The modern thinking Indian

Maybe the name should be changed to that of the NRI Premiere League now; given that more NRI's will now be watching the match live at the ground rather than Indians. Last year, the Indian Premier League (after initial criticism of the high costs involved), turned into a spectacular crowd fest, with huge audience participation. The T-20 cricket tournament was a huge TV success, to the extent that movie makers were reluctant to release movies in the same time frame. So, when the cricket tournament was planned for the second run this year, there was a wide spread anticipation that the tournament would be even bigger and more spectacular this year.
And then the attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers in Pakistan, the neighboring country where attacks by militants are common. The attack was the first manifestation that radical elements were starting to attack the popular game of cricket; the first reaction was to lay out the differences between India and Pakistan in term of security and to emphasize that playing of the game was safe in India. One does not want the perception that the security situation in India is so bad that the Government cannot ensure security for international sportspersons. After all, the Commonwealth Games are planned for 2010, and security is one of the critical points.
However, it soon became clear that the Government did not really care about this logic; the argument that was becoming clear was that holding the IPL in India would not lend anything positive to the Government; however, if any security incident happened during this duration, the BJP would pounce upon the incident as another symptom of the Government being soft on terror; so the apparent simpler option was to get various Congress states to announce that they could not arrange for the proper security of the event. Here is an extract from an article that criticizes the action by the Government of India (link to article):

In the course of just one successful season, IPL had become one of the biggest global brands, comparable to Wimbledon and the football World Cup. An outpouring of meanness drove the Nano plant out of West Bengal. Last week, P Chidambaram donned the mantle of Mamata Banerjee and forced IPL out of India. Like Mamata, who felt that Ratan Tata could be browbeaten because he was a hostage to money already invested in Singur, North Block proceeded on the assumption that the IPL was a helpless captive. And just as Tata had to cut his losses and resist blackmail politics, Lalit Modi inveigled IPL out of a desperate situation with a daredevil flight to South Africa.
It is more than a little curious that the IPL faced resistance only from the Congress-ruled states. It was the firm no from Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Delhi that finally clinched the issue in favour of South Africa. In Delhi, where policing is under the direct purview of the Centre, even chief minister Sheila Dikshit was in favour of hosting matches. Yet, the police chief informed her and Delhi Cricket Association president Arun Jaitley that no permission would be forthcoming before, during and after the polling. As far as the Centre was concerned, IPL could go to hell.

There are multiple reasons why the Congress could have done this. The Congress is not particularly happy with Sharad Pawar, and even less so with Lalit Modi, and would have thought that the IPL would have to be postponed; however, the move to take the IPL out of the country was not something that the Congress liked either. So when the IPL move out of India was announced on security considerations, the Government criticized the move as trying to play politics with sports, and so on. Strange objection, given that the reason that the IPL could not be held as per schedule was that the games were supposed to be clashing with elections and that no forces could be spared for the games (the country cannot arrange for enough security to cover an event such as IPL when the elections are going on ? What happens if something serious take place on the Pakistan border ? Where will the required forces be found then ?)

Labels: BJP, Congress, Cricket, Image, India, Politics, Security

If you have been reading the financial papers for the past 2 days, you would have realized that suddenly something seemed to be happening at Satyam, and if you were more interested, you would have read that suddenly Satyam seemed to be in the eye of a storm regarding issues of corporate governance. It all started when Satyam announced that it was planning on spending $ 1.3 billion on diversification, and that too, this amount would have been spent on buying Maytas, a company in which the promoters of Satyam hold a 35% stake. This was not a deal that was approved by shareholders, and apparently not even by the board.
The shareholding of the promoters in Satyam is only 8%, with institutions holding a majority, and this action by the promoters saw an incredible reaction on the stock exchange. Immediately after this move, there was a reaction from shareholders, with the ADR on the US market falling by 52%. The next day, financial newspapers unanimously denounced this move as a gross violation of all norms of corporate governance, and in moves that would have scared the promoters, institutions threatened to review whether there is a trust in the management of the company.
Now, this proposed move has been withdrawn, but has left a mark on the management of the company that is difficult to get away; it will take time before the trust quotient can be restored:

Even as Satyam's deal to buy Maytas had to be hastily annulled in the wee hours of Wednesday morning as the company lost 52% on its ADR listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), a credibility crisis has begun to grip India's fouth largest IT company. "How can we trust the management of this company and its board of directors after it tried to enter into a deal that prime facie would benefit only the promoters who just own 8% of Satyam ? We have to examine whether the management needs to be changed," cried analysts in a reflection of the deep anguish caused by the now stymied move.
"58% of Satyam is owned by FIIs and they had no inkling that such a deal was in the works. There were questions about the future of Satyam after acquiring these companies when it doesn't have any experience in these businesses. It makes more sense to deploy your funds in related businesses or pay your investors," said Sourav Mahajan, analyst with Karvy.

The company is doing fire-fighting, but this is not the US. In the US by now, with a company promoters holding 8% and with such a move, there would have a far more critical reaction. Here, institutions typically do not show much emotion even when they hold a majority of the stake in the company; in fact, the public and private displays of reaction is unprecedented. This reaction is obviously not what Satyam was expecting.
However, one expects that with the share buyback announced after this as an attempt to mollify shareholders, there may not be much beyond what has been stated; the management of Satyam (and other companies) would be a bit wiser about what they can do or cannot do. What remains true in this case is that the board of the company proved ineffectual, and needs to be looked afresh.

Labels: Corporate, Finance, Governance, Image

The Nano project was a dream for Ratan Tata, and he was wooed by many states eager to get this prestigious project to their state. Besides the prestige, the project was also expected to generate jobs (the main project plus ancillaries are expected to be big business). Of course, there was the expectation that land needed to be sought for this purpose. And therein lies the problem. When a project needs a major amount of land, the land acquisition is a problem, and given the increase in industrialization in the country, we will continue to face more problems. Land fragmentation is so high that to get the required amount of contiguous land for a factory or a major project means negotiating with a large number of farmers. And this is where the state steps in - the state, in situations where it is a question of industrialization, can actually acquire land at the market rate from farmers for 'public purpose'. There has been doubt in the past about whether acquiring land for a private company is a public purpose, and a recent Supreme Court judgment has sanctioned this - the court makes clear that public purpose need not mean that land only needs to be used for a Government need, but any project that generates employment and is beneficial for the local economy can be termed as a 'public purpose' project.
For the romantics who worry about a loss of village life, about the loss of land from farmers, and so on; one should ask them to live in villages for some time, especially with fragmented holdings; then they will realize that a village life is not so romantic. The known path for economic prosperity is where an economy moves up the path of industrialization, away from an agricultural focus and more into manufacturing and services where the value added is much greater. This is not meant to say that farmers land should be acquired just like that. Acquiring land for a project needs careful study; I believe Gujarat has a policy whereby there is an evaluation whether waste land can be used for this purpose, and only after that, is land taken from farmers. Farmers and others (landless laborers, sharecroppers, etc who are not compensated for land acquisition) affected by land acquisition all need to get a stake in the project, whether that be through granting them a mechanism like shares in the project, making sure that locals get enough jobs, etc.
Education is also an important part of the whole acquisition ball game. Typically, political parties don't take it very kindly when their policies are opposed by another political party. One way to avoid this is through educating villagers about how this will be beneficial to the local economy and to them (you can only do this if there are actual benefits).
Onto the current case. This is a mystery; you have a Communist Government trying to enforce a industrial project, and you have an opposition maverick politician using the acknowledged Communist methods of protest - use propaganda, rally people, block the local economic movement by blocking the main road artery, and so on. She succeeded to such an extent that the West Bengal Chief Minister could not even question the locus standi if Mamta Banerjee ? Nobody even attempted to ask as to how the Trinamool Congress claimed to be a representative of the local farmers and others. Mamta quite clearly sees this as a way of depicting the CPM as anti-poor and anti-farmer and try to rally the rural votebank behind her. In the short run, this has caused a crisis of confidence in West Bengal's ability to attract businesses:

West Bengal's worst fear has come true. Ratan Tata announced on Friday that he was leaving Singur, taking with him the Nano car project and the state's dream of an economic revival and leaving it with a tattered image in the investor's eye. The Nano project will also take with it all vendors despite the huge shifting costs, leaving a 1,000-acre black hole in the lush green Singur farmlands where Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee had hope to reap a huge political dividend as well.
On Friday, a ''distressed'' chief minister heard Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata's message, loud and clear. He made fervent pleas to Tata to stay back and keep his Rs 1,500 crore investment, even argued with Ratan Tata that his decision wasn't correct but couldn't change the industrialist's mind. The Tata Group chairman said he wasn't the one to blame for things coming to this pass. He squarely blamed Mamata Banerjee for pushing him to take the pullout decision, two years after his tryst with the Nano car factory in West Bengal.

What Ratan Tata says is quite correct. If he is setting up an industry, he would want to do it in an environment which is conducive to business; this is a basic need for having a healthy and prosperous business. The fact that Mamta Banerjee did all sort of things, including tacitly encouraging physical attack on the plant's workers would have terribly shaken Ratan Tata's confidence about the reception his factory is likely to get on an ongoing basis.

Labels: Community, Development, Image, Law, Left, Neighbourhood, Politics, Security

Ever since the RTI Act came into existence, it has been seen as a powerful instrument to clear out secrecy of movements of records within the bureaucracy, and of helping to explain as to what decisions are made on what basis. It could be seen as a powerful laser-strength light shines like a powerful sun on the cobwebs of the Government bureaucracy and exposes corruption; however, one of the main problems seen is the inability of normal street level people to make sure of it. This has been seen as one of the main problems of the Act, it is only as good as the ability of people to use it.
Well, it seems like people are slowly catching on, and this awareness, even if more pronounced in urban areas, will slowly move through the whole country. Even a slight increase in awareness and a reduction in corruption and stealth of Government operations will do wonders for the enhancement of citizens. Imagine the power of a villager being able to find out where the money alloted for improving a road went to ? In many cases, just the act of filing a RTI petition can cause the concerned officials to move much faster. Consider these examples of how the RTI Act seems to be catching on:

Armed with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citizens are posing peculiar questions to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) at an average of 10 applications per day. The questions range from appointments, service matters, building penalisation scheme etc. It's not the city folk but people from districts and even other states are demanding information.
Consider this. P Anand, a resident of Ashok Nagar in the city sought information on last November's appointment of additional commissioner (heritage) J Kedareshwari. This included whether she was posted in GHMC through an open advertisement and why her appointment was done in haste and the qualifications and eligibility for the post.

It is really heartening to see this movement catching up on; if this continues and becomes a mass movement, then we will finally see levels of corruption coming down and the influence of vested interests will start coming down.

Labels: Community, Corruption, Empowerment, Governance, Image, Law, Policy, Reform, RTI, Welfare

In the 80's and 90's, a lot of films had the concept of a secret Swiss account held by a politician or a corrupt government official, and the mission always was to either get the corrupt minister in some way or to get details of the secret account. Typically, Swiss banks (as well as banks in many other regions that are known as tax havens and where ill-gotten wealth is hidden) will not reveal data until it can be conclusively proved that there is something illegal involved in all this.
Another haven where such a banking setup exists is the small country of Liechtenstein, a small landlocked country between Austria and Switzerland. It also has a banking setup which is seen as a haven for people seeking to store their money, and hence a target for people wanting to investigate corruption. Now imagine, that the Indian Government can freely obtain such information about bank records; won't any Government jump at the chance to obtain such information and unmask people who have salted away their money.
Well, apparently not the Congress Government. It seems so surprising that the Government is not making any move to request such information that a person could easily suspect that senior Congressmen or people at the very top also find a name in such a list, and hence are hoping that this blows over and they are not unmasked. It is yet another blow to the credibility of this now discredited Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that a newspaper can openly question as to why the Government is not pursing this information ?

Investigators in India might have their best chance yet to trace those Indians who have stashed away millions in the tiny tax haven of Liechtenstein, a small landlocked country between Austria and Switzerland, provided the Manmohan Singh government asks for the information on offer. The dope on hundreds of rich Indians who have black money parked in Liechtenstein could be made available to the authorities here as the German government, which has obtained a list of account holders at Liechtenstein’s LTG Bank, is willing to part with the names.
Several countries including the US, the UK, Canada, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Ireland have already used the opportunity to zero in on their citizens who have evaded taxes and smuggled their wealth to the principality, the sixth-smallest country in the world. But Transparency International says India has maintained 'a stoic silence over the issue and has not approached the German government for this data'. Suspecting that the government's chariness could stem from fears that influential politicians and industrialists might be compromised by the Liechenstein data, TI has, in a statement, said: "It is alleged that this money belongs to rich and powerful politicians, industrialists and stock brokers and that is why the reluctance on the part of government of India (to get details from Germany)."

This refusal by the Government is very surprising and it is actually causing a great deal of suspicion about the reasons for the Government to not try and get this information. It is very much possible that Congress and allies, not particularly known for their honesty, have hidden wealth over there, and the Government could face a lot of problems if this information is revealed.

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Image, Information, Responsibility

How many times has it happened that you saw somebody throwing garbage on the streets and wondered as to why they did it ? Did you sometimes throw a wrapper on the street and felt guilty about it, or not even feel a twinge of guilt ? Take all these individual acts, put them together and you end up with a city (and this is about each and every city in India) full of garbage. Sometimes it is easily noticeable, for example, when the weather is humid, the smell of garbage is all around. But mostly, we criticize the municipal corporation (and rightly so) for the mess.
Surat, after the plague had gone, went through a government enforced cleanliness program with a lot of public support. That program was a good example of how a city can be made clean and kept clean. There are numerous other examples on a smaller scale that show how cleanliness can be kept. Private offices are a good example, where there are adequate facilities such as garbage bins and moral pressure to ensure cleanliness. The Delhi Metro is another example of cleanliness where the Metro ensures that people do not litter, and they also ensure that the facilities are always kept clean such that if anybody tries to litter, they will be seen as the first people doing the littering.
However, we also know that in addition to self-discipline, some amount of enforcement is also required. Singapore is one prime example of strict rules ensuring that no one tries any amount of littering, and people who do, suffer. And enforcement seems to be the measure that the Mumbai authorities are trying to use:

MUMBAI: Getting away with spitting, urinating in public, throwing garbage on pavements or any other nuisance which spoils the cleanliness of the metropolis will be harder and even costlier now.
To supplement the work done by the few nuisance detectors (NDs), the civic body today appointed five private security agencies to look after cleanliness and sanitation in the city with powers to impose fines ranging from Rs 100 to Rs 20,000 on offenders.

If you read the article, there is a lot of talk about not being heavy on the fines initially, but trying more education and getting people to be more aware of their responsibilities.
At the same time, it cannot be all enforcement. There is a crying need to have more facilities. One good example is the availability of garbage bins or dustbins and public conveniences. In our crowded cities, such infrastructure needs to be available at regular intervals and well maintained (and that is the killer nowadays many of them are not well maintained). It is easy to blame people for urinating in public, but in winter months, when there is no facility available for long distances, what can a person do ?

Labels: Community, Development, Environment, Health, Image, Neighbourhood, Reform, Waste

It's still too early to figure out what the full extent of the nuclear deal getting canceled is going to be, but the common consensus is that it is going to lead to a lowering of the country's credibility and status (although that would only be short term - the growth in the economy is still driving India's new found strength and attractiveness). So, while negotiating, the Indian side would have taken the position that such a deal does not need to be passed in Parliament, the Union Cabinet is empowered to approve such deals. In addition, the Indian Government had met with a number of other Governments that were on the Nuclear Suppliers Group (some of whom were Uranium exporters) in trying to work out potential contracts.
However, it was not just the Indian Government that went to bat for this deal. The Bush administration did a fair amount of pushing and using influence to move this deal forward, assisted by the Indian-American community that used its influence with Members of Congress (from both the Democratic and Republican side) and also pushed by many industries that would have benefited from such a opening up of the Indian civilian nuclear industry.
Another byproduct of the deal was the proposed relaxation of Uranium exporting conditions. Previously, India would not be able to get Uranium fuel from most of the major exporting nations because of the restrictions; under the new deal, the market had a much better chance of being open to India. Well, that does not seem likely now. Refer to this article:

With India virtually putting on hold its civilian nuclear deal with US, Australia has decided to review its plans to sell uranium to New Delhi.
Lowy Institute international security director Rory Medcalf said there was "no way" he could see Australia selling uranium to India "unless the US-India deal is finalised".

So, India is again going to be back on the restricted list for getting Uranium from outside, and with China in the race for buying a lot of the Uranium available for sale, India's nuclear program has to again depend on internal sources. Well, there's no getting away from the impact of moving away from the deal.

Labels: Congress, Image, India, Left, Nuclear

One can call it the success of coalition politics. After all, when you are running a coalition Government, then you have to listen to your partners and sometimes take decisions that appeal to them. The Congress used to be a proud party that at one time had more than 400 Members of Parliament, but now it survives at the mercy of a host of coalition partners and outside supporters. So, the Congress has had to cancel its decisions to sell off stake in companies such as Neyveli Lignites, and other companies due to the pressure from allies. It had to agree to subvert the political system when a friend of the holiest of the holies (Quattrochi) was in the line of fire, it had to agree to block the prosecution of Laloo Prasad Yadav and Mayawati (who declares massive assets of over Rs. 50 crores), it had to look the other way when the DMK Government refused to obey the Supreme Court, it had to bend the CBI so as to get Shibu Soren acquitted by the High Court, and so on.
But the nuclear deal must have been the biggest bending of the back that the Congress has ever done. Over a period of 2 years (and it must have been updating its allies on the progress), the Congress Government has been negotiating a deal with the United States that would remove a large number of the restrictions on nuclear dealings with India. Now, we all know that the Indian civilian nuclear program has done a great deal in the face of technology cut-off, but realistically the Indian energy generation from the nuclear area has been much slower than expected and has failed to meet its targets in the past (otherwise why would we be buying nuclear reactors from Russia). Our energy needs are such that we have to be this world in our policies, and no longer stand on the 'we can do everything' stand.
Like any deal, no party can ever come out of a deal like this with having got everything it wanted. One measure of how good a deal is about whether people are satisfied or dis-satisfied. A deal that fails to get the support of the Indian left and the nuclear-ayatollahs of the US State Department is intrinsically a good deal :-). On a serious note, there are a number of strategic experts who are happy with the deal, and my own take on the deal is that this is a good effort. In an ideal world, we should have exploded a device in the 1960's and got to be a member of the nuclear-capable club, but no use crying over spilt milk.
The bigger problem with the apparent Government and Congress capitulation to the Left over the nuclear deal is that the credibility of the Government is shot. If, when the deal was announced and the Left had laid down the line of 'over our dead body', and the Government had backed off at that point, it would still have been good. The deal was a complex deal, and there was little understanding of the deal. Instead, the Government spent so much time over explaining how the deal would be good, got the nuclear experts to vouch for the deal, got a lot of strategic security experts to favor the deal, and got the middle class involved in the deal with the talk of a closer understanding with the US and the promise of removal of many of the dual-use restrictions. It even got the allies to speak in the same way. And then the ultimate, with the 2 divinities, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi both daring the Left to withdraw support.
Maybe the expectation was that the left would back off this strong show of opposition, and maybe there was a wrong thought that this was play-acting by the Left so that their constituency was mollified. But from all the discussion, it would be clear that rather than the nuclear deal, it was the implied much closer relationship with the US that was abhorrent to the Left, and the feeling was so strong that they would be willing to let the Congress Government fall. In addition, the allies, having anticipated that the fall of the Government and the elections might impact them negatively, also pushed back. And so we had the extraordinary spectacle that the PM and the Party President in one day moved back and admitted that the deal was dead, and so was the credibility of Manmohan Singh.
This is also the death of Manmohan Singh the technocrat, the man with the non-politician touch. He laid his reputation on the line on this issue with personal comments, and having to step back must have hurt. One thing is for sure, the author of this piece will no longer treat Manmohan Singh as being different from the other politicians.

Labels: Congress, Development, Image, India, Left, Nuclear, Reform

There is hope for the Congress Government as yet. It currently seems to be between a rock and a hard place; if they back down from the nuclear deal under Left pressure, then the Government will have a serious loss of face with future agreements being disputed and maybe rolled back under other such pressures. In addition, internationally the Primer Minister will have a monumental loss of face in the sense that a Treaty, negotiated for a period of 2 years and seemingly which meets the needs of the Government is being held up. In addition, it will tell the Left that the Government will eventually give in with the right amount of pressure. On the other hand, if the Government does decide to go ahead with the nuclear deal, it is very likely that the Left will carry out its threat to withdraw support and leave the Government in a very fragile political environment.
And maybe not. The CPM is divided into 2 sections, with a section representing the central leadership, people in the politburo who don't face Lok Sabha elections (most likely because they would not get elected given their stands on various issues) and the Governments in West Bengal and Kerala who have to face public pressure and ensure that they are seen on the side of development. So far, it has been under-stated that there are differences of opinion between the Central and State leadership, but they have mostly papered over.
However, it seems like the dam is opening up; the collapse of the Central Government will have a major ripple effect on West Bengal (a state that the Communist parties just cannot cannot afford to lose given their 30 year old grip on the state). Currently the Government is seen as pliable, and the opposition in West Bengal is seen as divided; but if the Central Government starts to act tough and aligns with Manta Banerjee in the state, it would give the CPM a strong sense of worry (especially because it is starting to see how development, even though necessary has its own pain). So, maybe some amount of realism from the state side is pushing the West Bengal Chief Minister to make this statement regarding the need for nuclear energy:

West Bengal CM Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee created a flutter on Monday by stressing the importance of nuclear power at a time when his party, CPM, is locked in a battle with the Centre over the Indo-US nuclear deal and party bigwigs, like politburo member Sitaram Yechury, are publicly arguing that nuclear power isn't critical and perhaps not even desirable.
Within hours of the CM's remarks, his comrades in Delhi went on an overdrive to paper over the apparent difference between two senior politburo members - Bhattacharjee and Yechury - on nuclear power.

The Chief Minister of Bengal is no paper-weight, he is the leader of the major state for the Left parties and if he starts pushing his weight, he can cause a major disturbance in the current stand of the Left party.

Labels: Congress, Development, Image, India, Left, Minority, Nuclear, Politics

It would seem so. It has come out many times in the past, that with so many vested interests in each decision making, decision, especially in policy matters take forever to happen. As an example of such decision making and the influences that go into the whole process, people would remember the entire fuss about the initial license to Reliance for running Wireless in Local Loop and how that got converted into a license to run full-blooded cellular services using CDMA. There are umpteen other examples that I can list out, but let me just take a few - the whole issue about SEZ is nothing but a policy in which there are so many parties wanting to participate that things are out of control; there was the whole matter about the upgradation of the Delhi and Mumbai airports and that took a very long time to bet converted into actual contracts; the discussions about whether airlines can fly out of India before 5 years of domestic flights is subject to intense lobbying; and finally the current issue about awarding of 3G contracts and distribution of spectrum to the rival GSM and CDMA players.
All of them show one simple principle: Big business is intricately linked with Government and policy makers and subject the making of policy to incredible lobbying; in many cases such as Reliance and its initial cellular contract, the lobbying is enough to over-turn Government policies and make new ones.
But even in areas where there is less dispute due to business lobbying, there gets to be all sort of other political factors thrown in. Sometimes, this process can delay policy making by large periods and frustrate the businesses on whom India is depending to get the mega-investment required to generate the large number of jobs required. Take an example of the incentives required for the policy of getting large scale investment into India by semi-conductor manufacturers. It has not been able to be settled and the first impact of this delay is now apparent:

"We were in serious discussion for chip manufacturing in India but the government was a bit slow on semiconductor manufacturing proposals", Intel Chairman Craig Barrett who is on his ninth visit to the country said.
Barrett justified his decision to go to Vietnam and China by saying "to set up a manufacturing base, we do planning years in advance. The China and Vietnam plans were made much earlier. As the government was slow in announcing the policy, in the window period we went to these two countries".

These are setbacks that the Government can ill afford. In this age of many other companies appearing as attractive investment destinations, India cannot afford to be slow in decision making, especially for areas where there are not too many controversies.

Labels: Development, Image, India, Reform, Responsibility

It has been fairly surprising to see the statements by the BJP over the nuclear deal when it was announced. If you refer to my previous post, it would seem that the BJP, for the sake of being in opposition, was going against a deal that it would have supported in all cases if it was in power.

If you consider the deal in all its points, there are many positive factors for the deal from the perspectives of the BJP such as
1. Closer engagement with the US,
2. Access to more dual-use technology that was restricted in the past,
3. Agreement by a number of experts in the nuclear field and strategic fields that this deal seems to be a good one,
4. Deal seems to be more in tune with what the middle class in this country wants,
5. Agreement with the Indian-American community that wants a closer relationship between the US and India
All these are factors that are valued by the support base of the US, and one would have expected the BJP to try to claim credit for the nuclear deal by claiming that the deal was following the path set by it.

Some of the negatives in the BJP opposition flow from the same points as above:
1. Seems to be more closely aligned with what the Communists want, and if the BJP desires one thing, it is not to be grouped with the communist parties
2. Disonance among believers as to why the party is opposing the deal (even after it seems that a number of national security experts are fine with the deal)
These factors would have caused a great disillusionment in the support camp of the BJP, and was difficult to understand.

Well, looks like Advani wanted to get the BJP stand back to where it would have made more sense, whereby the BJP would not be seen as opposing the deal and yet make a few noises about caring for national security. Refer this article:

Advani had told The Indian Express on Sunday that “there is no problem with the 123 agreement”, if the Government addressed the concerns of the party through amendments in Indian domestic laws. Advani’s statement has created a flutter in the party, as many leaders who were uncomfortable with the original positioning that closely aligned the party with the Left and regional outfits found encouragement to push for amends.
Advani will lead the parliamentary debate for the BJP and is expected to outline the possible amendments in Indian laws that could reassure the party that India’s right to test is protected and fuel supply for India’s nuclear power projects will not be disrupted. He will also elaborate on his party’s attitude towards the US.

This looks like a quick turnaround so as to reassure the constituency of the BJP that the party has not suddenly gone into a tailspin. Hopefully with this, the BJP will play a supportive role for this deal.

Labels: BJP, Congress, Image, Left, Nuclear, Politics

The Indian Left is right now in the spotlight as they have never been before. Used to calling the shots with the Congress Government, including forcing humiliating about-turns on the various reform policies tried out by the Congress, they must have found it strange that that suddenly the Congress seems to have developed a spine and refused to do their bidding. And for days now, most analysts, a lot of public reaction and media analysis has accused the Communists of being China lackeys, being fossils, anti-development and progress, die-hard members of the anti-US coalition, etc. But what does the Left really want in all the discussion on the nuclear deal ? I found this article to be an interesting pointer to what their main objections are:

In a stern warning to the UPA government against implementing the civil nuclear deal with America, the CPM said it should decide whether it would go with the US or ‘remain firmly with the people’. "The Manmohan Singh government has to decide within a few weeks from now whether to go with the US or remain firmly with the people of India," CPM general secretary Prakash Karat told a public meeting.
Asserting that the Left parties were strongly opposed to any kind of strategic alliance with the US, he said it was a tragedy that the Central government had ‘compromised’ on the independent foreign policy stand enunciated by late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

And this is exactly what their bone of contention is. They do not want a foreign policy based on reality, based on what the country can get in terms of a realistic evaluation of its strength; instead they want to stick onto a policy that is essentially anti-US. It is no matter that their patron saint China has almost essentially junked the ideals of communism except for the name of the party and its repressive one-party rule; it does not matter that China has been promising such aid to Pakistan, a concept that is against India's strategic interest; it does not matter that in international affairs, most treaties involves give and take, and India could have negotiated for decades without getting a treaty that would have given everything that it wanted; it does not matter that the concept of India's nuclear program, something that the CPM and its allied parties are getting so worked over is a policy that they have been opposing from the start; it does not matter that India has been denied technology for long because of its refusal to sign the NPT, and this treaty promises to over-turn these restrictions; it does not matter that we are a energy-hungry country and nuclear energy that we can currently get domestically is not as advanced and has been shown to be delayed every time and expensive; it does not matter that most security analysts and nuclear scientists who initially were hesitant about agreeing to this deal are much more positive in the final version; it does not matter that the constitution enables the cabinet to be able to commit to such a decision and to go back now would mean a severe loss of Indian credibility.
None of these matter. In the calculations of the Left, a going back on this deal would hurt the emerging India-US cooperation and grant them what they want; and maybe India would be better served by the friendship of tinpot countries such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. In the end, a foreign policy is based on the true interests of a country, and at this time, this deal is the best deal that the country will get that promises to get most of what it wants.
And if the Congress goes back on this deal, it will be the end of all their credibility. Manmohan Singh will have zero credibility, and will most likely have to resign, with the media going hammer and tongs after him about his humiliation, and the Congress will have to live with the humiliation of being ordered around by a party that has 60 seats in Parliament.

Labels: Congress, Development, Electricity, Image, Left, Nuclear, Parliament, Politics

It has been obvious for some time that Quattrochi is a favoured gentlemen in the current political dispensation, and even the orders of courts (including the Supreme Court) pale in front of the orders given by a higher court in the Congress party. For decades now, Quattrochi has been believed to be a favourite of the Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi led Congress party, and it is very easy to believe that this is true, given events of the past. The net result of all this is that the law ministry of the largest democracy of the world has been shown to be a biased agency, and the paramount investigating agency of the country, the CBI, has been shown to be a useless agency, totally subservient to the political dispensation, and then being mocked at by a foreign court in far away Argentina. The Argentinian Judge then declared that the case made by the CBI was very weak, basically labeling it as incompetent. And to top it all, the CBI was then kept in the dark by the law ministry as the appeal against the decision in the lower court was blocked. It would be funny to think of the CBI Director being kept in the dark, if it was not so shocking, and harbinger of the total moral bankruptcy of Manmohan Singh:

CBI director Vijay Shankar claimed yesterday that he had no idea whether an appeal had been filed or withdrawn in the Ottavio Quattrocchi extradition case in Argentina. He said this when asked by The Indian Express why the Government last week withdrew the appeal and, thus, allowed Quattrocchi to walk away.
On July 28, just over a fortnight before Quattrocchi flew home from Buenos Aires, the CBI filed a status report in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi — the court where the Bofors case is being heard and Quattrocchi is listed as an absconding accused— that an appeal had already been filed.
That Argentine Public Prosecutor hired by the government in March to press for Quattrocchi’s extradition, Lilian Delgado, also confirmed to The Indian Express today that the Government had decided to withdraw the appeal. Speaking from Misiones, she said: “It is the Government of India which said no appeal should be filed in the Federal Court. I don’t know the reasons why the Government of India did it. The Government of India has to answer the question why it said no appeal should be filed. I was all ready for the Federal Court case.”

It is confirmed that it was the law ministry of the Government of India that essentially withdrew the case in the Argentinian court, and the CBI was left in the defense that it did not even know. This is the condition of the premier CBI. Maybe it is time to take it out of the control of the Government, at least out of the control of this corrupt Congress Government that has no scruples, and no sense of what is right and wrong. Or maybe Manmohan Singh has been told to lay off, in which case he is like any other politician hankering for power, and equally to be held in contempt.
However, this is not new. Earlier as well, the Government had sent a law officer to London to get the accounts of Quattrochi unfrozen, they did not have any valid reason for doing that, but just brazened it out; which is exactly what they are doing this time. And the oh so moral Left parties could not care less, this is a compromise they are making to keep the Government in power and their own influence intact.

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Court, Image, Judicial, Law, Left

India needs reform at many levels. There is the need to get away with the license Raj, where the Government believed that everybody needs to live by rules (so far so good), and they cannot be expected to comply with these rules and hence need regular inspection, resulting in incredible levels of corruption. This is slowly going away (slowly being the word). Another area is the need to reform the bureaucracy, the steel framework of India, which has mostly rusted. The bureaucracy in India is one of the most corrupt and tainted bodies, strongly supportive of the whims of the politician, where honest people either wither away or live a life resigned to not making much of a difference.
The biggest area in which Indian society needs to be reformed is the politician-police nexus. Unlikely would be the case of finding a citizen who is not either personally or indirectly been affected by the corruption of this nexus. A policeman is the force of law and order in our society, and has almost unparalleled power, being subject to only either a higher bureaucrat or policeman, or indirectly to the politician. However, this power brings with it a great responsibility, and this is where the police force falls flat. Historically, the police force has been the force of state rule, and this is now entrenched in India. A policeman decides who has done right or wrong, delivers immediate justice (in terms of punishment to some degree); and most importantly, decides whether a person can be spared (even if the person is doing a crime).
And this is where a politician comes into the picture. This power over society can be used to great personal benefit for the politician, and the proceedings shared with the policeman. How does a politician control the police force? Simple, through the power of moving a policeman to a good police station, or to one located in a bad area, or through the power of promotion. How many people have not heard of police posts in important areas not being sold (or policemen paying money to get these posts)? Or, whenever a new party takes over, it orders sweeping changes in the bureaucracy and the police force, so as to bring their own men into power. If the police force were impartial, where would come these concepts of mass transfers or 'own men' ?
Recognizing this, over a period of time, people, including the media and police reform committees have called for police reform. In the meantime, we have had numerous riots where the police force have shied away from their 'supposed' traditional role of law enforces or keepers of the peace, and have instead behaved as being from the same society, taking sides and being totally partial. The 1984 Delhi anti-sikh riots, 1992 Bombay riots, the Bhagalpur blindings, the 2002 Gujarat riots, all these are instances of the dismal failure of the police force bending to the
political masters. It is the army and paramilitary forces in India that are the final enforcers of the law.
In 1996, a case was filed in the Supreme Court by 2 former police heads (ex-DGPs Prakash Singh and N.K.Singh) asking for police reforms. Then a revolution. In 2006, September 22, the Supreme Court, recognizing that the Government and legislature was not expected to pass any accord on police reform that would affect the rights and powers of politicians, passed a sweeping judgment. It has some basic tenets, whereby the power of politicians to transfer police officers from the station upwards to the DGP was taken away (a single step to break away the nexus between the politician and police). This was an unprecedented taking away of the power of the executive and legislature, but enjoyed immense respect, and as you will read below, the court cared little for the screams from the politicians.
So what did the Supreme Court mandate? It ruled for:
- Setting up a State Security Commission to break the influence between the politician and police
- Ensure that police officers are appointed for a mandate of 2 years and also set up bodies to decide and nominate postings and transfers for police officers at different levels
- Set up independent Police Complaint Authorities to look into complaints against police officers for misconduct and serious crimes
It wanted to see compliance in a few months, with states setting up the required legislation to bring these into effect. Another first, with the court ordering states to create specific legislation, and the Central Government had created a nodal bill under the stewardship of Soli Sorabjee, and the expectation was that the states would create bills similar to this bill.
As expected, a number of states, especially ones where the nexus was all-important (yes, you guessed right, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, etc) screamed for a number of reasons. They screamed about the Supreme Court ordering something that was a state affair, they protested that this would make the police force no longer responsible to the people's representatives, they screamed that there are no complaints of political interference, and hence no need for such a measure, that fixed tenures will demoralize other officers, there is no need to bring the UPSC into recommending names for DGP posts, and that the complaints authority will demoralize the police and be outside the existing system. Essentially, what they were all moaning about was the cutting off of the police force selection process from the political system.
Anyhow, even though the states seemed to be getting their way of not following through the orders of the Supreme Court, eventually things seem to be on track. The Supreme Court has made clear that it does not care about the reservations expressed by the various states, and has over-ruled all the objections, and has been following through with the states about their measures for compliance. By May 2007, there were essentially 6 states that were still holding out, Uttar Pradesh being one of them. And then the Supreme Court threatened contempt:

The Supreme Court has directed the Chief Secretaries of six states to file their responses on a petition seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against them for not complying with the judgements of the apex court dated September 22, 2006, issued to improve the functioning of police in the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices B P Singh and G P Mathur issued directions to the Chief Secretaries of Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh on a petition filed by former UP DGP Parkash Singh, based on which the directions were issued.

Contempt petitions have a great influence in getting the political authority to move ahead on measures on which they have been somewhat stone-walling. There is some amount of hope that if the political authorities do not try to weaken these new measures, we may get a police form that is truly one that can say 'For you, with you', instead of 'from you, against you'.

And in a measure of some progress, one of the states, Gujarat is discussing a bill to implement these measures. As the states start falling into order, one wonders whether it is possible to dream of a situation where the police force is a force for law and order (eventually) and with reduced corruption.

Labels: Court, Governance, Image, India, Law, Police, Politics, Reform, Responsibility

India, an exporter of terrorism to the world? That would be an incredible cross for the country to bear, and yet recent events have brought that question much closer to everybody's mind. There does not seem to be much doubt that the recent terrorists attempts in England were the work primarily of Indian Muslims from Bangalore, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's attempted confession of shock at this and his degree of concern over the condition of the families of those caught.
The trail of events seem to lead to the fact that a fair amount of the inculcation into jehadist and terrorist thought had been already there in the minds of the people already arrested. The fact that they were fully indoctrinated during their stay in England does not clear us of the need to ensure that this country does not come under the shadow of international terrorism. India already has too many home grown terrorists of all religions and types (ULFA, Maoists, Kashmiri, Naga, Sikh, etc).
However, and this is a very delicate issue, the type of mass death and destruction that can happen due to the terrorists taking inspiration from a hardline interpretation of Islam is much greater than any other that the country has seen. Kashmiri terrorists of the JKLF type are strong believers in the concept of liberating Kashmir from Indian control, but it is only when the more hardline Islamic inspired terrorism of the Lashkar and its like took control that we saw many more attacks all over the country, especially the ones aimed at creating discord between communities (attacks on temples and mosques).
There are many such organizations in the country that are inspired by a so-called Wahabi path of Islam which believes that non-believers eventually need to be conquered and all nations need to be under one God, Allah. An example of a terrorist organization is the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) that was banned, but even when it was being banned, Laloo Prasad Yadav was in support.
Even now, the Government will be very careful about a crackdown on the areas where such hardline thoughts are being preached, primarily the madrasas. This is rotten justice. If somebody is preaching separatism or jehad or terrorism, measures need to be taken to shut it down and bring such a person to justice, but due to politics, the Government will not take such actions. A case in comparison is the situation in Assam where there is widespread pressure on the Government to take quick and hard action against ULFA, with no concerns about it being an organization comprising primarily Hindus.
If we have to prevent the radicalization of the minority community (and we have already seen an example of how bad that can be in Punjab), then we need to take the required measures to ensure that there is no atmosphere where such breeding can happen, where people can preach jehad or terrorism or separatism and get away under the guise of being a minority.

Labels: Community, Discrimination, Governance, Image, India, Law, Minority, Muslim, Security, Separatist, Terrorism

This has to be deliberate, the consequences of a well-thought plan in the Congress leadership as to how devise a legal scheme to get 'Q', the man close to the Gandhi's, off the hook in the cases against him. The CBI has to file cases against him due to media pressure, but every measure is taken to weaken the case against him, and since the CBI reports into the Department of Personnel, this is all easily doable. Otherwise, how can this happen?

The order, which gave reasons for the Argentine lower court’s June 8 verdict, clearly indicated that India had to lose its case against Quattrocchi because it did not get "fresh arrest warrant" against him immediately after Delhi High Court’s February 2004 and May 2005 judgments.
The Argentine lower court’s remarks now raises a big question mark over the CBI’s seriousness to pursue the well-connected Italian fugitive. It now appears that had the agency been serious in its quest for Quattrocchi’s arrest, it would have got fresh arrest warrant against him as soon as getting the May, 2005 Delhi High Court order — if not the February, 2004 order. But the CBI did not do so and it proved to be a boon for the Bofors case prime accused in the Argentine court.

The CBI is the premier investigating agency of the Government, with massive resources at its disposal. In addition, the Government has the best of legal advice on its own side. It is impossible to believe that the Government did not know about the course of action. There has been deliberate delay on the part of the Government so as to get 'Q' off the hook.
What actually happened? After the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the CBI did not file an appeal, nor did they get a fresh arrest warrant issued. And when did they get a fresh warrant issued? 17 days after the detention in Argentina. And this is in addition to losing the case in Malaysia, and the shocking incident of the Government second highest legal officer going to London to get the funds of 'Q' unfrozen, even after Supreme Court disapproval. But then I guess when there is a higher court in the Congress, what matters?
I would think, that just like the actions of the Supreme Court in making the post of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner independent, and of trying to implement a policy of making the police independent of the political system, it is required that the CBI be also independent of the political poison that has killed its credibility. It required a judge sitting in Argentina, so far away, to slap India's premiere investigating agency, the Central Bungler of Ineptitude (CBI) on the face, by awarding legal fees against it, and by essentially telling it that it is sloppy. Mark the words, the Congress Government is like a insect that is boring into the country's criminal law system and turning it hollow.

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Court, Image, India, Investigation, Law, Police

Ratan Tata is a pretty famous name in India, being head of a large business group that is well liked and does not have too many controversies around it. So, when he is appointed to be the Chairman of the Investment Commission, you would tend to think that the Government is somewhat serious about bring in investment in India. Unfortunately, bringing in investment in India is not something as simple as showing a rosy picture to investors and then waiting for money to flow in. Investors need assurance about stability of policies, and about simple procedures; no investor is in the game of playing how to beat the bureaucracy; they want preferably a single window clearance for processes. Given the number of countries liberalizing in Asia and other areas, such single window clearance is available elsewhere. Now, in a country such as India, there is a right to expect resistance, and to listen to people; but the present Government displays itself to be extremely weak willed. For one, there is an irrational belief that most measures of liberalization will adversely affect the aam admi (common man), and unless the Congress leadership (including the Madam) can
understand that building large manufacturing and infrastructure projets is a good way of economic development that will improve the conditions of the common man, there really does not seem a way ahead.
Unless they can get this belief and be convinced, they will be forever be held back by the likes of the Mani Shankar Aiyer and the central left (CPM) politburo. These gentlemen believe that all big industry is bad, that any move to increase liberalization is caving in to the Unites States and that our people are better off with the growth rates of the 70's and 80's, when everyone was suffering and hence united.
Anyhow, over with my rant, and back to the story of this article:

Leading corporate house Tata Group's chairman Ratan Tata has expressed concern over delay in various projects in the country in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
According to sources close to the development, Tata in his letter, written in his capacity as head of the country's Investment Commission, said that some government policies were coming in way of some of these projects. Tata in his letter mentioned the ventures announced by Lakshmi Mittal and Korean steel giant Posco in India.

This is actually an article in page 9 of the Economic Times of 26 May 2007. In the paper version, there are actually projects that are held up, such as the steel projects proposed by Posco, Mittal and Tata Steel, with investments of $45 billion. There are energy projects that are being help up due to worries about coal. Some loosening of restrictions in the area of banking and insurance could lead to more money flowing into the country.
Many projects have been held up on account of policy decisions between various ministries, and others have been held up on account of coordination with state governments missing the level of support required to get these projects going. No matter what the specific reason in each case, most people recognize the benefits that would flow in terms of getting such projects. If not here, many of them will go to China, or to other countries. It is incumbent upon the Government to take quick steps to clear these projects or reject them, not leave them hanging in such a manner that the investor finally threatens to quit, like Posco recently did. The Government's flip-flop on the SEZ matter is a good example of where policies keep on rotating depending on who is applying the pressure and what the politics are. We don't need to be like china in terms of absolute decision making, but on the other hand, we should certainly not spend too much time debating endlessly (another example was the time taken on the decision about airport privatization and the contracts).

Labels: Development, Governance, Image, India, Reform, Welfare

Labels: Cricket, Image, India, Sharing

Finally the 'royal' shaadi is over. Most people will guess correctly that I am talking about the marriage of Arun Nayar and Liz Hurley. When the functions related to the marriage were ongoing, the media coverage was incredible. I am sure that it was very important to the couple to enjoy the marriage, and may have been important to cover in terms of gossip, but it never made sense to me as to why national newspapers cover this event on the front page. I know, I know, give the news that readers are interested in, and gossip is one major part of that, but that is what inside pages are for.

The Television channels are even worse; it can get pretty funny sometimes. Something happens during the marriage, and you browse the news channels, except for the stock market channels (and a couple of others), every channel will have the same thing on their top stories list. At such times, one wishes for some political event to happen, so atleast there will be some variety in the coverage.

I wonder why this coverage of celebrities rankles me so much, maybe it is because it seems so non-serious. So two important personalities who do not live in India got married in India (although one of them is of Indian origin), and the coverage they get is incredible. What would have been nice to see are some inward looking stories about why there is so much press madness over celebrities. There were only two issues related to the marriage that came out - what were the various events that were happening, and how the poor journalists were mistreated by the security arrangements. This second part always makes me smile. The media wants to cover such events as if it is their birth-right, and if the concerned parties want to prevent this wide coverage and hire security, of course there are bound to be clashes.

From what coverage I have seen outside India, there is also media madness about celebrities, so the international media is no different in that respect. The difference that seems to be is that there is a section of the media that concerns itself to be about serious issues, and will avoid all these celebrity events and other such non-events. In India, I am yet to see such a differentiation in our print and visual media. The only exception to this celebrity chasing that I have observed is from the weekly magazines such as India Today and Outlook.

Any guesses on what the next such item is going to be? You guessed right - the marriage of Abhishek and Aishwariya will be tne next such media explosion. From news about this marriage and the World Cup Cricket, you will not be able to get any other news in any detail.

Labels: Community, Image, India, Waste

When we look around our cities, what do we see ? You see crowds, you see moving traffic, and you may see some beautiful buildings or monuments. Bring your gaze down a bit to ground level, and what do you see? Broken plastic bottles, torn wrappers, stubs of cigarettes and the matches used to light them, polythene bags (some empty, some containing some waste), and assorted other stuff.

If you are lucky, the place you are currently in has been cleaned recently, and there is only a light smattering of filth on the ground. If this cleaning has not happened, there will be a pile of rubbish that you have to carefully tread you way through. And when it rains, this rubbish turns into muck, and emits all sort of smells.

How does all this rubbish get onto the ground? Take a deep breath, stay in the same place for around one hour and keep on watching people around you. You will see how this filth starts accumulating. People from passing vehicles will open the window and drop the remains of whatever they were consuming (eatables, something to drink, smoke, etc.) onto the road.

People sitting by the side will consume peanuts, and drop the shells, as well as the container where they are sitting. A passing dump truck will have the rear not fully closed and hence will keep on leaving a trail of rubbish behind it. A sweeper will have collected the rubbish at the side, and a gust of wind will disperse it initially and keep on dispersing it till it is fully spread all over.

The worst problem is that people you would expect to keep the place clean (or at least not dirty it further), do not cooperate as you would like. I recently went with a group of colleagues to lunch outside the office, and after the lunch, they bought a couple of flavoured mint packets to eat. Once they had finished eating, these were simply dropped onto the road.

I am used to dirtying the surroundings far less, and it was very shocking to see something like this happening. I picked these wrappers up and kept them in my pocket to dispose of later; but this shocked me to the extent that I was rendered speechless and was not able to properly instruct them about their duty. The only good point was that another colleague shared the same viewpoint about ensuring cleanliness, and this gave me a level of confidence.

Why do people do this ? The primary reason that I could see was that people play 'follow the leader'. There is already so much stuff that people can see on the road on a regular basis that nobody thinks twice about leaving more stuff on the road. If everything was spic and span and clean, then a lot of people would think twice about leaving stuff on the road. I also think that civic sense is lacking in a lot of people, and this maybe because even though they do know that they are contributing to dirtying up the place, it is not something that they actively think about.

One way to increase awareness is to target schools. One campaign that seems to be slowly working through using school children as a medium is the cracker-free diwali concept. It should be fairly simple (but time consuming) to inculcate the feeling of cleanliness in children, and they can work as active agents to shame people who dirty up their surroundings.

Labels: Environment, Image, Waste