Delimitation and Women's Reservation - Message for Mr Shashi Tharoor

I saw some of the statements made by Mr Shashi Tharoor regarding the latest delimitation and women's reservation bill which was tabled by GOI in the parliament.  He has made a very rational point about how increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha is counter productive to the functioning of the parliament and will make it unwieldy. I recall how Mr Tharoor was being repeatedly interrupted and were given only 7 minutes to make his statement in the parliament on the recently passed SHANTI Bill. A healthy and productive debate requires that members get sufficient time to debate in the parliament and such a large Lok Sabha will not only not allow for high quality debates, but given the tendency of several MPs to create ruckus during parliament proceedings more members will lead to more ruckus. The burden on taxpayers for additional MPs and their staff including security etc. will be an unnecessary burden. All citizens should support his stand on this issue. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Tharror for raising this point.

Mr Tharoor has raised another question on how delimitation should not be linked with women's reservation. I have my reservations about the whole concept of reservations to start with and I can assure him many patriotic citizens want the politics of reservations to end in the country for its own better future. Just as socialism is a failed social engineering concept, so is quota system a failed system which tramples on individual rights and liberties under false pretext of social justice. No one can be given more rights than equal rights. Special rights are not equal rights and lead to distortion in the functioning of the state. Time has come to start reversing this failed system rather than entrenching it further. Why should the electorate be denied the choice of candidates? Just because of gender, why should someone who has worked in a constituency and can better represent it be denied the opportunity and the electorate denied the right to elect him. This nation has seen several long serving women Chief Ministers and a woman Prime Minister without the need for a special reservation for women. We do not need to distort the system to enable women's representation. If at all political parties are keen on more women MPs, let them field more women candidates and let the electorate decide if they are suitable. The constitution neither denied women their rights nor does it envisage such a reservation based system for their representation. By passing the Women's reservation bill in 2023 the parliament has created a distortion which was not needed to start with. I know I am making an argument for an already lost cause as there is near 100% political consensus on women's reservation in parliament but a start has to be made to free India from the reservation politics and work on building political consensus on ending reservations. Hence at the very least an amendment should be brought about in the women's reservation bill to do it without increasing seats and with a time limit for how long this reservation will last, say a 20 year period with no renewal thereafter. This is my humble suggestion for Mr Tharoor and other MPs to consider.

The argument made against delimitation based on census however baffles me. Mr Tharoor has worked at the UN and I am sure well aware of the long standing democratic principle around the world that in a one person one vote system each vote should have the same weight. From the very beginning India's constitution has recognized the need for equal weightage. If one considers the history of Article 81 and 82 and the various amendments made into it over the years, at no time was it not recognized that weightage should be equal. Equal weightage to each vote is in fact a fundamental principle of the constitution and altering it strikes at the very root of a representative democratic system. For 50 years delimitation has been postponed and many individual voters who do not even realize what rights they have been denied are being treated unequally because of regional interest in parts of the country. One must realize that in general elections the nation votes as one in direct elections, to the House of the People i.e. the Lok Sabha. The states don't miss out in the parliament and are represented in the Council of States i.e. the Rajya Sabha. The present generation of politicians are doing great disservice to the toils of the founders of India's constitution by distorting the very foundation of democracy and national interest by bringing petty regional interests in election to a body whose purpose is to serve the nation as a whole and make choices and decisions in larger national interest. An MP elected to the Lok Sabha represents the constituents and each vote of the MP counts equally. To say that cardinal directions, wealth and GDP, language etc. be factors limiting the principle of equality for the voters electing the MP is a dangerous trend and should not be legitimized further.

Kindly refer to the 1950 version of article 81 on Indian constitution. It says "⁠(b) For the purpose of sub-clause (a), the States shall be divided, grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" this particular clause was removed later on in 7th amendment when states were reorganized. But the original intent of the constitution makers is quite evident that they did not see a constituency for Lok Sabha elections to be somehow limited to the boundaries of a state. "State could be divided, it could be grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" means that it was always possible to have Lok Sabha constituencies spanning across multiple state borders for general elections. While it was never done so is another matter but perhaps had it been done for border districts of various states it would have created much needed spirit of integration in the nation. It further states "(c) The ratio between the number of members, allotted to each territorial constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the territory of India."  There is no doubt left about the message that has been sent to the future generation of Indians by constituent assembly. Entire territory of India has to be treated with the same yardstick. The ratio is important because it ensures equal weightage for each vote. 

There is an entire article 82 which states "readjustment after each census". This is a fundamental constitutional principle that has been kept at abeyance because of petty regional political interests. While no one in the state objects to redrawing the territorial boundaries of constituencies based on census within the state, somehow an impression has been made in the polity of states that states are sacrosanct as sub nationalities and can demand special treatment when it comes to Lok Sabha elections. Whereas it is well understood that states are only administrative divisions and federalism in Indian context in no way means that national interest should be subservient to petty regional interests and power politics. This is a dangerous trend that has gone on for too long and one only hopes that after the 2026 census this distortion is finally corrected. 

Delimitation and Women's Reservation

There is uproar in southern states over the delimitation and women's reservation bill 2026. The argument being that southern states have done better family planning and hence the population growth rate in southern states is lower than northern states and these states will lose out on parliamentary seats if delimitation is done based on current population. This argument has kept the Lok Sabha constituencies fixed since 1973 delimitation which was done based on 1971 census. It has been more than 50 years or about 2/3 the life of the Republic since when the political parties in southern states have opposed delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies based on the argument that fertility rates in southern states is less than the fertility rates in northern states and hence the southern states will lose out on parliamentary seats. It is not as if the fertility rate in northern states has not come down. There is uneven development in the country and when it comes to providing more support to the lagging states there is opposition form the southern states. This creates a chicken and egg situation because reduction is fertility rate depends on overall development and education of a region.

The argument of opposing census based delimitation is based on a flawed view of the parliamentary system under Indian constitution. It should be understood by everyone that Lok Sabha does not represent states. Lok Sabha is peoples council that is represented by constituencies. As far as representation of states in the parliament is concerned it is provided by the council of states which is the Rajya Sabha. States do not have a special status for election of member of parliaments to Lok Sabha. States are merely administrative divisions and do not represent any kind of sub nationality. New states have continuously been created for administrative and other reasons. But if they start giving rise to sub nationalism then that is not in interest of the republic. The idea of southern Indian states being at odds with northern Indian states is a constructed identity based politics of regional parties with is detrimental to national integration and fraternity between citizens of the country. 

In a one man one vote system each vote should have equal weightage in the Parliament. If we have certain constituencies which have electorate running into thousands of voters and other electorates with lakhs of voters then we have an imbalanced representation in the parliament. Nobody ever objects to delimitation based on census within state boundaries but somehow when the same logic is being applied to Lok Sabha constituencies suddenly the argument about states losing out on parliamentary seats is being raised thanks to regional politics. As if an MP elected for a parliamentary constituency in northern India is suddenly an enemy of the citizens in a constituency in Southern India and will not act in national interest. What ever regional or state interest exists are dealt with by the state governments which have sufficient powers. Member of parliaments elected from any part of the country should make decisions on national interest and as mentioned earlier the states are already represented in the Rajya Sabha which has an indirect election. 

Having made and argument in the favor of delimitation based on census which is mandated in the constitution anyways I would like to make a separate argument against this bill. The number of seats in Lok Sabha since the first delimitation based on 1951 census have increased by approximately 50 members. We already have a large parliament. In various debates over laws in the parliament the MPs hardly get anytime to make their statements. An MP hardly gets 5-10 minutes of uninterrupted time to make his or her arguments. If the number of seats is increased from 543 to 816 that is a 50% increase in the strength of the Lok Sabha. This will certainly damage the quality of debate in the parliament. The financial burden on the tax payers of country for these additional VIP members and their entourage which lives on the exchequer will also increase. The idea of women's reservation of 33% and the sub reservation amongst women for SC/ST communities is also an unfortunate continuation of the one medicine of every ailment principle which has afflicted Indian political class. We need to now move away from reservation politics to save the republic. There are no structural nor legal barriers to women entering politics in the country. If in any constituency and electorate can benefit from a more suitable male candidate to represent them then why should they be limited for the choice of only female candidates. It is not as if there is any bar on women from contesting in any unreserved seats against male candidates. If political parties want to increase women's representation they should do so at party level by giving more tickets to women. We don't need to reserve seats in the parliament for this.

India should move on from such social engineering projects and instead of doing down the road of further reservations its time to do away with reservations starting with OBC reservations for a more merit based equal treatment under the law.

India's new nuclear liability law - SHANTI Act, 2025

On 17-18 Dec, 2025 the Indian parliament passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancements of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act. There was little debate in main stream media on this bill before it was tabled. In prime minister's independence day speech in August he had mentioned about reforming India's nuclear power generation sector. Ever since the Indo US nuclear deal which was signed in 2008, it was hoped by US nuclear energy suppliers that they will be able to participate in growing Indian nuclear energy sector. After all new nuclear power plant construction had almost ground to halt in US ever since the 3 mile disaster in 1979. New reactor projects started only after 2013. India was seen as a new untapped market for US companies. 

The Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, however, put the nuclear power industry world wide under greater public scrutiny. Ever since the start of nuclear power generation in the mid of 20th century this industry has thrived on socializing the liability of nuclear power accident which is significant in case of a disaster and largely seen as uninsurable without public funds. The industry in most of the countries has followed a capped operator liability regime with channeling of all liability to the operator and no liability on the suppliers. Countries where public opinion has been sensitive to nuclear disasters like Japan, Russia, Germany and Finland follow a strict, no fault,  unlimited operator liability regime. Strict and no-fault means that the claimants need not prove that the operator is at fault of the nuclear accident to be able to claim damages. Unlimited liability means that there is not cap or limit on the liability of the operator. It should be noted that even in countries where a capped liability regime exists, a steady movement towards increasing the cap amount and shifting more liability to the industry from the society is in progress. 

The estimated total cost of the Fukushima nuclear disaster is in the range of $ 190-200 billion. The Japanese Law for compensation for nuclear damages has unlimited, strict no-fault operator liability, the operator needs to provide a security deposit of 120 billion Yen to the government and separately also have a liability insurance. Any person suffering from nuclear damage has priority over other creditors in respect of compensation from the amount provided by the liability insurance contract. There is right to recourse to a third party, where the employees of a nuclear operator have suffered nuclear damage and such damage was caused intentionally by a third party, the nuclear operator who has paid compensation for work accidents to the employees or families of the deceased shall retain a right of recourse against such third party.

The Price-Anderson Act of USA provides for $13.6 billion no fault liability without cost to the public or government Interestingly under the US Energy Independence and Security Act 2007, if an accident occurred outside the USA, nuclear suppliers would be required to reimburse the federal government for the amount allocated to the USA under the CSC’s formula for second-tier coverage.

As noted earlier the world over in the course of time the liability regime has changed in the way that International liability laws have moved the onus of insurance from the society to the industry. Also the amount of liability has been increasing. In such an environment, India's SHANTI Act stands out for not only reducing the liability amount compared to previous regime but also shifting the onus from industry to the state. For instance in 2004, contracting parties to the OECD Paris (and Brussels) Conventions signed Amending Protocols which removed the required for states to set a cap on liabilities. Thus allowing states to have unlimited liability just as Japan. Though these amendments are yet to be ratified in absence of Industry's agreement, we can see that the governments around the world are recognizing the need to expand the scope of liability of nuclear accident where as India has moved in the opposite direction.

We have to analyze this new law in this background. Let us note the major changes that have taken place in the SHANTI act:-

1) The strict no-fault liability clause which was part of the CLND act 2010 has been removed from the SHANTI Act. Earlier law had this clause in the Liability of Operator section "(4) The liability of the operator of the nuclear installation shall be strict and shall be based on the principle of no-fault liability.". This clause has been totally removed from the SHANTI ACT

2) The Operator liability for small and medium power plants has been reduced by introducing a graded system in which plants less than 150 MW the operator liability has been reduced to merely Rs 100 Crore from a Rs 1500 Crores in the earlier act of 2010. The maximum lability for plants more than 3600 MW has been increased to Rs 3000 Crores. One would expect that with inflation and in light of global trend the liability amount should increase not decrease.

3) The operator right to recourse to a supplier liability has been removed. CLND had the clause " (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services; ". This has been removed.

4) Patent regime in the nuclear sector has been changed. Since 1962 any invention in the field of nuclear energy was not patentable. As per patents act 1970 "No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962." As per clause 38 of the new law inventions in nuclear energy are now patentable. "38. (1) The Central Government may grant patents for inventions which in its opinion are for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation:"

Patent restriction ensured that all innovation and development of technologies in nuclear science remained strictly in public interest. It did monopolize the nuclear energy sector, limited private investment and but it also enabled India to freely develop technologies in public interest which, may have been patented outside of India and hence denied to it in practical terms. The removal of the patent restrictions will benefit companies to be able to market their patented technologies like fuel in India. Reduction of operator liability to almost a pittance for small reactors will transfer the liability for Small Modular Reactors, which is seen as a new growth sector, from the industry to the society. Removal of supplier liability clause will remove the operator's right to recourse against the technology supplier for any disaster, opening the door for foreign suppliers to freely enter the nuclear energy market with lesser financial risk. 

However what stands out most egregiously is the removal of the strict, no-fault, liability clause from the nuclear liability law. If following the international standards of liability was the justification of removing the supplier liability clause then the strict and no-fault liability clause is a long standing feature of nuclear liability laws world over. Its removal is quite inexplicable. So is reduction of liability cap where as the world over the movement is towards increasing the cap and moving more and more liability towards the Industry. Unlimited operator liability is also long standing international practice followed in major Nuclear energy states like Japan, Russia and Germany. One could justify its introduction on the account of the very high estimated cost of the latest large nuclear disaster which was in Fukushima nuclear plant. In fact the central government in the Financial Memorandum section of SHANTI Act it self states "Clause 14 of the Bill provides for the liability of the Central Government in the event of a nuclear incident. However, as the actual liability in the event of nuclear incident would depend on the magnitude of the incident, it is difficult to estimate the cost of liability at this stage. The Central Government has established a Nuclear Liability Fund for the purpose of meeting its liability under the Bill. "  

Finally I would remind the reader to what I had explored in my previous article. In last few years one person from India's nuclear energy establishment who stands out in promoting nuclear power industry is Dr Anil Kakodkar. He has been most active in his public writings about building small modular reactor and thorium based fuel. It should to be noted that Dr Kakodkar has been associated with a US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc" as an advisor for development of a thorium based fuel which has been named ANEEL after him. He has been seen promoting private investment in the nuclear power generation sector in India, both before and after the SHANTI act has been passed by the parliament. Clear Core Thorium Energy had a partnership with India's L&T and NTPC is also expected to acquire a minority stake it in. This company is seen as the first beneficiary of the new SHANTI Act. For More about ANEEL fuel read here.

PS: Readers would be interested in the parliament debate on SHANTI Bill. The speech by Mr Shashi Tharoor stands out in articulating many relevant points. 

On Sixth Schedule for Ladakh

I can sense some red flags in this demand from Ladakh for inclusion in the 6th schedule of the constitution which is currently applicable to certain states in the north-east. I somewhat understand why center government is reluctant to do this. In negotiations with Ladakh representatives center had proposed art 371 instead.

