governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Maharshtra’

Stop being a bully State

beef

Does the proposed national “beef ban” and the rabid intolerance for “beef-eaters” illustrate a new and disturbing trend in Indian politics? Are we squandering away our “secularism”?

India has been a “secular” state in practice all along. All the bells and whistles to ensure equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion, have existed in the Indian Constitution. But via the infamous Constitution (Forty-second amendment) Act, 1976, the term “secular” was inserted into the Preamble somewhat superfluously.

This attempt to put a “face” to the “fact”, should have been the first signal that our commitment to treating all Indians as one, was doomed to be only skin deep. Thereafter, it has been open season for most political parties to play strategically with the sentiments of both, the majority Hindus and minorities — Muslims being the largest — for periodic political benefit.

inter faith

photo credit: http://www.jainsamaj.org

Religion and community feeling matters

At an individual level, Indians from all faiths accept the basic proposition that culture and religion, which are closely interwoven, are personally important. They also, generally, accept that the individual has to bow down to community norms. This acceptance of religious and community dominance is not without legal precedent.

Our Constitution via Article 48A of the Directive Principles of State Policy requires that the state take steps to “prohibit the slaughter of cows”. Admittedly, the Directive Principles are not justiciable in a court of law. They are more in the nature of guidance for future action. But, consider that cow protection is clubbed with protecting worker rights; the educational rights of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes; improving nutrition levels, protecting the environment and promotion of international peace and security!

The Constitution has been amended one hundred times till now. But the primacy for cow protection in our constitutional vision, as enshrined in the Directive Principles, still stands.

calf

photo credit: http://www.pinterest.com

Democracy without development remains backward looking

What this illustrates, is that democracy is a blunt instrument for social inclusion. The incentive to pander to majority votes is too intense. Second, things become worse when the political architecture assumes, like ours does, that all religions have similar social and economic demographics and, hence, proportional representation is not needed for minorities to protect their voting power. Ironically, this is exactly what we are urging Nepal not to do under their new Constitution and to instead protect the voting power of the “minority”, coincidentally Indian-origin, Madhesis and Tharus, who live in the Terai adjoining Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

The romantic hope of the “Macaulay generation” in 1947 was that as India became richer, it would resemble the West, where churches are empty but the bars are full. India is richer today. But religion and tradition remain deeply embedded. We are unlikely to lose our religious identities any time soon.

Decentralisation: the still born option for enhancing inclusion

Another route to manage a heterogeneous society, like ours, could be to decentralise deeply. This was tentatively envisaged under the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act and Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992. These amendments sought to transfer the management of local affairs to village panchayats and urban municipalities. But the attempt was stillborn. We remain a fairly centralised polity. State governments get seduced to toe the “Imperial line”, dished out from Delhi along with Central funds, rather than go their own way, which is so much more effort intensive.

Our recent experience with the reorganisation of state governments shows that decentralisation can take the steam out of corrosive identity politics. The creation of five new states out of Assam in the 1960s and ’70s is a good example. The proliferation of state governments in India, since Independence (from 16 to 29) lends further credence to this strategy for dampening identity politics.

To cater to our cultural and religious mosaic, India needs either many more homogenous states or more powers delegated to local governments, particularly large cities. Consider that if Mumbai was a city-state, it was unlikely to have opted for a “beef ban”. But as part of the state of Maharashtra, it has no choice.

Isn’t it time to come clean? Our secularism is limited to being a benign, quasi-Hindu state, where minority religious rights are constitutionally protected. This is very similar to enlightened Muslim-majority states like Jordan or Egypt both of which have significant Christian populations.

Secularism is not a State without religion

Our brand of secularism is too passive for anything but harmful politicking. It is time to make it proactive and more effective. Here are three suggestions.

First, minority rights must be explicitly recognised, but subordinated to the common law rights of workers, children and the differently-abled. These, and the principle of gender parity, should be “core values” cutting across all religious rights.

Second, if we are to ban beef, despite the significant adverse economic impact on those who trade in it, how about being even-handed and also banning pork — meat considered impure in Islam? This removes, at one stroke, the perceived discrimination against Muslims and Christians, both of whom eat beef. After all, India has more Muslims that any other Islamic country, except Indonesia; enough Christians to be notionally the 22nd most populous Christian country in the world — just ahead of Australia — and the second largest in Asia after the Philippines.

In any case there are sound environmental and health grounds for banning both beef and pork. We can live, quite happily, on goat meat, fish and seafood. Breeding pigs is a flourishing micro-business today for Hindu dalits, but there is no gain without some pain.

Third, our Constitution is explicit about helping SCs and STs, all of whom are assumed to be the poor and underprivileged, within the broad umbrella of Hinduism. Isn’t it fair then to also extend specific, targeted facilities to poor Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains who are as helpless as the poor Hindus? Selective benefits for “underprivileged” Hindus look awfully like pandering to the majority community.

A benign and forward-looking ruler must be even-handed. That is raj dharma. Religious appeasement must be uniform not selective. This is difficult since at the root of appeasement is arbitrariness.

But there is a fourth option, if the first three are not practical. Stop being a bully state. We have done very well thus far as a “soft” state, wary of displeasing anyone — except perhaps our neighbours.

Becoming a bully state is the worst option, especially because we have the institutions and the skills to become an inclusive, rational, developmental state. Perception is everything in today’s social media-powered world. Let’s not squander our common future for petty temporal gain.

“Insaaf ki ghanti” is ringing. It must be heard.

jehangir

Adapted from the authors article in the Asian Age October 13, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/stop-being-bully-state-375

Some more onions please

Onions comprise less than 1% by value of India’s agricultural production. The average Indian consumes less than 800 grams of the stuff per month. Onion is a seasonal fruit. Supply traditionally dips during July to September as only the stored winter crop, harvested around March, is available for consumption.

No dearth of onions

onions

photo credit: http://www.washingtonpost.com

India is the second largest producer of onions after China. We produce more than we need and export around 10% of production unless weather events adversely impact the crop. This year unseasonal rain, during harvesting, damaged the winter crop.

But demand is inelastic

Demand is relatively inelastic. Why don’t consumers say no when prices increase? First, onions are to palates in the North, Central and Western parts of India, what fish is to Bengal and curry patta and coconut is to the South. Food, chips even Uttapams taste better with onions. Onion, like Garlic, is also valued for its therapeutic value. Second, onions give a big bang for the buck. An average family spends around Rs 100 per month on the stuff. If price doubles, the burden is irksome but not a killer. Just economizing on pre-paid phone calls can make up the difference. But onion is the key savory for low income households.

It’s the politics stupid!

The fuss about onions is more about politics than economics. The political footprint of onions was established in the 1980 elections. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, on her comeback trail, after her post-emergency election debacle, shrewdly used the price rise in onions to drive home how uncaring of the ordinary person and how incompetent, the government of then Prime Minister Chaudhary Charan Singh had become. This clicked. The Congress won 67% of the Lok Sabha seats. In 1998, a sharp price rise in onions, dethroned the BJP government of Chief Minister, Madanlal Khurana in Delhi thereby establishing a new metric for good governance – the price of onions.

Delhi CM Kejriwal fingers the BJP for price rise

Delhi Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal has fingered the Union government for failing to control hoarding and speculation leading to the current price rise. Delhi government flooded Delhi markets in mid-August with onions at Rs 30 per kg. It plans to hold the price line just below Rs 40 per kg through public sector retail supply versus a market retail price of Rs 70 to 80 per kg.

Union government on the back foot

But the Union government claims this is too little and too late. More nimble footwork by the state government could have prevented the steep rise in onion prices in Delhi. The Union government had made available a Price Stabilization Fund of Rs 500 crore in April 2015 which state governments could use by contributing an equal amount to buy onions for retail supply at reasonable rates.

On July 2, when wholesale prices were still around Rs 20 per kg in Lasalgaon, Maharashtra-India’s largest onion mandi, the Union government brought onion under the Essential Commodities Act, thereby enabling stock limits to be enforced on wholesale agencies. It also enforced a Minimum Export Price of Rs 30 per kg to discourage exports.

In todays’ intensely adversarial, no-holds-barred competitive politics no government can ignore a public challenge. The traditionally business friendly BJP government, at the center, is particular sensitive when “hoarders” are fingered for the price rise. Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab- all BJP/allies governed states – account for more than 60% of national onion production.

Grow more onions, reduce trade margins & transaction costs

Per a NCAER 2014 paper selected productivity enhancement can boost roduction. Three big onion producing states- Maharashtra, MP and AP- account for 50% of production but produce less than 17 kilo gram per Hectare against 27 and 21.5 kg/Ha in Gujarat and Punjab respectively. Again all three are ruled by BJP/NDP. Increasing productivity in just these three states can boost production by 20% ensuring sustained exports and no domestic shortages. Doing more on reducing the trade margin (better storage, faster transportation, lower market fees) can also leave more of the money with farmers whilst lowering domestic prices.

Clearly the government needs an effective and transparent mechanism, which provides the right price signals and rationalizes expectations for both farmers and consumers.

Killing export or killing farmers

Increasing the Minimum Export Price, as the government has done again this year, is the standard response. But such intervention in the market, even as it helps consumers by diverting supply to the domestic market, robs farmers of the gains from export. It also disrupts any attempt to develop export markets. Similarly, importing onions to keep consumer price low reduces the incentives for farmers to grow onions.

The fall back-leaky public distribution

But both these options are less intrusive than using the public procurement and subsidized retail supply template used for food grain. Such publicly managed mechanisms are invariably highly inefficient and ineffective with cascading losses in procurement, storage, transportation, distribution and retail sale. Sometimes inept government managed imports flood the market after the seasonal supply dip has passed and just as the new crop arrives- with disastrous impact on farmers’ incomes.

Can private distribution agencies do better?

Why not appoint a private trading agency for marginal but politically sensitive food crops, mandated to import, export or arrange for domestic distribution to balance market led demand and supply and keeping retail prices within a pre-defined retail trading band, which meets the twin needs of both farmers and consumers. This is what the RBI does for our currency to avoid excessive volatility.

Private trading agencies would charge a hefty commission for their services but it would be considerably less than the cost of direct administrative action to purchase, stock and supply onions along the Food Corporation of India model.

Onion diplomacy anyone?

Alternatively, use onions as a vehicle for building bridges with our neighbours – particularly Pakistan, which loves the stuff almost as much Punjabis. Why not negotiate a stand- by, bilateral onion supply agreement to meet onion deficits in either country on preferential terms? A similar arrangement is possible with our larger northern neighbor- China whose onion productivity exceeds ours’s. Onions can add a savory flavor to Track 1.5 – B2B- diplomacy.

Say no to expensive onions

Isn’t it high time the government bit the political bullet and said no to being bullied about the price of onions? They are not a necessity, which the sovereign is obliged to supply. The Jains don’t even touch the stuff.

To show that onions are dispensable, the entire cabinet should voluntarily say no to fresh onions during the lean period. PM Modi could launch a social media campaign to entreat well-off folks to substitute fresh onions with dried ones or switch to other seasonings, during the lean period. This can reduce demand and hence prices for those, to whom onions are the only savory they can afford other than salt and chilies.

The core of sustainable living is to adapt to what is seasonally available locally, rather than store, pack, can or transport food compulsively to cater to a menu plan made universally available but at a high cost to the environment.

Politics trumps economics hands down

But the catch is that Bihar is a big consumer of onions. People are unlikely to be amused if they can’t get their daily fix of onion, before they go to vote in November. This is one election the BJP needs to win. Visible, strong, centrally managed administrative action to lower retail prices is therefore likely to win over better options – after all the metric of good governance has to be met.

Adapted from the authors article in Asian Age August 31, 2015

BJP, take five!

BJP

(photo credit: archives.financialexpress.com)

Delhi Assembly election 2015 is beginning to resemble a Greek tragedy for the Bharatiya Janata Party. What a change from the national elections in May 2014 when the BJP shone in comparison to the inept Congress Party. The motley crew of small regional or local parties (like the Aam Aadmi Party) also could not measure up to the exhilaration created by Prime Minister Narendra Modi who seemed capable of moving the nation, if not the Earth itself, so long as he was given a long enough lever to do so. The people responded positively in ample measure.

But charismatic, centralised leadership, like Mr Modi’s today and Mrs Indira Gandhi’s earlier, whilst a huge advantage in national elections, cannot single handedly carry a local election. Delhi is likely to make this point to leaders yet again.

It is highly unlikely that the BJP will get a majority when the votes are counted on February 10, 2015.

Why did the BJP juggernaut fail in Delhi? Here are five reasons, which are also lessons for the future:

First, there is no substitute for an empowered, decentralised leadership in state-level elections. National parties are, by their very nature, highly centralised. This is why their only option is continuous micro-management by a central election committee. In the instant case of the BJP in Delhi, this was left till too late. The media blitz, the frenetic campaigning, the Cabinet ministers unleashed in end January to make up for inept local leadership, all reinforced the general impression of panic at the BJP high table and a crass attempt at wooing the voter purely for electoral gain.

Second, never underestimate your opponent. The BJP, which has a very thin leadership, got completely engrossed in its grand project of governing India and forgot that local votes have to won locally. The fact that the BJP won all the Lok Sabha seats in Delhi by hanging onto Mr Modi’s coat tails should not have induced the lethargy it did.

In comparison, Arvind Kejriwal never let his guard down. He also had the advantage that the AAP got purged of interlopers, self-servers and free-lunchers; all of whom left it when its prospects seemed dim, post May 2014 debacle in the Lok Sabha elections.

Lean and hungry, core AAP supporters kept up the leg work amongst the voters.  They refined their agenda to suit the Muslims, Christians and disenchanted Congress supporters and carried their message door to door. India loves a fakir (ascetic) and Muffler King Kejriwal resembles one, even from the tinted window of his new Toyota Innova.

Third, performance matters. The BJP’s biggest handicap in Delhi is the non-performance of the Union Territory’s three municipal corporations ruled by it. These entities are dens of corruption and completely erode the national image of the BJP as being relatively above corruption. Prime Minister Modi came to power on the performance plank. But the sordid reality in these three local bodies did not change, not even in the last nine months of direct management by the Union government, significantly diluting the BJP promise of good governance.

Fourth, stopping petty corruption yields high dividends. The instant “governance reform”, to the relief of Delhi’s “underbelly” (street hawkers, small shopkeepers, auto drivers, casual workers, petty contractors), during the 49 days of the AAP government meant the complete stoppage of harassment by the police and municipal corporations. Once Mr Kejriwal resigned and governance devolved upwards to the Union government, petty corruption returned in full force. This reinforces the impression that Mr Modi’s extraordinary executive capacity and expansive aspirations for India are not reflected in the rest of the leadership of the BJP.

In comparison, the AAP got “tempered” in defeat. They humbly accept that they erred in resigning. They appear more politically savvy. They kept up their strategy of ground-level contact and are hungry for power. The belief is strong that an AAP government will enforce “freedom from petty corruption”.

Fifth, Delhi is a city of “winners” and winners do not take kindly to subaltern rule. Delhi has the highest per capita income in the country. Its public services are both highly subsidised and of superior quality than elsewhere. It is not surprising, therefore, that it has been a “destination city” for the last two decades. Delhi comprises people who have self-selected themselves as “winners”: by entering government service through an exactingly competitive process; migrating from the surrounding areas with “fire in their belly” to earn a better life and small and medium scale business people in tourism, hospitality, IT and exports. These are highly entrepreneurial people and expect to see the same quality in their leader.

Mumbai is no different. Maharashtra’s chief minister Devendra Fadnavis is so conscious of his relative youth (he is 44) and inexperience that he takes every opportunity to dispel the notion that he is just a shoo-in of Prime Minister Modis. He needs to do that if he is to govern the proud Maharashtrians credibly.

In Kiran Bedi, the BJP had an independent, high profile, outspoken candidate for chief minister. But she was muzzled and has looked progressively more forlorn since her nomination on January 15. Gone is the assertive confidence. The Bedi baan (arrow) has been tamed into a submissive, humble “subaltern”, basking only in the reflected glory of the Prime Minister. Not quite what she has been thus far.

In the change from being a leader to becoming a dutiful subordinate, Ms Bedi lost her edge to inspire. She now closely resembles any of the many “subaltern” leaders of the Congress, none of whom are encouraged to have an identity larger than the party. She is likely to suffer the same fate. She will have to wait for the tide to raise the BJP boat again before she can have a go at political power, most likely at the national level.

Finally, is the BJP’s likely poor show in Delhi a harbinger of what will happen in Bihar? Nitesh Kumar’s Janata Dal (U) would do well to bear in mind the lessons from Delhi’s elections.

The BJP is today India’s only real national party. Fighting the “Gir Lion” needs more than development statistics and caste calculations. Time to put the JD(U) boots on the ground to5work.

Reposted from the Asian Age February 6, 2014 <http://www.asianage.com/columnists/bjp-take-five-497&gt;

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: