|
|
Verdict for transparency Lend me some money Demat of degrees |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silence of the wolf
No news, good news
No peace in Nepal
without Maoists Enjoy cheap money
while it lasts Small states good
for development ?
|
|
Lend me some money
Being
the Finance Minister of a debt-ridden, fiscally irresponsible state like Punjab must be one of the most embarrassing jobs in India. No wonder, off and on a helpless Mr Manpreet Singh Badal erupts in exasperation. With the budget-making exercise under way, the FM is to put his figures together to understand the state of current finances and brief the Planning Commission accordingly next month. He has often spoken publicly how subsidies are bleeding the exchequer, but the other two Badals just ignore or even snub him. Yet he hangs on to power. As successive Punjab governments have been relying on loans to meet their financial commitments, the state has accumulated a staggering debt of Rs 63,000 crore. When the Finance Commission offered last year to defer the recovery of Rs 15,000 crore and cut interest on Rs 25,000 crore of the loan amount provided the state government ends populist subsidies, levies user-charges on services and restores house tax in cities, the political leadership chose to dither instead of lapping up the offer. The Chief Minister deputed his son, Mr Sukhbir Badal, and Industries Minister Manoranjan Kalia to review the subsidies. However, since Mr Manpreet Badal, a vocal critic of the subsidies, was not included in the committee, it became clear the government’s intentions were less than honest and the whole exercise was a farce. The committee was given two weeks’ time to submit its report. It has taken more than three months and there is no sign of a report. None in the government feels embarrassed selling public land to raise money. Various departments face legal cases from harried citizens for payment defaults. Development has come to a halt. No one even talks about it. Infrastructure, health and education face the brunt of non-governance. The state may invite a financial emergency unless urgent steps are taken to mobilise resources. But is the Chief Minister really bothered about it at all?
|
|
|
Demat of degrees
The
Central Government’s decision to make available online in the electronic format all educational degrees and certificates from the school to the university level is a very heartening development. So serious has become the problem of fake degrees and even fake institutions that it was necessary to plug the gaping holes in the system. By setting up a suitable registered electronic depository which would dematerialise the academic degrees and certificates, the scope for fake degrees would be minimised. Not only would the depository store the new degrees that would form part of the national database by assigning individual account numbers and passwords, it would also be assigned the task of converting old degrees and certificates from physical into electronic form. That there is the benefit of experience in the demat of share certificates is a matter of relief. The National Securities Depository Limited and the Central Depository Services Limited, which currently deal in share certificates stored electronically, are well equipped to take on this role. Considering that all degrees that are electronically converted will be preserved on the national database, the need for institutions to maintain physical degrees for years together would be obviated. That would be a big boon for institutions. The problem of replacing lost degrees and certificates would also end. The students on their part would be saved the bother of getting attestation done. Having said all this, it is important that this plan be implemented without any dragging of feet and extended to the entire country so that vested interests do not take advantage of the areas where it is not in operation. The scale of the dematting operation would indeed be a major challenge. It is also time that all unrecognised institutions be given a specific time frame to meet the requirements for recognition so that those that remain outside the system are disallowed from continuing. As for those who continue to produce fake degrees in physical form, the punishment must be swift and stringent. |
|
|
Alexander ... asked him if he lacked anything. ‘Yes’, said he, ‘that I do: that you stand out of my sun a little.’
— Diogenes
|
Silence of the wolf All
through the recent brouhaha in the BJP, which saw a change of guard at the top, Mr Arun Jaitley’s objections to the party’s shrillness and the expulsion of Mr Jaswant Singh, one man maintained an enigmatic silence. Yet, he has often been mentioned as a leader who can revive the party’s fortunes and whose brand of politics is seen as a more combative version of Hindutva. Even then Mr Narendra Modi chose to take a back seat while his party grappled with the aftermath of defeats in two successive general elections and an uneasy transition to GenNext. The only event which turned the spotlight on him was his championing of a legislative measure making voting compulsory in local elections. However, the flurry of statements and counter-statements about the controversial step died down as the BJP dealt with more immediate problems such as the assumption of the office of party president by the previously virtually unknown Mr Nitin Gadkari and the government formation in Jharkhand. As a result, there has been no convincing explanation for Mr Modi’s aloofness from national politics at a crucial time when the RSS was suspected to be tightening its grip on the BJP through Mr Gadkari. Considering that Mr Modi’s name was touted as a possible future Prime Minister by Mr Arun Shourie, among others, on the eve of the general elections, one might have expected the Gujarat strong man to play a more active role. Instead, he chose to behave like a typical provincial apparatchik who has only a minor say in national affairs. Of course, no one places Mr Modi in the ranks of Mr Shivraj Singh Chauhan or Mr Raman Singh or Mr
B.S. Yeddyurappa if only because his larger-than-life image cannot be ignored even when he remains in the background. It is also possible that because Mr Modi is aware of the influence which he exerts even when remaining quiet that he does not mind staying put in Gujarat. However, the deliberate shunning of the limelight may not be without a purpose. If a senior police officer, one of the few who defied Mr Modi during the 2002 riots is to be believed, the Chief Minister confided after the outbreak that the violence had gone out of control. Kuchh zyada hi ho gaya, he is supposed to have said. Mr Modi’s subsequent behaviour also points to a deliberate attempt to distance himself from the carnage which, he undoubtedly realises, has become a permanent stain on his reputation. Although he has refused to apologise for the disturbances, he has also resisted all attempts to raise the issue at public forums and insisted more than once that he stands for all the people of the state, irrespective of their religion. The post-carnage emphasis on development also underlines a conscious attempt to build a new image of himself, which is different from his earlier hawkish reputation. There are occasional lapses, of course, as during the Sohrabuddin Sheikh episode when he drew cheers from the crowd over the killing of the accused in a fake encounter. But there have been no crude references to the religious backgrounds of Mrs Sonia Gandhi and Mr James Michael Lyngdoh, as in 2002. But even more significant than these uncharacteristic signs of sobriety is the reason which Mr Modi advanced for his preference for compulsory voting. According to him, such a focus on individuals to ensure that they will have no alternative but to cast their votes will deflect attention from treating them as vote banks. As a result, the parties will have to shed their segmented approach in terms of caste or community and accord greater importance to them as citizens. In a way, this approach of treating society as a composite whole is in tune with Mr Modi’s development-oriented policies, whose rationale is that a higher growth rate will benefit everyone and not particular groups. For a person whose dubious role during the riots is still being scanned by the Supreme Court and whose attitude towards the refugee colonies housing Muslims was callous in the extreme - he called them child-breeding factories - the turning away of his government’s attention from communities to individuals is difficult to explain. What is more, since most of Mr Modi’s decisions are seen by his detractors to have been inspired by a sinister motive, even the latest move will be regarded with considerable suspicion. Some may interpret it as the kind of an unofficial census of religious minorities which the Gujarat government initiated after the anti-Christian violence in the Dangs area to identify the members of the community. Since compulsory voting entails the possession of identity cards, it will mean that no one can hide if the law comes into force. As a recent report from Surat said, many Muslims assume Hindu names there to secure employment in diamond units. Such subterfuge will no longer be possible. Notwithstanding such misgivings, there is little doubt that the proposed law runs counter to the basic objectives of caste-based and communal parties like the BSP and the BJP, to name only two, with their targeting of certain groups and demonising of others. It is necessary to remember that even the BSP realised that concentrating only on Dalits would not take it far and that there was a need, therefore, for a rainbow coalition which included the Manuvadi Brahmins, who were previously excoriated as traditional enemies of the Dalits. Similarly, the forced moderation of some of the BJP leaders like Mr L. K. Advani in line with the example set by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee was an explicit admission that the Hindu vote was not enough for it to gain power. In some respects, Mr Modi’s idea of compulsory voting endorses this inescapable fact of electoral politics where dependence only on a group of voters yields limited dividends. It is difficult to predict the outcome of elections under the new law. Besides, whether the measure will at all be enacted is doubtful because, first, a consensus may elude the political class. Secondly, civil libertarians may see it as an infringement of basic rights since a person should have the freedom not to vote. And, thirdly, the enforcement of the law in so large a country where people are almost always on the move may be as difficult as the decision on the kind of punishment for the absentee voters. The law courts will also be clogged by petitioners challenging their punishment. Irrespective of the fate of the proposed law, what is more relevant is Mr Modi’s purpose behind the unusual initiative. It is clear that he wants to project himself as someone different from the average politician who is forever embroiled in ego hassles within his own party and in striking opportunistic deals with other individuals and parties. In contrast to them, Mr Modi apparently wants to demonstrate his intention to rise above mundane party politics and to show that he is concerned with issues which have societal implications. Development is one of them and compulsory voting another. At a time when the BJP is entering the post-Vajpayee and post-Advani phase when it has no obviously popular front-runners among its current crop of leaders, Mr Modi does not want to be seen jostling for party positions with the Jaitleys and Sushmas and Gadkaris, or presenting different interpretations about the inclusiveness or otherwise of Hindutva, or whether December 6, 1992, was the “saddest day” or shauriya divas, as the VHP’s Mr Ashok Singhal wants it to be called. Yet, as the Chief Minister tries to reinvent himself, he must be aware that the leopard is not known to change its spots. What is more, he cannot be sure that the BJP and, more importantly, the RSS will endorse his idea of reducing the importance of parties at the expense of individual voters. If his intention is to position himself in a way which will enable him to play a larger role in national affairs, he may not find the going
easy.
|
|||||
No news, good news The
Editor was grim-faced as he rapped the staff meeting to order. “We’re up against it in no uncertain manner, “ he said, “our readers are complaining bitterly that we’re driving them up the wall and inducing in them suicidal thoughts by publishing unremitting bad news — strikes, bandhs, riots, full text of the Prime Minister’s speech on Panchayati Raj institutions and the women’s reservation bill.” “As you know, it’s our established policy only to inform and educate our readers and not instigate them to end it all by reaching for the nearest open razor.” “I’ve decided on a redical U-turn in our editorial policy. From tomorrow, we shall publish only good news and nothing but good news. Bad news is out and out for good. I welcome suggestions.” The paper’s crime reporter —a veteran of 25 years in covering the police beat said: “I’ll do an upfront story to the effect that thanks to improved policing methods and citizens’ involvement, the crime graph is showing a downward trend and underline the fact that during 2008-09, there were only 8306 cases of house break-ins compared to 8309 cases during the preceding year.” He was handed an urgent note: “Come home immediately. Miscreants have broken into your house in broad daylight and they have gotten away with everything they can lay their hands on, including the imported electronic burglar alarm and the German Shepherd watch dog.” The paper’s distinguished political analyst said, “I’ll do a two-part oped lead article to the effect that with the formation of the Congress-led coalition government at the centre, Indian politics has entered a more mature and healthy phase and instability and fragmentation of political parties should soon be a thing of the past.” He was handed a telex message: “Lok Dal (Ajit Singh) has split into Lok Dal (Ajit) and Lok Dal (Singh). The paper’s young sports correspondent said eagerly. “I’ll do an upbeat story to the effect that Indian hockey is on the comeback trail and retrieve its lost glory, highlighting the fact that in the pre Olympic quarter finals-Indian ‘A’ team lost by a solitary goal to Kenya ‘D’ team.” He was called to the telephone to take a message: “Indian ‘A’ team lost by a margin of 18 goals to Rwanda Burundi ‘Y’ team.” The editor was close to despair when the paper’s press manager walked into the room. “I’m afraid tomorrow’s “Good News Only” edition can’t be printed, “he announced gravely. “Why not ? snapped the editor going red in the face. “Because,” said the manager, “the printing staff has just gone on an indefinite
strike.”
|
|||||
No peace in Nepal without Maoists Out
of power, the Prachanda-led Maoists in Nepal are like fish out of water. Everything was going for them but for their crossing one red line too many. Sacking the Army Chief, Gen Rukmangad Katwal, who was seen as the last obstacle to absolute power, was their undoing while enriching the Maoist lexicon with the mantra of civilian supremacy. Overgenerous overtures to the Chinese at the party, military, government and track II levels raised hackles in Delhi. Eight months outside Singha Durbar have been a chastening experience for the Maoist grand design of “looking beyond India” — Prachanda’s vision of reducing dependence on India. The late King Birendra came to grief exploring this alternative during the economic blockade of the late 1980s, which resulted in the restoration of multi-party democracy. The battle between the old guard and the new revolutionaries over reforming Nepal is at the crossroads. Invoking the lofty principle of civilian supremacy, the Maoists organised disruptive protest campaigns in three phases, which blocked the Constituent Assembly that doubles as Parliament, paralysing the government. This brought no relief to the Maoists despite regular announcements that a new national unity government led by them would soon be in power. Deception and self-delusion have become integral to their bravado illustrated famously by the ill-fated attacks at Khara in 2005 which forced hardliners into realising that the military capture of Kathmandu was not feasible. That was when the ground reality first hit the Maoists. Once again the Maoists have learnt the hard way that they cannot be returned to power through unconstitutional means by winning street battles. Like their leaders recognised in 2005 that India will not allow them to seize Kathmandu, they are belatedly admitting that Delhi’s blessings are essential for returning to Singha Durbar. Prachanda observed: “We will have to talk to India” with his deputy party ideologue Baburam Bhattarai adding “It is time to hold talks, not with the puppet (government) but those who run the puppet”. He added: “We will declare the constitution from the streets and capture power if the deadline (28 May 2010) to write the constitution is not met.” The Maoists are a bundle of contradictions as all the delay is on their account. Mr Bhattarai clarifies: “We know the constitution will not be written so that the Constituent Assembly can be annulled and President’s rule imposed”. Except for three days the Maoists have not allowed Parliament to function. The same is the fate of the constitutional drafting process with Mr Bhattarai claiming: “Not a word will be written which is not our word”. One of the issues Prachanda wants to discuss with Delhi is reducing Nepal’s trade deficit, which this year has risen by 40 per cent. Rather than blaming India, notes a Nepali journalist, “Prachanda needs to do some soul-searching to realise to what extent his party has contributed to the demise of the manufacturing sector, export-oriented production and export potential”. It is the Maoists’ fault, given their pressure on an increase in wages/ allowances, strikes of trade unions, industrial complexes and the transportation sector, power shortages, road closures and excesses of the Young Communist League (YCL) — clearly “it is Prachanda’s trade deficit,” he adds. Everyone realises that the current stalemate can be broken mainly with India’s mediation. Delhi has been instrumental in fashioning major changes in Nepal: ouster of the Ranas in 1950, short-lived experiment with democracy in 1959, restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990 and mainstreaming the Maoists and ending the monarchy in 2005-06. As the back channel the Delhi Agreement of November 2005 between the Maoists and the political parties was facilitated by India. Nepalis say Delhi has a moral responsibility to ‘reset’ the peace process. Delhi’s terms for talks with the Maoists have been communicated to them. These are not different from what Prachanda agreed to in Delhi in 2005 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006 — support for multi-party democracy, rule of law, human rights, an independent judiciary, free media and so on, all once anathema to the Maoists. They had also agreed to return the confiscated property and disband the YCL. With Maoists in violation of these agreements, Delhi wants them to be tamed. It is precisely what the majority of the political parties, civil society and the people of Nepal want. To its terms of engagement, Delhi has added its renewed concerns about the Maoist overreach to Beijing and the latter’s over-ingress into Nepal. The Maoist response to Indian terms is not known but their call for talks was acknowledged when Ambassador Rakesh Sood met Prachanda before visiting Delhi for consultations over the new year. The present Nepal government without Maoists on board is like a boat without oars. Foreign Minister SM Krishna will be in Kathmandu (January 15) and will meet the Leader of Opposition, Prachanda, among other leaders. They could explore ending the stalemate through the instrument of a package deal, factoring in the concerns of the immediate stakeholders, including the UN Mission in Nepal. Underlining the package deal must be the resolve of political parties to write an inclusive constitution with a national unity government, which includes the Maoists. All previous agreements not honoured will have to be implemented. The integration of the Maoists (PLA) with the Nepal Army has to be the key driver of the compromise agreement. The Indian Embassy in Kathmandu, in an unprecedented step, has disowned the Indian Army Chief’s statement rejecting integration. A mechanism for disbanding and reintegrating the YCL, helping Maoists to be taken off the US terror watch list and separate economic packages for the Maoists and the peace process are other ingredients of the package, which will not stick unless there is a referee to monitor the peace process. As the high-level political mechanism has not worked, a more robust body is required. Recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr GP Koirala, the last of the first-generation leaders, is no longer fit and able to mentor the peace process. Meanwhile, the Maoists have announced the fourth phase of their agitational politics: Accept our leadership of a national unity government or face indefinite countrywide strikes from January 24. They will also target Delhi for interventionist politics. Nudged from their laid-back stance, major political parties launched a show of solidarity on the birth anniversary of King Prithvi Narayan Shah, who founded and united Nepal, repudiating the Maoist declaration of ethnicity-based federal state, which is regarded by most others as a sure means of splitting the country. That the pain caused by the Maoist protest programmes has made them more unpopular than King Gyanendra after he seized power in 2005 is only a Kathmandu-centric view, say Maoist sympathisers. With blood on their hands and power on their minds, the Maoists have one more chance of legitimately reclaiming power — during the general elections after the constitution is written. Time is running out for Nepal. Delhi cannot ignore the Maoist status as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly. Without the Maoists, there is no peace process and a new
Nepal.
|
|
Enjoy cheap money while it lasts Interest
rates are on the rise again. Not here as yet, nor in most of Europe or in the US. But looking around the world, it is clear that the tide of cheap money will turn in the next few months and the issue will be not where, whether or when, but how quickly rates will go up. And there will be little that an individual country such as our own will be able to do about it. Actually something happened yesterday that highlights what will happen. Up to now there have been a few isolated cases of central banks increasing interest rates – Norway and Australia, for example – but there has been no general movement. But yesterday the Bank of China announced that it would increase the reserves that banks have to hold, the first such increase since June 2008. That is not a headline increase in rates as such but it is a sign of things to come. China matters hugely. It is not only becoming the world’s second-largest economy as it is now passing Japan, but it is also the world’s largest source of savings. Its banks are the largest in the world: there is no talk of banks being “too big to fail” there. If you look at the world economy as a whole, as opposed to seeing it through a British, European or North American prism, the turning point in the interest rate cycle has now been reached. In any case long-term interest rates are clearly on the rise and have been for some months. In Britain 10-year yields on government securities are over four per cent, whereas back last spring they were only about three per cent. Rates would doubtless have risen faster had it not been for the Bank of England buying so much of the Government’s debt under its quantitative easing programme. That is now coming towards its end. The Bank’s Monetary Committee can decide to hold short-term interest rates down but it cannot control what happens to longer-term rates. These are determined by the supply and demand for savings around the world, and the UK Ggovernment has to compete for these savings, just like other would-be borrowers. The effect of this is starting to be felt. It is more expensive now to get a fixed-rate mortgage than it was a few months ago. Companies seeking to reduce their bank loans by raising money with bond issues have to pay more for those funds. If there is any doubt about the security of a country’s finances, its government finds it has to pay much more to cover its deficit. That is why Ireland and Greece have recently brought in severe budget measures, with clearly more to come in the case of Greece. It is why we too will have to get our public finances under control as soon as possible after the election. But interest rates will rise irrespective of what our next government does – the question is one of degree – and we had better get used to this. Instinctively we know this. One of the really stunning things that has happened in recent months has been the extent to which British households have started to save again. You may recall that a couple of years ago people were actually spending more than they had in income: people borrowed against the value of their houses and used the money to hold up their consumption. That has completely reversed, partly of course because mortgages have become much tighter. Now, savings are up to about eight per cent of income, the highest level since the early 1990s. People who are lucky enough to have mortgages linked to base rates seem to be using the extra monthly savings to pay back their mortgages more swiftly. The world has changed and we know it. What we don’t know is how quickly things get back to normal – for it is utterly abnormal to have base rates at 0.5 per cent or to deny savers any real return on their money – and what the consequences of higher interest rates will be. My own guess is that the first rise in UK interest rates will take place some time in the summer and that people will be surprised at the pace at which they subsequently climb. That leads to the troubling possibility that rising interest rates will choke off the recovery. Even if the Bank of England manages to hold down short-term rates for a while, it cannot hold down long-term ones. And if the world is going to have more expensive money, we will
too. — By arrangement with The Independent
|
|
Small states good for development ? India
consists of 28 states and eight Union Territories. Recently, the Central Government agreed to form Telangana after the passing of a resolution in the state assembly. However, this sparked a hue and cry in Andhra Pradesh. The formation of a separate state will lead to a lot of financial implications and legislative problems for the government. It is not at all in favour of the public since India is passing through an acute financial crisis. For the formation of a separate state there should be a variety of human and physical capital in terms of administrative capital, legislative capital, and judicial capital and infrastructure with funds from the central government. Under the circumstances, forming smaller states is not at all good for the nation’s progress. There would be utter chaos if any more splitting of states is initiated. There are enough legislative norms in the Indian Constitution for protecting individual freedom in respect of language, culture, and other factors. The formation of new states should not be on the basis of politics as without resources small states would face a lot of difficulties. These days the demand for new states is politically motivated with threats of agitations. The Centre should be careful in not succumbing to their ill-conceived motives. A separate commission may be formed to scrutinise the demand for new states. The creation of new states imposes significant administrative costs and financial burden on the exchequer. The public disenchantment in a state is basically on the efficacy of governance, not on the size. A lot of issues associated with large states can be resolved by decentralisation and administrative reforms. This, in turn, leads to overall good governance, and better local management of divisive or contentious issues so that the federal government can handle complex national and international issues better. Unity in diversity has been the real strength of India. When the British ruled India, women and men from different cultural, religious and regional backgrounds came together to
oppose them. India’s freedom movement had thousands of people of different backgrounds in it. They worked together to decide joint actions, they went to jail together and they found different ways to oppose the British. Interestingly, the British thought they could divide Indians because they were so different and then continue to rule
them. But the people showed how they could be different and yet be united in their battle against the British. Modern India presents a picture of unity in diversity where people of different faiths and beliefs live together in peace and harmony. India remains one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. This is the result of the freedom which every region and community has enjoyed to develop its genius through mutual
interaction. |
|
|
|
| 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 | |
