monuments. So, if there is a Shivalinga inside the Gyanvapi mosque, as the Hindu petitioners in the case content, does it become an ancient monument so that the Act does not apply to this site? And if it does not, does that mean access to the site will have to divided between Muslims and Hindus? Or can the Hindus claim the site itself/

In the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court decided the matter looking at the case as one of a land dispute. The party that could establish that it had had greater access to the land over the centuries won, namely, the Hindus. How would the Gyanvapi dispute be resolved if the petition of the Hindus is considered maintainable?

I await the wisdom of legal experts.

Resurgence of the left in UK and US

Political pundits are watching with some astonishment the resurgence of the left in the UK and- of all places- the US.

In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn is positioning himself for the leadership of the Labour party on September 12. That doughty champion of market forces, The Economist, does not approve one bit:

For him no policy is too dog-eared, no intellectual dead-end too futile. Public spending? Yes, please. Higher taxes? Soak the capitalists and the landlords. State ownership? Nationalise the railways and utilities, get the private sector out of public services and reopen the coal mines. If that were the secret of prosperity, Britain would never have fallen apart in the 1970s and Tony Blair would not have won three elections at the head of a modernised centre-left Labour Party.

In the US, Bernie Sanders stands a slender chance of emerging as a shock Democratic candidate. He may end up getting pitted against Donald Trump, the Republican's own shock candidate who leads the ratings. An article in the Economist describes Sanders' broad political position:

A typical Sanders speech resembles a 90-minute sermon on modern America’s ills, delivered in the growling tones of his native Brooklyn. Hunched over a lectern, snowy hair aquiver with emotion, the 73-year-old’s usual targets include the “greed, recklessness and dishonesty” of Wall Street bankers, the malign influence of billionaire political donors, and the “abysmally low” wages that blight the lives of working families. Change will be hard, Mr Sanders warns audiences, and will require a “political revolution”. He is not joking (the senator rarely jokes). His proposals include moving towards a Canadian-style health system with publicly funded care for all, free tuition at public universities and a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan intended to create 13m jobs.

...Mr Sanders detects a chance in 2016 to lead a national uprising, drawing strength from the millions of working Americans who loathe mainstream politicians, news outlets and the economic status quo. Paraphrasing Franklin D. Roosevelt, he told the rally in Boone: “If the Koch brothers and the billionaire class hate my guts, I welcome their hatred.”

The Economist doesn't think that either Corbyn or Sanders can actually emerge as leaders of their respective parties.

BJP leader Varun Gandhi has a comment on this in the Hindu. He ascribes the resurgence to rising inequality. Gandhi's prescriptions for inequality would, perhaps, find easier acceptance in the Congress than in the BJP:

To cut inequality, we need to raise the level of minimum wages, strengthen collective bargaining, and improve employment benefits. Women need equal wages, flexible work environments and better childcare facility. We need better regulation of business, especially for rent-seeking sectors. Climate change requires a systemic response, with enhanced environmental protection.. With new demands for reservation based on economic criteria, the old politics of ethnic, racial and caste based reservation or affirmative programmes will soon die. 

Well, I am not sure the issue is just inequality, although it is an important factor. There is widespread discontent about the economy, for one thing. More importantly, perhaps, a profound dissatisfaction with mainstream candidates and parties and a yearning for something very different. Trump's appeal is precisely on the latter count, although I cannot fathom how he appeals to black voters.

Some of this is reflected in Indian politics as well. Aap undoubtedly has won out because of its anti-establishment orientation. The resistance to reforms reflects a growing realisation that a disproportionate chunk of the economic pie has gone in favour of business and corporate interests.  The BJP's retreat from the Land Bill and its reluctance to privatise government banks are acknowledgements of the realities on the ground. It's hard to think of any party moving decisively to the right in the near future. 

China's communist party is not so communist

I am not saying this, it's well known sociologist Daniel Bell who thinks so. I have to say that this is the impression I too have formed over the years.

The CCP no longer subscribes to full-blown communism- it is committed to the market economy to a degree. More importantly, it's not the monolithic entity that most people outside think it is, with people of a particular orientation only being included and those at the top dictating the line. It is highly pluralistic and there is plenty of room for people to express their views:

With 86m members, the CCP is a pluralistic organisation that co-opts leaders of different sectors of society, including keen capitalists, and it aims to represent the whole country..........The CCP does not need a unifying ideology, so long as people agree that the political system does a good job of selecting public officials with superior qualities. The pressing problem of corruption casts doubt on the question of virtue. So the anti-corruption campaign is essential to buttressing the legitimacy of the CCP, though we will not see results for a few years. 

In other words, the CCP is the political equivalent of the bureaucracy. People with a flair or passion for public life are selected and promoted on merit. It's not yet free from dynastic politics (many of today's leading lights are descendants of close associates of Mao or Deng) but there is the promise of getting there.  Moreover, as Bell points out, it's important for the party to gain legitimacy by rooting out extreme corruption.

The differences on most issues within the CCP, I would imagine, are as broad as those between the Congress and the BJP. Instead of having people in two parties sharing the spoils, the CCP does it within one roof. The key divide between the Congress and BJP is not political or economic but cultural. The BJP differentiates itself clearly with its Hindutva orientation. Who knows?- the Congress may go the same way. Rahul Gandhi's decision to head for Kedar soon after he came back from his retreat is an interesting straw in the wind.

The many mistakes of Narendra Modi

Vox Populi is Vox Dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God. Whatever  your political leanings, it's hard not feel a sense of exhilaration over the outcome of the Delhi elections.The people have spoken- and how!

It's not just a vote for Kejriwal & Co. It's a vote against the NDA government. It's an expression of anger against the Modi and the BJP. That alone can explain the margin of victory of Aap.

How has this come about? Why are the voters of Delhi so angry? Let me list what I think are some of the mistakes Modi has made. Some of these points may have been made by others but I'd like to add my own little voice:

i. Choosing Kiran Bedi over the heads of long-serving leaders of the Delhi BJP: Harsh Vardhan, now a minister in Modi's cabinet, was a five-time MLA. He's known for his probity. He was discarded in favour of an outsider. Moreover, an outsider who had been baiting politicians, including Modi, until very recently. This angered not just BJP workers but the electorate. What was on display was the politics of opportunism.

ii. The Land Acquisition ordinance: This allows the government to grab people's land without their consent. The slum-dwellers of Delhi must  have reckoned that, if the government could grab land that poor people owned, they wouldn't think very hard about uprooting poor people who were sitting on land they didn't own (whatever the poll promises of the BJP).

iii. Proximity to industrial houses: We've had so many functions where the leaders of industrial houses, some of whom are close to the BJP, have showed up. It's not a good for politicians in India to advertise their proximity to industrial houses. The BJP came to perceived as the wrong AAP- Ambani and Adani Party.

iv. Making a huge spectacle of the Obama visit:Ok, you wanted to get the US president over. But was it necessary to make such a spectacle out of it? There's a difference between being comfortable with world leaders and grandstanding.

v. Flaunting the Rs 10 lakh suit: Especially on the social media, the impact of the monogrammed suit was hugely negative. People had voted in Modi because they identified with and admired his chaiwallah background. What they saw in the suit was somebody very different, a member of the Delhi elite.

Modi rode to power on the strength of the perception that he was an outsider who would bring to the capital a very different style of leadership, one that resonated with the aspirations of the aam admi. In his nine months in power, Modi began to look like any other member of the Delhi Durbar. This was disappointing. That disappointment has made its felt.

It's a setback but not the end of the road. Modi is a seasoned leader, somebody with the capacity to learn from mistakes. He must go back to being his original self, a leader with a natural empathy for the section of society from where he comes. And he has to make adaptations to the economic model he followed in Gujarat. He must not forget that, at least in the immediate future, the only economics that will work is one that is resolutely people-oriented- and seen to be so.

Why would the Congress lose the election?

What exactly is likely to cost the Congress the 2014 election? An FT commentator thinks it's not the growth slowdown or even rising inflation. It is the change in the voter profile over the years. The poor are no longer the dominant constituency with the proportion of those below the poverty line falling to 22%. And yet the Congress' policies have been targeted towards the poor, rather than the dominant segment with rising aspirations. The latter need jobs, not doles:

India in 2014, in other words, is not the same country it was in 2004. Congress’s undoing is that it has failed to recognise this. It has instituted socially laudable right-to-work and right-to-food programmes. But such schemes are costly and prone to rampant theft. By putting a strain on the Treasury, they have contributed to persistent inflation. That in turn has forced the central bank to raise interest rates, slowing growth.

..Most Indians are no longer satisfied with the make-work schemes or food handouts in which Congress has increasingly specialised. Many have caught the whiff of a better life. Now they want jobs and opportunity. Even those who have not yet clawed their way on to the bottom rung of the aspirational ladder have seen what it looks like, courtesy of the satellite television channels that beam images of a middle-class life into even the most benighted corners of the country. India’s villages are not what they once were. The bullock cart has given way to the motorbike; the dirt road to tarmac.

This is a rather simplistic explanation, I'm afraid. The UPA's schemes are targeted not just at the poor but at those above the poverty line as well. Schemes such as MNREGA and the right to education are not just for the poor. Subsidies, including those on cooking gas and even food, are intended for the middle class and those above the poverty line. Indeed, it could well be that it is the trend towards targeting of subsidies only for the poor that has alienated the middle class.

The other problem with the explanation is that it fails to tell us why the BJP, in its manifesto, is not arguing for the dismantling of subsidies and welfare schemes. As I have pointed out in my blogs, Mr Modi has been saying something to the contrary of late. He has argued, for instance, that MNREGA should be made more efficient- say, in terms of creating assets. He has not said the scheme should be wound up. He has also said subsidies must stay. If the FT commentator's thesis were correct, the BJP should be singing a different tune.

Whatever the statistics on poverty, it is more than likely that, in the medium-term, no government can afford any economic policy that is not centrist or even slightly to the left of centre. We have to look elsewhere for the disenchantment with the Congress. Mr Modi appeals on the strength of the fact that he is a self-made man, has not amassed wealth for himself and has a solid track record in Gujarat.

The Congress, in contrast, is projecting Rahul Gandhi, who is seen as a privileged scion of a dynasty, the UPA is tainted with corruption charges and Gandhi has yet to prove himself in an administrative capacity. The perceived diminishing of the office of PM under Manmohan Singh could also be a factor. Rightly or wrongly, the perception has gained ground that India needs a strong leader as PM and that Mr Modi could be that leader.

FT columnist roots for Modi

The Economist cast its vote against Modi about a month ago, saying that the Gujarat riots of 2002 in his time could not be overlooked. Several intellectuals abroad have signed letters saying pretty much the same thing.

FT's foreign affairs editor has a different view- he thinks Modi deserves a chance. Here's why:

His rise would send an invigorating message across a country where too many people’s chances are still blighted by poverty, class or caste. That anti-dynastic message deserves to resonate well beyond India. The upper echelon of China’s government is still dominated by “princelings” – men such as President Xi Jinping who are descended from Mao Zedong’s close comrades. The US could well witness another presidential election contested between the Bush and Clinton clans. South Korea and Japan are led by the daughter and the grandson of former heads of government. Politics is also strongly dynastic in India’s neighbours Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar. It would be a welcome change for India to elect a self-made man.

......The ruling Indian National Congress has reason to be proud of the liberal economic reforms that it unleashed in the 1990s. But the party has now lapsed back into the rhetoric of redistribution and big government. By contrast, Mr Modi emphasises economic policies that are focused on encouraging growth, helping business and reducing the size of government. This kind of liberal agenda is no longer so fashionable in the west. But it has been crowned with economic and political success in Gujarat.

As readers of this blog would know, I am a little sceptical about the view that Mr Modi stands for Thatcherite reforms, which means small government and leaving things to the market. He will, of course, be business-friendly. But that does mean rolling back the state. If his record in Gujarat is anything to go by, the Modi approach is to combine pro-growth policies with effective state institutions. Gujarat's leading PSUs have effected a turnaround under Modi. The erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board is an astonishing story of recovery. Public distribution in Gujarat is reasonably effective. So are public hospitals- Gujarat has a first-rate public kidney hospital in Nadiad and a cardiology hospital in Ahmedabad. 

My own view is that Mr Modi will bring his administrative skills to bear on strengthening public enterprises and institutions. I also reckon that he will not roll back the present welfare schemes, although he may refrain from expanding them. India's polity is such that it  forces people who want to rule at the centre towards the centrist position when it comes to political ideology; likewise, the basic economic ideology will have to be slightly left-of-centre if it is gain acceptance in a still poor country riven with inequalities.

More on this in a TV discussion on CNBC in which I participated recently.  Here are link1 and link2

Modinomics: an American view

A former American bureaucrat, writing in the Hindu, compares Narendra Modi with Ronald Reagan. One common element, according to him, is that both have humble backgrounds. Modi is looked down upon by the nation's elites as Reagan was in the US  because he comes across as unsophisticated.

This is certainly true. It astonishes me that the elite in the media and elsewhere are unable to respect something as phenomenal as a chief minister of a state, with no experience at the centre, being able to generate a nationwide following, something that his party itself has never enjoyed!

The writer then suggests that Modi's economic vision is somewhat similar to Reagan's and that he has the capacity to unleash the nation's entrepreneurial energies:

As one who lived through Reaganomics, I believe that Modinomics can be the perfect antidote to the kleptocratic crony socialism that has kept India from realising her vast economic potential. If India’s natural entrepreneurial dynamism is ever fully unleashed, the sky will be the limit. I am persuaded by the evidence (hotly debated in an election season, of course) that shows that economic growth in Gujarat under Mr. Modi has been a boon to all segments of society, especially the poor. I am just sharing my view as an observer, and of course respect that it is for the people of India to decide what is best for them. 

One has to be careful not to overdo the comparison. Giving a boost to entrepreneurship is not the same as embracing Reaganomics. In India, no government can afford to move very away from welfarism. Modi's recent pronouncements seem to reflect this recognition. BS has caught this point well in a recent edit:

In the past, Mr Modi has said in speeches that his definition of reform does not include the changing of poorly framed policy, but merely building infrastructure. In his most recent statements, he has outlined a slightly different agenda. He has said, among other things, that "we will not reduce subsidies". As if to underline this point, he said that his economic agenda should be described as "pro-people", and added that "the poor will continue to control the coffers of India". This seems to suggest that Mr Modi's economic vision will maintain the United Progressive Alliance's (UPA's) welfarist policies .

....Mr Modi's attitude to privatisation of public sector undertakings (PSUs) was also disappointing. He said that the idea that PSUs were inefficient has "done much damage"......Most worrying, perhaps, is the one area where Mr Modi has promised a break with the UPA. He has said that a review of policies governing foreign direct investment was necessary: "We have to protect the manufacturing sector. If we are unable to protect the manufacturing sector and small-scale industries, our youth's future will be destroyed." 

This is a far cry from Reaganomics. Those who think that Mr Modi will make a clean break with past policies ignore the compulsion in the Indian context to walk on two legs: growth and welfarism. What we can expect of Mr Modi is that by improving governance, he will boost growth and he will make welfare schemes more efficient. As part of his effort to improve governance, he may tilt towards greater decentralisation. But it would be naive to suppose that Mr Modi will embrace free market economics a la Reagan. 

What ails democracy?

The Economist has an interesting essay on the subject. Democracy was widening until the turn of the last century. For the last eight years, it has declined, going by the number of people living in democracies. The declines have taken place outside the West. In the West itself, the effectiveness of democracy as a creator of prosperity is coming under a cloud. Why so? The Economist identifies what it believes are the two primary causes:

THE two main reasons are the financial crisis of 2007-08 and the rise of China. The damage the crisis did was psychological as well as financial. It revealed fundamental weaknesses in the West’s political systems, undermining the self-confidence that had been one of their great assets. Governments had steadily extended entitlements over decades, allowing dangerous levels of debt to develop, and politicians came to believe that they had abolished boom-bust cycles and tamed risk. Many people became disillusioned with the workings of their political systems—particularly when governments bailed out bankers with taxpayers’ money and then stood by impotently as financiers continued to pay themselves huge bonuses. The crisis turned the Washington consensus into a term of reproach across the emerging world.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party has broken the democratic world’s monopoly on economic progress. Larry Summers, of Harvard University, observes that when America was growing fastest, it doubled living standards roughly every 30 years. China has been doubling living standards roughly every decade for the past 30 years. The Chinese elite argue that their model—tight control by the Communist Party, coupled with a relentless effort to recruit talented people into its upper ranks—is more efficient than democracy and less susceptible to gridlock.

Setbacks to the cause of democracy include Russia under Putin, the Iraq war (which led many to believe that democracy was a fig-leaf for the spread of American imperialism) and the turn of events in Egypt where we are back to army rule. Political gridlock in the US and the stagnation in the Eurozone have done little good for the democratic ideal. Independent economic policy is becoming difficult to implement in a globalised world and this makes voters angry. In the West, voters are reluctant to stomach austerity in the medium-term as an answer to their current problems.

The Economist's solutions are not particularly inspiring. It wants to curb the growth of the state, which may be the right answer in the West but not necessarily the right one in developing countries. In the latter, the problem is not that the state is too large but that it has not got the mix of activities right. A more efficient state, not a smaller one, is what a country like India needs. Another solution is to insulate policies from short-term populist pressures by handing over decisions to technocrats and independent commissions. This assumes that technocrats will work for the larger good and can be held accountable if they fail to do so. In a country like India with weak institutions, it is better to have incompetent politicians who are accountable that very competent technocrats who are not.

The Economist glosses over the subversion of democracy by money power or crony capitalism, which has done a great deal to discredit democracy. To succeed in politics, you need big money and the providers of big money have to be taken care of by successful politicians. No democracy has been able to tackle this scourge. Another big problem is the lack of accountability of politicians in the interregnum between elections. We can kick out the party in power once in five years but how do voters express their ire towards politicians or policies during that period? These issues, to my mind, are most important than the ones the Economist raises- and so is the need to find answers to them.

The Dawn on the LOC killings

In contrast to the jingoistic voices heard in the Indian media, particularly TV, the Dawn's edit on the subject is a model of restraint and sobriety:

In fact, the ‘peace process’ is not really there; India cannot put aside the 2008 Mumbai attacks and Pakistan has failed to rein in the militants. The latter are well-armed and well-funded and some of them have brought the two nuclear-armed neighbours to the verge of war twice since 9/11. Here lies the test for the two sides: will Islamabad and New Delhi hand the militants a diplomatic win by shying away from peace? On this point the two sides must be clear. 

....The 2003 ceasefire agreement has largely held but can be further reinforced and made durable given that there has been an increase in LoC tensions since January. And although the level of infiltration into India-held Kashmir has gone down considerably, Pakistan must make it a priority to cripple all attempts made by militants to sabotage peace efforts between the two countries.

Now you know why I am such a great admirer of the Dawn. I hope some day I will get a chance to go to Pakistan. If I do, I will make it a point to visit the office of the Dawn and tell the journalists there how much I have respected and admired their writings over the years. 

Does the RTI Act cover political parties?

Political parties are up in arms against the CIC judgement which says they are public authorities
and hence within the purview of the RTI Act. The public is infuriated that political parties should be opposed to the CIC order. It sees this as unwillingness on the part of the political class to practise transparency. Are political parties being unduly cussed in the matter?

People are entitled to their views on whether it is desirable to bring political parties under the purview of the RTI Act. The important question, however, is what the RTI Act, as it stands, has to say on
the subject. In other words, how sound is the legal basis for the CIC's judgement? An article
in EPW raises this question and comes to the conclusion that the CIC's judgement is rather infirm.

The author, Anirudh Burman, points out that the CIC gave three reasons in justification of its judgement: political parties “are continuously engaged in performing public duty”, receive sub-

stantial financing from the government and have important constitutional and legal rights and liabilities.". He opines that the the last reason given has no legal basis as "This criterion is
not present in the definition of “public authority”at all."

He then scrutinises the other two reasons. Can political authorities be said to be
"public authorities" because they perform public functions? He thinks not- nowhere in
the Act is a "public functions" test specified for determining whether an entity is a public
authority. Who can be considered public authorities is laid down down very precisely in the
Act. The CIC also refers to the fact that political parties are registered with the Election Commission
and argues that this makes them somewhat similar to entities to established by government.
However, there is a Karnataka High Court  judgement that ruled that goes against this stand.

What of the argument that political parties get "substantial financing" from government? The difficulty, Burman points out, is that the CIC has steered clear of defining what constitutes "substantial financing". He argues that unless it can be established that, without the support they receive from government, political parties cannot carry on with their activities, they cannot be
said to receive ""substantial financing".

It is important to distinguish between transparency in respect of funding of political parties
and the broader transparency required under the RTI Act. In respect of activities not related
to raising funds, Burman argues- correctly, in my view- that transparency may not be desirable
and may pose obstacles to their effective functioning:

First, as a body seeking to outdo other competing parties, a political party has the

right to keep certain parts of its activities hidden from public view.  .....Second, in light of the fact that the RTI creates this information asymmetry, theRTI mechanisms may become a tool of political warfare rather than a tool forpromoting transparency.

The danger is stretching the RTI Act to cover entities it was not intended to is that it may
end up discrediting the Act itself, quite apart from rendering the entire political class
hostile to it.In the process, a most valuable instrument of empowerment and the purpose
of rendering a whole range of public authorities accountable may fall by the wayside.

Modi in Uttarakhand: the bare facts

Gujarat CM Narendra Modi's visit to Uttarakhand predictably degenerated into slugfest between the BJP and the Congress. When Rahul Gandhi followed, the media tended to portray the two visits as  a competition for photo-ops.

Writing in ET, Madhu Kishwar has a different story to tell. It would appear that Modi was quickly able to mobilise a significant rescue effort targeting principally the large numbers of Gujarati pilgrims but not entirely excluding others. Here's a sample:

Modi arrived in Delhi late 17th night for a meeting with the Planning Commission on 18th when news of cloudburst and landslides was telecast on TV. He held an emergency meeting to take stock of the situation since he knew that thousands of Gujaratis are likely to be among the Chardham pilgrims . Right away, a camp office was opened at Gujarat Bhavan and the Resident Commissioner's team in Delhi was made responsible for coordinating with Gujarati pilgrims.
...On the 18th morning, Modi called Dr Pranav Pandya of the All World Gayatri Parivar to provide space and infrastructure in his Shanti Kunj campus for the relief centre proposed to be set up by the Gujarat government . He chose this campus because of his close knowledge of, and rapport with, this Gandhian institution that can house and feed thousands of people at a short notice.
It has a 2,000-strong community of swayamsevaks on the campus, plus 3,000-odd students of the Dev Sanskriti University. The campus also has a well-run hospital.
On the 18th evening itself, a set of computers with internet connections , telephone lines, television sets and all other paraphernalia required for Gujarat government's relief operation were set up. Therefore, when a team of Gujarat government IAS, IPS and IFS officers came, they could get going within minutes of reaching Shanti Kunj.
Team Gujarat had two officers from Uttarakhand - Assistant Director General of Police Bisht and Forest Service officer SC Pant - who had close knowledge of the terrain to guide both the stranded pilgrims as well as rescue teams on the safest possible routes to take. ADG Bisht went straight to Gupta Kashi from where the rescue operations are being launched.
A team of seven doctors trained in handling such emergencies, led by an orthopaedic surgeon, not only put in place an efficient first-aid service but are also attending to those severely injured.
 

It is open to people to come to their own conclusions on how much of a difference these efforts made, considering the large number of people left stranded in the region.  I do find it surprising, however, that the media did not think it necessary to bring the above facts to the notice of the public. We had swarms of reporters and TV crews in the region but at least I did not find any details of the contribution that Modi was able to make.

Kishwar concludes:

The Congress party is understandably upset because its chief minister has proved a disaster, its party machinery is in disarray, Congress Sewa Dal workers are nowhere in sight, Rahul Gandhi's Youth Brigade is clueless even in routine situations , leave alone know how to face a crisis like the Uttarakhand deluge.

That is the reality of the Uttarakhand relief operation led by Narendra Modi

Succession at BJP

Narendra Modi's appointment as head of the poll committee of the BJP, which could be a prelude to his being projected as candidate for the post of PM, is a tribute to the working of grassroots democracy in India. It is said that the RSS backed his candidature. Maybe, but this in itself would not have been adequate to deal with opposition from the stalwarts of the party, such as Advani (and, if reports are to be believed, Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha and Uma Bharti).

BJP President Rajnath Singh and other senior leaders found it impossible, at the end of the day, to ignore the groundswell of support from the party cadres. It is a tribute to the working of Indian democracy that these voices from below can make themselves heard.

This is not the first time that this has happened in the case of Modi. Following the Gujarat riots in 2002, then PM Vajpayee was under tremendous pressure from various quarters to send Modi packing. His own instincts were in favour of such a move. And yet Vajpayee could not act, again because it would have meant displeasing the rank and file of the party. This is the assertion of inner-party democracy and, whatever reservations people may have about the outcome, it is a phenomenon that deserves respect.

Can Modi bring it off for the BJP? His critics say he is a divisive figure and that he will scare away potential political partners. His track record suggests otherwise. As a boy, he ran away from his family in a village and thereafter proceeded to fend for himself. He comes from a backward caste and lacks the trappings of education as well as family support. In a country where politics is still centred on caste, he has been able to create a coalition of forces that transcends caste barriers and win three consecutive elections. At the national level, he can be expected to similarly make a direct appeal to the masses on the strength of some overriding slogan, say, development or governance. It is more than likely that, as elections approach, other political parties will find it expedient to join hands with the BJP as they see the mood of the people swinging in the BJP's favour.

Note the contrast between the succession process at a political party, such as the BJP, and a reputed corporate such as Infosys. At BJP, the old guard has been brushed aside on grounds of performance and the reins have passed into the hands of a proven achiever. At Infosys, the leading member of the old guard is back in the saddle on the ground that nobody can else is as suited to rescue the company. That is because nothing resembling democracy can be seen in most companies; decision-making is centralised and the wishes of various stakeholders, or even of the majority, go unheard. And politicians are said to be bad at governance; India's companies are said to be models of good governance.

Nature's way is to ruthlessly discard the old and to promote the young. It is ironical that political parties, which are maligned day in and day out for poor governance, are better tuned to the laws of nature than the vaunted heroes of the corporate world

An independent CBI?

There is renewed clamour for an independent CBI in the wake of the Coalgate investigations and the government's attempts to vet reports submitted by the CBI to the Supreme Court. Every political party thinks the CBI is a handmaiden of the government of the day but days nothing to alter the situation when it is in power.

Many activists would like the CBI to be free from political supervision. Then, we will have professionals in the CBI bravely investigating the corrupt and prosecuting them. What a pathetic delusion ! Politicians are not a special breed in society. They are drawn from the same genetic pool as lawyers, doctors, chartered accountants, bureaucrats, policemen, corporate executives and academics. True, politics is a game at which one needs ruthlessness in order to succeed but the same is true of most other professions. Only, the stakes in politics may be higher.

Make the CBI independent and you will have a set of privileged officers with frightening powers and amenable to nobody in the executive. Absolute power, we know, corrupts absolutely.  The police force is apt to misuse its powers even when under the supervision of civilian and political authority.Think of what might be when it is totally freed from such supervision.

Prescriptions, such as those for an omnipotent Lok Pal or an independent CBI, fail to answer the crucial question: who will these bodies be accountable to? Parliament and political parties are accountable to the people. The bureaucracy and the police must be accountable to parliament and the political authority. Perhaps, it does not suffice to have political oversight, it must be supplemented by parliamentary oversight and independent external audits by a panel of eminent persons. But this is not the same as saying that agencies such as the CBI should be independent of the political authority.

Harish Khare, writing in the Hindu, underlines this point and also warns against judicial intervention in such matters:

Given the context of this political culture of suspicion and accusation, it would be tempting to judicially “liberate” the CBI. This can only produce an institutional disequilibrium of the most unhelpful kind. Any democratic society should be very suspicious of a policeman, however competent a professional he may be, with powers to determine political life and death. As it is, we have yet to evolve a code of conduct for an ever enlarging plethora of regulators and independent commissions. Everyone goes about hypocritically believing that we have found the magic formula to make honest appointments of honest individuals to such “institutions.” 

Once an appointment has been wangled, then it is entirely open to an incumbent to take a maximum or a minimal view of his or her brief. We are becoming wise to another aberration: the potential — and, in a few cases, the reality — of a corporate house suborning these so-called “independent” authorities. Before we succumb once again to the allurement of installing unelected gods as our saviours, let us just remember that it is easy to proclaim and grab “independence” but it is much more difficult a task to produce the requisite institutional culture, anchored in balance, fairness and rectitude. That balance can be produced and enforced only by democratic processes of accountability. This balance can neither be produced nor imposed by a court.

Modi's biographer on Narendra Modi

Nilanjan Mukopadhyay, author of a biography of Narendra Modi, interviewed by Rediff.com

Narendra Modi's bid for prime ministership

Speculation about Narendra Modi emerging as a contender for the PM's job has been rising and has reached fever pitch. Most of the analyses tend to be partisan. Those against say the nation will never allow it, given what happened in Godhra. Those for Modi say that the time has come for a leader in the mould of Indira Gandhi. Sheela Bhat provides a more insightful and detailed analysis in Rediff.

The key point she makes is that the BJP is unlikely to get more than 150-170 seats. How does Modi become PM in that situation? She argues that the regional parties will probably strike a suitable deal with Modi. The author is clear about one thing: the BJP cadres are all for Modi and there is support amongst voters not given to watching the talk shows on the English TV channels. She believes Modi's campaign will rest on the dynasty, corruption and inflation. But what if Chidambaram delivers and the economy turns around by 2014?

Corruption- India isn't unique

Spain's PM Mariano Rajoy has been implicated in a growing corruption scandal in Spain, which is already under pressure in the Eurozone crisis, FT reports:

Spain’s prime minister has become embroiled in a growing scandal over secret cash payments to ruling party politicians after a newspaper published that it claimed to be accounts showing payments reaching as high as Mariano Rajoy himself..... 

“The level of trust in politicians in Spain is very, very low, and corruption is one of the main problems,” said Antonio Argandoña, professor of Business Ethics and Economics at IESE business school. “Politicians must tackle this problem before any more damage is done.”

A recent poll for El País suggested that 96 per cent of Spaniards believed that political corruption was “very high”.

 

I know this is poor consolation but it helps to know that political corruption isn't unique to India.  It is alive and kicking in rich economies as well.

Reservation in promotions

The reservation in promotions for SC/STs Bill has been passed in the Rajya Sabha. Its passage in the Lok Sabha is awaited. Many of those who favour reservation for SC/STs at the point of entry are opposed to extending the principle to promotions. The merits of the Bill can be debated but the crucial thing to note is that the Bill will have to withstand any challenge in the  Supreme Court. The Hindu today carries an article that brings out the constitutional aspects very well.

There are two criteria of the Supreme Court that are relevant to any provision for reservation in promotions for SC/STs. One, such reservation must not come into conflict with requirements of efficiency. Two, the government must demonstrate lack of representation of the SC/STs by providing appropriate data. The article points that as part of the negotiation with the BJP, the UPA government agreed to drop an earlier provision in the Bill that would have allowed it to ignore concerns about efficiency. However, the present draft contends that the government need not demonstrate under-representation. The author writes:

The draft of the 117th Constitution Amendment Bill has a rather short-sighted response to the Supreme Court’s demand that the inadequacy of representation of the SCs/STs must be demonstrated on the basis of each cadre. In essence, the Supreme Court’s position is that if the state wants to provide quotas in promotions for clerks, it should demonstrate inadequate representation of the SCs/STs among clerks . The response of the 117th Constitution Amendment Bill is to remove any reference to the requirement of demonstrating inadequacy of representation. The Supreme Court’s demand that the cadre must be the basis for demonstrating inadequacy of representation is far from ideal. A cadre-based determination of inadequacy of representation of the SC/STs would not result in an accurate picture of representation of the SC/STs in public employment as a whole. The 117th Constitution Amendment Bill should have clarified that a cadre-based determination of inadequacy of representation was not required by the Constitution and that it would be sufficient for the State to demonstrate inadequacy of representation in public employment as a whole. Instead, the Bill that has been passed in the Rajya Sabha goes to the other extreme and no longer requires the state to demonstrate any sort of inadequacy of representation. 

I am not clear as to how quotas on promotions will work. Are we to suppose that there will be 22.5% reservation for SC/STs at each level- joint secretary, additional secretary, secretary- in the government? Or will governments settle for, say, representation in the office cadres as a whole? If SC/STs are adequately represented at the joint secretary and additional secretary level and in the services a whole but there are not enough of them at the secretary level, would this call for government intervention?

The implications of having 22.5% quota at every level should be evident. Promotion would become virtually independent of performance or any comparative evaluation of merit. However, if we don't have enough SC/STs at the senior levels, that could be construed as violative of the intent of the amendment proposed. A compromise would be settle for some rough indicators- at least 5-10% of SC/STs for all posts at senior levels in the aggregate. But, then, an argument could erupt about the numbers; some would say that anything short of 22.5% is discrimination.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of quotas in promotions but I'm afraid I can't see how quotas in promotions will operate or can be operated. Any suggestions?

Interview on Narendra Modi

I found Rediff.com's interview with Gunvant Shah perceptive. The interview is about Modi- his strengths and weaknesses. Shah makes no bones about either. He condemns the Gujarat riots as a blot on the state but does not hold Modi personally responsible:

So you think he should not apologise.
Not at all! You are talking nonsense. When there is rioting and provocation of this dimension, do you think there won't be any reaction from the majority community? You conveniently forget that in 1984, Sikhs were killed by Hindu Congressmen. Not a single non-Sikh was killed. You can call it a pogrom. Here in Modi's Gujarat, 218 Hindus were killed in police firing... And do you know even Congressmen came to fight Muslims on that day?

It is good to see the media talking to people on the ground in  Gujarat. Rediff's coverage of the elections has been excellent.

Anti-corruption crusade

Robert Vadra, Salman Khurshid, Nitin Gadkari. Who's next? That's what politicians must be wondering and it's also what ordinary people are asking. The Anna Hazare movement having run out of steam, it appeared for a while that corruption had ceased to be an issue. But Arvind Kejriwal and company had other ideas and have brought corruption back on the agenda with a bang, no doubt in the hope of creating a niche for the political party they have launched.

Is this a new dawn? Is the country about to finally cleaned up? Are we on the brink of a new phase in the life of the polity? At the risk of sounding cynical, methinks not. Kejriwal's is not the first anti-corruption movement to be launched in the country. One can easily recollect two movements that had corruption as one of their main planks: the JP movement in 1975 and the V P Singh campaign against the Bofors deal in 1989. Both movements brought down governments but the impact on corruption in public life has been zilch.

True, Kejriwal has the benefit of 24-hour TV coverage- and the TV channels are all for fighting corruption because it gets them tonnes of eyeballs. Still, it's only a matter of time before the public tires of Kejriwal's hit-and-run tactics. Their defence that they do not have the investigation machinery to probe deeper will not wash; they have recourse to the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary, and they are free to file charges before the relevant authorities. To say that the system has broken down and it's not easy approaching the relevant authorities cannot justify hurling charges against all and sundry. Then, we are reduced to mob justice, and people simply hurling allegations against each other. If you do not subscribe to the current process, you are free to contest collections and institute a new process.

There is a more fundamental problem with Kejriwal and Co are saying. They perpetuate a rather naive view of corruption, as one of taking bribes for favours, the sort of corruption one associates with traffic cops or income-tax officials. The more potent and intractable forms of corruption do not involve taking bribes. They are about deals done, very often within the framework of the law, but which involve abuse of power in one form or another. That is how big money is made. A cabinet minister's son getting contracts from large companies; a senior bureaucrat getting a lucrative independent directorship post-retirement; a regulator being hired as a consultant for a large sum after he relinquishes his post. In such cases, quid pro quo is almost impossible to establish because of the lag between a favour done and the return obtained for the same.

Then, there is corporate corruption, again not necessarily involving bribes all the time. Corruption rests on a nexus of relationships among the privileged in society. And the nexus, in turn, arises from a particular economic structure in which a privileged few corner the spoils at the expense of the vast majority. Thus, the serious corruption in society has to do with the economic structure in society and especially with the inequalities on which society rests. This form of corruption is almost next to impossible to tackle unlike petty corruption, which can be checked through simple means (such as online reservations for railway tickets).

Once this basic truth is grasped, it will also be apparent that crusades against corruption cannot achieve much. In the present situation, they have ended up paralysing the government and affecting growth, which can only hurt the under-privileged. In the long run, crusades against corruption have a way of throwing up dictatorships, which represent the worst form of corruption.

Is there no answer then? Well, the answers are the unglamorous ones: more transparency, e-governance, explicit rules for decisions. These won't make TV news and they taking time to happen but they are the ones that will produce results.

More in my ET column, Plain truths about graft.