One would prefer that all citizens irrespective of their background are all treated equal and equal fundamental rights are applied to all and that there be no special provisions, laws etc. which are discriminatory in nature in any way. Hence, I find even art 371 to be an aberration but it appears to be a lesser evil than the 6th schedule which I find to be encouraging sub nationalism and separatism.

It was under British legacy of keeping north-eastern regions separate which unfortunately led to a continuation of the policy by means of 6th schedule provision in Indian constitution. Our constitution makers were sold to this idea of separate identity, otherwise there was no need to have separate provision of 5th schedule for the "tribal" regions of other states, say central India. In the words of Ambedkar as I picked from Wikipedia " The tribal people in areas other than Assam are more or less Hinduised, more or less assimilated with the civilisation and culture of the majority of the people in whose midst they live."  This sort of civilizational distinction I can relate with Ambedkar, his world view and his strong belief in the Aryan invasion theory etc.

The effect of the inner line permit, Elviniasm and the likes on separatist politics in north-eastern states is well known. The inner line permit did not prevent westernization and christianisation but it certainly did prevent the "assimilation" and "hinduisation" that Ambedkar speaks of for the tribes. Shillong, I am told by some, is the most "westernized" city in India with its flourishing rock band culture. 

As far as tribal identities are concerned, I am of the opinion that we are all tribal after all. Every Hindu at least retains his tribal identity with his "Ishta" and "Kula". Are the westernized and Christianized (a "world" religion) residents of Shillong still considered tribal is a larger question in a domain which is above politics. One can certainly sympathize with the separate civilizational identity of the Sentinelese and the Jarawa (to some extent) of A&N but is the idea to keep tribals as such, in perpetuity? Can the normal governance structures of state, districts, block, panchayats etc. not guarantee rights, freedoms and governance in the same way as the rest of India? Do the tribals never aspire to linking with the larger population around them at all?

Anyhow coming to the demands of Ladakh from some news reports it appears that some in Ladakh lament the removal/dilution of article 370 and 35A and see the sixth schedule as a way to status quo ante. I am wary of any discrimination of Indian citizens and any restriction on the right to equality of Indian citizens. These fundamental rights I believe are sacrosanct and I am saying this from the perspective of an Individual and not any people group. Hence, I find such insertion of possible discriminatory tendencies in the governance structure of Ladakh as potentially damaging in the long run. I understand that arguments will be made about the patriotism and unique environment etc. of Ladakh. Can the environment protection not be ensured by a regular legislature?

Ladakh has never been so Isolated in history, after all, it has been at the crossroads of great civilizations. The ancient Silk Road passed through Ladakh. One reads about new reports of gold smuggling from China and the proximity to Tibet and Xinjiang shows the future potential of a flourishing trade in the region if by some miracle we see a political change in China some time in future. So, I am not so convinced about any civilizational Isolation of Ladakh as in Ambedkar's words which should call for any 6th schedule like provisions. I say " 6th schedule like ", rather than 6th schedule itself, since 97% population of Ladakh is tribal, this in fact actually makes the idea of applying 6th schedule quite illogical Once Nagaland and Mizoram became separate states the 6th schedule became irrelevant to the erstwhile "Naga hills" and "Lushai Hills" of Assam as such. The state within a state concept of 6th schedule became moot. 

Similarly, as already the population is overwhelmingly tribal what do the people of Ladakh envisage? It is not as if there is a small tribal population in a large state surrounded by a non-tribal population necessitating an autonomous region within the state. Do the people of Ladakh envisage a separate autonomous division of Kargil and separate for Leh? Is that really needed when a combined legislature can bring better integration between the two districts rather than overly complicating the system with autonomous councils, that can encourage creation of discriminatory laws by these councils, which may lead to perpetual separation of the peoples of these regions and create political problems in future where none exist at present.

With these facts especially that 6th schedule was specific to a unique situation of Assam at the time it was envisaged under very different circumstances which do not exist in Ladakh and even 5th schedule is irrelevant given that almost entire population of Ladakh is tribal, the question now becomes ensuring the rights of the 3% non-tribal population of Ladakh and continued integration and development of the region. I request the people of Ladakh to review their position on this matter and the representatives of Ladakh to reconsider and move towards a normal state-center governance relationship like any other state or union territory of India.

I understand that my views on this subject are limited by my knowledge as a layman, but I suspect few in Ladakh fully realize the implications of what they are demanding either. I only hope that lack of full understanding of the legal & constitutional reasons why 6th schedule is inapplicable now that J&K state has been split does not lead to unnecessarily hardening of positions to a point of no return and lead to public unrest in the region which is detrimental to the peace and security in Ladakh.

Sadhguru on Citizenship Amendment Act

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has given a lucid explanation on the noble motives of Citizenship Amendment Act in response to a question to him. He has urged the protesters to read and understand the act rather than fall for the malicious propaganda that has been going on over it.

His entire explanation can be seen here.

Unfortunately the same journalists who have been spreading misinformation on CAA have started questioning Sadhguru's statement as factually incorrect by nitpicking on irrelevant points rather than understanding the thrust of his argument.

I clear the air here and explain how Sadhguru is absolutely correct and those questioning him are engaging in dishonest journalism driven by prejudice and mala fide intent, which can also be gauged from the disrespectful tone and tenor of their statements against a respected religious figure like him.

1) The religion census of Pakistan was not released since 1998. There is no doubt that there has been drastic decline in percentage of Hindus in these Islamic countries. In West Pakistan the bulk of (>90%) Hindus reside on Sindh. Of which majority are in princely state of Amarkot which was a Hindu majority state which joined Pakistan after Independence. In rest of Pakistan Hindus have been nearly wiped out. Some people are nitpicking over the number of 23% as population of minorities in whole of Pakistan(East + West) at the time of independence, this figure may be accurate if one looks as pre- partition population before migration induced by partition.  In fact in West Pakistan the percentage of Indian religions had reduced from 16% in 1901 to 1.68% in 1991. The thrust of Sadhguru's argument was correct that there is reduction due to persecution & violence.

2) Sadhguru cites an incident of his visit to Jwala Mata temple in Baku where he met a Hindu whose wife had been abducted, converted to Islam and married to someone else on same day. He mentioned in context of this incident that Pakistan did not recognize Hindu marriages which is why this man had no legal case to protect his wife. This was an incident in past not recent. In 2016 Sindh province passed a Hindu marriage act and in 2017 rest of the provinces got a Hindu marriage act. But this in no way changes what Sadhguru said. This is a clear case of persecution of Hindus in Pakistan. Even the current law of Pakistan is being criticized for its annulment clause which causes the marriage to be annulled if any spouse converts to Islam. This is a loophole that can be exploited to abduct and convert even married Hindu women. . There are several cases of abduction of Hindus girls reported from Pakistan.So Sadhguru's example of persecution of Hindus stands valid.

3) A propaganda is being spread that the Citizenship Amendment Act does not mention persecution hence it is not about religious persecution of minorities in Islamic countries in subcontinent. Fact is that in the statement of objects and reasons of the act it is clearly mentioned that religious persecution is the reason. There are associated government notifications on Passport Act and Foreigners Act of 2015 which clearly mention exemption based on religious persecution or fear of religious persecution. When there is overwhelming evidence of an obvious religious persecution based on state discrimination in these countries then such media propaganda is condemn able. Sadhguru in fact says that discrimination in these countries is state defined by law, because of the Islamic nature of these states. So he is again absolutely correct.

4) Sadhguru mentioned that police response has been relatively restrained compared to the kind of riots taking place. He is absolutely correct on this point. One need not go to far back in history just compare this with how 36 people were shot dead by Police after Baba Ram Rahim's followers rioted in Haryana in 2017. Now consider at the Police action in Jamia Milia Islamia university. Sadhguru mentioned that if students pelt stones then won't police enter the university to control the crowds. A lot of noise has been created in police action in Jamia Millia. It must be noted that even courts have not entertained such motivated arguments of police excesses. It is interesting to note that police has sought access to the CCTV footage from the University which has still not been provided to them. What's the justification for this denial? What is there to hide? Sadhguru is again correct in saying that police action was going to happen when there is rioting and even innocents will unfortunately get caught in this action.

5) Sadhguru is correct when he says that rumour are being spread that Muslims will lose their Citizenship because of CAA. This is a malicious propaganda that many people including students have fallen for. If they simply read the act they will know this is not the case. Thus act simply provides a faster path to citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from 3 Islamic states. Does not affect ant Indian citizen. Does not adversely affect anybody's case for seeking citizenship of India under existing process.

6) Sadhguru was asked about NRC so he responded with his views about it how every nation needs to know who its legal citizens are. It is obvious this is needed. He mentioned that for proving citizenship by birth several documents can be accepted. People are arguing they don't have documents. So he question who are these people who have no ID documents. How is it possible for people in this day and age to have no documentary proof. He further states that people who don't have documents can produce witnesses. The possible list of documents can clearly be deduced based in Assam NRC. Spokesperson of home ministry has recently tweeted that witnesses may be considered for illiterate people who don't have documents and a process around that be created. So Sadhguru's entire reply to the question on CAA-NRC is absolutely correct. Those trying to nitpick are dishonest and reflect the same kind or media propaganda journalism that has spread disinformation on CAA in the country.

Information War on Citizenship Act

In the past couple of weeks, the kind of reporting we have seen in Indian and in world media backed by several motivated academicians and politicians on the recent amendment to Indian’s Citizenship Act, can only be described as an Information War, that has been unleashed on the Indian state. It is well known that the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party is seen as a right-wing nationalist party. In India it is seen as a party with primarily Hindu voter base. In international media it is often described as a Hindu nationalist party which in their eyes is a negative portrayal. The ideological opposition to BJP is well entrenched in the left leaning English media in India and also in similarly inclined western media. In general, western media has a negative view of India as a result of cold war dynamics of the past, but off late with the political rise of BJP in India, they have a particularly negative view about India under BJP government.

Various reasons can be attributed to this entrenched opinion. Political positions viewed as right wing are automatically disliked by self-described left liberal media. Influence of Christian evangelical organizations on western and even local Indian media is another factor, since these organizations see the BJP as a less conducive to their evangelical project in India. Similar motive can be attributed to media organizations under influence of Islamic evangelical organizations and Islamic countries. When such motivations are at play then its is almost impossible to expect reasonable analysis of events in India from these media organizations. Their criticism however is often cloaked in the language of liberalism, pluralism, women’s rights, democratic values etc.

There is also a set of Indian urban population which has primarily grown cut off from the civilizational ethos of India under the influence of an education system that specializes in turning the mindset of people away from anything that is culturally Indian in general and Hindu in particular. There is a belief in this population that being less Indian, less Hindu is somehow being more modern. This population has long considered itself to be the guardian of “Indian secularism”. A term which is as difficult to define if not more, than the term Hindutva or Hindu-ness which BJP espouses. In this scenario those who consider themselves anti-Hindutva also consider themselves to be the sole guardians of secularism in India. This group is most turned off by the “Hindu nationalist” image of BJP and views every action by BJP with suspicion. They are also most easily influenced by the western media being English speaking themselves. Many among them consider themselves global citizens who happen to hold an Indian passport.

This urban Indian population especially students of humanities discipline in Indian universities have been under influence of certain ideological groups namely Ambedkarites, extreme Marxist, Islamists and to a lesser degree evangelical Christian groups. The influence of last of these is most subtle since it is not explicitly in Christian fundamentalist terms in most Indian universities but instead in the language of western universalism. This student population has seen BJP as antitheses of what they understand should be the future direction of India. With rise of BJP and loss of political space in electoral democracy to these ideologies they have chosen to combine forces in campus politics by projecting their most extreme form on impressionable college students who are easier to mould towards these ideologies due to a fertile ground created by absence of civilizational knowledge and cultural awareness. In short due to a lack of emic perspective in the humanities education in India these students are most prone to be turned towards these ideologies that are often described as breaking India forces (read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra, Aravindan Neelakandan) since they see the cultural underpinnings of India and the mainstream culture as oppressive and worthy of being thrown out.

Some of the recent political decisions by the BJP government like the law banning Muslim practice of triple divorce, curb on foreign funding of Indian NGOs which either work for evangelical purposes or influencing Indian political process, the revocation of article 370 which gave a separate constitution to the J&K state and the judicial decision on Ayodhya Ram temple case which went in the favour of Hindus, left these ideological groups completely shattered. It was unexpected by them that these important issues on which they had staked their entire existence had gone out of their hands completely. They were confident that no Indian government will be able to change the constitutional status of J&K, that their case on Ayodhya Ram temple was undefeatable and that no government will be able to touch the Muslim personal laws. They considered these issues to be the touchstone of Indian secularism and set back on these issues hurt their cause greatly.

Under this back drop one must see another issue that these forces see as important which is the status of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India. Whether you look at the liberal left, or the Islamist both see that inaction by GOI in the problem of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants is the happy state of affairs. No government in past had been able to deal with this problem even when there was a widespread movement in Assam to deal with this problem of forced demographic change in north eastern states especially Assam. One of the reasons for this inaction was the difficulty of dealing with this problem without also affecting the Bangladeshi Hindu population which had come to Indian since the 1971 genocide of Bengali Hindus. It is now well known that 80% of the 10 million refugees of the Bangladesh war that came to India were Hindus so were the approximately 3 million victims who were killed in East Pakistan by the Pakistani army. It would not be wrong to say that it was genocide particularly of Bangladeshi Hindus which is easy to see if one compares the census figures of Bangladesh from the pre and post war periods. 

The recent change to the citizenship act which was done by the BJP can be seen as an attempt to solve this conundrum. How to protect the population of religious minorities from Bangladesh living in India from any legal action for deportation back to Bangladesh, where they are vulnerable, but at the same time be able to act on the illegal economic migration from Bangladesh, which has changed the demographics in North eastern states in particular, but has also led to creation of settlements of Bangladeshi populations in several cities in rest of India? This law which provides a faster path to Indian citizenship to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and prevents their deportation on grounds of illegal entry or lack of valid documents of entry is a safety net to protect this population for any future state action against illegal economic migrants living in India. A vast majority of such migrants are Bangladeshi.

This distinction between refugees escaping religious persecution a majority of whom happen to be Hindus and the illegal economic immigrants a majority of whom happen to be Muslims does not go down well for the self-described liberal secularists in India. Thus, the Citizenship Amendment Act and the expected national register for citizens which would follow was seen as the final nail in the coffin of secularism by them. They first argued that the CAA is not permitted in Indian constitution which is secular. When it is pointed out that the same constitution permits special consideration to religious minorities when its comes to freedom of operating their educational and religious institutions which Hindus don’t get, or how it is permitted for the state to provide special scholarships and run state funded educational institutions which provide reservations based on religion, how it can run a special minorities affairs ministry and can tolerate separate personal laws, these inconvenient questions are completely avoided by them. The question of legality of this law has been challenged by them in the courts, which has for now refused to stay the act and given the central government one month to respond to the objections.

Without waiting for the court decision to arrive they immediately cried foul of the motive of the government in bringing the CAA in conjunction with yet to be announced pan India National Register for Citizens. While their concern is that with the difficulty of Bangladeshi Hindu refugees being resolved by CAA the illegal Bangladeshi economic migrants now become vulnerable to state action in any future NRC, they chose to project the CAA and NRC exercise being somehow against Indian Muslims. Their weird argument was that Hindus and other religions except Muslims are protected by CAA safety net in any future NRC. Which is completely wrong since CAA is for foreign refugees not for Indian citizens. No Indian will ever choose to apply for naturalization using the CAA route just because his or her name is missed in any future NRC due to lack of any required documents. Naturalization is a longer process and will require clearance by intelligence agencies etc. If such an application is rejected that this person will be left in the lurch despite being an Indian citizen for several generations. It would be utterly foolish for an Indian national to do this rather than produce a community certificate or witnesses from the community in lieu of government issued ID. This was also clarified by spokesperson of the home ministry.

