Open Forum

New Delhi, 8 November 2023

Vision@2047

CONSTRAINTS NEED ATTENTION

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

It is understood that the Vision@2047 document, likely to be released by the government by year-end, will outline the structural changes and reforms needed to reach the objective of becoming a $30 trillion developed economy by that year, Niti Aayog CEO, BVR Subrahmanyam, stated recently. The talk of India emerging big has been in the air for the last five-six years or perhaps more, but the specific target of reaching $30 trillion has gained momentum, specially after the pandemic. 

Reports indicate that India’s nominal GDP will rise from $3.4 trillion in 2022 to $7.3 trillion by 2030. Going by the preliminary figures of the Niti Aayog, estimates show that India will need to post an annual average economic growth of around 9 percent between 2030 and 2047. Meanwhile, consultations with top corporates are slated to take place this month as also with secretaries of the government so that the document could be finalised by December end. 

One may recall a statement released by the Aayog released earlier this year which stated: “This rapid pace of economic expansion would result in the size of the Indian GDP exceeding Japanese GDP by 2030, making India the second largest economy in the Asia-Pacific region. By 2022, the size of the Indian GDP had already become largest than the GDP of the UK and also France. By 2030, India’s GDP is also forecast to surpass Germany”.  

Further recall that a few years back, the government announced achieving a $5 trillion economy by 2024, which appears unachievable. Even achieving a $10 trillion economy by the year 2035 may not be possible due to various problems that India faces. Survey and reports hardly outline this possibility. However, what is important for the onward march is to involve the States in this goal and ask them, specially the major ones like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka to formulate their own plans in this regard.  

The question that strikes our mind is what would be the contribution of say the lower 40 percent of the population in the phenomenal growth of the GDP that is being contemplated? Or say what would be the contribution of the rural population in this targeted growth? Obviously, if the corporate houses expand their profitability to reach the targets, this does not mean inclusive growth. 

It is not known what the planners and economists, who advise the government, are thinking about the bottom tiers of the population, which struggle for existence with their meagre earnings. What plans are being contemplated by the government to increase their earnings and whether this would find a place in the vision document? 

Meanwhile, it may be pertinent to point out here that the savings growth rate in the country declined to 47-year low and indiscriminate personal loans given by banks has industry starved of funds. This was reflected in the September bulletin of the Reserve Bank of India which showed a “23 percent spike in gold loans and a 29 percent spike in personal loans”. In this connection it is also pertinent to refer to the fact that the financial liabilities have risen from 4.1 percent to 5.8 percent. 

As a consequence, the net financial assets of households in 2022-23 were 5.1 percent of GDP, considerably lower than the historical average of 7.5 percent. These are quote reflective of the inability of the people to save as their earnings have not kept pace with market trends while borrowings have increased, not just from banks but also from private money lending organisations, which have increased in recent years.    

Another aspect of the economic scenario is a recent report indicating that unemployment in the country crossed 10 percent in October, as per figures released by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). It found that the unemployment rate in October was 10.05 percent with the rural sector rate being 10.82 percent while the urban rate 8.44 percent. This is more than the overall rate in September being 7.09 percent while last year, the figure for October was 7.6 percent.  In such a scenario, with the present supplementary grant of Rs 28,000 crore, the allocation for the NREGA programmes is the lowest in the last four years. 

The problems facing the country as also the external scenario is not at all congenial to high growth. The government retains its pro-poor focus with little concern for the revival of the rural economy. Though entrepreneurship has grown, this is mainly concentred in cities and comprehensive rural transformation has not been attempted. 

The potential of agriculture has not been explored fully and though value addition has taken place, to some extent, this could have increased several times more. Recently, Prime Minister Modi stated that agro processing sector has attracted Rs 50,000 crore of foreign direct investment (FDI) during the last nine years and if this trend continues, India would eventually become a key player in processed food. 

The labour-intensive sectors have not been given the push and subsidies are not forthcoming. There is no government plan to identify these sectors and promote India’s handloom and handicrafts in a big way globally. It is only the big business, the big agricultural farmer and the organised sector employees who have benefited from the policies of the present government during the last few years.   

The policy focus in the coming years has rightly been given on physical infrastructure development but the same priority must be given on social infrastructure i.e., on education and health sectors. Each sub-division should have at least two higher secondary school and one or two college while at the block and sub-divisional levels, health centres should be upgraded. In the process of making these a reality, the panchayats have to be given more responsibility and the 16^th Finance Commission, which is to be set up shortly, should, if possible, make provisions for the States to allocate Central funds directly to the municipalities and panchayat bodies. 

These must be incorporated in the vision document as without a grass-root approach, India cannot prosper. Only measuring percent growth of GDP, without taking into account the growth in income of the rural populace, no inclusive development can take place. The needs and aspirations of the masses must be given a serious thought and prioritised.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 7 November 2023

Electoral Bonds

ALL HUSH-HUSH ABOUT SLUSH

By Poonam I Kaushish 

As we gasp in our polluted gas chamber, trust our political tribe to add toxicity thanks to their venomous and acidic tu-tu-mein-mein in the on-going Great Indian Dance of Democracy in 5 States. Wherein Parties have opened their secret war chests and are busy ‘funding’ their vacuous promises. After all, what better time to hit the jackpot! 

Primarily, because elections are used to amass wealth for Parties, candidates and future polls. Like politics, polls are a business which is why no Party, however vocal about the matter in opposition, has made any attempt at stanching flow of black money into the electoral arena. Think: Between 2004-05 to 2014-15 national Parties income was Rs 6612.42 crores of which 69% was from ‘unknown sources’ which increased to Rs 17,250.201 crores as Election Commission (EC) doesn’t require Parties to declare the source below Rs 20,000.

The Government’s explanation: Parties need clean money as they have to show expenditures for rallies, etc. So it deposits Rs 100 crores saying so many people deposited Rs 19,000 each to me. So, the cash I received I show as ‘unknown sources.

Pertinently to end this scourge, Modi Sarkar mooted electoral bonds to pay for elections and help cleanse political funding in 2018. This allowed anonymous donations through bonds which could be bought at a bank in denominations ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 1 crore and given to a Party, which could exchange them for cash. But the donor remained faceless.

A year later Supreme Court asked Parties to give details of donors who donated through electoral bonds, details and amounts received on each bond etc to EC, which said of the Rs 221 crores bonds purchased Rs 210 crores had gone to BJP.

The Government argued transparency cannot be the mantra as voters have the right to know about their candidates but why should they know where money of Parties is coming from? Adding, if donors are asked to disclose names of Parties to whom they give money, it would result in return to the earlier system of usage of cash and black money in political funding.

However, the EC opposes this as it would have a “serious impact” and reduce transparency in political funding by legalizing large unknown contributions which can potentially lead to businesses and foreign companies gaining influence over elections.  Also, it would be impossible to determine whether donations to Parties came from companies breaking the law, State-owned public sector units or foreign sources. Thereby, demeaning transparency and giving rise to opaqueness.

Last week again Supreme Court heard the electoral bond issue and even though it reserved its judgment, it pointedly asked: “The source of money is not known, actual owner of bond is not known and where it is spent is not known thereby depriving the voter.” Pulling up the Government it averred, “your contention voters do not have the right to know is difficult….It gives credence to allegations of corporates using shell companies to donate. In 2021-22 income of 8 Parties from ‘unknown sources’ was Rs 2,172.23 crores, 66%.

Alas, bonds have become legitimized quid-pro-quo, business proposition and political insurance between Government-corporates. A person helps a Party with funds and, in return, gets his job done. Any wonder the bond-donation cup overflows whenever a Party is in power at Centre or States. The BJP received Rs 10,122.03 between 2016-17 and 2021-22, Congress Rs 1,547.43, TMC Rs 823.30.

A cursory glance of affidavits filed with EC reveals the bizarre realities of politics. It showcases contributions from business houses that directly benefited from Party in power. A steel magnate paid Rs 50 crores and got highway construction contracts, a metal baron who funded BJP became proud owner of 51% of Bharat Aluminum Co Ltd.

The Government’s explanation that bonds have to be bought at State Bank and would be “white” does not hold good as anonymity makes it impossible to check who is funding a Party. Government for reasons best known to it has taken away checks that ensured only profitable companies which existed over three years could donate. This prevented shell companies being set up to help “round-trip” money or whitewash it by giving it to Parties, while also bribing them in the process.

Undeniably, bonds are a business proposition, kickback for a favour, political insurance, quid pro quo. See how the donation cup overflows whenever a Party is in power at the Centre or States. The modus operandi is simple. A person helps a Party with funds and, in return, gets his job done. It is not for nothing that businessmen are known as king-makers, specially, a handful of top industrial houses which boast about their clout in the corridors of power

Total donations received by BJP in 2016-17 was Rs 997 crores of which it got Rs 468 crore in cash donations, each below Rs 20,000, from anonymous persons and Congress received Rs 180 crore in donations of which Rs 138 crore was through small donations from anonymous persons. In 2017-18 BJP received five times more than what Congress. In 20-22 BJP got Rs 614 crores, Congress mere 94 crores.

Questionably, do bonds fulfil its objectives --- stop generation and use of black money, besides getting Parties to submit their audited accounts regularly? No. Does it stop the use of money power which has become the bane of India’s electoral polities? No way. Does it decrease corruption? Not at all. Bring about the much-hyped and promised transparency? Are you kidding?

More. Who buys bonds? Corporates and businessmen. Are disclosures of the source of money obligatory on those who buy them? Not at all. Asserted a former Election Commissioner, “Bonds and donations are welcome but they could be an easy way to launder black money if disclosure of the source is not made mandatory. Transparency on political funding, as in the West, is a must before exemption is allowed. Anonymity of bond buyers has to go. We cannot go one step forward and two steps backwards. We want free and fair polls.”

The way out? In a milieu where netas have much to lose and public everything to gain by a transparent funding system, unless one determines the sources which should be legally tapped for Party expenses there is little hope of minimizing the evil influence of vested interests. Two, donations should be evenly spread out, not necessarily equally, but perhaps in some proportion to seats in Parliament.

Three, reducing cash element in polls whereby donations should be given to the EC which will then distribute it on an equitable basis. Four, amount be released to candidates, not Parties. Five, encourage and incentivizing use of authourised banking channels. Six, 50% given as advance, pre-election on past performance basis. Seven, State funding of elections and funds be apportioned on vote basis secured by candidates.

In sum, we still have a long way to go before we can make elections free and fair as Parties will continue to stonewall all efforts to come clean on funding. Thus, irrespective of whether a Party is in power, bonds and donations must be made public as people have the right to know whether a Party’s stand on a policy is influenced by the source of its funding. Time to end bhrashtachaar. Else our netagan’s tall talk of eradicating corruption will remain empty blabber! ------ INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 6 November 2023

Political-Business Nexus

BLATANT, CURBS VOTERS RIGHTS

By Shivaji Sarkar 

India is going through myriad paths. Seven decades ago, Delhi was made the country’s capital to keep the Bombay Club far from politics. Now its shadow is being seen in the corridors of power in Delhi. In such times,sweeping and counter accusations become integral part of the political discourse. 

And it’s not restricted just to a few business houses but goesfar beyond. It appears governments short of funds and political parties’ lure for it, happily woo the industry. On the other hand, the industry needs the government even beyond the licence permit raj for smooth functioning of their business. One such case is the recent questioning of TMC MP Mahua Moitra by the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee which involves two major business houses Hiranandani and Adani and she is hitting back. The other cases include the Rs 8000 crore corporate electoral bonds (EB) and Singur in West Bengal. 

Singur’s land arbitration award of Rs 766 crore to Tata Motors is curious. Whether it’s faulted or not is for the courts to decide. More so as it’s glaringly contrary to the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision calling the acquisition “illegal and void”. While declaring so the top court said the acquisition failed to meet “requirements under the Land Acquisition Act 1894”.If that is the case, how could a tribunal order compensation on illegal acquisition? 

Recall, the Singur plant for producing the Nano car was closed in 2008 following protestsagainst the then Left Government headed by Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. The small car was the gigantic gain of Trinamool Congress, wiping out a ‘pro-capitalist’ CPM. It was also the landmark moment of industry houses gradually getting involved in the “politics of growth” aggressively and setting in the mindset of selling robust public sector units. 

Big business houses always had some links with the powers-that-be. Even in 1950s and 1960s it was alleged that several MPs from different parties were on the rolls of industry houses and asked questions on their behalf. This has continued, but names of business houses and MPs have changed. And it was no secret but saying so officially was taboo. Many of the honchos had access to even different prime ministers and it wasn’t hush-hush, but never so blatant either. Mundhra to Mehtas, it has been so. 

Moitra boldly dared her detractors by countering a vicious attack and even walking out of the Ethics Committee meeting accusing it of asking “personal questions” amounting to“vastraharan” (disrobing). She even argued that no House rule barred her from sharing a site’s password and it wasn’t her email. Ethics Committee Chairman Vinod Sonkar shot back saying she behaved in an angry, rude and arrogant manner. 

Neither it is the issue here nor is it to justify it. Moitra has asked 51questions on Adani group and BJP’s Nishikant Dube alleges she got cash in return. Moitra says asking questions is her right, as the society must question. That’s right. The industry houses roaming the corridors of power trample on the rights of the voters. The people’s quandary is how could their right be compromised for someone enjoying proximity and enjoying power? 

Parallely, the issue of electoral bonds (EB) being discussed in Supreme Court also speaks volumes. The court is asking searching questions about the “only person being deprived knowledge -- the voter”. The bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked Attorney General R Venkataraman, “As it is everybody knows it (who EB donors are). The only person who is being deprived is the voter. The party knows it, your contention that voters don’t have the right to know is slightly difficult”. 

The bench then observed that a company making losses also could donate gives credence to shell companies being used by big corporations to make donations to political parties. “This (EBs) should not become a legitimisation of the quid pro quo”.  It also observed that this system puts a premium on opacity. “It has to be removed”, the bench said. 

This is critical. Asking searching questions, Moitrabeing tried to be fixed by the Ethics Committee and the Singur arbitration must be studied in this context. The top court’s observations are to restore a system that defies transparency. Moitra being framed for asking questions also involves the issue of transparency. It is obvious the country has moved far beyond the “decency and coyness” of the powerful seeking some favours, now trying to capture the portals of power. For what? Obviously for profits and more. Has the court sensed it? 

Let us go from Singur to Saanand. Once Singur was denied to Tata Motors, it was given 1100 acres land at Saanand for the Nano project. After a few years, Nano was abandoned. The Rs 400 crore land remains with the Tatas. It also purchases a Ford unit at Saanand for Rs 725.7 crore. The Nano land also has appreciated by almost 20 percent. 

The CPM realised Rs 400 crore for Singur land from Tata Motors. In 2011, the West Bengal government under Mamata Banerjee re-acquired the land. In 2016, Supreme Court declared entire acquisition null and void. How could the West Bengal arbitration awards Rs 766 crores plus 11 percent interest on it? 

There may be many more such situations. Is this the reason that public sector organisations are being shut down and weakened? If private entities become so powerful as to decide policies everywhere, it does not bode well for the country. 

It’s not only happening in India but even in the US. But America has ‘anti-trust’ -- anti-monopoly – laws. Despite that the US society is concerned over their growing clout. The US levied penalty of $170 million on Google You Tube for flouting children’s privacy issues, $722 million on Alstom, $115 million State Street Corporation, $2.1 billion on Johnson and Johnson for talc powder causing ovarian cancer, $125000 on lobbying firm Carmen. 

India has on the other hand done away with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The Competition law is too weak. The increasing nexus between political parties and companies is undoubtedly a matter of great concern. While questioning itself is being curbed through various means, it is crucial for society to address and navigate the complexities arising from the growing nexus with companies. 

Interference with transparency, ethical practices, and accountability not only jeopardises the foundation of a more equitable future and a functioning democracy but also undermines the trust that citizens place in their institutions, highlighting the urgent need for vigilant oversight and robust reforms to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes. It can even convolute the process of growth.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Spotlight

New Delhi, 4 November 2023

The Identity Trap

By Rajiv Gupta 

Most people who have gone through a job interview will be familiar with the question, “Tell me about yourself” where the interviewee is expected to summarise why she/he is the perfect match for the position. When we meet people socially, we are trying to understand what kind of a person the other individual is so that we can decide whether we should socialize with him/her. 

We have multiple ways in which we can identify ourselves; by religion, by caste, by nationality, by gender, by age, by profession, by education, by our political leanings; you get the idea. Some of these we inherit, like gender, religion, caste, etc., while we acquire or develop others. Which of these identities do we feel strongest about? The effect these identities have on our choices of friends, careers, where we live, etc. is something that has assumed very different dimensions today as compared to a few decades ago. Let me explain. 

I was born and grew up in what was Bombay (now Mumbai), living in Delhi, male, Hindu by birth, engineer by training, educator by profession, amateur baker, cheesemaker, avid reader, etc. How should I describe myself? It depends on the situation. If I am in a job interview, I would likely present my education and experience credentials. If I am at a party, I would be more inclined to let my interests define me. In what context should I let my religion or caste define me? 

Strange as that question sounds, ethnicity, religion, nationality have become defining attributes of some people in today’s world. We all belong to some ethnic and religious group, including atheists. This is a given. The difficulty arises when we let such group membership define our total persona. Political parties have tended to use the ethnic/religious/national identities to polarise the population with the sole purpose of winning elections. People find themselves in an identity trap that is not of their making, and which is not easy to escape. This is a global phenomenon and has been seen to assume greater currency in the last decade or so. 

In my opinion, when we state our identity using one or more defining attributes, we are expressing membership in a group, whether social, professional, or political. This membership can be fluid as in the case of groups representing a specific interest, such as a book club, or photography club. We may belong to such groups as long as our interest lasts, and typically we are not emotionally invested in such groups. We do not go on a warpath against members of other book clubs. 

On the other hand, belonging to certain groups based on religion, caste or region can, and sometimes does, evoke strong emotions including hatred for people who are not part the group. It is the intensity of this emotion that is exploited by politicians for their own benefit. We see examples of this in conflicts throughout the world such as the Israeli-Hamas conflict in the middle east. 

I believe majority of the people do not feel strongly about their ethnic/religious identity that it should lead to hatred and violence. However, if they are manipulated into believing that their group is under attack from people from other groups, i.e., people from other religions, castes, nationalities, regions, etc. it can cause some people to react violently. Such people forget their multi-dimensional identity which includes their education, profession, interests, and focus on the identity that they have been led to believe is under attack. 

Once a person starts to believe that the core dimension of his/her identity is under attack, then other things become unimportant. Even if people in the “outgroup” may have a lot in common with us in terms of education, profession, interests, etc., all these factors pale in comparison to the dominant identity identifier. This is the identity trap that I refer to in the title of this article. It occurs when we let others define ourselves. 

The dangers of such a trap are a polarised population, lack of meaningful political and civic discussion, and a general mistrust and animosity among otherwise peaceful people. I am not suggesting that people will not have differences with others in a democracy. In fact, a healthy democracy should encourage debates among people. When these debates are issue-based, they are good for society, but when there is no discussion but only acrimony, and sometimes, violence, the result can be a fractured society. 

The solution for such polarisation will come from a realisation that we cannot, and should not, be defined by a limited set of identity attributes, least of all those that tend to evoke high emotions and prevent us from being able to reason through a situation. Religion, ethnicity, nationalism are some of the hot button issues that have been exploited by those who seek to manipulate us. 

It is somewhat ironic that not many people are as actively involved with local issues, either at the level of the town, or city or community. The local issues have a much greater direct impact on most citizens and residents of an area as this may include civic services such as water, education, roads, electricity, transportation, etc. 

However, these issues do not attract the same level of emotional investment as do broader, national level issues such as the ones I have mentioned in this article. That does not mean that there will be total agreement on the local issues. What we tend to have is more apathy on the local issues. Logically there should be more active participation of more people and discussion on the issues since the impact on our lives is more direct and visible. 

Getting people involved in the local issues could also lead to a little better understanding of differences between people. These differences are not necessarily inherited differences, but differences that are the result of their life experiences, which include choices they have made. Perhaps this will promote a healthier appreciation of diversity among our fellow earth inhabitants. 

I am not naïve enough to think that this will be easy. Citizens may not be ready to take interest in local politics with the same interest that they have shown in national politics. However, we will not know unless we try. And what we should ask is whether we are better off with people lacking a voice in their own governance or are we ready to try something different. I know where I stand in this matter. I would like to define my identity. What about you?---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)