governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Gay’

Why Planning Died in India



So what will the post-Plan India look like?

Will we veer away from the soaring flyovers; highways straight as Arjun’s arrow; high rise apartments and carefully “zoned” areas, typical of planned development and turn instead towards the squiggly, irregular lines so dear to the foreign tourist, of “charming”, little, oriental streets; buildings leaning precariously into each other; roads not wide enough to turn around a decent sized car; gloomy, shaded rooms looking inwards onto resplendent, inner courtyards with shops, factories, homes, schools and hospitals all thrown higgledy-piggledy together in the best tradition of “organic growth” fueled by private money?

Unlikely, because even the most ancient, known, Indian city-Mohenjo Daro- built in the 25th century BC was based on a rectilinear street grid (now in Pakistan) and is completely at variance with the more recent, albeit charmingly romantic, memories of traditional Indian living.

If the ancient past was at variance with recent memories, the present is rapidly evolving.  Indian values and needs are changing in response to the open economy framework adopted since 1991 and the associated diffusion of technology, competition and choice. The change is so rapid that formal institutions have yet to catch up.

Neither our laws, nor our judiciary caters to the frustration of young Indians with the plethora of “limiting”, formal traditions.

Take for instance, the case of gays, lesbians and trans-genders. Our law demonises them. But most Indians are easy about adapting to them in the same way “hands-off” manner as they good naturedly, accept foreign customs, like opening doors for women ( a custom rapidly becoming extinct in the West); as a quaint sub text of life.

Cross religion marriages is another example. It is not the norm but is generally accepted if neither family objects. Young India takes to anything modern with a vengeance. Hafiz Contractor’s lurid architecture; skin fit jeans; soppy “friends” style TV serials; head banging, electronic music, offensively fast food and horribly over-priced lounges.

Aspirational India likes multilane highways, fast bikes, week-end car holidays, fourteen hour work days, nuclear families, steel and glass buildings, swanky airports; e-commerce and want rapid change, within their lifetime.

The rapid economic growth associated with these aspirations has usually been scaled up, to encompass the middle class, only by planned investments and heavily regulated economies, as in East Asia. The downside has been rapid grow in pockets of affluence; carefully screened off; insulated from the sordid reality of the poor. Planning to skillfully create a bubble of affluence, access into which is carefully monitored for those make the bubble real but who are excluded from the bubble, except as service providers.

But if Plans and Rules cater only to the rich does it really matter if we stop planning? Even if a random approach is adopted for public investment management there is a 50% chance that investments will benefit the rich and the poor equitably. In contrast, the Impact Assessment of Planned Programs for the poor does not have a better “hit rate” so who cares?

For starters, let us recognize that the death of Planning is not new. It died a quarter of a century ago when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

First, the planned share of private sector in investment has been increasing with every plan and was at 50% of total investment in the last Plan. So irrespective of how much money the government invests, so long as the private sector meets its targets we could hit at least 50% of the growth target so long as the government ensures a facilitating investment environment.

Second, public investment spend comprises just 21% of total public expenditure every year. The rest goes towards meeting the existing recurrent liabilities of interest (33%) salaries (8%) and other operating expenditure just to feed the public “beast”. Rather than increasing public investment by increasing taxes, far better to leave the surplus with private actors and encourage them to invest.

Third, of the 21% which is available for public investment there is no easy way of knowing how much needs to go for funding completion of ongoing projects and what then is the residual fiscal space for new projects. It is telling that even the Union Government budget documents are not transparent about this important distinction in resource allocation.

The suspicion is that if Fiscal Deficit targets are to be achieved there is very limited fiscal space for new projects. A careful inventory of approved but unfinanced projects could reveal a project stock as high as investment spending over the next five years. This is not new and explains why the practice has been to spend on new projects by starving existing ones, so as to please the largest number of political constituencies.

Remember that incomplete road outside your window which rakes up columns of dust every time a motorcycle zips by? Well the reason why the engineers, you curse daily, are taking so long to complete it, is that money for a road or any other project is not allocated and frozen at the time the project is approved. Allocations lapse at the end of the year and fresh allocations made against which cash is released piece meal, depending on the relative power of conflicting political constituencies.

Fourth, planning died because Planners did not reciprocate the faith put in them by citizens. They “gold plated” projects (Commonwealth Games); failed to anticipate technological change and innovation (Public Transportation) and thereby created huge stockpiles of inefficient and unsustainable assets, financed by public debt.

PM Modi probably knows this and consequently is no hurry to devise a new planning set up. Of course every government wants to leave its “footprint” encrusted in projects. The Modi government is no different, if one is to judge from the bouquet of projects hurriedly announced and allocated notional amounts in the 2014 post-election budget.

The only hope this time around, is that there may be more emphasis on creating a facilitating environment and encouraging the private sector to invest rather than using public funds to determine the future.

The test case will be Defence Production. If the government can get the domestic and foreign private sector to invest in “make in India”, against buy back assurances, we shall be starting on an even keel. Nothing much there for the poor to cheer, except some trickle down in construction and services, but at least the middle class can look forward to more jobs and better wages.

The third public toilet


Public toilets are an emotive subject. The Gates Foundation has developed one which incinerates the waste using solar power; expectedly an innovative and green solution from the Big B of Silicon Valley. The Japanese have for long unleashed their geekiness on customizing digitally operated toilets to become so threatening that just trying to use one becomes daunting for the technologically challenged. But the king of public toilets, in India, remains Bindeshwari Pathak whose brain child “Sulabh” has, since 1970, provided public toilet comfort to travelers, itinerants, slum dwellers and the homeless; an astounding 15 million every day and growing.   

Expectedly, therefore, whilst striking a blow for equity and protection of minority rights, the Supreme Court directed the government that Transgender (TG) be recognized as a third gender and provided with separate public toilets. A laudable objective in a country, where even the existing two genders and the “specially enabled” often “feel” the absence of a public toilet.

Public toilets are certainly the way to go. Private toilets are awfully costly and wasteful. They generally occupy at least 10% of the carpet area of your house. This is valuable space grossly underused in nuclear families. At current realty rates, private toilets need to rank as a luxury on par with air conditioning. If you can’t afford air conditioning you probably should not be investing in a private toilet.

But much depends on the availability and quality of public options. Many public services do not have toilets segregated by gender; think airplanes or railway carriages or even small restaurants. It was only in 1739 that gender based toilet segregation became available in French restaurants.   

The notion of separate public toilets for men and women is related to three cultural traits which vary across the world. First is the “prudish” trait which requires that physical contact between men and women be minimized, just as volatile chemicals are stored separately in laboratories, to avoid mishaps and misadventures from their inadvertent mixing. So separate queues for women in banks, separate buses, separate rail compartments, separate taxis and separate toilets.

Second, is the need for comfort and absence from sexual stress that flows from being with the same gender. After all one is at ones most vulnerable in the toilet and the successful completion of the task at hand requires one to be at ease and relaxed. So there is validity in the assumption that separate toilets for men and women are both more efficient and effective.

Third, is the need for assuring physical safety, especially of women.  A public toilet, by its very character, is shielded from public gaze. In addition, if it is unlit or located in isolated areas, as they often are, they become fertile ground for sexual assault and intimidation. Hence the need for separate toilets.

It is probably in this context that the SC directed a third public toilet for the third gender. The issue that arises is should toilets be segregated by gender (a physical attribute) or sexuality (a mental attribute).

Gay or Lesbian persons would probably choose to use the toilet of their sexuality rather than that of their gender on the grounds of prudishness, lack of sexual stress and safety. Unexceptional, straight people of either gender would probably agree with them on their choice. They probably feel the sexual tension if they are to share a toilet with a gay/lesbian person who only has a common gender with them but a different sexuality.

The key problem with using sexuality to determine which of the three public toilets to access, is that it is not discernible at “face value”. Gender being a physical characteristic is easier to spot but still needs physical examination. Also there is the issue of Bisexual persons who probably deserve a special toilet of their own.

The way to solve the gender/sexuality based toilet access conundrum is to use a proxy. This should be the way you are dressed. Irrespective of gender or sexuality if you dress as a woman, you should have access to the women’s toilet and vice versa for men. Transgenders could also be conveniently accommodated using this metric.

Of course this still does not solve the problem of the closet gay/lesbian persons who hide their sexual orientation by dessing according to their gender, because the law in India criminalises their sexual practices and social norms still discriminate against them. But that is changing. The Supreme Court is considering a curative petition which will likely overturn its recent regressive decision which passed the baton to Parliament to decriminalize “sex against the order of nature”.

Once this happens, the problem of the third public toilet shall have been solved. Everyone shall have access to the public toilet one dressed for, exactly as it is for entry into exclusive clubs and bars. You are only allowed in if you have dressed appropriately.

It is in the government’s interest also to fast forward legislation on decriminalizing gay/lesbian sexual practices and recognizing same sex marriages. Otherwise it faces the uphill challenge of adding a third public toilet to the non-existent two.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: