governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Russia’

G 20 summit: Not India’s turn to eat

ivanka G20

President Trump’s implicit assessment of the value of the G20 Hamburg summit was best illustrated by letting his daughter replace him, whilst he was away from his seat at the summit and to spend double the budgeted time, holding President Putin’s hand. We should take note.

Did Trump try and devalue the G20, President Xi or both by letting Ivanka replace him?

Despite his oddities and his rhetoric, President Trump is a businessman. He cannot but recognize that his real fight is with China. So occasional side swipes to emphasize US dominance over China are par for the course. But the US is too fat to keep pace with China. Its entrepreneurial juices have dried up, bled by the strain of keeping the American Dream alive – an endlessly aspirational, middle class and a voraciously, acquisitive elite, albeit both sets being more meritocratic than elsewhere. But the strain shows. If there is no public money for infrastructure and Facebook needs to build a village to increase the supply of affordable housing in Silicon Valley, there is something very wrong with institutional incentives in the US.

The football “huddle” to plot strategy

Trump

President Trump’s instincts to deal with a problem is to “huddle” in a group of “familiar” friends. Co-opting Russia into a loose friendly alliance of northern hemisphere countries could be an outcome of such “huddling”. After all, there are the cultural bonds. The UK will be supportive. It was Tony Blair, who persuaded Russia to join the rich country club of G7, which thereafter became the G8. Russia was expelled, in 2014 over its muscular action in Crimea. But the G7 was already in decline, post 2009, whilst the G20 gained leverage, as a more inclusive forum with economic heft.

Russia better as a friend than an enemy

Putin2

Bringing Russia in from the cold, makes sense. It is no longer an ideological threat to the West – just a shade smarmier in its management style. But no more so than other upper middle-income countries. Its GDP, in constant terms, has barely moved from US$ 1.5 trillion in 1989 to 1.6 trillion in 2016 – though it has doubled since 1998, when it reached its nadir at US$ 0.8 billion. Russian expatriates live happily in the US and in Europe.

Hypertension, made in China

china air craft carr

Expansionist Germany was the muscular outlier in the early part of the last century. In the early part of the current century, it is China. Scale matters. Consider that the world’s largest mall, 19 million square feet of space, has come up in Chengdu, western China.

The Chinese manufacturing engine has surplus capacity to feed the world over the next decade with goods, targeted at the price points and quality requirements of local markets, across the globe.

China applies the late CK Prahalad’s principle of, “finding the fortune hidden at the bottom of the pyramid” by supplying consumables and consumer durables to 3 billion humans at the bottom of the economic food chain. And they do it better than local manufacturers, located in countries where the poor exist, including India.

India’s dharma

So where does this leave India? It is not in India’s DNA to kowtow. So, we are a poor fit with China. It is in India’s political DNA to be ideological. Remember Non-Alignment? Ideologically committed bureaucracies are a menace. They must be tamed. To come out tops, from the ongoing international churn towards a transactional future, we need to reign-in our tendency to grandstand. There is virtue in being supremely transactional. But transactions must be anchored in public interest. We have not been very good at that.

Had we been better, we would have got rid of poverty faster than we have. We would have cared more about creating physical and social (education and health) infrastructure and jobs. And we would have exploited every growth opportunity, which came our way, rather than choose to sit out the 1970s and the 1980s on our elitist, immaculately manicured hands.

We do not have the luxury, unlike Latin America and large parts of Africa, of being natural invitees to the western, Christian table of nations. Nor do we fit the dismal, backward looking club of Islamic nations. And we are too large to be helped economically. So, like China, we have no option, except to fend for ourselves.
International trade is our entry point to becoming more competitive.

We need cheap Chinese goods more than China needs our market. We import just 3 percent of China’s exports. We should be trying harder to become part of global supply chains to pull-in foreign investment, technology, jobs and increase net exports. Our traditional links with Russia are valuable but need to be lubricated.

With the US and its West European allies, we share a tradition of democracy – a generic, clunky, artifact to safeguard citizen rights versus the State via an elaborate architecture of self-balancing, institutional power centers. These links can be deepened.
Going under the radar and setting-off no red alerts till we have accumulated critical economic heft is sensible.

Playing second, or even seventh fiddle, to achieve targeted outcomes is better than to compromise outcomes by being top-dog in process matters. But low profile economic diplomacy does not come easy to our colonial style Foreign Policy establishment. Best to remember that we rank seventh in nominal GDP and are a lower middle-income country. We should punch our weight. Doing more is unsustainable.

Adapted from the author’s article in TOI July 9, 2017Blogs http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinion-india/g20-trumped/

 

 

 

 

Owning India

Javed Akhtar’s response to the “Bharat Mata ki Jai” controversy stoked by Asaduddin Owaisi — the member of Parliament from Hyderabad — was just what was needed to pour oil on the dangerously choppy course our politics has taken. And there is no joy to be had in justifying this trend by pointing to the US, where politics has become similarly divisive, courtesy Donald Trump, who wears both his heart and his head on his sleeve.

The right to own India

Javed Akhtar

Glamour and Guts: Shabana Azmi & Javed Akhtar. photo credit: saveondish.com

Javed Akhtar was, till last week, a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha. In his farewell speech on March 16, he put the controversy to rest by simply stating that it is irrelevant to figure out whether or not it is constitutionally mandated to shout “Bharat Mata ki Jai”. He views this as his right not his obligation.

What exactly may he have meant by that? The uncharitable would say that it is not unusual for those ending their term in Parliament to curry favour with the incumbent government in the hope of re-engagement or promotion to a higher office. Whilst anything is possible, what Mr Akhtar said is so aligned with his frequently espoused idea of a syncretic India, that it being merely a self-seeking posture is unlikely.

But, even if Mr Akhtar’s intention was partly self-serving, it would not be a bad idea to have Mr Akhtar and his vivacious spouse — actor and activist Shabana Azmi — occupy a high-profile sarkari position which requires balance, a mindset uncluttered by bias and international stature.

Mr Akhtar and Ms Azmi fill this criterion to the brim. What could be better than having them in the Rashtrapati Bhavan — which has languished for many years as a resting place for politicians — save for a brief period during the tenure of the unforgettable A.P.J. Abdul Kalam?

More importantly, Mr Akhtar brought to the fore, in his characteristic and effortlessly chaste Hindustani, an issue that troubles many. What is “Bharat” and “Bharatiyata” (Indian-ness) all about? And, as a corollary, who owns India?

A new top down Idea of India

Tomes have been written on the “idea of India” and the dilution of consensus around its “syncretic” nature.. But it does not help to merely point a finger at majoritarian reflux against vote bank-based pandering to minority interests as the key factor disrupting an ancient tradition. If a muscular version of Hindutva is being fanned, there is also a reciprocal fundamentalism in the type of Islam being advocated. It is akin to the Khalistan movement during the late 1980s.

The notion that the “idea of India” is something which we have inherited from the distant past is ludicrous because colonialism ensured it never took root. The freedom fighters and members of the Constituent Assembly, amongst whom Jawaharlal Nehru remained the key executive fulcrum for over a decade, first created the idea of a new India. Thereafter, we have struggled to give a permanent and concrete form to the social and economic transformation, which underpins the idea of owning India. The continued dominance of traditional identities, including religion and caste, as a defining classification for people is a significant barrier to evolving consensus over what being Indian means to people.

The best option for resolving this vexed issue is, if traditional identities themselves evolve and become more inclusive — like an open access class structure. Growth, prosperity and education were expected to dilute traditional identities as a social consequence of enhanced economic equality. But this hope is fading. As we see in the US, traditional identity — in their case race — is the trump card politicians play when times are hard. The Indian state needs to do more, albeit in a soft-handed manner, to foster the ownership of India.

The notion that Indian-ness can be induced from above is not fanciful because of the long arms of the state in India. A complete divorce between religion and the state seems unachievable in a deeply religious country like India. But meticulously even handed treatment across all religions is a reasonable option for rationalising our affirmative action policy, reservations, for public sector jobs; access to publicly-funded education and bank finance. For this purpose, adding economic eligibility criteria to the existing framework built around traditional identities, makes fiscal sense given the need to target subsidies tightly.

Creating Bharatiyata requires even handed sacrifices by all citizens

But unless “Bharatiyata” is based on equitable sacrifices by all Indians and offers equal stakes to all, this objective will be stillborn. The biggest real divide today is not religious. It is the one between the poor, irrespective of religion and caste and others who have used the available opportunities to improve their living standards. An efficient and effective policy of positive affirmations has to be dynamic and must evolve to target those who are left behind because the composition of the have-nots has changed. Whilst this is a social and indeed a moral obligation, it also serves a societies self-interest well to intervene with targeted social protection and human development measures. After all, aggregate domestic demand can only increase if incomes grow across the spectrum. Economies, where wealth is unduly concentrated at the top – as are some dictatorships with very high GDP date (think Russia)- are neither happy (unlike Bhutan which is), nor prosperous (unlike Scandinavia which is)  and definitely not sustainable (unlike the US which is).

Reform the political architecture

Reforms to our political architecture are key. Ensuring that election tickets for political office are given to nominees in a manner matching the religious and caste profile of the relevant political entity (national, state or local) is a powerful and somewhat obvious tool. It is not for nothing that Justin Trudeau, the rockstar Canadian Prime Minister, remarked recently, “There are more Sikhs in my Cabinet than in Modi’s”.

Other key advances in representational democracy would be making 50 per cent-plus-one of the votes cast as the threshold for being elected instead of the first-past-the-post system we follow. This single change can drive inclusive politics given the new imperative it will create — to gather a larger critical mass of voters to get elected. Introducing minimum educational qualifications for members of all elected bodies is another very important instrument to encourage more nuanced debate and legislative action. Mandating a minimum 50 per cent representation for women in the legislature and in the civil service is another game changer.

It is commonly understood that growing the divisible pie enhances the value derived from ownership. It is illustrative that roots of the current political disarray and lumpenisation of political debate in the US and in parts of Europe are attributed to the tapering-off of the good times they enjoyed since World War II ended in 1945. In contrast, the value of being Indian has grown significantly post 1994, when the benefits from economic reforms, liberalisation and globalisation started kicking in.

Young india

President APJ Abdul Kalam- science buff and mentor, inspired the young to dream big and act resolutely. photo credit: thehindu.com

What we lack is a critical mass of meritocratic, Indian elite who put the nation first. But a new elite is growing – based on education and opportunity; charged with the spirit of entrepreneurship and unhindered by chips on their shoulders, left over from colonialism or faux  socialism. Also an increasingly demanding electorate may yet be the catalyst for change in political accountability. The next 50 years present India an even better opportunity for economic growth led domestic, social and economic convergence in owning India. The opportunity is only ours to lose.

Adapted from the authors article in Asian Age March 22, 2016 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/owning-india-331

Climate “warriors” head for the December 2015 Paris joust

Paris in December is not quite what it is in springtime. But who cares if someone else is footing the bill! Paris is the venue of the next Conference of Parties (COP), from November 30 to December 11. An annual jamboree that has been trying, since 1992, to limit carbon emissions and save the planet from what scientists predict will be the drastic impact of global warming and associated climate change. They have not succeeded thus far in taming emissions.

The plain truth on climate change

How much carbon space is left before disaster strikes is somewhat iffy and mired in science, negotiating stances and the “precautionary principle” which advocates that if danger lurks it is best to run rather than hang around assessing the extent to which you personally are at risk. Except that there is no place to run to.

Who’s to blame?

The problem is that whilst Americans and others in the rich countries are reducing emissions slowly, China, India and the rest of the developing world are eager to do exactly what the rich did earlier — use energy to grow their economies. This is fair, just and inevitable.

Can climate change be stopped?

The only way this can stop is if money is spent to junk the existing technology for producing and using energy and less carbon intensive and more efficient options are developed.

europe energy

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

But no one has a commercial incentive to do so. Most technology is developed in the rich world, which uses the most energy per capita and is the most heavily invested in traditional inefficient, carbon intensive energy chains.

They — Australia, Russia and the US are good examples — have preferred to milk their past investments in fossil fuel-based technologies rather than switch over rapidly to clean energy technology even though they have been talking about the problem in annual COP meetings since 1992. Thus, 20 of the 100 years available since 1995, to act, have been wasted.

To be fair, the northern European economies, including France, have been more conscientious than the rest of the rich and have reduced carbon emissions significantly by bearing the additional cost of doing so. Singapore is a stellar Asian example. It reduced per capita emissions by 66 per cent of its 1990 level.

But the rest, particularly the poorer, developing countries, have no incentive to divert their meagre fiscal resources to clean energy other than efficiency and local environmental benefits. But with so many competing priorities: stopping mothers and infants from dying due to poor health care; educating the young; creating basic infrastructure for trade and industry, just keeping energy — the life blood of a modern economy — flowing is tough.

India energy

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

Existing agreements are insipid and ineffective

The Kyoto Protocol 1997, the framework guiding the interminable Conference of Parties meetings, lacks teeth. It fixed emission targets for rich countries till 2012 which were weak and inadequate because nothing more stringent was acceptable to the rich — a 6 per cent reduction over 1990 levels. But countries can opt out of the agreement. US, Russia and Canada did just that, making COP even more toothless and bureaucratic.

It’s now 2015 and the world has changed. Extremely wealthy people are to be found everywhere, not just in the earlier “rich” countries. Ruling political, industrial and commercial elites in developing countries have incomes and consumption levels which rival those in the “developed” countries. Poor countries often have very rich governments, though fiscal resources do not filter down to the poor. Traditional archetypes have transmuted. A billionaire from the Forbes List could be living on your street rather than in far off London or New York.

emelda

photo credit: www. blogs.artinfo.com

So the continual “fingering” of rich countries as evil carbon emitters is unlikely to resonate. We are all responsible collectively for the mess we have created. To cut through two decades of verbiage and accumulated legal baggage two things must change.

Two options for delinking development from carbon

First, Paris must agree a common aspirational emissions target which all countries buy into. The level of the target, whilst important, is less so than all countries agreeing to shoulder the burden according to their capacity.

Second, till now we have depended on charity — aid from the rich world — to fund the technology transformation. This is degrading for the poor who have a right to access the available carbon space and inefficient, because allocation and priorities get warped when dealing with “free” money.

Next steps

Agree a common emission target

The world per capita carbon emissions were 4.2 metric tons (Mt) in 1990. This increased to 5 Mt per capita by 2011. The 1990 level is an excellent aspirational level to target. Most developed countries are above the 8 Mt per capita level whilst most poor countries are below 2 Mt per capita. Halving emissions in the developed world and allowing space for carbon emissions to grow two to three times in the poor countries seems a fair deal and a realistic target till 2030.

Improve the science of climate change

We also need to establish with greater the nature of the relationship between carbon emissions; global warming; extreme climate events and the distributional impact thereof. This is sorely needed to establish a sustainable aggregate emissions level which is neither unnecessarily restrictive nor ineffective in stabilizing climate. The next 15 years on top of the 20 years which have passed should be sufficient to hone the science.

Find the money: tax international capital transactions

A transactions tax to fund climate mitigation and adaptation is best. In depressed economic times, such as the present, a new generalized tax is abhorrent. But if the incidence of tax is tiny per transaction, individuals and entities may not feel its pinch. If it has a massive tax base on which it is levied the tax collection could be huge despite the low incidence. Mumbai lunch places, serving a simple, low priced, thali are as profitable as an expensive niche restaurant. The miniscule profit earned per thali is more than made up by the massive turnover. Of course the tax must be progressive and tax only the rich, who enjoy a disproportionate share in wealth creating growth-the root cause of climate change.

A tax on outbound international capital transfers from all countries meets all these criteria. A 0.01 per cent tax can net close to $300 billion annually. This is three times the volume of the 2015 replenishment of the Green Climate Fund proposed at US$ 100 billion.

The bulk of capital-outflow happens from rich or newly rich countries (like China). The purpose is to mitigate risk and increase returns. To insulate poor countries from the tax it could be levied only on those countries which are non-compliant with the emissions target. Since all developing countries, but very few rich countries, will be compliant, this leaves the poor countries out but snags the non- compliant rich. The tax collected would be transferred to a fund manager and overseen by an inclusive and representative board.

A tax puts a tangible cost to not meeting emission targets and creates a reasonable financial incentive for the rich countries. For example, it would reward Singapore for its stellar performance, whilst penalizing newly rich countries, like China, for exceeding the agreed level of emission.

Shared benefits follow shared responsibilities

China tellingly, has already announced that it would reduce emissions going forward. By 2030 they would be 60 per cent below their 2005 level. This should reassure all developing countries that it is possible to grow in double digits every year and still beat the carbon ceiling in future.

Developing countries should consider adopting the carbon ceiling volunteered by China. By volunteering a carbon ceiling they would be emboldened to press for a tax on outbound capital from non-compliant countries-mostly the rich. Of course ultimately every tax is paid by the final consumer- which will be the capital deficit poor countries. But a differential tax on capital flows does have advantages- it levels the field for domestic capital providers and dampens the fluctuating flow of destabilizing hot money into emerging markets.

Climate “warriors” headed for Paris should consider this proposition as they savour the Crottin De Chavignol served to them. Sometimes, the cobwebs have to be swept aside to see the light. There is much cleaning to be done at Paris.

Adapted from the author’s article in the Asian Age, September 17, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/climate-warriors-head-paris-015

1415 words

Barbarians in the temple of Dionysus

dionysus

For rational people, if this breed actually exists other than in the imagination of economists, the most logical way out of the Grexit logjam was for Greece to vote “yes, we can”. Just by agreeing to take the pain of austerity measures, they would have got the amount required for this year, estimated at around 80 billion euros.

Banks would have re-opened, ATMs would have started functioning and Greeks could have happily gone back to sipping their Ouzos in their favourite cafés. Meanwhile, negotiations could have carried on with Brussels and the International Monetary Fund on the minutiae of the minimum austerity measures required to access the 240 billion euros bailout package.

Negotiations and a hot head do not mix

If only the Syriza government had the foresight to seek technical assistance from the bureaucracy of any Latin American, African or Asian country on how to deal with agitated lenders, they would never have got into the mess they are in now. Developing countries, which went through the notorious IMF “structural adjustments” during the 1980s, have mastered the art of walking the thin line between throwing the bath water, but keeping the baby.

This is not an art the Greeks are skilled in. Greek theatre dating back to 500 BC has a tradition of keeping the two main genres — tragedy and comedy — strictly separate. Compare this with Indian theatre and Bollywood where the surefire mantra for success is to mix and match, masala. This is the underlying core of Indian flexibility and the omnipresent gene of jugaad.

But all is not lost. Greece and the rest of Europe are bonded by more than economics.

Greece is not alone

First, it’s not just Greece. Greece is beautiful, sunny and laid back. But it is not the only one. Italy, Portugal, Malta and even rainy Ireland, have all benefited from northern Europe’s largesse and subsidy. These partners in destitution are honour bound to press for softening the terms of the austerity measures. Whilst they don’t have much weight in decision-making, they can be the medium for an honourable back down, both for Greece and the lenders.

A group of southern Europeans (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Malta, Cyprus) pleading for mercy on behalf of Greece would allow Germany and the hard-working northern Europeans to back down without abandoning their harsh standards with respect to performance, keeping promises and fiscal discipline — the things prosperous countries care about.

Italy and Spain, the two big economies (together they account for 27 per cent of Eurozone GDP), are sunny, hot-blooded Mediterranean countries with an iffy record of fiscal rectitude. It would serve them well to make common cause with smaller economies in southern Europe just in case they need similar fiscal accommodations in future.

Sellers need buyers

Second, remember, the world faces a demand recession and growth is slowing. What could be better for Germany’s Northern Alliance than to show some noblesse oblige and allow Greece to continue to buy manufactured goods sourced from them, with borrowed money, in return for “progress on reforms” — making it easier to hire and fire workers and adjusting the liberal social security downwards?

After all, this dance of fiscal profligacy by borrowers and fiscal fundamentalism by lenders is not new. Developing countries have routinely needed and received such accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the developed world. Generations of developing country citizens have suffered and endured precisely such privations brought about by the actions of their profligate, corrupt and inefficient governments. Why then should the developing country assistance code not apply to Greece?

Street fighters are rarely credible as administrators

Third, mind the credibility gap. History establishes that “Dutch courage” is difficult to sustain. The negotiating strategy of the Syriza government has been built around the assumption that Brussels would blink before they do.

This did not happen and Greece defaulted on its loan repayment to the IMF on June 30. Desperate to seek time, the Syriza government sought refuge in a referendum to support their hard talk. Many must have hoped that the people would betray them and vote “yes”, thereby enabling them to negotiate a surrender with the lenders, ostensibly out of deference to the will of the people.

They were thwarted in this plan by the campaigning of their charismatic, media-savvy finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, who tapped into wounded Greek pride and induced the massive “no” vote. He subsequently resigned and left the people he incited to their own devices. This is a familiar ploy of street fighters who live on in public memory by seemingly heroic actions which burnish their esteem, never mind that people bear the consequences thereof.

But the civilizational glue still sticks

Fourth, the Syriza overestimated the value of the glue they provide to the Eurozone. Greece is less than two per cent of the Eurozone GDP. Turkey, now with an increasingly hard-line Islamic government, has been waiting to accede to the EU since 1987. Its GDP is double than that of Greece. But the problem is not economic; it is civilisational. An EU without Greece — the cradle of European civilisation — would be like Ramlila minus Ram or Bhairavi sung at midnight.

A new deal is needed to thwart the Russo-China combine

Whilst a departure by Greece does open a door for China or Russia to consolidate their influence in the Mediterranean, the burden of history is against this happening just yet. If the proud Greeks will not bend before the Germans, can one possibly imagine them in bondage to China?

Cosying up to Russia would be far more acceptable. But low oil prices constrain the oil-dependent Russian economy from becoming even more profligate than it already is in foreign adventures.

No room for those who don’t tie their own bootstraps

Truth be told, the Syriza’s strategy was audacious and imprudent. Here is why. The world no longer suffers those who do not help themselves. For the multilateral and bilateral lenders and banks to depart significantly, just for Greece, from the fiscal rectitude economic mantra they espouse worldwide, would mean different strokes for different folks. This would be unconscionable and overtly iniquitous in these politically correct times.
Adapted from an article by the author in Asian Age July 7, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/barbarians-temple-dionysus-026

Will the Indian “Malalas” please stand up

saarah-ahmed-indian-pilot-8-march-15-513x239

Photo: Sarah Ahmed: Indian. Pilot.

July 4, 1995 — America’s Independence Day — Islamist militants take six tourists hostage in Kashmir. They decapitate a Norwegian and kill the rest, including two Americans. There has been no letup in the orgy of violence since. But now Islamists — Sunni and Shia militants — are eliminating each other in West Asia. Glee that the “enemy” is disintegrating is inevitable in both Christian and Hindu right-wing camps. But as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly stated, albeit with scarce substantive effect, terror has no loyalties beyond the willingness to kill and maim.

The political economy of terror

Islamic terror, like terror anywhere, comes heavily loaded with political and economic objectives. The Taliban was created by the US to oust the Russians from Afghanistan in the 1980s. They and the Army are the only credible political actors in Pakistan today. Even China engages directly with them to protect its infrastructure investments and workers in Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia funds Sunni Iraqi militants to dominate the Shias of Southern Iraq and to undermine Syria’s Shia regime — all because Shias are perceived to be universally aligned with Saudi arch-rival Iran. Conversely, Russia and Iran support Shia militants in Iraq and the Shia regime in Syria. It is not inconceivable that in future Shia militants may be used to neutralise the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ashraf Ghani — the technocratic President of Afghanistan — would probably welcome a dilution of Taliban power so that he can get on with implementing the development agenda.

Endemic warlordism and militant factionalism in North Africa and West Asia was constrained during the Cold War (1960-1990) by authoritarian regimes supported either by the US or the Soviets. Ironically both the democratic US and the Communist Soviet Union had no qualms about imposing authoritarian regimes as the norm in the region. It helped that till 1990, even the metric of development ignored politics as a factor and focused primarily on enhancing per capita income levels.

Democracy as a metric of development

The change came with the surprisingly sudden collapse of the seemingly well-off Soviet Union, a middle income country in 1990. Soviet unsustainability was ascribed to the absence of Western-style institutions — elective democracy, rule of law, small governments, markets, competition and choice.

Post 2001 (9/11), this development mantra acquired evangelical fervour, as an instrument to “civilise” the “arc of Islamic terror” stretching from Afghanistan in the east, through Egypt and Sudan to Mauritania in western Africa. The Arab Spring (2011) was hailed as the blossoming of democracy in time-warped North Africa. Once invincible, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia bit the dust and the people won. This was the expected upside.

The unintended consequences of Democracy: strengthening traditional fault lines

But two unanticipated downsides were less palatable. First, democracy became uncontainable — like a nuclear explosion. Democratic contagion travelled south and shook the gilded birdcage lives of the Sunni sheikhs of the Gulf states and deposed President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen via tribal bloodletting which rode on the aftershocks of the Tunisian “Jasmine Revolution”.

Second, democracy in Egypt empowered the Muslim Brotherhood — a transnational Islamic party pushed underground by Mr Mubarak. For the G7, “Islamists” ruling Egypt was a horrific replay of the deposition of the “modernist” Shah of Iran in 1979 and the subsequent rise of a “renegade” nuclear, Islamic Iran. The Egyptian “Brothers” — beneficiaries of Islamic democracy — were presented as role models for disenfranchised commoners across the region. This questioning of the elite order was not what the sheikhs or the G7 had bargained for, or desired.

The G7 were comfortable with a “managed democracy” — the bare-bones institutions of a democracy, never mind if the

democratic spirit was non-existent. What they got was an unruly explosion of the democratic spirit — a magnified version of rumbustious, Indian style democracy, where rights trump responsibilities.

Libya disintegrated into armed militias and cost the US the life of its young, well-liked ambassador Chris Stevens. Yemen remains a cauldron of tribal militias. This democratic disorder is much like the persistent clan and tribe-based militancy in Manipur and Nagaland in India’s Northeast, funded by the drugs and arms trade with “wink-nod” support from China.

The recent bomb blast in Tunisia, which killed several British tourists, is similar in intent to the blasts in Mumbai in 1993 and the terror attacks in 2008. The former, managed by smuggler and mafia don Dawood Ibrahim, rode on the back of Muslim anguish at the unlawful destruction of the Babri Masjid by Hindu right-wing groups. The 2008 strike is credited to the Inter-Services Intelligence — Pakistan’s dirty-tricks entity. Both aimed at hitting where it hurts the most — the economy.

Tackle Islamic terror with targeted incentives for peace and development

Can we really expect Indian Muslims to remain unmoved by the global trends in Islamist terror? A few misguided young men have already joined Islamist groups in Iraq and paid the final price. But most Indian Muslims look inwards to a domestic solution to break out of the downward spiral that events drag them into. This is where government intervention can help.

First, reducing poverty helps all marginalized groups. There is a broad congruence between Muslims and poverty in India even today. Focusing on  poverty reduction more vigorously also reverses the marginalization of poor Muslims in Independent India.

Second, a more visible signal is also needed. Positive discrimination like reservations is unhealthy. It pits Muslims against the existing beneficiaries — dalits and backward castes by generating a scrabble for a fixed pie. Far better to instead to empower young Muslims to work productively in the modern economy. Modernizing the curricula of the madrasas is a long-term, sensitive but powerful option. Indian Muslims shine in private enterprises where success is meritocratic and not dependent on connections, networks or preferential access to education or progress at work. They are the core of Bollywood, handicrafts, the arts and our cricket team.  Ashwini Kumar’s Inshallah, Football is a touching film about how a dedicated Brazilian coach uses football leagues to meet the needs of aspirational youth in strife-torn Kashmir. They must be directly supported to do be better prepared for private enterprise which, is in any case, is the growing sector. Indian Muslims must also be assured that being part of the modern economy does not and should not, mean having to abandon traditional beliefs or culture. India is not France. We are a plural society.

Third, politics must lead by example.  Religion is deeply embedded in India. Politics must learn to live with religion as a political force rather than pretend to work within an a-religious framework. In this context, the new government in Jammu and Kashmir which federates the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party of Jammu with the Kashmiri Muslim’s People’s Democratic Party in the governance of the state, is a progressive model which explicitly recognises that religion, like caste, is a legitimate basis for political action. True secularism is recognizing the right of citizens to organize themselves politically on any basis which provides a legitimate common cause.  Better to reflect traditional fault lines honestly rather than paper them over with the Band-Aid of pseudo-secular, socialist gibberish.

Fourth, women are the prime movers of social change, particularly in South Asia. Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Mayawati, the Dalit leader of Uttar Pradesh, and the young Pakistani Nobel Laureate Malala Yousafzai are examples. Leveraging potential Malalas in India via expanded and targeted education and health is what the government should be doing, if one-third of our population — Muslims and Dalits — are to make common cause with the rest of India.

Adapted from the authors column in Asian Age July 2, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/terror-s-echoes-home-748

Indo-German Defence Pact- New beginnings for subaltern states.

Leyen

(photo credit:www.junglekey.fr)

Ursula Von Der Leyen, the scarily efficient and glamorous German Defence Minister, who is also incredibly mother to seven children, ticked all the required boxes for soaring rhetoric on a bilateral strategic partnership with India. Democracy, freedom, an open society, diversity and religious plurality being the ground for shared values.

Of course, she was careful to not mention the closest strategic arrangement yet between India and Germany, forged by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose whose “Indian National Army” joined the “Axis” forces in World War II.  This fact is inconvenient on two counts.

First, Germany is still defensive about its authoritarian past under Hitler. Second, Netaji, whilst acceptable to the current BJP government, remains a big no- no to the Congress. He was Pandit Nehru’s rival within the Congress and had to quit. Displaying characteristic German caution, Ms. Leyen preferred to give the past a brush-over and concentrated on the future.

Today, the most visible link is the fascination of the Indian nouveau riche for high-end German cars- the Audi and its cheaper cousin the Volkswagen and the BMW stable- thereby uncharacteristically forsaking the “value for money” Japanese options.  The second common link is a taste for beer though German brands remain unrepresented in the Indian beer sweep stakes which is dominated by Dutch, American, UK, Australian and home grown Indian brands.

Human Rights and Democracy go together

To a direct question from a media representative whether a dodgy human rights record for India could sour any proposed strategic partnership with Germany, Ms. Leyen was quick to brightly aver that since the two countries were democracies,  safeguarding human rights was, by definition, of equal value for both. She could not have done better.

The response was in sharp contrast to the US Ambassador’s apprehension, recently voiced publicly, that freezing the activities of Ford Foundation and Greenpeace in India could chill Indo-American relations. But Ms. Leyen’s response also came as recognition of India’s long standing support for the rights of the exiled Tibetan community, resident in India. Chancellor Merkel has been an international exception in publicly snubbing China by maintaining warm relations with the Dalai Lama. PM Modi in turn has been quick to project the Indian origins of Buddhism.

Can Germany subvert NATO discipline?

For all the talk about a strategic partnership, it was not clear what the substance of this partnership could be. Germany and Japan (the defeated Axis powers of WW II) have both reaped the economic advantages of aligning with the victors and outsourcing their external protection to the US Nuclear umbrella for the last seven decades. Japan and Germany are the third and fourth largest economies, respectively, but on defense spend they rank a lowly eighth and ninth, behind the UK, France and even India (SIPRI 2015).

Is Germany seriously considering abandoning the US crutch and shouldering more of the defense burden versus Russia’s currently expansive ambitions in Europe? Would the additional fiscal burden be feasible given that the dodgy economies of Southern Europe are fast becoming Ms. Merkel’s subsidy problem?

This would be uncharacteristic for the cautious and pragmatic Ms. Merkel. Germany is increasingly dependent on natural gas imports, subsequent to it closing the nuclear power option. Russia is right next door with the largest reserves of gas and the pipeline infrastructure to supply it. It makes perfect sense for Ms. Merkel to continue to depend on the US for “protecting” Europe and avoid a direct face-off with Russia.

One lesson to learn from Germany is how aligning with a stronger partner for strategic purposes can free up public resources for development and growth. But it is unlikely that the context will ever fit the tough neighbourhood India is situated in and the compulsion of living with a “muscular” China.

Indo-German strategic partnership?

Indeed the question uppermost in Ms. Leyen’s mind was whether there was any future for an “alliance” with India, given our long standing adherence to the doctrine of non-alignment. It is unlikely that she will get a straight answer.

First, strictly defined “for-ever” alliances are now old hat. Germany, together with the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, the Nordics, Australia and New Zealand have ignored US chagrin at their participation in establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank- China’s counter to the Japan dominated Asian Development Bank.

Second, the past shows that alliances do not suit India. We are too large and too poor, to hang our hat exclusively on any one peg though it is not for want of trying. India has all the characteristics to be a natural ally for the rich, democratic world.  But the accident of history, or the perversity of diplomacy, has been that none of the rich, democratic countries (US, UK, EU) actually showed much interest in having an alliance with democratic India and its messy politics.

The rich, democratic world (G8) found it more convenient, during the extended “cold war years”, to team up with developing country dictators in Asia, Africa and South America in a global pact against Communism. Unfortunately, this also meant teaming up with elites and against the poor citizens of their allies in the developing world. This is what drove India into a strategic alliance with Russia in 1971 which has since lost its salience.

Make for India

Germany is today Europe’s powerhouse. India has shrugged off its mantle of lethargy. Demography is waiting to be exploited in India whilst ageing Germany needs skilled, temporary immigrants to drive their economy. This presents a huge opportunity for India’s unemployed but tech savvy youth.

Language will be a problem for Indian immigrants and this is one good reason why India should free up the language curriculum in schools and make it market oriented. Ms. Leyen is multi-lingual as must Indian kids become.

Around 12% of the German population has roots outside Germany but mostly in other European countries and Turkey. Ms. Leyen’s proposal for temporary migration, at scale, from India must be pursued.

A partnership with Germany will likely cater more to optics than substance. But the proposal to integrate the technical workforce in the two countries is a substantive addition via Indians making, for India and the world, in Germany.

A packed house turned out in the burning, mid-day heat of New Delhi to listen to Ms. Leyen and to get a glimpse of the endearing German ambassador and India buff- Michael Steiner.

Part of the curiosity was to see what the Germans had to offer in this new area of defense international co-operation. What was on offer publicly was underwhelming. Seeing and hearing the first woman Defence Minister of Germany was itself a novelty. But mostly, it was an opportunity to be with a possible future successor to Ms. Merkel once she decides Germany no longer needs her.

If this happens in 2017, PM Modi may be dealing with a powerful transatlantic woman-power tie up: Hilary Clinton in the US and Ms. Leyen in Germany – both of whom are likely to provide him stiff sartorial competition.

PM Modi’s Foreign Policy “Trilema”

Trilema

(photo credit: http://www.financialexpress.com)

Reposted from Asian Age May 15, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/modi-s-trilemma-1

India’s bland foreign policy has traditionally been based on the principle of “please all and offend none”. Things changed under Indira Gandhi when we pivoted to the Soviets and teamed up against the “capitalists” in the West. But post-1990, once the Soviet dream evaporated, we reverted to the “offend none” tactic. The UPA years were a continuation of this approach, which suited the soft-spoken, nominal Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Things have changed since then. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a muscular, energetic man and wants his foreign policy to reflect that energy and purpose. But he faces the classic problem of managing an “impossible trinity” comprising the US, a weakening Russia and an emerging China, which today attracts allegiance from countries cutting across traditional power blocs.

East Asia, other than Vietnam and Australia, feeds off China’s economic growth. China will likely add $6 trillion of new wealth (GDP increase over 2015) in the period 2015-24 and this is a powerful magnet that dulls the pain of negotiating with China over “disputed territory” in the South and East China Sea.

Similarly, Sub-Saharan Africa increasingly depends on Chinese investment “aid” and mineral export to China. Even Russia prefers to diversify its energy exports away from Europe to China, but not to India or Japan.

China is an immediate neighbour of India. A dispute over border demarcation in the west and east lingers. Neither party is really willing to resolve it because it is convenient for both.

For China, the ongoing border dispute presents it with the opportunity to build roads through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), linking into Karachi on the Arabian Sea and the still-to-be-built Chinese port of Gwadar in Balochistan province, next to the Iranian border.

For India, the border dispute and China’s dodgy moves to build infrastructure through PoK, with the concurrence of Pakistan, is a package problem. It serves to legitimise a tit-for-tat aggressive development of Arunachal Pradesh, a border territory claimed by China. The area has significant hydro potential estimated at around 30 GW and is of strategic importance to safeguard the north-eastern states of India to its south.

It is fashionable to couch India’s need for China in commercial terms — trade and investment. But China is a much more efficient manufacturer than India and hence a trade deficit ($40 billion doubling to $80 billion in three years) is inevitable, with India as the junior exporting partner. Seeking investment from China is one way of plugging the hole created by the trade deficit. But such investment benefits China as much as India.

India’s growth story, whilst not as impressive as China’s, is sufficiently dramatic in these economically hollow times to garner eyeballs. New value creation (cumulative value addition to GDP over 2014 levels) of $1.4 trillion over a decade from now is not a trifle. A share of just 20 per cent (similar to its share today) in India’s new value creation could feed an annual growth of 0.3 per cent for China.

Growing economic ties with India — soon to be the fourth largest economy in the world (after the US, China and Japan) — enhance China’s “strategic prestige”. This is the “pull” factor. There is also a “push factor” which Indian strategists tend to emphasise — China’s paranoia that India may become part of a US effort to encircle China along with Japan. This “fear factor” is over hyped.

China knows well that the Indian psyche favours reconciliation rather than confrontation. India routinely prefers turning a Nelson’s eye to occasional intransigence but abhors subjugating its sovereignty to any foreign influence — a hangover of our colonial mindset. India could never be a link in an American chain to “contain” China.

China is unconcerned about future competition from the US. Over the next 30 years, the US will morph demographically into being dominated by fast-growing Hispanic and African-American communities; an ageing, minority white population; the inherited disadvantage of high wages and even higher citizen expectations; degrading infrastructure and increasing inequality. What this will mean for the “can do” spirit and mojo which defines the US, is unclear.

Despite such uncertainties, the US remains a long-term natural ally of India. Its plural culture, democratic values, federal institutional arrangements, history of innovation and grounded belief in religion and “family first” gels well with India.

A weakening US and a strengthening India make a perfect combination. The combined GDP of the US, India and Japan will be double of China’s GDP in 2024 and their future value addition — a key “convening” factor for attracting allies — will be higher than that of China.

Finally, the significant Indian community and private sector investment in the US and Europe provide a ready base for developing P2P (people to people) and B2B (business to business) contacts.

All this is reflected in the determined efforts of Mr Modi to establish a trade, investment and communication bridgehead with the US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The traditional third leg of the impossible trinity has been Russia. But the gains from trade or strategic alignment are scarce. A close strategic friendship with Russia elicits no apprehension in Beijing because Russia is today a “toothless bear” plagued by a natural resource-export dependent economy. Russia, ruled by “grasping” oligarchs, has to reform and shed its macho image. Its best bet is to integrate into Europe, where it belongs. Consequently the “real” third leg of the trinity in future is Europe, with Germany and Russia as possible focal points.

Mr Modi’s strategy to navigate the impossible trinity of US, China and Europe-Russia is clear. Engage with the US, Japan and Germany aggressively and integrate into their value chains. Keep expectations low but exchange lofty targets with the Chinese and the Russians. But, most importantly, keep your powder dry and gear up India’s economy, because our best friend is our own strength and resilience.

Give Us Energy Mr. Putin

coalfire

(photo credit: http://www.smithsonianmag.com)

India has negligible resources of oil and gas in the context of our future needs and from the perspective of the currently available extraction technology. Oil markets are liquid and sufficiently deep not to worry about oil availability so long as one has the USD to purchase it with. Oil, gas and petroleum product imports account for around one half of our exports. This could be worrisome in an environment of export pessimism. But expectations of enhanced competitiveness do not align with such pessimism.

If 25% of our energy needs are to be met by gas-one of the cleanest fossil fuels- we will have to ramp up our gas imports. Today 10 GW of power capacity is stranded because of shortage of gas supply. Households still cook on wood, charcoal or kerosene because domestic gas supply is constrained by availability.

Gas, has a very shallow and illiquid international market. Whilst 67% of the oil produced is traded only 30% of the gas produced is traded internationally. The bulk of gas trades are settled by gas being piped to the customer. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – the option to piped supply of gas- accounts for less than one third of total gas trade (exports).

India is poorly situated to avail of piped gas from Qatar, Iran, Turkmenistan,  Russia or Australia-who control more than 50% of world gas reserves. Sub-sea pipelines account for a marginal amount of gas trades across oceans due to the higher costs and associated technological challenges. The real option till 2025 is LNG import.

Enter Russia: President Putin could be the White Knight meeting India’s LNG demand. Of course selling gas to India is propitious. The post Ukraine sanctions are hurting Russia and it needs to have reliable, long term arrangements for selling gas and oil. India is not a party to the sanctions and it is in its self-interest to focus on energy as what it wants from Russia during the Modi-Putin talks in New Delhi this week.

Russia hasn’t exactly been sitting on its hands to counter the US sanctions. It has already mended fences with China with whom it has concluded oil and gas supply deal. More generally it is leaning towards China, as a natural partner, in the global clustering against the US led set of allies. It would like to induct Iran and India as partners in this grouping.

India is a marginal player in this “great game”. It would be a complete mistake to barter our acceptability to all sides by putting our eggs into one basket. If Australia-a close US ally, can depend on China to absorb its energy exports and keep its economy humming, there is little reason for India to choose between the Great Powers.

It is to our advantage that we have extraordinarily good relations with Japan and other East Asian allies of the US. A long term contract for Russian LNG can be used to swap Russian LNG cargos (meant for India) with LNG coming from Qatar to Japan, cutting transportation costs for both. This could become a trilateral arrangement between Russia-Japan and India once the sanctions get diluted.

Nuclear Energy is the second area where we badly need Russian help. India needs an additional 10 GW of Nuclear Power. The State Owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), which is the monopoly operator of all civil Nuclear assets in India, has lobbied to ensure that the Nuclear Liability Act 2010 approved by the Indian Parliament exempts the “operator” from all risk and liability in the event of a nuclear incident and loads it instead on equipment suppliers and project developers. This has effectively ensured that no private Insurance company would be willing to bear the unlimited risk of a nuclear mishap and private Banks would not finance such a project.

The only players left in the field could be State Owned Corporations both Indian and Russian. A State Owned Indian General Insurance Corporation could provide the Insurance cover and a Russian State Owned Project Developer could build the plant. Implicitly the risk will devolve onto the Governments of India and Russia and Bank finance would view this as a Sovereign risk. Clearly this is not a commercially palatable deal but it can be the classic outcome of G2G cooperation, in the spirit of the Russo-India friendship, where Russia helps India out of a jam of its own making: Bangladesh liberation (1971) being one such.

Will sealing these two energy deals brown-off China and the US? Russia delights in browning-off the US in any case whilst its relationship with China is at best of “mutual transactional benefit”.

In the case of India, we are perpetual wafflers and fence sitters who hop from one transactional advantage to another. This is perfectly aligned with our relatively diminutive economic stature and pressing domestic concerns. No one expects different from us.

PM Modi has been warmly congratulatory about China’s economic and poverty reduction achievements. It would help if we were also more respectful of China’s international status, since China is so status conscious. But this is difficult, because we have a completely different political and social environment and a vastly different institutional architecture. Our unresolved border disputes add fat to the fire.

There is however no reason to blur mutual economic self-interest with ideological compatibility. It makes sense for India to use its growing markets to bind China more firmly to the India growth story much like China has done versus the US. It is false ego to be at pains to keep China out of South Asia, just to protect our “dominance” in the Region.

Regional dominance has to have economic underpinnings. China has the fire power. We don’t. Trying to wean our neighbours away from China can end up “immiserizing” India. More importantly why even try?

Regional trade and output enhancing strategies need to willy-nilly include India because of its size and central location. Assured access for Nepal and China to the Indian Ocean; for East Asia assured access via Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to Turkey, all serve to bind the economic interests of our neighbours with our own.

India has to boogie with the US, China and Russia, but openly recognize that in this group, we are the “little fish”. We can be a “large fish” but only in some other a small pond with shrinking water levels. The question is which pond serves our national interest better.

Our relationship with Russia has principally been of dependence for armaments and collaboration in diplomatic fora since we have no clashing international alignments. The defence cooperation is destined to transform into a commercial one since India is opening up to becoming a defence manufacturer rather than just an importer. Business interests will invest in India depending on the competitiveness of the opportunities available.

The energy link between Russia and India is about the only slender but substantive chain, which can bind state owned gas exporters in Russia and gas importers in India. It is time to forge this chain to retain the warm glow, older Russians still feel, when Raj Kapoor’s films are screened.

Liberals; smell the coffee please

police

(photo credit: http://www.thehindu.com)

Liberals and human rights advocates are a queasy bunch with no stomach to face up to the honest truth that effective governance implies a better informed and more intrusive government.

Light handed regulation” is the mantra of neo-liberal economics. But such regulation fails unless the regulator can monitor compliance with the rule of law by acquiring more and better, real time data on individuals and business entities.

Take the simple case of ensuring that shop workers are not exploited by owners and get at least one weekly holiday and enjoy restricted, daily, working hours. The “heavy handed” manner this is done is by shutting entire markets down on a specific day and prescribing shop opening and closing hours. The “light handed regulation” option could give shop keepers the liberty to set their own working hours. But to protect workers’ rights, effectively, it would need to generate a real time centrally networked, database of cash transactions- to validate shop working hours and a bio-metric clock- doing the same for employees working hours.  How does this square with the Liberal preference for “small government”?

Consider the case of self-assessment by tax payers. Regulation cannot get lighter than that. But to be effective, it has to be coupled with predictable and significant sanctions against deviant behavior. This means generating a database, on each tax payer, comprising an effective audit trail of all financial transactions and a tax agent randomly trawling this data, using “red flags”, so that deviance can be detected and brought to trial.

Tracking phone call, social media, emails and physical movement of individuals all becomes part of “Big data” which needs to be captured to provide the information required for credible sanctions systems. This is especially necessary, in democracies like India, where all sanctions are appealable and hence must be backed by “judicial quality evidence”.

“Big data” does have unintended but positive outcomes. The clamour, amongst the elite,  for the status symbol of publicly provided, security guards can be greatly reduced, if “security” comes with a GPS enabled, real time, tracking of location and real time reporting, via a smart phone app, of whom the VIP is meeting as a routine procedure.

No Liberal would object to the installation of CCTV cameras where they live, to protect their lives and property. But this comes with the potential downside of intrusive government. Taking cameras closer to people generates “Big data”. Its value lies in the ability to constantly trawl it to prevent crime (or even natural disasters), by identifying “hot spots” and patterns of criminal behavior and to bring criminals to book. Constraints on individual privacy are inevitable. Also there is bound to be misuse, despite checks to prevent gaming; for example the illegal use of individual information, acquired for security purposes, to black mail individuals. There will always be “insiders”, who could trade off any inherent inefficiency in keeping “big data” secure.

Is Edward Snowden a traitor or an American hero? His country folk were divided on the fine point of the “tipping point” between an “insiders” duty to guard official secrets versus the citizens moral responsibility to fight “Big Government”. There is a stark choice between ensuring security and preserving individual freedom. Too much individual freedom (say the right to religious beliefs which may even bar or restrict social integration, as is available in India and the US) can be as negative as too little individual freedom (China, Russia) in the name of national security.

But the flash points where security collides with individual freedom are more often due to “entrenched privilege” being threatened, than the high ground of morality being squashed.  Indian Liberals, who willingly submit to racial profiling and body searches at US and UK immigration, are outraged if an Indian security personnel, so much as dares to question them about what they are carrying in their bags, whilst boarding domestic flights, trains or buses.

Of course most Liberals in India belong to the elite. For them the State and its officials are only to be suffered, not recognised. There is an implicit sense of “entitlement” amongst the elite, who expect to be “served”, even if they dodge their taxes. Much of this springs from the unfortunate spectacle, of fawning subordinates around a preening public official, in much the same manner, as courtiers may have supplicated before our erstwhile Maharajas.

Liberals mourn that there is too little reliance on “trust” and too much emphasis on “surveillance”. But isn’t it ironic, that in the US: the birth place of Liberal policy practices and “small government”, it is “legally enforceable contracts”, which are the life blood of social and even personal interaction. A society governed by “contracts” by definition, is a society which does trust anyone, including the State, to do the right thing.

It is the same with the theory of incentives. The fundamental basis of neo-liberal policy practice is to embed the correct “incentives” in regulations, which then elicit the desired behavioural outcomes associated with the desired results. The provision of artificially embedded incentives, as neo-Liberal policy practice seeks to provide, inevitably come with intrusive metrics of measurement because what is not measured can neither be sanctioned nor rewarded. Regulatory intrusion, big data and “big” government are the inevitable consequence.

In direct contrast, are systems which rely on “belief”, “religion” or “spirituality”. These seek to bind people to a higher morality and blind them to the needs of individuality. Communism is one such “belief” which relies on the morality of the State and not contracts. Of course, it also comes with high levels of State control and intrusive oversight by a bureaucracy of the faithful, exactly as any other religion.

The Liberal position becomes even more laughable when we consider the available “best practice” on poverty reduction; a key objective for developing economies. “Tightly targeted, cash transfers” to the poor is the latest mantra. But these have to be preceded by identification of the poor; close monitoring of their locations and current incomes. In fact, what this requires is a national database of the entire population of India so that we can segregate the poor from the non- poor; citizens from non-citizens and similarly along any other targeted classification (gender, caste, religion or spatial location). 25% of the Indian population is migratory. This requires “spatial location” enabled assessment of their current economic status since poverty levels vary across states. You can’t get bigger data than all these demographics on 1.25 billion people.

The loss of individual privacy is embedded in the logic of extensive digitization of information. Think of the benefits from being able to identify people uniquely; record their demographics (age, marital status, gender, health and education metrics) securely; store transactions securely and access the stored information instantly. If it is alright for the government to be intrusive versus the poor, why is it so horrible for the “privacy” of the rest to be invaded? The much touted right of the individual “to be forgotten” can exist versus other individuals (though how even that could be enforced is not known) but it must never exist against the State.

“Big data” and a better informed government are here to stay. Liberals should wake up and smell the coffee.

Will Ashraf Ghani be Afghanistan’s Manmohan Singh?

ashraf

(photocredit: dnaindia.com)

It is unlikely that the national coalition in Afghanistan, which the US has stitched together, will last. More likely, the Unity Government provides a convenient cover of artificially generated “peace” allowing the US to withdraw, with “honour”, from the “graveyard of invaders”.

Once it leaves, the US shall make all efforts to secure a working relationship between the Taliban and the Afghan Unity Government. The US has already started distinguishing between the palatable, if misguided, Taliban, with whom business is possible and the utterly untouchable Al Qaida.

The new Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani seems comfortable with cutting a deal with the Taliban to include them too, in the fullness of time, in the power sharing structure. This approach also fits well with the traditional “big tent” approach of the US which also includes decentralizing power and thereby enhancing inclusion of hitherto marginalized segments. This option is worth a try, but is likely to fail just as surely, as the existing Unity Government.

Mr. Ghani is a knowledgeable, well-meaning and committed, if somewhat unbending, politician-international bureaucrat-academic. His main problem will be similar to what Manmohan Singh faced in India. How does a personally honest leader turn a blind eye to massive corruption and yet retain control over the government?

Mr. Ghani says his first priority will be to make it difficult to be corrupt by improving governance systems. The conundrum is that “power sharing”, almost by definition, means allowing warlords a long rope. Manmohan Singh called it the “dharma of coalition politics”. Once executive control is loosened to avoid the personal association of the leader with the expectedly bad decisions of the warlords, stopping the system from unravelling is tough.

In his last political assignment (2002 to 2004) Mr. Ghani was Finance Minister in Afghanistan and was very successful in introducing some order and economic sense into governance. The parallels are ominous. Mr. Singh too was outstanding as Finance Minister in India before he got the top job. It doesn’t end there. Like Manmohan Singh in 1999, Ashraf Ghani lost his first election in 2009. The question then is: will Mr. Ghani be Afghanistan’s Manmohan Singh; a good man heading a bad outfit? Only time can tell.

For India, the current situation is impossible. There is little to distinguish the Pashtun dominated Taliban from Pakistan’s military de-facto rulers. This is why, traditionally, India cozied up, during the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan (1980s), to the “Northern Alliance” comprising the Hazara, who are determinedly opposed to Pashtun rule; the Tajiks who are today represented by Abdullah Abdullah, the number two leader in the Unity Government and Abdul Rashid Dostum, the indomitable Uzbek leader- who is currently allied with the Pashtun, President-Ashraf Ghani.

Any talk of an Afghan government, propped up by the Taliban, cannot be music to either India’s ears or acceptable to Abdullah Abdullah. This is especially so because China does business with Pakistan quite happily and is unlikely to have any qualms about doing the same with the Taliban. In this calculus any gain for the Taliban, is a gain for Pakistan and for China and a loss for India.

In the shadows is Putin’s Great Bear which is constantly sniffing about for a pot of honey in the great game. India and the Soviets have a long association of friendship which can become the basis for a coalition of the “underdogs” in Afghanistan. India is also friends with Iran, which it uses to trade with Afghanistan. The Russia, Iran, India (RII) axis will become India’s fallback option if the US continues to duck its responsibilities in South Asia. The result will be the “RII axis” playing “spoilers’ with consequential instability and strife in Afghanistan.

The silver lining is that India’s PM Modi has already signaled a preference for a more positive strategy of alignment with the set of countries which represent the shared ideals of democracy, markets and private sector led equitable growth. This approach advocates caution and restraint in committing our scarce resources to secure our near-abroad, whilst we still face enormous challenges of dealing with domestic infrastructure and poverty.

PM Modi stressed during his recent US visit that there can be no “good terror (read Taliban) and bad terror (read IS and Al Qaida). The networks of terror and the resources available to them are fungible and transmute constantly to escape identification. In simple language, a Leopard cannot change its spots. The only option is to isolate and confine it once it turns man eater.

What is unknown is whether President Obama has his ears tuned to South Asia or will the IS and the Middle East pre-occupations distract him completely. Will he be forced to soften his currently anti-Sunni terror stance by turning a blind eye to the Sunni-Taliban in Afghanistan? Great powers have to choose their battles and prioritise across options.

If the choice is between completely browning-off Saudi Arabia and its cohort of Sunni Middle Eastern countries by pursuing Sunni-Terror doggedly, on the one hand and worrying about how this approach could impact India’s interest, we know which way he will jump; and who can blame him for that.

If India is actually part of the “big boys club” we must mobilize pressure from constituencies who have similar interests in containing terror to force the US to not “step off the plate”. If this fails, as it probably shall, the option is to build a coalition against terror with China, which is similarly affected by it. Testing times loom for India’s diplomats.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: