 |
|
Babus, deliver or go! Driving in top gear |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fee hike for quality
Grin and bear it
Best of both worlds
Chiding the chiefs The mask slips on a ‘modern’ China Delhi Durbar
|
Babus, deliver or go! The
Sixth Pay Commission has offered a substantial pay hike to the teeming bureaucracy. But as far as the mechanism to enforce accountability is concerned, the recommendations are rather wishy-washy. Nothing new in that, considering that the previous pay panels were also similarly vague on this vital matter. However, the Administrative Reforms Commission seems to be filling the gap. It has made concrete suggestions to hold officials responsible for service delivery. Targets of each department will be fixed, and work expectation from each civil servant will be spelt out in a written agreement. Those found incompetent or unable to deliver will be shipped out to make way for outsiders who can join the civil service in senior positions. This is exactly the recipe that a leaden babudom badly needs. Well-meaning as these proposals are, the question remains: who will bell the cat? The bureaucracy is so steeped in a pass-the-buck culture that it will be a Herculean task to make them fall in line. In any case, there is need to ensure that those who sit in judgment over others’ work are impartial and incorruptible. Otherwise, the whole exercise will get reduced to a mockery. When the bureaucracy talks of low salaries in the government, it completely forgets that there can be no free lunches. If those in the private sector get a far higher salary, they also have to put in more labour and also show results. Such a work culture is conspicuous by its absence in government departments. The proposed reforms can remedy the situation considerably, provided the assessment procedure does not become an unprofessional tool in the hands of unscrupulous bosses to intimidate the conscientious official who breaks the unproductive mould.
|
|
Driving in top gear There
should be no premature close to the Indian growth story, global fears of a US-led slowdown notwithstanding. While the Tatas have acquired the British Jaguar and Land Rover marques in majestic style, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram has expressed confidence of 9 per cent growth in 2008-2009, in a talk in Singapore, pointing only to price stability as a particular challenge. Hesitant projections of 8 per cent plus growth have been the norm of late. Chidambaram’s assurance need not be dismissed as “talking-up” the economy or the market, as there are enough pointers to suggest that the fundamentals are strong, and Indian companies are still looking ahead to growth. Even the stock market, so sensitive now to global trends, is on a recovery mode – and compared to where it was even a year ago, its indices are still at remarkable highs. Not that the Tatas will not have their hands full in their efforts to turn the British automobile legends around. While the Land Rover has been making some modest profit, Jaguar is in deep trouble – and trying to split them would be very difficult given the integration of their assembly lines and technologies. Erstwhile owners Ford were not successful in reviving Jaguar with new models, and despite being a premium car, it has had several quality issues. As for the Land Rover, there is already speculation that the more rugged models are good candidates for shifting production to India. Both the Tatas and the Indian Army will be aware that the Land Rover “Defender” is a popular vehicle in the British Army. Another challenge for the Tatas, though, with both cars, is their “gas-guzzling” propensities. But all said, the Tatas have followed up their acquisition of the Anglo-Dutch Corus steel company, with another move that has sent ripples across the British manufacturing world, already under siege for quite some time. The Indian multi-national has arrived on the scene, and the top companies should be looking to out-do each other, gaining valuable experience and expertise, not to mention new markets. As for the economy, attention will be needed on keeping prices stable – especially of foodgrains, which are at all time highs – and managing global pressures ranging from oil prices to drops in investment flows. But while these potential road blocks exist, India is still forging ahead on the fast lane.
|
|
Fee hike for quality One
cannot grudge the recent increase in the fee structure of the Indian Institutes of Management in Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Calcutta. Others in Lucknow, Kozhikode and Indore are expected to follow suit. IIM-Ahmedabad and IIM-Calcutta, which charge Rs 3 lakh a year, have announced an increase of Rs 1 lakh a year. However, of all IIMs, Bangalore’s will be the costliest — a student will have to pay Rs 4 lakh in his first year and a lakh more the next. The IIMs can independently decide their fee structure. The IIM-Bangalore’s board felt that this was the right time to increase the fee for the post-graduate programme. Undoubtedly, the IIMs are regarded as global brands. To promote quality education and preserve their global brand value, there was no alternative before the authorities than to increase the fee. Moreover, in the context of increasing infrastructural costs, it has become difficult for the authorities to run the IIMs without the fee hike. Equally important is the problem of attracting talent and retaining the faculty. One cannot attract talent without offering good salaries. An IIM professor with 10-year experience gets a gross salary of Rs 42,000 a month. After tax and other deductions, his take-home pay is around Rs 25,000. Certainly, this is a pittance compared to what some of their students earn after they graduate from the IIMs. Furthermore, the fee hike was imperative keeping in view the impending increase in the salaries of the teachers after the Sixth Pay Commission’s report comes into force. The fee hike should pose no problem for those getting qualified for the IIMs. The banks offer liberal loans to them and considering their market value, it would be quite easy for them to clear the loans within a reasonable timeframe after employment. Moreover, the IIMs offer scholarships to ensure that the deserving candidates do not suffer. While the fee hike was inevitable, the IIMs should spare no effort to measure up to their western peers. The faculty should constantly review the curricula and impart the best possible education to the students so that they maintain their competitive edge globally and emerge as the world’s best business leaders.
|
|
A thought which does not result in an action is nothing much, and an action which does not proceed from a thought is nothing at all. — Georges Bernanos
|
Grin and bear it NOW that the stock market has fallen from its dizzy high, this may be the time to pause and ponder. And, there is much more to figure out than when and at what level the market will bottom out. Even as you are reading this, indices such as the Sensex may have gained. These swings are reminders that what goes up will come down; the higher the rise, the harder the fall. In any case, investors don’t buy or sell the Sensex, but select equities, and these may be hurtling down even as the Sensex is rising. Few can say with any certainty why stocks plummeted as they did in March this year, not only in India but also across the world. When the market sinks, there are a clutch of gurus, experts and TV talking heads, who sketch it out like a tragedy foretold. The rationalisations after the event rarely answer why the insights and certitudes were missing before the downturn. It just goes to show that experts may know the jargon, but are no better than lay investors when it comes to taking calls on the market. With one difference though: Even in a plunging market the expert stays in business ladling out bromides and evasions while the ordinary investor is left to lament the loss of his savings as well as borrowings. In India, not all those who swear by the market are willing to live by it. Unlike in the US and other advanced economies, the capitalisation of the market — impressive as it is — is not representative of the economy. The equity markets are estimated to represent less than 5 per cent of the country’s economic activity. More significantly, reports suggest that not more than 20 to 25 per cent of India Inc is in the equity market. Yet, day in and day out, market ideologues keep up the clamorous exhortations to put our money in stocks. When the market is surging, in tones ringing with urgency, the investor is goaded to join the bull-run; when the market is tanking, the panicked investor is gently reprimanded to stay invested. The so-called expert has only one advice: Buy, buy, buy. Only the “reasons” cited are different. The “causes” for the market going up one day, crashing the next and reversing on the third day are attributed variously not such much to news, events and developments but to sentiments. The fact is that the market is not moved by news, good or bad. The news, both good and bad, is all there on a shelf. If the market falls, you pick the bad bits; if the market rises, you string up bits of good news to explain it. Otherwise, how does one explain the share markets moving on regardless of a tsunami, droughts, floods, riots, bomb-blasts and other occurrences that are a setback to the economy? These gung-ho market promoters are a new priesthood, with their own mantras to lure the gullible to gamble their hard-earned money where they themselves would not dare to tread. Therein lies the magic of market mantras. At times like these, the mantras go for a toss; and, times like these bare the truth that those who swear by the market have as little faith in it as those who are deprived of the entitlement for participation. And, the mantras begin to lose their magic. Mantra One is that the market is the arbiter of our fortunes: the great equaliser, the road to riches and a world of untapped opportunities. People begin to believe that it is stupid not to invest in the market: the way to wealth is not just through hard work, savings and prudent husbanding of resources but by buying and selling stocks; that if one is not making money it is because of ignorance, fear and lack of greed. In stark contrast to the promises held out by this mantra, some of the biggest Indian companies are not listed or traded in the stock market. This class includes dominant media companies that sell the market to their readers and viewers as the ultimate vehicle of economic emancipation and empowerment. If that is truly so, why are these very companies — which are in business for profit to the exclusion of all other values — not listed in the stock market? Why are these companies still closely held as family property? Why do they not submit to the same rules of transparency, which they advocate for other corporate, public, market and regulatory institutions? There is a strong case for distrust and skepticism here, distrust of those unabashedly promoting the market without staking their own cash cows in it. A healthy skepticism combined with common sense could save common investors a lot of grief. Mantra Two identifies the government — the state, actually — as the source of all economic evil. People are constantly “educated” on how they don’t need government; what they need is the market, corporates and a pantheon of business leaders who will lead them to the light by which they can live prosperously ever after. Implied is that government should be left to them as an instrument for maximising private profit at the expense of public interest. The moment the market is headed for a crisis, the tycoons run to the very mai-baap sarkar — which they said should be shunned by the citizens — and plead to be rescued with public resources. Even in that citadel of free enterprise, the US, when the big guns on Wall Street fail to fire, it is big government they look up to for a lifeline. Mantra Three follows from Mantra Two: The public sector, created by the government, is a drag on the state, economy and the people. The “sins of Nehruvian socialism”, as the public sector undertakings (PSUs) are called, should be liquidated. These worthless behemoths of monumental mediocrity that foster sloth, we are told, just breed parasites. It is astonishing then that the shares of these very PSUs — ONGC, BHEL, NTPC, SAIL, GAIL, to mention a few — are the most sought after, more so as anchor when the markets are in turmoil. The offer of Reliance Power shares, from the house that unleashed the new equity cult, bombed in the market on listing day, while some other big-ticket issues had to be scrapped for want of takers. There was no such cloud over Rural Electrification Corporation — another Nehruvian sin — the shares of which were lapped up. If the public sector is, indeed, so bereft of merit and undeserving of the salary increase proposed by the Sixth Pay Commission, it makes no sense for infrastructure giants in the private sector to be pirating people from PSUs with promises of even higher pay. These contradictions — between what market ideologues preach and practice — don’t make sense. That’s because there is no sense in it. The fault lies in trying to make sense of hollow mantras and believing those who chant them. It just makes losers of us
all.
|
Best of both worlds
I bet none of these couples is going to get married,” declared my better half while we were strolling in a neighbourhood park. The moral policewoman in her couldn’t stand the unabashed PDA (public display of affection) by the “time-pass” lovebirds. “So what? It’s not wrong to have a good time as if there’s no tomorrow,” I commented with bohemian boldness. “You are totally wrong,” she thundered. “These youngsters are fooling not only each other but also their parents. They have no sense of…” I didn’t hear the rest as my attention was diverted by a pair coochie-cooing on the lush-green grass amid the colourful flowers. To me, this park seemed nothing less than the Garden of Eden; to my wife, however, it was the Den of Iniquity. “Since you are not listening, Mr Deaf Ears, I’d better not waste my breath,” she remarked. “I have an idea,” I said, completely ignoring her sarcastic barb. “Why don’t we act like an unmarried couple?” “What on earth do you mean?” I told her my “plan”. At first, she flatly refused. After much coaxing, I managed to get her nod for a little game. “But not for more than five minutes,” she asserted. The rest is chemistry. We became virtually indistinguishable from the other twosomes around us. She was sitting on a bench, I was reclining in her lap, and we were exchanging sweet nothings instead of bitter somethings. She was a bit apprehensive that someone might recognise us, but I urged her not to bother. “Whoever spots us will feel envious that our marriage looks so fresh even after several years,” I argued convincingly. The five-minute time limit was well exceeded. Only when it started getting dark did we get up reluctantly to return home. Holding hands, we left the park with the feeling that it was in our own hands to have the best of both worlds — come what may.
|
Chiding the chiefs Both
Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon were known to be impolite and in fact abrasive in dealing with the higher command of the military. They took little note of their advice on strategic issues, which finally led to the military high command becoming reticent. There occurred a yawning gap in the inter-action between them and the political executive. This was to eventually lead to the 1962 debacle with China and national humiliation. Jaswant Singh’s upbraiding of the Chief of Army Staff on the latter’s clarifications during a TV interview on the Chinese patrols crossing the Line of Actual Control (LAC ) along the Tibet border is nothing new. Political leaders, even when holding positions in government, often indulge in criticising serving chiefs. They are quite oblivious of the effect it would have on future interaction with the chiefs and of course the fall out on morale and discipline of the defence services. Jaswant comes from a family with a strong military tradition and is a former military officer from a famous cavalry regiment. Above all, he has been a defence minister. Therefore, his using intemperate language against the COAS for saying nothing more than what his minister said on the issue, is rather inexplicable. When at a press briefing, during the mobilisation of the Indian defence forces, consequent to the attack on the Indian Parliament, the then COAS, General Padmanabhan., responding to a searching question from the press on the possible use of nuclear weapons by an opponent, gave an unambiguous, forthright and pointed reply. It was entirely in line with the ‘Indian Nuclear Doctrine’ as spelled out in the document on the subject, prepared by the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB). The document is unclassified and in the public domain. More over, the Defence Minister himself had aired similar views a few days earlier Yet the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, went ahead to chide him and term his handling of the subject at the press conference as ‘cavalier.’ One cannot help but recall the earlier sordid and disgraceful act of sacking of the Naval Chief by the government, consequent to the machinations by the then defence secretary (who himself was severely indicted by the Delhi High Court in another case), and the gross mishandling of the case by George Fernandes. But the present Defence Minister, A.K. Antony, is surely of a different genre. Yet he too thought no better of rebuking the naval chief on the latter’s objecting to Russia substantially jacking up the already agreed upon price, and paid for in 2004, for the Gorshkov aircraft carrier being refitted in Russia. The aircraft carrier is now expected to be delivered in 2011 instead of 2008, the date earlier agreed upon. Obviously, our political class is not schooled in the handling of such delicate matters and the possible fallout, on the rank and file, of their publicly denigrating the service chiefs. No wonder an army commander openly flouts his chief ’s orders and refuses to accept his posting, from one army command to another, kicking up much dust in the process. Therefore, when a TV anchor, at prime time, with two major-generals (Ashok Metha and Afzal Karim) in attendance, commenting on the dust kicked up by the army commander under reference, called the Chief of the Army Staff as ‘Thief of the Army Staff,’ it came as no surprise. Military ethos does not permit even the ticking-off an appointment holder in the presence of his command, no matter how high-ranking an officer or dignitary attempting to do so may be. This public rebuke of the Chief of the Army Staff gravely undermines his position. In reply to another question, in the same interview, General Padmanabhan quite rightly brought out the fact that keeping the morale of the army high was his business. With his own position discredited by his Minister, he would have found it difficult to sustain the morale of troops. The place of the Chief of Army Staff is unique in the military scheme of things and he must be seen, by his officers and men, as infallible and beyond reproach. Any attempt to openly denigrate him is bound to seriously compromise his position and adversely affect the implicit faith and confidence the Service must have in him. Admittedly the Indian political class, unlike in most other countries, has no military background or schooling in good manners, but self-education on matters military is possible; definitely by the defence minister, at the very least. This brings us to the issue of service chiefs airing their views on issues directly related to their job and troops. When the British government decided to send troops for the invasion of Iraq, to join American forces, the Chief of Defence Staff of Britain, Sir Michael Boyce demanded an unequivocal statement from his government that the invasion of Iraq was lawful. The armed forces were given an assurance that the conflict would not be illegal. Without it, Boyce felt, “his troops could have laid themselves open to charges of war crimes.” In India, the COAS asking for such an assurance from the Government before moving troops to Sri Lanka would have kicked up a storm. Finally, Winston Churchill, speaking on the subject said: “The Indian Army is not so much an arm of the executive branch, as it is of the Indian people. Military professionals have the duty and obligation to ensure that the people and political leaders are counselled and alerted to the needs and necessities of military life. This cannot be done by adhering to the notion of the military profession as a silent order of monks isolated from the political realm.”
|
|
The mask slips on a ‘modern’ China China
can go for great stretches these days looking like the model of a postmodern, 21st-century power. Visitors to Shanghai see soaring skyscrapers and a booming economy. Conference-goers at Davos and other international confabs see sophisticated Chinese diplomats talking about “win-win” instead of “zero-sum.” Western leaders meet their Chinese counterparts and see earnest technocrats trying to avoid the many pitfalls on the path to economic modernisation. But occasionally the mask slips, and the other side of China is revealed. For China is also a 19th-century power, filled with nationalist pride, ambitions and resentments; consumed with questions of territorial sovereignty; hanging on repressively to old conquered lands in its interior; and threatening war against a small island country off its coast. It is also an authoritarian dictatorship, albeit of a modern variety. The nature of its rule isn’t visible on the streets of Shanghai, where people enjoy a degree of personal freedom as long as they keep their noses out of politics. It is only when someone challenges its authority that the brute power on which the regime ultimately rests shows itself. In 1989, it was students in Tiananmen Square. A few years ago it was the Falun Gong. Today it is Tibetan protesters. Tomorrow it may be protesters in Hong Kong. Someday it may be dissidents on a “reunified” island of Taiwan. This is the aspect of China that does not seem to change, despite our liberal progressive conviction that it must. In the 1990s, China watchers insisted it was only a matter of time before China opened. It was precisely this current generation of technocrats, not schooled in Soviet-style communism, who were supposed to begin reforming the system. Even if they didn’t want to reform, the requirement of a liberalizing economy would leave them no choice: The growing Chinese middle class would demand greater political power, or the demands of a globalized economy in the age of the Internet would force China to change in order to compete. Today this all looks like so much wishful thinking - self-interested wishful thinking, to be sure, since, according to the theory, China would get democratic while Western business executives got rich. Now it looks as if the richer a country gets, whether China or Russia, the easier it may be for autocrats to hold on to power. More money keeps the bourgeoisie content and lets the government round up the few discontented who reveal their feelings on the Internet. More money pays for armed forces and internal security forces that can be pointed inward at Tibet and outward at Taiwan. And the lure of more money keeps a commerce-minded world from protesting too loudly when things get rough. The question for observers of Chinese foreign policy is whether the regime’s behavior at home has any relevance to the way it conducts itself in the world. Recall that in the 1990s we assumed there was a strong correlation: A more liberal China at home would be a more liberal China abroad, and this would gradually ease tensions and facilitate China’s peaceful rise. That was the theory behind the strategy of engagement. Many still argue that the goal of American foreign policy should be, in scholar G. John Ikenberry’s words, to “integrate” China into the “liberal international order.” But can a determinedly autocratic government really join a liberal international order? Can a nation with a 19th-century soul enter a 21st-century system? Some China watchers imagine the nations of East Asia gradually becoming a kind of European Union-style international entity, with China, presumably, in the role of Germany. But does the German government treat dissent the way China does, and could the European Union exist if it did? That is the difference between a 21st-century postmodern mentality and a nation still fighting battles for empire and prestige left over from a distant past. These days, China watchers talk about it becoming a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. But perhaps we should not expect too much. The interests of the world’s autocracies are not the same as those of the democracies. We want to make the world safe for democracy. They want to make the world safe, if not for all autocracies at least for their own. People talk about how pragmatic Chinese rulers are, but like all autocrats what they are most pragmatic about is keeping themselves in power. We may want to keep that in mind as we try to bring them into our liberal international order. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
Delhi Durbar BJP leader L.K. Advani’s decision to present his book personally to Congress president Sonia Gandhi at her residence last week has triggered an animated discussion in Delhi’s overactive political cricles about how politicians of different hues have interacted with their opponents over the years. A senior BJP leader recalled how old-timers like Indira Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, P.V. Narasimha Rao, Bhairon Singh Shekawat and Chandra Shekhar never allowed their political differences to come in the way of forging friendly relations with their rivals. Sharad Pawar, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and Digvijay Singh, according to him, are among the present day politicians who make that special effort to reach out to their adversaries. Surprisingly, the BJP leader was all praise for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who, according to him, is among the most gracious and polite leaders, who is not shy of even coming up to door to receive his political rival. More words than votes! News that former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh is writing a book on Jinnah has disconcerted BJP leaders. Having barely recovered from the unseemly controversy generated by senior leader L.K.Advani’s pro-Jinnah remarks, the party is now wondering what fresh trouble awaits them. In fact, several senior leaders are quite angry with Jaswant Singh for having chosen to write a book on such a sensitive subject , particularly at this juncture when the party is faced with a string of asembly elections ahead of next year’s Lok Sabha elections. “Why should he write a book on Jinnah, of all the subjects... in any case, politicians should be jduged by the number of votes they get and not what they write,” muttered an angry BJP leader, clearly indicating that Jaswant Singh is certainly not a hot favourite with his colleagues. Chautala’s return Even as national political parties are debating the contents of BJP’s “PM-in-waiting” L.K. Advani’s memoirs, a side-show was played out at the book release last week that could have an impact on Haryana politics. BJP’s former political ally and Indian National Lok Dal chief Om Prakash Chautala was among those who turned up at the book launch. Chautala and BJP had parted ways acrimoniously before the last Lok Sabha polls and then went on to contest the Haryana assembly elections as rivals. Although Chautala has tried his hand at the formation of a “third front”, his friend, Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, ensured that the former Haryana cheif minister continued to share political space with the BJP, at least in Punjab. It now seems quite certain that a formal alliance between Chautala and the BJP is in the offing Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Hooda and the father-son duo of Bhajan Lal-Kuldeep Bishnoi will need to keep an eagle eye out on these moves. Contributed by Anita Katyal and Ajay Banerjee
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