On this rumour that NRC+CAA combine will disenfranchise Indian Muslims in particular they ran a nation-wide campaign against CAA. In this media war the central government of India was projected as being of fascist intent that wishes to put Muslims in detention camps also called in some circles as concentration camps. Such absurd claims and hijacking of the movement by radical Islamists lead to large scale rioting in several urban centers of the country with higher concentration of Muslims. The international media outlets have carried front page articles, editorials and oped criticizing the Citizenship Amendment Act as a “Muslim ban”. When the reality is that it simply provides a faster path and easier process for naturalization to persecuted religious minorities from 3 Islamic countries in the subcontinent. It does not take away any opportunity for anyone no matter what their background on seeking Indian citizenship by naturalization etc by the existing process. What they have described as an action being taken by India for the first time is also not correct. While there was no law as such, it has been the policy of GOI to give special consideration to religious minorities from Pakistan in particular for providing then Indian citizenship by registration or naturalization. It has been seen a commitment by post partition India to provide a refuge to people escaping the Islamic state created in India after partition. This was provided specifically to the non-Muslim communities coming from Pakistan. One is not able to fathom how the executive action remains in the realm of secularism even if favours a particular religion but a legislative action is suddenly a threat to the secular principles of the state.

Given the level of misinformation that is being spread on this issue in India as well as world over, one is struck by the vulnerability of the Indian state to information war of this kind. No matter how many clarifications are given by several quarters, whether state institutions or private individuals, the rumour and the fear mongering around it refuses to die. Riots and protests by university students against the CAA continue unabated. Several lives have been lost, corers of rupees of public property has been damaged and India’s reputation abroad is tarnished in the campaign which has flimsy factual grounds. While one would have understood the academic disagreement on the approach or the legal questions raised on the Law which could have been discussed and resolved in rational manner, the irrational public outrage at display has every marking of an information war that the Indian state needs to better prepare itself for and be able to pre-empt and counter in future, through appropriate communication strategy. The grip of combined breaking India forces on Indian universities is also a cause for worry and the long-term security risk for India that needs to be solved by introducing the emic perspective in Humanities education and making it the mainstream perspective rather than the fringe perspective it currently is. It is only though giving primacy to civilizational knowledge systems in humanities education can this be done. Which is of course another battle ground for the “secularists” who will resist it at every level in the name of it being Hindu.

Personal Tragedy V/S National Tragedy

When a man commits an illegal act and gets caught, it is no doubt a personal tragedy for him and his family. I am sure most people regret that they erred in their judgement. They would certainly not like to be in jail and would wish that the past act would never have taken place. Unfortunately the legal process in our country has its own pace. The under trial has to go through a long trial in the courts. For an innocent person such a trial can itself be the punishment on the other hand for the guilty it may even be an act of buying time. The Bombay blast case has gone one for 20 years. The victims of the blast have waited 20 years for justice which is still elusive because the masterminds of the blast are still beyond the reach of law.

Sanjay Dutt was convicted by the supreme court for illegal possession of banned weapons and sentenced to the minimum sentence prescribed by law. Then he along with some other accused punished for similar crime were given 1 month to surrender. Today Sanjay Dutt got another reprieve to surrender after another 4 weeks. He wanted to finish his films before going to jail to serve his sentence for which he wanted 6 months reprieve. So the court in supposedly "humanitarian grounds" gave him 4 weeks with no further extension and he accepted. All in all this whole episode gives the appearance of a bargain for delay rather than humane gesture. If the producers have money locked in on Sanjay Dutt then the question here is of money not of "humanitarian grounds". A mother who has a child appearing for his school exams probably deserves more humanitarian gesture for month delay rather than a movie actor who wants to finish his films so that he and his producers do not suffer a loss.

Whatever be the real truth, in the end this case gives an impression of deliberate delay to keep a rich, politically connected celebrity out of jail for as long as possible, rather than one of delivering justice where justice is due. Mr Dutt's claiming suffering due to inordinate delay does not cut the bill; after all Mr Dutt did not spend his years out of jail, since he was first arrested, doing national or social service to deserve a reprieve. He was busy making money, living the good life and working for entertainment of his movie loving fans. It does not quite cover for the loss that the victims of the 93' Bombay blast had to suffer. Given the circumstances under which he has been found in illegal possession of banned weapons, he has knowingly or otherwise been linked with the entire bombing episode which he should have certainly avoided.

Whatever be Sanjay's personal tragedy it does not cover for the national tragedy which people of India have collectively suffered. The court seems to have erred, but people are not pleased and the politicians along with the government of Maharashtra should be forewarned, not to act on Sanjay's mercy plea in a way which will lead to dissatisfaction among the people of Bombay, because they are in no mood to forgive.

Kashmir’s unsettled business - Don't tinker with the constitution

This post is in response to editorial "Kashmir’s unsettled business" that appeared in The Hindu of March 14, 2013. I do not agree with the conclusion of the editorial that solution to violence in Kashmir lies with what the editor has called implementing "sensible measures" in the interlocutors' report. The measures from interlocutors' report mentioned in the editorial are in my view not sensible at all. The interlocutors were sent to build bridges with population of J&K and what they are suggesting is raising even higher walls between the J&K and rest of India. One gentleman amongst them was recently quoted in Kashmiri media saying that "Kashmiris hate India like rats hate cats". The inherent contradictions in that statement not withstanding, it reflects a keenness for dramatics rather than responsibility. Such irresponsible people have come up with the most irresponsible suggestion of making article 370 permanent rather than leave it as temporary as it exists currently.

How can economic growth in J&K happen without more economic interaction with other parts of India? Would any of our larger metro cities be the engine of economic growth for us had they disallowed migration from other parts of India? The constitution of India sustains the "Idea of India". There is no peace and prosperity possible in India without this idea of India which thrives on tolerance for the other and interaction through mingling of diverse population of India is essential for experiencing the Idea of India. The root cause of alienation among the youth of J&K is that they have not experienced the meaning of what it is to be an Indian. Unfortunately the constitutional provisions given to J&K and the retrograde state subject laws are responsible for the degeneration of the politics of J&K to a communal and identity based politics. Let there be no doubt in the mind of anybody that the movement for separation in J&K among the separatist is not a movement for freedom it is a communal movement for separation and the minority population of Kashmir were the first victims of this movement. The nation within a nation concept is responsible for this movement to have gathered momentum as it did in '89 and allowed Pakistan to exploit the weakness exposed to them. 

There is good reason why article 370 was agreed to after great disagreement only as a temporary provision by the founders of our Nation. It was expected to only lead to greater integration in course of time unfortunately the integration process was not pursued vigorously and the State degenerated towards greater communal politics and regionalism. The root cause of the violence in J&K is the existence of machinery in Pakistan to wage a proxy war against India and that is the cause of disturbance in J&K ever since JKLF came into existence. We have been shying away from this root cause and have no strategic vision on how to coerce Pakistan to stop this activity. If insurgency in J&K and the destabilization that has occurred there has to be cured then the source of the arms supply and the source of training and motivation for insurgents should be neutralized first. Separatists can only be marginalized when violence and the international support including that from western countries which they get comes to an end. They cannot be marginalized with any kind of appeasement in the form of greater autonomy to the state. They have never asked for it for settlement and that will only lead to legitimizing their cause. It would be seen as step closer to eventual separation. There is no reason why Indians should start doubting our founding principle of tolerance and unity in diversity which are the basis of the Idea of India. There is everything in the constitution which guarantees equality before law and government to every citizens and nothing in the constitution that tramples on the instinct of self preservation of any individual, family or community. Political autonomy of the kind that was given in article 370 is a slow poison that has caused great stress to our integrity and political unity. There is no "sensible measure" in consuming arsenic in a panic reaction out of an unfounded fear that the only alternative is consumption of cyanide.

Salman beats Anand to the post

My post yesterday turned out to be a bit of a foot in mouth situation for me. I jumped the gun but then in my defence it was based on the talk of the town at the time of my publishing that article. I also stand by my assessment of Industry's influence on the government which was seen in this rejig.

So we know now that Mr Anand Sharma stays in his post as the commerce minister while the surprise elevation of Mr Salman Khurshid to the post of external affairs minister is the confirmed news now. This means that the Rs 71 lakh scam was too  small to be of any bearing on the decision of his elevation after all. More interesting news doing rounds was about the possible exit of Mr Jaipal Reddy from the oil and gas ministry after his showdown with Reliance Industries. The influence of big business on the decisions of the central government looks quite ominous. All this does send a bad signal to those who perform honest discharge of their duties but never the less this is just the fact of the day.

It was interesting to note the oath that the cabinet ministers take during the swearing in ceremony which President Pranab Mukharjee presided on. It remains to be seen how well they keep the oath to perform their duty faithfully and conscientiously, without favour or fear, affection or ill will, in accordance with law, upholding the constitution of India, without revealing the secrets of their office to any person with exception for the due discharge of their duty. An oath they have taken in the name of God hopefully with full knowledge of the responsibility of the posts they are going to hold. Except for the shaky hands of Mr Harish Rawat signing the oath I did not see anyone else being overwhelmed by the occasion at least. But then a lot goes on behind the scenes.

The Performer gets a Promotion?

Mr SM Krishna's exit from the cabinet today, and the news that Mr Anand Sharma's name was going to figure in the latest cabinet changes expected to be announced tomorrow had made it amply clear to me that he was likely to be the next foreign minister of India. Even though it hadn't been reported until yesterday that he was likely to take over the foreign affairs portfolio, I was suspecting that this might be the case. After all he had been the primary character behind the multibrand retail FDI 'reforms' and deserved a 'reward' for having 'delivered'.

As I had written in a previous post there had been considerable corporate and US government lobbying to get a fovourable result in mulitbrand retail FDI policy. Earlier The Hindu had  published a news story based on certain Wikileaks exposed diplomatic cables where Mrs Hilary Clinton was  very interested in knowing what was the position of Commerce Minister Anand Sharma on Multi-brand retail. I had also quoted Mr P Sainath's article which was critical of the decision making process in the present government and it susceptibility to foreign influence. I had also written  how Mr Pranab Mukharjee's presidency had the effect of paving the path to the FDI reforms, and also helped in stalling GAAR, and reversing the retrospective amendments to Income Tax act which had been brought about by him in his capacity as finance minister, to remove a loophole in the tax code which was being used by foreign companies to avoid paying capital gains tax in India.

Please be reminded that I had also written about mainstream Indian media's partisan role in this affair. It is evident that particularly the media company which owns the The Times Of India and Economic Times also has investment via 'private treaties' in the Future group companies which will benefit from the policy changes of allowing 51% foreign investment in multibrand retail.

The affair gets even murkier when a reader is reminded about another event which has occurred parallel to all this which was about  a possible breach of the previous FDI policy by Wal-Mart and the Bharti group. Ms Vandana Shiva had filed a PIL in Delhi high court questioning how Wal-Mart had used a circuitous route to invest in Multi-brand retail when the policy at that time did not allow foreign investment. Delhi High Court had asked the government to respond but alas before the date of response the policy itself  was changed to allow FDI in retail. When the time to appear in court came the government responded that in the light of recent policy changes this PIL should not be entertained any more and Ms Siva also obliged by withdrawing the case. Recently CNN-IBN reported a story on this. Later PM Manmohan Singh asked Commerce Minister Anand Sharma to investigate any possible wrong doing by Wal-Mart. This is very curious and very murky indeed. I have written extensively about this in a previous post tiled 'Wal-Mart something's not right'.

But the end result never the less is that Mr Anand Sharma has delivered to the benefit of the lobby which wanted FDI in multibrand retail and Mrs Hilary Clinton would have been delighted, as is also evident from the the visit by Mr Ben Bernanke and Mr Geithner. Promotion is due and what better role to play than that of Foreign Minister. We have to wait until tomorrow when it is formally announced but Mr Sharma is the right man who can surely deliver and  is an appropriate person to lead the New Order. A 'reform' in the foreign policy is perhaps long over due. Iran anyone?

AK 47 and His Guerrilla Tactics

A post that starts with such a wacky title should have some justification for it. But this is not my own invention I have merely borrowed what I have heard being spoken about one Mr Arvind Kejriwal. Today India Against Corruption came out all guns blazing against the BJP. It must be remembered that Ms Kiran Bedi separated from Mr Kejriwal on his decision to target all parties not just the ruling Congress on their corruption record. Ms Bedi's difference may have been that of tactics rather than any particular favouritism but that just proves the fact that while Ms Bedi wanted to snipe at the ruling Congress for the time being Mr Kejriwal had made the decision to assault everyone who was suspect across the political spectrum.

The assault has so far been successful in hitting anyone who hasn't been adequately protected. But then who could possibly be adequately protected? The only protection that existed was the unwritten rule that goes "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours". Mr Kejriwal is an outsider who perhaps did not receive favours from anyone in particular and so can shoot whoever he wishes whenever he wishes and  at whatever pace he wishes. The pace can be fast because the targets are many and the evidence is probably ready pickings with so many disgruntled individuals willing to provide them. This makes him as deadly as the famous 'Avtomat Kalashnikova' assault weapon.

Now with the question of his lethality settled lets visit the aspect of his tactics. He has been employing what has been widely described as a 'shoot and scoot' or 'hit and run' tactics. With the limited resources he has at his possession he cannot be expected to organize large rallies in the hinterland of the country. He cannot fly his members cross country in helicopters, distribute printed material or use any of the traditional means of spreading political message that the political parties use. He had to reinvent his tactics to suit the size of the problem he is facing and keeping in mind the limited resources he has at his disposal. IAC is incapable of getting hold of one issue and taking it to its logical conclusion. Conventional methods did not work for them. They tried to get lokpal bill implemented but they failed at that. Now he need not take anything to its logical conclusion. He simply has to fight a war of attrition with the established players by using the guerrilla tactics which are at the least cost to him and IAC, and cause discomfort to his political opponents which are in fact, the entire political establishment.

The medium of his attacks is the news media. Sensational exposures are the bullet he fires. His target of choice are the public figures with questionable records of probity and that explains the title of this post.

PS: Here is an interesting cartoon that appeared in the Hindu on 18th/Oct just a day after I wrote this post. It is very much on the lines of what some people are saying about Mr Kejriwal: AK-47

The Hindu : News / National : Senior official probing Vadra-DLF land deal shunted out

The Hindu : News / National : Senior official probing Vadra-DLF land deal shunted out

I was of the opinion that raising issue of corruption in the media or by political parties alone would not solve the problem. What was needed was for our administrative institutions to act. Here is an example of what happens when some upright officer does what is essentially his duty. When an officer starts a suo motu inquiry into a wrong doing he is transferred out.

Mr Robert Vadra

Being born in a political family makes you a politician yourself, that is a great truism of Indian Politics. It is obvious that people will approach such a person for favors whether he or she obliges such approach is another matter. Being married into a political family is also not too far off. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's first credibility as a politician was that she was married into the most powerful political family in India. Can some wrongdoing be conclusively proved? I do not know but the suspicion that sweetheart deal from DLF to Mr Vadra is on the only grounds that he is related to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and was likely to enter politics himself just like her, is not just a suspicion it is a truism. As Mr Chidambaram has insisted on a quid pro quo he has obviously raised a question which cannot easily be answered. May be it cannot be proved easily, otherwise it would have already been proved. But it is universally understood that a sweetheart deal involving a public person hints at the presence of corruption.

In many countries when you open a bank account you have to disclose if you are related to a public figure. I do not know what the disclosure norms are in India. If we don't have these norms then we should. The debate regarding DLF-Vadra deal should not be limited to Mr Vadra and Congress Party. What can be proved in Mr Vadra's case is a separate issue. If a wrong doing has possibly happened but it cannot be proved, or was not brought to the attention the appropriate institutions well in time and with enough evidence to be acted upon, due to a lack of proper disclosure norms and tracking of earnings and assets of people related to public figures, then that is the moot question. The raising of this issue by India Against Corruption against the first family of Indian politics is just one of the many questions that can possibly be raised about the assets and dealings of many other individuals related to powerful public figures. But nothing can possibly be done as Mr Chidambaram has highlighted if a wrong doing cannot be proved or quid pro quo established. The job of proving an alleged wrong doing is not with a whistle blower it is the job of the agencies responsible for tracing financial impropriety. Do they have the laws, the resources and the freedom to do this?

The Hindu : News / National : Behind Robert Vadra’s fortune, a maze of questions

One had to just wait for the Hindu to write about this issue. One of the comments on this article was interesting

"Mr Vadra should not allow his name and reputation to be tarnished. He should request
the government to insitutean inquiry with 3 retired supreme court judges headed by
Justice Ganguly. That would put an end this libelous charge against a very innocent
man." from:  P.N.Shreeniwas

Justice Ganguly was the 2G Judge
The Hindu : News / National : Behind Robert Vadra’s fortune, a maze of questions

The Many Theories of Economics

I have encountered a dilemma. Over a period of almost a month I have been writing about the suspicions I have about the recent economic reforms that have been announced. If you have been reading my posts then you would be well aware that I am questioning the real intent of these changes, the manner in which these changes have been introduced i.e. in my opinion in an undemocratic way. The more I think and write about it I find myself heading down the path of questioning the validity of the very theory of neo-liberalism which is the guiding principle for these reforms. I am not an expert in economic theories and political science to be able to authoritatively comment on the validity of this theory. Yet even with this impediment I cannot possibly sit silent on this issue because of the very injustice I saw in the implementation of this change recently in our country.

I can see the euphoria of the very vocal 'experts' and also the disdain for the very democratic opposition political parties in the mainstream media. The opposition is being termed as obstructionist. Yet I am perplexed as to why I have missed the entire debate on the merits and demerits of the policies in any meaningful way? Why for the last 20 years I have not heard what used to be an often repeated jargon describing India in the 1980's, the grand old concept of a 'Mixed Economy'. We hear all the new jargons from the globalization school of thought, and only those. Am I living in a world cutoff from this debate or has everyone in the general population been cutoff from this debate? Is it that the need for a debate is not required because the 'success' of the 1991 reforms imposed by IMF under neo-liberal framework have made any debate unnecessary?

Here in lies my dilemma. If I continue this path of writing about this issues I am faced with the impediment of my lack of in depth knowledge of the many theories of economics to be able to comment authoritatively on this subject, and yet if I sit silent on this then I am well aware that I am not hearing in the media from any expert who is currently vocal and making an argument of any other alternative, at least not in India. To break this dilemma I have to search what is the debate in the home countries of the neo-liberal school of thought.

When I embark upon my study of what is being argued in the west about these principals I find that there are a plethora of arguments being made on both sides of the debate. I am also made aware that these debates are not new. These are old debates that have gone on for several decades and are even today being carried out in the west, for instance on the back of occupy wall street protests that happened earlier this year. There is also a resurgence in the USA for a search for an alternative to the current model of economic development post the 2008 financial crisis. These debates are happening everywhere I am sure even in our country but not so visibly. Economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman or Amartya Sen for example do not fall in the neo liberal school of thought. There is even a resurgence of study of Marx and the use of cooperative model in agriculture. The difference for us is that these debates are not visible to us in our mainstream media.

These are hard subjects. It is not easy for a public opinion to be formed on these issues. It is difficult to engage in these debates with the masses being involved. They seem to require a certain level of knowledge and understanding, which unless we get someone like Amartya Sen explaining us, will remain limited to the elite circles. To write about these issues with any authority I will have to dive into the world of economics and political science and I will have to start with one of the many schools of thoughts and complete the full circle to be able to come to a conclusion on which theory appears most viable to me. A daunting task indeed for a layman to undertake.

There have been many economic policy thinkers in the western world who have influenced the government policies around the world, Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes are described as the most important. Since I had mentioned Kar Marx earlier let me start with Das Kapital(Capital). There is a resurgence of the study of Capital in the west. Prof. David Harvey from the City University of New York has been teaching Capital for the last 40 years. He has made his video lectures public and that was a good place for me to start. Prof. Harvey describes Capital as one of the great studies of capitalism. He also mentioned in one of his lectures that this was only an incomplete work of what Karl Marx actually wanted to do. Had he finished his work we would have been left with a body of work of epic proportions. But even the three volumes of Capital are a great source of understanding capitalism. I must set aside the fears of my capitalist friends that I am not a Marxist just as Karl Marx himself had said when questioned that he cannot be described a 'Marxist', as the meaning that word had become to be.

To a patient  reader who has followed me to this point in the article I would give an example of what I found was of relevance in Capital. A couple of views that I could immediately relate to and which you would also have come across as a criticism of some of the neo-liberal policies without necessarily being classified as 'Marxist' are following:

1) A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is 
not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c
My Interpretation> Commoditization of water and some other natural resources which should be free is against this principal that not everything of use value should be treated as a commodity of capitalism. So the neo-liberal theory of privatize every thing including our water resources is fraught with danger. We should not set a price tag on everything some things are gift of nature.

2) The use values, coat, linen, &c.,  i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two 
elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material 
substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can 
work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.
Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.
My Interpretation> One understanding of this can be the we sometimes justify the pollution and destruction of nature for economic progress(material wealth) but the fact is that without mother earth, material wealth cannot be created. Thus economic growth at the cost of global warming will ultimately lead to reduction of material wealth. There can be no child without the mother. So this is one issue, on which the scientists and the economists should be together, not against each other. The neo-liberal theory that requirement of environmental clearances from government are an impediment to growth and that we cannot take a hit on economic growth due to environmental concerns miss one of the basic premise of economics.

One can go on writing about these issues. But a single post can have only so much information so as to keep the reader involved. All I would like to leave the reader with is that economic policies which we are following under great corporate and foreign government influence, in this push for reforms, at the cost of due democratic process, are not the only policies that have been proposed by economic theorists. There is lot to learn even from a supposed anti capitalist like Karl Marx on how to run a capitalist economy. There isn't a case for us to blindly rush to seemingly transformation changes based on some of the economic policies pushed by the west, which are being questioned in the west itself. I meanwhile have the task of understanding economics as best I can, to come to a conclusion as to which policies I should support myself. Since the debate between experts on this subject is missing from the mainstream media, I have no other way of knowing.

Why GDP growth alone does not make a nation better

I wouldn't be wrong if I make an assertion that very few of us have at best only a basic education in economics. We leave it to the experts to understand economics and the elite group of economists set the policies which our nation follows. But I would also not be wrong by a very great margin when I say that thanks to the media coverage on economic issues, most of us who are even remotely aware on current affairs know quite well what this thing called Gross Domestic Product(GDP) is. I am not going to go into the detailed definition of GDP, briefly as we all know it is the total value of goods and services produced.

We are all aware that the GDP growth percentage of China is more than India's and we are all witness to the euphoria  that existed in media when we were seen to be growing at 8 to 9%.  Not a day goes by when we don't have policy experts and business Czars(Maharaja's would be more appropriate) and financial analysts telling us how we had lost the plot when the growth rate fell, and how we can still reach that 9% target if we get our policies right. Readers would be aware of another jargon that has been often reported in media which goes as the 'Hindu Rate of Growth' describing the pre-reform period in India's economic growth. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had mentioned in August this year that GDP growth is a matter of national security.

The argument in support of GDP growth is made that growth has lifted millions out of poverty and has the potential to lift millions more. Lifting people out of poverty is a compelling argument, but the fact is that the current poverty line set by the government itself is disputed by many. There are many criticism of the Below Poverty Line and the poverty figures that I have read and I can make an argument about that. But I don't want to make criticism of governments BPL the main premise of my argument in this article. But I would like the reader to keep in mind that by our own estimate on the basis of our own poverty line, there are still 30% of the population who are poor. Now I would like to draw the reader's attention to the curious case of a nation which has these figures(est. as of 2011) of economic development.

Utopia

• GDP growth rate - 7.1% 
• GDP per-capita  -  $19,600(PPP)
• Industry's contribution to GDP  -  89.7%
• Agriculture's contribution to GDP - 3.6%
• Capital Investment - 49% of GDP
• Budget Surplus - 1.7% of GDP
• Public Debt - 4.6% of GDP

Compare these with the figures of India in the same period:

• GDP growth rate - 7.2% 
• GDP per-capita  -  $3,700(PPP)
• Industry's contribution to GDP  -  26.4%
• Agriculture's contribution to GDP - 17.2%
• Capital Investment - 32.8% of GDP
• Budget Surplus - -6.7% of GDP(deficit)
• Public Debt - 48.5% of GDP

I have deliberately limited myself to the figures related to GDP(per capita), GDP growth, industry and agriculture's contribution to GDP so as to stick to the popular metrics that the policy makers and the media usually use while selling current economic policies to the citizens. A quick comparison with India's numbers should make us almost certain that an average citizen of Utopia must be much more prosperous than the average citizen in India. The most important factor being the per capita GDP figure which is a whopping $19,600(PPP) which is comparable to some of the European nations and more than 5 times that of India.We would be convinced even more if I were to tell you that the GDP growth figures in this nation have been double digit in the 90's. That must surely be the reason for this high per capital GDP number, and that must surely be the way to go in order to achieve prosperity i.e. high GDP growth. If you believe this argument then I agree with you that per capita GDP numbers are more important that absolute GDP numbers, and I agree that this number should surely rise if GDP growth rate is high. But shouldn't that mean prosperity?

Before I come to that and before I reveal which country this mystery Utopia really is, let me tackle some more aspects of our national discourse. So what are the problems that Indian economy faces currently which we are all aware of thanks to the communication from the experts that media delivers us? It is lowering GDP growth rate, high budget deficit, increasing current account deficit and high public debt. Solution we are told as per the current policy makers, experts on the subject and the media is 'Foreign Direct Investment' related 'economic reforms'. Incidentally we are also being told by the media at present, as has often been repeated in past, that the reason why we are not able to implement reforms as well as China is because well, we are a democracy. So chaotic democracy which we have, is an impediment to FDI reforms and FDI reforms is a solution for growth and growth (at all costs?) is the solution to poverty. Those are the broad contours of the national discourse on growth. 

Since two economies we are comparing are of different sizes, let me talk in terms of percentage when tacking the issue of FDI.

Utopia

Average FDI as a percentage of GDP in 1990's - 38.34%

Average FDI as a percentage of GDP in 2000's - 14.46%

India

Average FDI as a percentage of GDP in 1990's - 0.39%

Average FDI as a percentage of GDP in 2000's - 1.58%

That is it! The figures speak for themselves, surely the Indian policy makers and the business channels are right. FDI is the answer! More FDI means more growth rate and more growth means more per-capita GDP. Surely this country in question has got its policies right and surely it does not have the same problems of policy paralysis and difficulty in decision making that India faces because of its 'chaotic democracy'. India's democratic decision making was a problem as the Economist article argued "Some reformers pray for a financial crisis that will shake the politicians from their stupor, as happened in 1991, allowing Mr Singh to sneak through his changes". I have managed to write an article in great defense of the current policies sneaked through by Mr Manmohan Singh despite 'chaotic democratic' opposition by 'rabble rousing' opposition parties and I have managed to use all the prevalent cliche'. 

Until of course when I tell you that the mystery country in question is none other than the great African Republic of Equatorial Guinnea, and then suddenly my entire argument begins to fall apart. The figures I shared are not wrong they are estimated figures from the CIA world fact book, other sources may quote sightly different figures, but yes I admit I have selectively lifted the figures. The figure I had not mentioned until now is that the poverty rate in Equatorial Guinnea is a whopping 75%. The per-capita GDP figures mean nothing,  the industry's contribution to GDP means nothing, the lower budget deficit(or surplus) means nothing, the GDP growth rate means nothing, the FDI means nothing to the vast majority of the country's population. Spectacular GDP growth rate alone has not been able to lift a population of 700,000 out of poverty in that country, but we in in India are being fed the notion that a single minded pursuit of GDP growth rate is what will bring millions out of poverty in India.

Question arises what is the problem in Equitorial Guinnea? Why has the magic potion of GDP growth not worked for them? The problem my dear readers is that Equitorial Guinnea is only a nominal democracy, where the current President Obiang has ruled for last 30 years and will continue to do so for a foreseeable future, the problem is of concentration of political power and corruption, the problem is of concentration of  economic wealth in only a few hands, the problem is of unequal distribution of wealth. This is why the High Income per capital GDP figures are worthless when compared to the poverty figures.

Surely I must be out of my mind comparing the next world super power with Equitorial Guinnea. I need to get more of my facts right to come to the conclusion why India will not be the next Equitorial Guinnea. We are a democracy where free and fair elections are held every 5 years, chaotic but free and fair. So the chaotic democracy with 'rabble rousing' opposition which was until now an impediment to our growth will prevent us from going down the path of Utopia. Our democracy and a free and fair(?) media will prevent corruption and crony capitalism to cause concentration of wealth in only a few hands. The top 70% of our  population cares about the bottom 30%. Our rich are better than their rich. Our billionaires are ethical and moral so are our businesses. Our politicians are aware of their obligation towards the poor, they are not hand in glove with the big Indian and foreign businesses. Our policy maker are educated in the elite institutions of the world and know what is good economics. They have the cause of the country at heart. Our large and growing middle class is educated and it will always make the right choice about who should be leading us and who should be making policies and what policies it will support.

Well if these facts are true especially about the middle class then I concede. After all the middle class is quite vocal in support of reforms. I will write more about the middle class some other day. In the meanwhile let us do all we can to invite FDI. Because FDI leads to growth and growth leads to higher per capita GDP and that leads to lifting millions out of poverty. Really? Is that so?

PS: There was no disrespect intended to the people of Equitorial Guinnea. I was sarcastic in my assessment of the democracy and development record there because in an interview to CNN I heard Mr Obiang describe the country as not a dictatorship but a Republic and described himself democratically elected.He even mentioned that he will remain in power as long as the people wanted him to.
           It has been alleged that the oil wealth of the nation was siphoned off to the notorious Riggs Bank by the corrupt politicians and administrators in Equitorial Guinnea. I had to make this comparison because many middle class Indians thanks to the recent boom in our economy appear to have forgotten that the poor in India are in many aspects poorer than sub-saharan Africa despite the recent boom in our economy. The effects of corruption and concentration of wealth on the poor are not lost on us. Equitorial Guinnes to me is a typical case of failure of the 'trickle down' theory. I need not be an expert on the subject to make this assertion.