governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Sikkim’

African “big men” in India

African heads of State will don Modi kurtas and party in New Delhi, October 27 to 29. The occasion is the third meeting of the Indo African Summit. It would be quite a sight to see Robert Mugabe, age 91, President of Zimbabwe for the last two decades, take a turn or two on the dance floor. But we may have to make do with the more agile President Jacob Zuma.

zuma

President Jacob Zuma of South Africa at his agile best

Hopefully, the parallel with ASEAN will not extend to Minister Sushma Swaraj having to sing at the concluding party, just to liven up the proceedings, along the lines of Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State in 1997, who crooned her version of “Don’t cry for me Argentina”.

swaraj

Minister Sushma Swaraj with members of parliment

Beyond the theatrics, it is tough to figure out what we want to achieve with the possibly forty heads of state or governments and many more senior politicians and officials from Africa who are expected to participate. Similar summits were held in 2008 and again in 2011.

Claim the 21st century for Africa and India

Demographics suggests that the second half of this century belongs to Africa and India. But to claim this “historical destiny” India and Africa have to do the right things. One such is to put the right institutions in place.

This “mirror” long term need is what binds India to African countries far more than the standard diplomatic fare; trade and investment, terrorism and security. These are merely the transactional outcomes of sound institutional development and better dealt with at specialized fora which already exist like the World Trade Organization, the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions and their offshoots.

Context is key for developing “best fit” institutions. Context varies enormously between India and Africa and even more so within Africa. But one common theme across most African countries is a rich endowment of natural resources (except Rwanda and Burundi) which distinguishes them from resource poor India.

In contrast, adherence to broad democratic norms is increasingly the preferred option across Africa. Swaziland and Lesotho remain the only kingdoms in sub-Saharan Africa. Yesterdays “dictators” are today’s leaders, who test their popularity in elections.

museveni

Presidents Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Paul Kagame of Rwanda

India has been the world’s largest democracy since 1947. In Africa Senegal has similarly been a multi-party democracy since 1960 when it became independent. Senegal had its “Indira Gandhi moment” in the first decade of this century when then President Wade tried to unduly empower the executive through constitutional amendments. The democratic backlash was strong and he lost in elections to his own Prime Minister in 2012- President Small still leads today. Mauritius, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and later South Africa, Botswana and Namibia also have stellar democratic records.

African public service structures have evolved unlike ours which have atrophied

The institutional architecture within which government functions is critical for achieving developmental goals. Within the broad institutional architecture the manner in which the civil service is structured is key. India has much to learn from select countries. South Africa, Ghana, Senegal, Mauritius, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia for instance, have developed and maintained outstanding public service structures and traditions.

These bureaucracies have weathered far more tumultuous times than we in India have ever encountered in the post- World War II period. But they remained committed, motivated and deliver results- three characteristics that are iffy to apply across the board in India.

India presents a fascinating case study of asymmetric development. On the one hand we have scientists sending space expeditions to Mars. At the other end poor villagers still rely on traditional healers and “bangali” doctors- sometimes out of choice and habit but mostly out of compulsion since the public health service is so poor.

It is fashionable today to advocate the case for asymmetric development- getting reform in through the door wherever possible without attempting an across the board improvement in the civil service. India is a good example of how this does not work. Islands of excellence remain just that cordoned and insulated from the ills that afflict service areas not considered critical from the short term (sighted) point of view.

India manufactures or assembles more brands of cars, scooters and motorcycles in India than it is possible to remember. We pride ourselves on our in-house capacity for developing infrastructure. We have embarked on a “make in India” mission. Foreign students come to India to study management, medicine and engineering.

Yet, within the government, it is rare to find an official with the relevant technical qualifications, in a senior position with decision making powers. This is not to say that our top bureaucrats are not highly educated. Invariably they do have these credentials, in a general way. Many may even be a PhD. It doesn’t get better. But rarely is it that the academic qualifications and the experience overlap. This disregard for “technical excellence” as a driver of good public administration is at the root of our inability to apply the vast knowledge reserves we have built up to improving public services on the ground.

We should learn for countries in Africa which have done away with the hierarchical, cadre based, colonial administration systems they inherited and have moved on to a position based meritocracy. South Africa, Mauritius, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya and Tanzania are examples.

Our federal structure is an outstanding example of contextual decentralization

Whilst our Constitution is a Union of States rather than being a federation like the US Constitution, it is a dynamic yet robust instrument. It has been amended one hundred times since 1952 but it remains the driving force for growing the “Idea of India” as a single nation comprising unparalleled diversity in religion, ethnicity and culture.

Much of richness of the Indian public management experience derives from the significant levels of devolution to the thirty state governments. Around 40% of the Union government’s revenues are made available to state governments as their share of tax. An additional 15% of funds are transferred to state governments for executing national development schemes. State governments also have their own sources of revenue.

The size and character of states varies enormously in India. These range from the mammoth Uttar Pradesh (UP) with a population of 200 million (the next biggest state is Bihar with pop. 100 million) to tiny Sikkim population 600,000.

Uttar Pradesh is larger than the largest African nation-Nigeria-pop. 189 million, renowned for its oil rich economy, entrepreneurial people and pluralistic society.

Sikkim, sticking out like a “thumbs up” between Nepal and China in North Eastern India with streets neat as a pin and people, as disciplined as the Rwandans closely resembles the well governed, gorgeous, North Western African island nation of Cape Verde.

verde

Cape Verde

Africa manages regional co-operation exceedingly well

India should look closely at the cross country arrangements within Africa which facilitate development based on the comparative advantage of countries. Power pooling across the Southern Cone countries and West Africa is one such example. Access to sea routes for land locked countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe and Uganda via rail, road and pipelines provides good models for cost sharing across Indian states. Truth and reconciliation type negotiations are another African specialty.

bashir

Presidents Bashir of Sudan and Salva Kiir of South Sudan- friendly foes.

The Indian institutional arrangements for regional integration have fallen into disuse and are ineffective. Water sharing arrangements are particularly dissatisfactory and legal disputes linger for years, increasing conflict and retarding development. Similarly implementing the Goods and Services tax- a single, value added tax, to replace state level taxes on the production and sale of products, to which all parties are agreed in principle, has become harder and more painful than extracting a tooth.

It may have been really useful to arrange sessions where state chief ministers could have interacted with heads of state depending on areas of mutual interest with their officials following up on the detailed areas of cooperation.

We are not China

aarti

aarti” evening prayers on the banks of the Holy Ganga

Finally how can we  differentiate ourselves from China whilst dealing with Africa? Clearly the worst option would be to emulate the muscular Chinese style of economic diplomacy. For one we just don’t have the firepower. For another the principle of comparative advantage advocates that everyone must play to their strengths.

China’s comparative advantage is cash-lots of it. But the Chinese model of development is not something which is easily replicated because of the size of its economy, the homogeneity of its population and its long history of splendid isolation. Also it is unlikely that exporting workers in droves to implement projects overseas is a sustainable or effective developmental strategy for the beneficiary countries.

Our comparative strength is that we are the “Constantinople of Parliamentary Democracy”. We straddle the democratic heritage of the West and the traditional Asian democratic principles. In doing so we have evolved a home spun democratic model. Like all jugaad (learning by doing) the ends of this model are a bit jagged.

parliament

The Indian parliament on high alert post a terrorist attack in 2001

Nevertheless, it is a model which works- both for economic growth and to uphold the human liberties of speech, association and property. Within this generic model of development lie gems of granular achievement at the state government and local level, which provide solutions to the universal development barriers of elite control, low initial capacity, nascent institutions and less than adequate rule of law mechanisms.

India must use the Summit to share these nuggets of experience which are at the heart of building institutional resilience for sustainable development in poor countries.

1542 words

Reclaiming a strong India

Image

What is common between the ongoing events in Crimea (2014), the British action against Argentina in the Falklands under Maggie Thatcher (1982), the war against Tamils in Sri Lanka (1982 to 2009), Kashmir (1947 onwards) and Sikkim (1975)?

All five incidents are text book case studies on the dos and don’ts for the exercise of State power. They illustrate that when the chips are down strong nations protect themselves rather than bank upon the charity of others.

Russia has successfully reversed a partisan decision taken in 1954 to cede Crimea to Ukraine. Possibly, at the time, it was unimaginable that Ukraine could be anything but Soviet territory. Despite threatening noises from Europe and the US, Russia has gone ahead and implemented its decision to reunite Crimea with Russia.

Maggie Thatcher sunk an Argentinian ship in 1982, in a show of jingoistic aggression, to end the armed invasion of the Falklands (population 2300 people located 500 km from the East Coast of Argentina and 13,000 km from the UK) by Argentina. The UK has never needed to assert force ever again. Had they, as a civilized nation, instead requested the UN to get the Argentine army evicted, the Union Jack may have never flown thereafter, in Stanley, the capital of the Falklands.

Sri Lanka bludgeoned the Tamil Tigers and indeed every Tamil in Sri Lanka, into submission with sheer brute force in 2009, thereby resolving the problem of Tamil terrorism at least for the near term. They did this after twenty six years of a low key war of attrition in which they got little support from the World but which sapped the economic growth. Since the war ended in 2009, GDP growth spurted to 8% per annum in 2010 and 2011 and 6% in 2012, despite the adverse international economic environment.

Conversely, half way through the process of evicting the Pakistani intruders in 1947, India approached the UN, to resolve the vexed issue of Pakistan’s illegal capture of around 40% of Kashmir. More than six decades later, Kashmir remains on the boil and absorbs significant fiscal resources and executive time at the expense of the Indian taxpayer. In sharp contrast, India absorbed Sikkim (previously a monarchy) in 1975, based on the demands of democratic reformers in Sikkim. The results of the referendum in favour of joining India are disputed, but Sikkim is today an integral part of democratic India.

The common lesson from all five cases is that governments need strong and specific domestic mandates and collegial decision making, to be decisive in national interest. How can these pre-conditions for strong governments be fostered?

First, despite the happy ending in Sikkim, in matters international, we must not blindly trust our leaders to do the right thing. We need large dollops of sunshine on decision making in international affairs to grow unanimity. This needs to go beyond closed door meetings and briefings of inter-party parliamentary committees. Issues and options need to be debated publicly; risks and rewards assessed objectively and publicly, so that we aam admis also get to know and understand why we are spending the money we are, on securing our interests overseas.

Maybe we do not actually spend enough and more needs to be spent. The point is that currently only a rarified few know what our overseas interests actually are and what we pay to protect them. Even on a “need to know” basis, this charmed circle of foreign policy wonks, diplomats and select politicians needs to be significantly expanded.

Second, vibrant democracies do not survive without a strong sense of nationalism. The World is waiting, with bated breath, for China to fall apart as it becomes more “democratic”. Being nationalistic goes beyond the tokenism of paying respect to the national flag or standing to attention when the national anthem is played. At a very basic level, Nationalism is a warm glow than can be felt, but nor easily measured. It means taking pride in what we have collectively achieved and demonstrating faith that, where we have collectively failed, we can and shall prevail.

These feelings are linked to what an individual considers to be her primary identity. This sense of national identity is very difficult to foster in a culturally heterogeneous country, like ours. Even the mighty Soviet Union failed because it remained, at heart, Russian. India is more fragile than the US, which is at least, bound by English, Coke and McDonalds. We are bound together by “Hindi movies, momos, idlis and butter chicken” but are more like the European Union, without a common language, religion or race to link us.

Like the EU then, we must be bound by strong and mutually beneficial economic ties and a common economic future. Every segment of India must perceive a tangible benefit in remaining Indian, if we are to survive together. Particular attention needs to be paid to the well-being of border areas, which are the most susceptible to dissidence.  

Third, we must reject the mindless enforcement of “National norms” in matters social and cultural. We can learn from the manner in which the Indian joint family has evolved rather than splintered in the face of urban modernity. Today, parents, even the doting, die-hard, joint-family addicts, advise their children to set up a separate kitchen, ideally on the floor above or below them as a second best option for bonding, which is better than a complete split in the family.

In the national context, this means that each segment of society (the intersections of caste, religion, race and region) must get the physical and fiscal space to manage their own affairs and evolve their own individual cultural norms, at their own pace, to cope with the stress of modern life. There can be no single pattern for evolving Indian cultural norms because no such pan-Indian norms exist.

Fourth, we must learn to distinguish between a strong State and a “Big State”. Typically despots run big governments, with large numbers employed in the security establishment, because they manage the State irrespective of the will of the people. Democracies are meant to be aligned to the will of the people and hence can have lean governments.

Large governments can be slimmed down if they choose to decentralize decision making and the use of fiscal resources to user groups. Technology now enables cost effective, real time oversight over decentralized decision making. Red flags and check points can be built into electronic public financial management systems, to avoid misallocation of budgets; budget over-runs or gross mis-procurement.

Growth is slowing down across the World. Countries need to jostle within a limited pie to enlarge their share of economic growth. Only the best shall survive.

India is too large, too heterogeneous and too democratic to escape subtle economic sabotage by competitors. Existing social fissures can be deepened into grand canyons of hate. Such subversion can only be neutralized by the collective will of our citizens. But are we sensitizing our citizens to this risk and to their role in managing it?   

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

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: