governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Nepal’

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

Netaji-Mulayam’s 30/30 India (U) Vision

Image

Blame it on Nehru. If it had not been for him, India (U-ndivided) would comprise Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and Bangladesh, though regrettably still not Sri Lanka (Galle and Kandulama are so beautiful!).

Now why couldn’t the man have just made Jinnah the PM, who would have been gone soon enough, anyway. Nehru would have been back in the saddle and the rest of history would have unwound as it did, except:

(1) We would have won more hockey matches.

(2) Our cricket and football teams would be stronger.

(3) Our movie stars would be taller and better looking and Imran Khan would be ours.

(4) Indians (U) would no longer feel compelled to cheer cricket teams on the basis of religion.

(5) The delights of Lahore would still be available to the average Punjabi

(6) We would not have the absurd feet stomping, yelling, in-your-face antics between border guards, every day at Attari.

(7) The refined Dilli culture would not have been overwhelmed by exuberant Punjabi refugees.

(8) Bengali would have been a dominant Indian language spoken by 15% and Urdu would never have declined and be spoken by more than 25% of U-Indians.

(9) India (U)’s river water potential would have been better harnessed

(10) Hydro power would still be a major energy source

(11) Cheap gas, piped from Turkmenistan would fuel household energy needs, industry and electricity in the North

(12) Our forest cover ratio would be much worse but our freshwater availability would increase significantly.

(13) The Soviets would still be there in Afghanistan because we would never have given the US a toehold in Karachi, the Panjab or the NW Frontier areas

(14) The Taliban would never have been born, nor would have Bhindranwale.

(15) India (U) would not be a favourite tourist destination for Israeli backpackers.

(16) We would still get cheap Sardas (a juicy, sugary sweet Afghanistan/NW Frontier melon) and exquisite dry fruit.

(17) We would still have to deal with “Afghani” money lenders and their wayward ways of dealing with defaulters rather than having them live here as pliant refugees.

(18) We would be able to visit Kashmir without bullet proof vests and enjoy its cuisine and natural beauty.

(19) Kashmiris would still opt for business, horticulture, hospitality, handicrafts, poetry and cricket rather than AK 47s and football.

(20) North and East India (U) would have remained competitive versus the West and the South with easy access to the sea via Karachi; undiluted Punjabi prowess in agriculture; Sindhi excellence in trade; Bengali competitiveness in “Kolture”, arts, law and the social sciences.

(21) We would have fathered micro credit and Muhammad Yunus would be ours.

(22) With one third of the electorate and dominance in the North, Muslims would no longer feel like a minority

(23) Under competition from a significant Islamic presence, Hinduism would have tended to consolidate, rather than splinter along caste cleavages, as it has today.

(24) The BJP would have been a dominant party of the right from the 1950s and Zardari and Sheikh Hasina would have been its Muslim leaders today instead of Shahnawaz Hussain.

(25) Nawaz Sharif and Khaleeda Zia would be the Muslim leaders of the Congress party, rather than Khurshid, Kidwai and Rasheed Alvi.(26) We would not spend 20% of our fiscal resources on the army.

(27) It is unlikely, Sikkim would ever have resolved to join the Republic, just as Nepal’s main regret is that it borders tumultuous India, rather than placid Sweden.

(28) China would be even more worried and hence more of an existential threat.

(29) The US would have been become friendlier much earlier.

(30) Najeeb Jung would still be Lt. Governor of Delhi

Indian Blood is Expensive

Image

 

Indian diplomacy was at its worst last week. It conducted the PMs visit to the US as if he was attending a seminar on economics, in Neemrana. If India is a superpower (perennially waiting to happen), it came across, on the one hand, as a country sapped of all energy and squabbling about petty matters whilst on the other, punching way above its weight (as usual), by seeking to “inform” international debate on marco-economics, political strategy and social development. When will our politicians learn to control their babus egos? International agendas should be set by politicos to project a short, simple and credible message, not waffle on about everything under the Sun.  

Iran, in sharp contrast, showed real leadership and stole the thunder. The freshness of Iran’s approach to international rapprochement and the staleness of India’s squabbling with Pakistan couldn’t have been starker. The Pakistani perception of India and its leaders, aired on Pakistani television as bumbling compromisers, unable to live up to meaningful actions was true, but humiliating.

India used to be a Banyan tree spreading its roots. Today it has become a Baobab tree. Massive from the outside. Hollow from within. This is despite having the best technical talent and intellect in the world. Indians leave India to grow, get respect abroad (like Raghuran Rajan) and only then have the choice to return home to be recognized. The Indian private sector has similar constraints. Indians invest 1 % of GDP abroad (the real figure is higher but the IMF and the GOI do not share with us their assessment of investments abroad using havala) because of the ease in doing business, even in nearby Bangladesh, Myanmar and Srilanka.

Modi spoke on Sunday, from the ramparts of Rohini in Delhi, of “small” nations leaving India behind. It seems he was referring to East Asia, which overtook India in the late 1970s. He could as well have referred to our neighbours in South Asia and Myanmar, who have more recent successes. After Bangladesh, India is the poorest country in this region (World Bank definition of people with income below $2 per day). Srilanka, Nepal and Pakistan all do better than us. Both Srilanka and Bangladesh kept economic growth above 6% in the period 2009-2012 (World Bank Development Data). Even Nepal, managed to keep it above 5%, astoundingly despite (or perhaps because of) an undefined political architecture or credible government. In Pakistan, growth trended upwards from 1.6% in 2008 to 4.2% in 2012. Indian growth meanwhile declined to 3.2% in 2012. The manner in which Srilanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar have shaken off their erstwhile, crabbish lethargy of looking inwards is thrilling for business. We can learn from them.

External and internal conflict is a major growth retardant. The lengthy literature on the negative impact of conflict and violence on social capital and community well-being highlights the importance we need to give to the Rule of Law and Security. Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh has met the extremist challenge upfront. Rajapaksa similarly tamed the Tigers in Srilanka. India’s inability to take strategic and bold steps to root out terrorism is attributed to our being a democracy and hence a soft State.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you are poor and marginalized, the Indian state would appear extremely hard and uncaring for your rights. Over 700 million people fall in this category. We are a country still enthralled with inherited social and ritual, class status. In this respect we are very similar to the UK and differ from our true team mate, the US. However, the US acts only in national interest. This is their ethos. You make it or break on your own. If we want to be taken seriously by the US (and the world) we have to first deal with what ails us within.

It is wrong to rush to the US to shake a few limp hands, limply. It is tragic to have leaders who represent no one, or to have those who drive from the back seat. It is unwise to degrade babudom into a quivering jelly of indecision even though we all know that both growth and social inclusion are based on selective but firm and effective state intervention. It is a crime to waste our intellectual and entrepreneurial talent overseas and be poorly served at home. It is unconscionable to spill Indian blood so casually but continue shaking hands with a Pakistani, puppet, Prime Minister. Yes, the nations of the world will applaud this conciliatory, rational approach. But what they respect, is America’s single minded determination to “hunt and gun down” the perpetrators of violence which spilt American blood in America.  Even tiny UK attacked Argentina (admittedly better known for its beef than its military prowess) in a display of the essence of sovereignty; the monopoly of the State over violence within its territory. The world fears China’s single minded, uncompromising pursuit of national interest. If we want to play with the big boys we have to emulate their tactics.

Any poor Indian looking to buy blood for an operation faces prohibitive prices and often scarcity. Why is the blood of our babus in uniform, so cheap then? Let’s value it better.  

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: