EVENTS AND ISSUES

New Delhi, 27 February 2006

Save Wasteful Expenditure

NEW PAY PANEL AND DEVELOPMENT

By Vinod Deepak

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s announcement to set up another pay commission for the Central Government employees has sparked off a hot debate, highlighting the pros and cons of the decision.  Unfortunately, some have criticized it merely for the sake of criticism and without going into the actual facts and figures.

Undeniably, the financial impact of the Sixth Pay Commission would be staggering, both for the Centre and the States Governments. After implementing the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations in 1998-99, the annual wage bill of the Centre crossed a whopping Rs.10,000 crore.  This has, no doubt, broken the back of India’s economy with many States unable to pay even the salaries of their staff.  The impact of a further upward increase in salaries – even if 15 to 21 per cent – will impose an additional wage bill of Rs.6,000 crore on the Centre alone. 

It remains to be seen how the Government will square this bonanza with the commitment to eliminate revenue deficit by 2008-09 and reduce fiscal deficit to 3 per cent from the budgeted level of 4.3 per cent this year.  Moreover, it would be very difficult to achieve 10 per cent growth rate as promised by the Prime Minister, with the expected additional financial burden on the national exchequer. 

The Union Government’s total workforce is around 38 lakh, of which 15-16 lakhs are in the Railways and an equal number is working in Defence.  In other words, over 30 lakh personnel constitute the Ministers of Railways and Defence and the rest, a measly 6-7 lakh, are in about 500 Ministers and Departments of the Union Government, scattered all over the country.

The services of the employees of both Railways and Defence are indispensable and are of paramount importance.  Their services cannot be dispensed with since the Railways, the biggest public sector enterprise, serves as a backbone to the national economy.  It is also the biggest revenue-earner for the Government.  Even one day’s strike by the Railway staff is enough to cause insurmountable financial loss to the national exchequer, besides creating chaos in the whole country.  Almost all business and financial activities are rested on the shoulders of Indian Railways. Perhaps, with this view in his mind the economist Prime Minister has yielded to the long-pending demand of the unionized Railway employees. They had threatened to go on a nationwide strike if the Sixth Pay Commission was not set up early.

Now comes the question of the remaining 6-7 lakh employees posted in various ministries and departments of the Government. The general argument that they are over-paid and under-worked is untenable.  Like private sector, an average government employee is equally devoted to his duty and is always prone to hire and fire.  However, unlike his counterparts in the private sector, he is very poorly paid.  With the process of privatization entering the government sector, he has also lost his much-hyped job security. 

Whatever appears from outside, a government employee is subjected to more stringent official rules and regulations.  His earning from salary and other allowances is taxed there and then even as the government generally fails to realize huge taxes from lakhs of big wigs in the private sector.  With the prices of almost all essential commodities escalating day by day, an average wage earner finds it hard to make his both ends meet. 

Gone are the days when government job was considered as a life with luxurious comforts. Now it is the other way round.  It is like stagnated life without promotional avenues.  Moreover, with the amendment in pension rules, which stopped any pensionary benefits on recruitments made after the year 2000, the Government has virtually made its service look like a private one.

It is not that the successive Governments have not curtailed certain benefits to the  employees in the name of austerity measures.  A blanket ban on fresh appointments, reducing interest rate on GPF from 10 to 8 per cent, increase in working hours, bringing even a petty clerk in the tax net, restricting Over Time Allowance (OTA), abolishing posts vacant for more than one year, closing down many redundant departments and merging like-natured divisions, are some of the measures taken by the Government after implementation of the 5^th Pay Commission recommendations. 

The recommendations of the Geeta Krishna Committee – also known as Expenditure Reforms Committee (ERC) – on reduction of 30 per cent Government staff has been implemented to a large extend and the process is still continuing with the abolition of a large number of posts in almost all ministries and departments.  But the same method is not applicable to the Ministries of Railways and Defence where new recruitments are being made in view of the heavy load of work.  It means to say that the axe is falling only on the 6-7 employees who have come to be seen as an eyesore.

No doubt the prevailing work culture in government offices needs to be drastically reformed and the Government must be in a position to extract work commensurate with the pay packet. Government staff will have to be more responsive and accountable in view of the changed national scenario.  Corruption in government offices must be dealt with sternly as it would bring efficiency in their work.

Lastly, if the Union Government was so serious in reducing its workforce, one wonders why the retirement age was increased from 58 to 60 years?  Had it been 58, over 30 per cent of the staff would have gone much earlier.  It is still not too late, as it would ceremoniously show the door to several lakh employees on the verge of retirement. 

Secondly, why does the Government not come out with an attractive Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), like the one once offered by banks and public sector undertakings which facilitated exit of a large number of employees to cut down the size of its staff.  If a positive and attractive VRS is offered, undoubtedly a large number of employees, especially the youths who feel stagnated and virtually killing their talent in the government sector, will opt out on their own to start their new ventures.

The need of the hour is to generate additional funds from sources hitherto unexploited and untapped and by checking wasteful expenditure on pompous shows, luxurious foreign trips and by making sure that every penny earmarked for development is properly utilized and not squandered by unscrupulous elements both in government and private sector. The government servants should be the last resort for ushering in austerity measures! –INFA.

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 13 February 2006

Controversy Over Mohammad Cartoons

clash of oriental & occidental values

By Dr. Syed Ali Mujtaba

The worldwide protest by the Muslims against the caricature cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) suggests that the issue touches the emotional chord of the believers of the Islamic faith separated by the geographical boundaries of societies and nations. This is turning out to be an emotive issue that is taking the world by storm. Islam prohibits drawing images of Allah and his messenger Prophet Mohammad and its followers consider such acts as sacrilege.

The cartoons first appeared in a Danish newspaper last September and when attention was drawn towards the potential explosive material, the Danish Government snubbed the Muslim representatives reasoning that it had no legal power to act against the media. The cartoon then surfaced in a Norwegian newspaper that trigged a wave of protest, first in Arabia and then in other parts of the world. In retaliation, some newspapers in France, Germany and the Netherlands reprinted the cartoons, apparently to show solidarity towards the freedom of expression. This further inflamed the Muslim sentiments and reports of violence and deaths continue to pour in.

As the controversy rages on, three things emerge distinctively in this ongoing religion versus reason debate. A clash of two worldviews: social and political role of religion.  What emerges in this controversy is a perceptible difference of worldviews between the occidental and oriental societies. The occidental societies take pride in superiority of mind over faith. In its view rationalism is the sheet anchor of life and material achievements the yardstick of success.  In such societies nothing is infallible and sacrosanct. Those who do not subscribe to this view are fundamentalist and dogmatic.

If we see the cartoon protest against this background those feeling enraged by the cartoons seem justified. The caricatures are nothing but a blatant attempt to demystify the sacrosanct symbol of Islam. The protests are not really about cartoons but against those diabolic social designers who masquerade as liberals under the garb of freedom of expression.   

The motive of the innocuous looking caricatures is to create a north-south divide, open up the closed debate of mind versus faith, and create disharmony in the world.  The publishers want to communicate that the occident worldview is supreme and the legitimate prism through which the societies of the orient should negotiate their lives. A dictate, a fatwa from the liberal world. 

In the debate of mind versus faith, popular theories of revolution and modernization had predicted inevitable decline of religion. However, the 21^st Century perspective suggests this to be nowhere in sight. This includes the communist countries where systematic destruction of religion was carried out. The summarization is that religion continues to energize the society, since forces of modernization have failed to respond to the social needs.

Such kind of issues assume political dimensions in the absence of any other rallying point to give vent to the pent up anger and frustration to a host of local, national and international issues. Since such issues touch the emotional chord, it becomes a vehicle to protest against the injustices being carried out blatantly in the world today.  

The big picture in the protests is the pent up anger of the Muslims against America. The way Iraq is being handled and an action reply being planned for Iran, it has incensed those living in majority in 56 nations of the world. The macabre dance of death being perpetuated at Fallujahs and Abu Ghraibs is being resented through these cartoon protests. 

At other locations, the local and national issues take over the real issue. In Western Europe where large migrants have settled down, the cartoon protest is about racial discrimination, an assertion that such societies have to stop racial abuse and adjust with multi-culturalism.

The demonstration in the Arab world is to rise against their rulers that have mortgaged their natural wealth to the West for exploitation. The Iraq and now Iran issues add up to the heat emboldened by the victory of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The protest in Afghanistan is against the occupation of their country by foreign forces. In South-east Asia and Africa, protests have regional and local undertones, a unifying force to fight against injustices in their societies.

What emerges from the whole controversy is that there exists a perceptible difference in worldviews between the societies of the occident and the orient. The demonstrations seem to convey that in the oriental societies religion prevails over individuals. It demonstrates that how such issue becomes a tool to demonstrate the societal discontentment.

The story of caricature cartoons suggests that tension and turbulence continue to rule the roost in the world. The World Wars and nuclear holocaust have not deterred people to move away from conflicts. Human beings have learnt little lessons to come to terms with each other.---INFA 

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 30 January 2006     

MYANMAR GAS FIELDS

Has India Really lost to China?

By Syed Ali Mujtaba

Why has New Delhi not made much of hullabaloo about China getting the rights to lay the pipelines to exploit Arakan gas fields of Myanmar? Every one knows India took keen interest about piping the gas from the Arakans since its discovery in 2002. The ruling against it by the Myanmar’s military junta must have irked those in the mandarins of power in New Delhi. However, no murmur was heard about the deal either in official or unofficial India media. Was it a case of losing to China or there are some other reasons behind it?

Contrary to experts’ opinion that China has beaten India in the race of procuring Arakan gas, a realistic assessment suggests that it was New Delhi’s calibrated policy to let the proposal slip off, as laying gas pipeline to Arakans would be more of a liability than an asset for India.

For India to lay a pipeline for the exploration of the Arakan fields, a land route has to be taken either from Bangladesh or through its north-eastern States of Mizoram or Manipur. The talks on pipeline to Myanmar  via Bangladesh have failed because of a very high price quoted by Dhaka for its transit. With the elections round the corner and given the sensitivity of the issue, no political party in Bangladesh wants to open negotiations on this with India.  So to explore the Arakan gas fields India’s Bangladesh option became out of question. 

This leaves India with the second option to lay the pipeline through Mizoram or Manipur directly to Myanmar. However, when the cost effectiveness of both the routes was calculated, New Delhi found that none of the routes could be worth  consideration.

The other reason for India to back out was the volatile internal security situation in Arakan province. The province comprises the Rohingia Muslim population which is fighting discrimination of the Military rulers. This fight resulted in over 200,000 of them fleeing to Bangladesh. This issue was resolved after a decade of Burma- Bangladesh negotiations with Rohingas being repatriated back to the Arakans.

However, the actual problem remains unresolved and that continues to be the cause of insurgency in that region. Similarly, India’s north-east region too remains infested with insurgency. Any such pipeline would be susceptible to insurgent action both from Myanmar and India. New Delhi fully knowing the ground reality may not have liked to take any risk.

The other reason could be American factor that may have played a role in India overlooking the idea of laying the pipelines to Arakans. Even if India may have got the rights, the American ban, which exists for trade with Myanmar, may have come in its way. The economics of Indo-US relationship over-weighed the consideration for India to lay pipeline to Burma. It seems India does not want to sour its relationship with the US at any cost.

So the best option for New Delhi is to buy gas tankers. These are cheap, more secure, cost-effective and may not incur American sanctions. In fact, such ventures may attract foreign investment. That could be the main reason why India let go the gas pipelines proposal that is being grabbed by China.

This does not mean that India has lost the race for the Myanmar gas. With the demand for gas in the fertilizer and the industrial sectors in the eastern India alone is believed to be 13-15 million cubic meters per day, India can hardly shut its eye at the gas reservoirs in its neighbour. 

India is still keen on AI block gas and has prepared Gas Pricing approach paper for negotiations with the military rulers. India's ONGC Videsh Ltd. (OVL) and GAIL (India) Ltd are in a joint venture with block operator Daewoo and Korea Gas for exploration and production of gas of the AI block. The Indian combine has 30 per cent, the Daewoo 60 per cent and Korea Gas the remaining 10 per cent.

India's pricing formulation pegs the price of $3.3 per mmBtu (million metric British thermal unit) with the ceiling at Brent price of $60 per barrel. The floor can be set at the Brent price of $20 per barrel and that comes to $2.05 per mmBtu.  Based on this calculation, India can procure Myanmar gas at $3.1-3.5 per mmBtu at the well-head price. The gas when delivered in to the Indian market would cost $5.1325 per mmBtu.

India’s proposed pricing profile is done in line with well-head price profile that Myanmar has for its export to Thailand. In deciding the pricing approach, New Delhi has given necessary consideration to the Indian market affordability under a "realistic and optimal supply scenario. At what rate the deal would finally be made is yet to be worked out. The general impression is that pricing is done to keep some negotiation margins at the final agreed price mechanism that may somewhat be higher to the initial offer. All this indicates that India’s hunt for the gas from Myanmar is still on.---INFA

EVENTS & ISSUES

New Delhi, 2 January 2006

Trouble For The King

Conflict in Nepal enters dangerous phase

By Dr. Syed Ali Mujtaba

The conflict in Nepal between the Monarchy, political parties and the Maoists has entered a dangerous phase after the signing of 12-point agreement between the ultras and seven political-party alliance. The agreement to dislodge the King who assumed absolute powers in February last would undoubtedly trouble him in the days ahead; but at the same time it seems taking the country to a political abyss from where return to multi-party system looks abysmally dismal. 

The big question is whether the political parties were right in choosing the Maoists as partners in their struggle for restoration of democracy in Nepal. It is obvious they had a delicate choice between the ‘devil;’ ‘the autocratic Monarch’, and the ‘deep sea;’ the Maoists, whose ideology of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ has become redundant in the 21^st century.

To recap, King Birendra assumed constitutional role in 1990, paving way for multi-party democracy in Nepal. However, in a span of ten years, as many as twelve governments came and went, making a mockery of democratic governance. This led to the rise of Maoist insurgency that strove to bring ‘people’s democracy’ implying ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ by ending the institution of monarchy in Nepal.

Meantime, the palace massacre of royalties in June 1, 2001, brought Gyanendra, slain King Birendra’s brother, to the throne. The new King since the beginning harboured autocratic ambitions and showed displeasure towards the democratic government’s inability to deal with the Maoists. He first dismissed the government and then ruled the country through his hand-picked Cabinet, finally to assume the absolute powers. This triggered a wave of anti-monarchy protest, culminating into a 12-point agreement between the political parties and the Maoists.

There are two fundamental issues that require attention in the agreement reached between the Maoists and the political parties. One is the status of the Monarchy and the other nature of democracy in Nepal. The political parties have diluted their stand on Monarchy being ‘essential pillar’ of Nepali politics, and now endorse the Maoist’s views of its complete abolition and establishment of a ‘republic’ in Nepal. They seem convinced that if the unarmed people of Iran could uproot the autocratic Shah in 1979, why can't the ordinary people do the same in Nepal. 

This hypothesis looks logical on paper but there is little similarity between Iran and Nepal over the question of abolition of Monarchy. In Iran, a religious order was tried to replace the Monarchy, while in Nepal, a non-religious order is attempted to supplant the Monarchy that has a religious halo around his throne.

The Monarch in Nepal is not only a fountainhead of the political power but also regarded as an avatar of the Lord Vishnu, an embodiment of Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, all encompassing. It is hard to imagine the people of Nepal would whole-heartedly support the designs to end the Monarchy and see it being replaced by the Maoists model of China that itself is shedding the baggages of its past.

That’s one of the reasons the cumulated anger of Nepalese people against their King could not transcend beyond the realm of protest and is unable to generate the kind of anti-Monarchy frenzy seen during the days of the Islamic revolution of Iran. The conflict in Nepal has thrown up many imponderables; conspicuous among them is the question of the abolition of Monarchy. It is hard to imagine how this would play itself out.  The fact remains. Even then it would not be the end of the conflict in Nepal. 

On the question of democracy, there is little clarity in pact between the political parties and the ultras, except that it mentions the establishment of 'absolute democracy.’ This  would mean restoration of parliamentary democracy where the Maoists are co-opted in a multi-party system. However, that’s not the goal of the Maoists who may like to establish the 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' and that necessarily does not mean the restoration of multiparty democracy. 

In the current situation what appears imminent is that both the Maoists and the political parties want to maintain their respective positions on the nature of democracy and would like to combine for an assault on Monarchy till its total abolition.

The strategy of the political parties is to first battle it out with the Palace and then to think about dealing with the Maoists. The alliance with the Maoists has given them a breathing space. However, it has also generated the fear that it may entangle them in the cobweb of left ultra radical ideology from where it would be hard to disengage.

As far as Maoists are concerned, they seem to have developed a new political maturity at this juncture of their struggle.  They have realized that they may not succeed in capturing the state power through the violent means and therefore would like to try out the political route. It is with this new strategy they have entered into an alliance with the political parties, so that they may gain political legitimacy and build their own inherent strength.

It is unclear how the Maoists would deal with the political parties once their objective of dislodging the King is accomplished. This is a fact that Maoists have been chary about the multi-party democracy right since the beginning and their rise took place during the democratic era not against just the same parties but the same individuals who have cut the present deal with them. They have repeatedly made it clear that they would not compromise on their ultimate goals, capture of political power and establishment of 'people's democracy.'

Therefore, it does not stand to reason why the political parties have opted to for an alliance with the Maoists. The fear is that more the anti-monarchy protest prolongs the more the political base of the Maoists would be consolidated, and in such a scenario it would be the ultras that would call the shots and not the other way round. The political parties then would be left with little option to get co-opted into the radical’s ideals of  ‘absolute democracy.’ That would mean destruction of the democratic freedom and political pluralism in Nepal.

It seems the alliance between the political parties and the Maoists is taking the conflict in Nepal to a dangerous phase. ---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)