I am not sure about the nuclear deal. Well, as per most polls, more than 70% Indians are giving me company. I am BJP's middle class vote-bank and I not ditching them anytime soon (not after I stuck with them even through Gujarat riots).
While there are substantial reasons for my ambivalence, one is sheer loyalty - not to BJP but to Arun Shourie. Arun Shourie, for me, is the leading conservative thinker in India, and one with unquetionable integrity (when was the last time a Ministry was involved in deals worth billions of dollars, and even opposition acknowledged that Minister is clean?). He differs with BJP's public stand on reservations and I agree with him; he differs with BJP's public stand on Ambedkar and I agree with him. So I agree with him more than I agree with BJP. In the case of nuclear deal I was willing to listen to BJP, because he has articulated BJP's line of thought (though Yashwant Sinha's active advocacy of the same line pushes me the other way) - unfortunate but when I don't understand a issue much, I look at the people on either side!
So much for my ambivalence, but I want this deal to happen. I wish those in favour of the deal had more honest arguments. For me an honest argument in favour of the deal is 'Yes, US will not act against their own law - the Hyde Act; while as a sovereign nation we can conduct a nuclear test, all that is gained through this deal will go down the drains if we do so; yes, the agreement does not consider us a Nuclear Weapons State' BUT ' deal or no-deal, we will have to suffer isolation if we conduct a nuclear test; deal or no deal, there is no international agreement now or possible in near future which will acknowledge us to be a nuclear weapons state; and while USA views the 123 Agreement in the light of Hyde Act, we are not bound by it and we will act accordingly, and have accounted for US acting according to Hyde Act'. In a nutshell, this is the best we could have got, and tell us if NDA could have done better? Tell us if these benefits are not worth the costs?
Nick Burns, one of the key architects of the deal, has spoken about many of these issues and he almost endorses every objection that NDA has to the deal . It is difficult for the government, even through legal luminaries like Manu Singhvi, to argue that opposition's objections are against national interest because the person who negotiated the deal on US' behalf has publicly stated that "When this agreement was negotiated, it was fully consistent with the provisions of the Hyde Act. So we have the right to terminate it if India tests." He further adds that," "No aspect of this deal recognises India as a nuclear weapons state." What would the Government have to say about it?
In this context I would reiterate the need for a more honest argument in favour of the deal, which while acknowledging all that Nick Burns says (the 'Cost'), talks about the 'benefits. Currently the government is busy denying that there are any costs - a debate that they are not going to win other than in the Indian Express editorials.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
RBI is a communal and anti-poor organisation!
While most news channels spent a lot of time talking about hike in CRR and repo rates, they ignored an equally important part of RBI announcement. As per RBI, "Early fiscal indicators point to some strains on the Centre's fiscal position which has worsened somewhat in relation to Budget estimates.” It further noted that in view of the growing off-budget liabilities and enhanced expenditures on subsidies, loan waivers and salaries in the rest of the year, fiscal deficit may go up. Consequently, fiscal developments warranted “close and careful monitoring” as it would have implications on inflation and external sector management, the report said.
Now when the Finance Minister announced this 60,000 Crore loan waiver in his budget speech without really budgeting for it, opposition parties were critical of this fudging. Arun Shourie in his piece in The Indian Express, quoted Manmohan Singh's 1991 speech about VP Singh Government's loan waiver, "There is one large component of non-plan expenditure that is a burden on the exchequer... I refer to the Government’s obligation under the Rural Debt Relief Scheme. Unfortunately, there was a gross under-estimation of the total fiscal liability under this scheme which was introduced last year. In addition to the sum of Rs. 1500 crores provided in the revised estimates for last year, we have to provide Rs. 1500 crores in the current year. But this is not all. We may need a similar provision in the next year". Now the Congress government was doing the same thing.
Chidambaram rather than assuring the nation and the parliament about where the money will come from, was stating that 'Trust me' - Shourie called it 'Main Hoon Na' budgeting. Congress spokesmen in debates in TV studios went on offensive proclaiming Congress to be the party of poor and BJP anti-poor, and some debates digressed into routine rants about the 'communal' BJP. No one ever told where would the money come from, and what would be the impact on the economy.
Now that RBI's assessment echoes the same things that the opposition had said about the FM's sleight of hand in budgeting, what would the Congress spokesmen say in a TV debate? 'Communal' and anti-poor' RBI?
Now when the Finance Minister announced this 60,000 Crore loan waiver in his budget speech without really budgeting for it, opposition parties were critical of this fudging. Arun Shourie in his piece in The Indian Express, quoted Manmohan Singh's 1991 speech about VP Singh Government's loan waiver, "There is one large component of non-plan expenditure that is a burden on the exchequer... I refer to the Government’s obligation under the Rural Debt Relief Scheme. Unfortunately, there was a gross under-estimation of the total fiscal liability under this scheme which was introduced last year. In addition to the sum of Rs. 1500 crores provided in the revised estimates for last year, we have to provide Rs. 1500 crores in the current year. But this is not all. We may need a similar provision in the next year". Now the Congress government was doing the same thing.
Chidambaram rather than assuring the nation and the parliament about where the money will come from, was stating that 'Trust me' - Shourie called it 'Main Hoon Na' budgeting. Congress spokesmen in debates in TV studios went on offensive proclaiming Congress to be the party of poor and BJP anti-poor, and some debates digressed into routine rants about the 'communal' BJP. No one ever told where would the money come from, and what would be the impact on the economy.
Now that RBI's assessment echoes the same things that the opposition had said about the FM's sleight of hand in budgeting, what would the Congress spokesmen say in a TV debate? 'Communal' and anti-poor' RBI?
Monday, July 28, 2008
Samajwadi Party's Parliamentary Commerce
There is enough evidence in 'cash-for-vote' scandal to implicate a Samajwadi Party MP in the Rajya Sabha and another in the Lok Sabha. But Samajwadi Party's shameless commercial dealings had started before the trust vote and have continued even after that. CBI's 'go slow' on Mulayam investigations and 'move fast' on Mayawati's investigations is well documented. But the biggest shock was Samajwadi Party's political resolution on Monday, 28th July.
"There are certain provisions in the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress which will create hindrance in going ahead with the nuclear deal. We request the Centre to press the USfor making certain amendments in the Hyde Act before finalising the deal or present a bill in Parliament to make an Act in India also" said the resolution.
Is this not a verbatim endorsement of BJP and NDA's stand on the deal. NDA has supported the strategic partnership with the USA and a Civil Nuclear Cooperation as well, but has expressed concerns about clauses of Hyde Act. Since it was more realistic about chances of US ammeding the Hyde Act (even SP is just playing to the gallery here), they suggested a possible act or ammendment to curent Atomic Energy Act in India to negate the impact of Hyde Act.
Samajwadi Party and, backed by its support, Congress has called NDA all sorts of names. 'Lack of confidence in India's standing', 'frivolous objections to create a roadblock in India's energy security' and many such! Now would Congress say exactly the same charges against Samajwadi Party for having made the same objection and suggested the same remedy? As it turns out it was all about Manmohan Singh saving his chair by winning the trust vote and not about an honest debate on the Nuclear deal - an subject on which, as it turns out, Congress' most numerous and vocal supporters are speaking BJP's language Ctrl+C & Ctrl+v
"There are certain provisions in the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress which will create hindrance in going ahead with the nuclear deal. We request the Centre to press the USfor making certain amendments in the Hyde Act before finalising the deal or present a bill in Parliament to make an Act in India also" said the resolution.
Is this not a verbatim endorsement of BJP and NDA's stand on the deal. NDA has supported the strategic partnership with the USA and a Civil Nuclear Cooperation as well, but has expressed concerns about clauses of Hyde Act. Since it was more realistic about chances of US ammeding the Hyde Act (even SP is just playing to the gallery here), they suggested a possible act or ammendment to curent Atomic Energy Act in India to negate the impact of Hyde Act.
Samajwadi Party and, backed by its support, Congress has called NDA all sorts of names. 'Lack of confidence in India's standing', 'frivolous objections to create a roadblock in India's energy security' and many such! Now would Congress say exactly the same charges against Samajwadi Party for having made the same objection and suggested the same remedy? As it turns out it was all about Manmohan Singh saving his chair by winning the trust vote and not about an honest debate on the Nuclear deal - an subject on which, as it turns out, Congress' most numerous and vocal supporters are speaking BJP's language Ctrl+C & Ctrl+v
Sunday, July 27, 2008
With the benefit of hindsight, should we not hail Advani’s ‘Judgement’?
If Advani had Barack Obama’s marketing machinery at his disposal, he should have used it to tell the country, specially in the light of the recent blasts, how his judgment was superior to everyone else’s. Obama key election plank has been ‘judgement’ that he demonstrated by giving a speech against Iraq war when even most Democrats were for the war – John Kerry and Hillary Clinton included – how he has been proven right.
Mulayam Singh in July,2006, “There have been two major terrorist strikes in Uttar Pradesh ever since we formed the government; and be it Ayodhya or the Varanasi blasts, SIMI was not remotely involved”. His brother went further in defending SIMI saying that even he had been accused of being a SIMI agent! Governor of UP, TV Rajeswar Rao, took a serious note of this statement. Had he been from BJP he would have been branded communal but he happens to be a UPA appointed Governor, who was senior intelligence official who ought to know more about security threats to the country than Mulayam.
Defending a terrorist organization is a criminal offence in many countries in the world. It is so in many states in India. What would you say about a person who has gone on defending a terrorist organization just to garner votes? While Mulayam Singh tried to backtrack, but that would have been possible only if this was his one-off defense of SIMI. But he has been a pro-SIMI activist for a long a time. Milli Gazzette dated Oct. 15, 2001 writes, ‘Other organizations including Jamiatul Ulama, Milli Council and Majlis-e-Mushawarat have also criticized the move. Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party has come forward and criticized the ban on SIMI.’ It further adds, ‘Samajwadi Party’s general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Azam Khan told MG that the move smacks of political vendetta against the Muslims of the country.’
Secular UPA’s, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal had this to say in the Lok Sabha in April 2008, “The banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has links with terrorist groups, including Lashker-e-Toiba”. ’ He further added that links have been revealed in investigations into a number of cases.
When SIMI was banned by the NDA government in 2001, Advani and the BJP drew flak from all and sundry. Today with arrest of top SIMI leadership, it nefarious designs have been exposed. Primary investigations into recent blats show that Indian Mujahideen which has claimed responsibility for the Ahmadabad blasts on July 26th, could be SIMI v2.0. It is too much to expect the UPA and its supporting leaders to acknowledge that Advani was right and they were wrong; but at least they would not be so shameless to side with a blatantly anti-national terrorist organization. That they are still in politics is unfortunate and can happen only in India where we forgave those who supported China in the Indo-China war of 1962!
Post Script: If I have desired politics being purged of anti-national, pro-terrorist leaders like Mulayam Singh; let me also make another wish. The biggest achievement of the trust vote on April 22nd was that UPA brilliantly leveraged leaders like Omar Abdullah to demonstrate that what is pro-India cannot be anti-Indian Muslim, and that problems that afflict Muslims of India are the problem that afflict all Indians. This ensured that in spite of earlier attempts the Nuclear Agreement never became a communal issue. The welcome that Omar received even in the Kashmir valley proves that it is an insult to the Muslim voters that being pro-SIMI, exonerating Afzal Guru, siding with Iran come what may, would get their votes. I wish people like Omar (who I think hid behind rhetoric on the land transfer issue, but that was a minor point of his speech) and others like him would do the same in delinking a ruthless anti-terrorist operation from an anti-Muslim operation. It will strengthen those who want to deal with it strongly and weaken those who are playing on those fears. For once even BJP would be grateful to Omar.
Mulayam Singh in July,2006, “There have been two major terrorist strikes in Uttar Pradesh ever since we formed the government; and be it Ayodhya or the Varanasi blasts, SIMI was not remotely involved”. His brother went further in defending SIMI saying that even he had been accused of being a SIMI agent! Governor of UP, TV Rajeswar Rao, took a serious note of this statement. Had he been from BJP he would have been branded communal but he happens to be a UPA appointed Governor, who was senior intelligence official who ought to know more about security threats to the country than Mulayam.
Defending a terrorist organization is a criminal offence in many countries in the world. It is so in many states in India. What would you say about a person who has gone on defending a terrorist organization just to garner votes? While Mulayam Singh tried to backtrack, but that would have been possible only if this was his one-off defense of SIMI. But he has been a pro-SIMI activist for a long a time. Milli Gazzette dated Oct. 15, 2001 writes, ‘Other organizations including Jamiatul Ulama, Milli Council and Majlis-e-Mushawarat have also criticized the move. Mulayam Singh Yadav of Samajwadi Party has come forward and criticized the ban on SIMI.’ It further adds, ‘Samajwadi Party’s general secretary and Rajya Sabha MP Azam Khan told MG that the move smacks of political vendetta against the Muslims of the country.’
Secular UPA’s, Minister of State for Home Affairs Sriprakash Jaiswal had this to say in the Lok Sabha in April 2008, “The banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) has links with terrorist groups, including Lashker-e-Toiba”. ’ He further added that links have been revealed in investigations into a number of cases.
When SIMI was banned by the NDA government in 2001, Advani and the BJP drew flak from all and sundry. Today with arrest of top SIMI leadership, it nefarious designs have been exposed. Primary investigations into recent blats show that Indian Mujahideen which has claimed responsibility for the Ahmadabad blasts on July 26th, could be SIMI v2.0. It is too much to expect the UPA and its supporting leaders to acknowledge that Advani was right and they were wrong; but at least they would not be so shameless to side with a blatantly anti-national terrorist organization. That they are still in politics is unfortunate and can happen only in India where we forgave those who supported China in the Indo-China war of 1962!
Post Script: If I have desired politics being purged of anti-national, pro-terrorist leaders like Mulayam Singh; let me also make another wish. The biggest achievement of the trust vote on April 22nd was that UPA brilliantly leveraged leaders like Omar Abdullah to demonstrate that what is pro-India cannot be anti-Indian Muslim, and that problems that afflict Muslims of India are the problem that afflict all Indians. This ensured that in spite of earlier attempts the Nuclear Agreement never became a communal issue. The welcome that Omar received even in the Kashmir valley proves that it is an insult to the Muslim voters that being pro-SIMI, exonerating Afzal Guru, siding with Iran come what may, would get their votes. I wish people like Omar (who I think hid behind rhetoric on the land transfer issue, but that was a minor point of his speech) and others like him would do the same in delinking a ruthless anti-terrorist operation from an anti-Muslim operation. It will strengthen those who want to deal with it strongly and weaken those who are playing on those fears. For once even BJP would be grateful to Omar.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Status of Indian Railways (2) - Tale of Three Train Jurneys
Last month I had the chance to travel by train in India through its length (Bangalore – Nizamuddin by Rajdhani Express) and tiny part of its breadth (Delhi – Haridwar by Mussorrie Express and Haridwar – New Delhi by Shatabdi Express).
Two of these trains, Rajdhani and Shatabdi, are considered Indian Railways’ pride. The Bangalore Rajdhani covered the distance of 2454 kms in 33.5 hours. This is an average speed of 72 kms/hr and even with this comfortable speed required to be on schedule, we arrived 30 minutes late. Food served in the train is ordinary, with the catering company more interested in complying with tender specifications than client taste. So for three consecutive meals you will be served paneer (cottage cheese) curry or chicken curry depending on veg/non-veg choice. On being told that it is due to tender requirement that we have to eat the same curry for three meals, we decided to demand things as per rules. “Why was the ‘juice in tetra-pack’ (even the packaging is specified so that fraudulent caterers have no leeway) not served?” we complained. It was only after we demanded the complaint book that the juice was served. The waiter wasn’t even ashamed of the whole affair that he went around demanding tips with an aggressiveness only seen in some American restaurants. I did not complain about the large hole in my hand-towel as it only helped to distinguish mine from others’. There was no water in the train for a while, and after authorities at Nagpur station expressed inability to supply additional water. It was assumed that people can live without using washroom facilities for next 5 hours till the train reached Bhopal. Or it was assumed that you can use the facilities and leave the mess behind. Fortunately, the train was reasonably clean, thanks not only to bowel control of passengers but also due to cleaning staff in Airtel uniform. Incidentally, this train is Airtel Rajdhani having been painted to look like this mobile service provider’s billboard than India’s pride. Can you imagine a TGV being a Carrefour Train or ICE being a Siemens Train painted across the length of the train reducing the visibility for travelers sitting inside? I make my living in the private sector and hence have some appreciation of market and marketing but this is just shameful – more so when this train is run by an organization which made 25,000 Crore rupees last year.
Our next journey started at Delhi Railway station with an altercation with porters. This is a common feature as official porter rates carry no meaning. Thank God for that as in the same period in which my wages would have tripled in corporate sector, the government rates for porters have remained unchanged. But it also results in unseemly arguments all around as passengers haggle with porters. The train arrived half an hour late even though it originates at Sarai Rohilla, 5 kms away. It beggars belief that a train can fall 30 mins behind schedule covering a 5 km distance. The next morning we arrived about an hour late in Hridwar covering 282 kms in nine and a half hours – traveling at under 30 kms/hr an average speed which might have been acceptable for the first Mumbai –Thane train in 19th century. But that wont stop our Cabinet Minister responsible for Railways bask in adulation at B-Schools for his great management of the Railways.
Our Haridwar – Delhi journey by Shatabdi was a better experience due to very courteous service staff and tasty food. Possibly the only Shatabdi or Rajdhani journey in my life where the meal service was not followed by the service staff aggressively soliciting tips. I am not sure how Railways would manage to differentiate between catering contractors for this Shatabdi from the one for the Bangalore Rajdhani but they certainly need to find a way. But this four and a half hour journey took more than five hours, this time the train averaging 55 kms/hr (just to put this speed in context – Shatabdi’s are short-distance premium service of Indian railways, as Rajdhani’s are for long distance connecting Delhi to State Capitals).
Two fundamental problems are evident – one is Indian Railways being run like personal fiefdoms of successive ministers with sole intention of currying favor with their local constituencies. Much has been written about this issue, but there is a wider question of Public-Private Partnership in areas in which it creates private monopolies. In some of outsourcing decisions about railway services like catering, station up-keep, we lose out on ‘not for profit’ motive of a public utility and also the 'market forces' getting out the best of a private player. Corruption thrives, service quality remains poor, and the minister continues to celebrate his success as the media plays the band!
Two of these trains, Rajdhani and Shatabdi, are considered Indian Railways’ pride. The Bangalore Rajdhani covered the distance of 2454 kms in 33.5 hours. This is an average speed of 72 kms/hr and even with this comfortable speed required to be on schedule, we arrived 30 minutes late. Food served in the train is ordinary, with the catering company more interested in complying with tender specifications than client taste. So for three consecutive meals you will be served paneer (cottage cheese) curry or chicken curry depending on veg/non-veg choice. On being told that it is due to tender requirement that we have to eat the same curry for three meals, we decided to demand things as per rules. “Why was the ‘juice in tetra-pack’ (even the packaging is specified so that fraudulent caterers have no leeway) not served?” we complained. It was only after we demanded the complaint book that the juice was served. The waiter wasn’t even ashamed of the whole affair that he went around demanding tips with an aggressiveness only seen in some American restaurants. I did not complain about the large hole in my hand-towel as it only helped to distinguish mine from others’. There was no water in the train for a while, and after authorities at Nagpur station expressed inability to supply additional water. It was assumed that people can live without using washroom facilities for next 5 hours till the train reached Bhopal. Or it was assumed that you can use the facilities and leave the mess behind. Fortunately, the train was reasonably clean, thanks not only to bowel control of passengers but also due to cleaning staff in Airtel uniform. Incidentally, this train is Airtel Rajdhani having been painted to look like this mobile service provider’s billboard than India’s pride. Can you imagine a TGV being a Carrefour Train or ICE being a Siemens Train painted across the length of the train reducing the visibility for travelers sitting inside? I make my living in the private sector and hence have some appreciation of market and marketing but this is just shameful – more so when this train is run by an organization which made 25,000 Crore rupees last year.
Our next journey started at Delhi Railway station with an altercation with porters. This is a common feature as official porter rates carry no meaning. Thank God for that as in the same period in which my wages would have tripled in corporate sector, the government rates for porters have remained unchanged. But it also results in unseemly arguments all around as passengers haggle with porters. The train arrived half an hour late even though it originates at Sarai Rohilla, 5 kms away. It beggars belief that a train can fall 30 mins behind schedule covering a 5 km distance. The next morning we arrived about an hour late in Hridwar covering 282 kms in nine and a half hours – traveling at under 30 kms/hr an average speed which might have been acceptable for the first Mumbai –Thane train in 19th century. But that wont stop our Cabinet Minister responsible for Railways bask in adulation at B-Schools for his great management of the Railways.
Our Haridwar – Delhi journey by Shatabdi was a better experience due to very courteous service staff and tasty food. Possibly the only Shatabdi or Rajdhani journey in my life where the meal service was not followed by the service staff aggressively soliciting tips. I am not sure how Railways would manage to differentiate between catering contractors for this Shatabdi from the one for the Bangalore Rajdhani but they certainly need to find a way. But this four and a half hour journey took more than five hours, this time the train averaging 55 kms/hr (just to put this speed in context – Shatabdi’s are short-distance premium service of Indian railways, as Rajdhani’s are for long distance connecting Delhi to State Capitals).
Two fundamental problems are evident – one is Indian Railways being run like personal fiefdoms of successive ministers with sole intention of currying favor with their local constituencies. Much has been written about this issue, but there is a wider question of Public-Private Partnership in areas in which it creates private monopolies. In some of outsourcing decisions about railway services like catering, station up-keep, we lose out on ‘not for profit’ motive of a public utility and also the 'market forces' getting out the best of a private player. Corruption thrives, service quality remains poor, and the minister continues to celebrate his success as the media plays the band!
Status of Indian Railways (1) - Calling Lalu's Bluff!
I personally love train journeys – As a resident of Sultanpur in UP who studied in Warangal in Andhra Pradesh and Mumbai in Maharashtra and worked in Bangalore, I have been an Indian Railways’ frequent traveler. It helps that I not only love train journeys but also the food, both inside the trains and on the platforms. Moreover, having travelled by best railways in developed world (Japan, France, Germany), ordinary railways in developed world (US, UK), fast improving railways (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary) and others (Egypt), I have some benchmarks to evaluate Laloo Yadav’s claim of Indian Railways being amongst the best.
Consider this hypothetical situation - at the Annual General Meeting of a reputed a $ 1000 Million (4000 Crores) publicly listed corporation, the CEO announced that the corporation had made a loss of $250 Million (1000 Crores) but the corporation has done immense public good through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects. CSR projects have been unprecedented, appreciated by one and all and the CEO has been felicitated by various social organizations for the company’s efforts. It is not difficult to imagine the fury among the shareholders for the company’s performance, as CSR becomes a mere footnote to the discussions. The CEO would most probably lose his job.
If the CEO of a private enterprise is fired for poor profitability in spite of great public good; should not the leader of public utility be fired for pathetic public service in spite of high profitability? CEOs act would sound preposterous to business commentators for he got his objective completely wrong. Why then has the media joined Lalu Yadav’s bandwagon in tom-tomming 68,000 Crores in reserves when trains are dirty, delays prevalent and basic comforts missing? Think of this statement, “benchmark of net surplus before Dividend makes us
better than most of the Fortune 500 companies in the world” while traveling by a train through Gangetic plains, and you would acknowledge that place of such statements in the context of reality of quality of Railways is trashcan and not B-school case studies. "Sab kah rahe hain hum ne gazab kiya hai. Karodon ka munafa har ek sham diya hai”, (Everyone is saying that I have done wonders. I have delivered millions in profits every evening), he said. The objective of a public utility or a service run by the government is to do maximum public good, while maintaining financial prudence. Would a Health Minister be rewarded for running profitable hospitals, when people are dying of disease? Or Education Minister for running profitable schools when significant part of the population is uneducated?
Traveling by ‘Passenger Trains’ (not as different from ‘Goods Trains’ but slower trains called thus to differentiate from ‘Express Trains) or most trains which ferry seasonal immigrants from Bengal and Bihar to Punjab have conditions which any western observer would consider sub-human. Stand on any platform of Varanasi Railway Station, entry point to what can potentially be India’s leading tourist destination (only city other than Jerusalem which is the leading pilgrimage for two religions – Hinduism and Buddhism) and the filth would tell you the story of all that’s wrong with Indian Railways and tourism.
It was Lalu Yadav’s Railway Budget speech which filled me with rage and prompted this blog-post. I held on awaiting a more objective analysis from the commentators – appreciation of the financial turnaround, credited both to the general economic growth and ability of the managers to leverage that for Indian Railways’ income, along criticism of abysmal service levels at which the Railways operate. This was not to come as ‘Lalu at a B-School’ is too good a TRP boost for any scope for objectivity, and Lalu himself too smart to miss out on the opportunity. It is high time we called Laloo’s bluff, and let him know that frequent visits to business schools have muddled his brain about his primary objective!
Consider this hypothetical situation - at the Annual General Meeting of a reputed a $ 1000 Million (4000 Crores) publicly listed corporation, the CEO announced that the corporation had made a loss of $250 Million (1000 Crores) but the corporation has done immense public good through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects. CSR projects have been unprecedented, appreciated by one and all and the CEO has been felicitated by various social organizations for the company’s efforts. It is not difficult to imagine the fury among the shareholders for the company’s performance, as CSR becomes a mere footnote to the discussions. The CEO would most probably lose his job.
If the CEO of a private enterprise is fired for poor profitability in spite of great public good; should not the leader of public utility be fired for pathetic public service in spite of high profitability? CEOs act would sound preposterous to business commentators for he got his objective completely wrong. Why then has the media joined Lalu Yadav’s bandwagon in tom-tomming 68,000 Crores in reserves when trains are dirty, delays prevalent and basic comforts missing? Think of this statement, “benchmark of net surplus before Dividend makes us
better than most of the Fortune 500 companies in the world” while traveling by a train through Gangetic plains, and you would acknowledge that place of such statements in the context of reality of quality of Railways is trashcan and not B-school case studies. "Sab kah rahe hain hum ne gazab kiya hai. Karodon ka munafa har ek sham diya hai”, (Everyone is saying that I have done wonders. I have delivered millions in profits every evening), he said. The objective of a public utility or a service run by the government is to do maximum public good, while maintaining financial prudence. Would a Health Minister be rewarded for running profitable hospitals, when people are dying of disease? Or Education Minister for running profitable schools when significant part of the population is uneducated?
Traveling by ‘Passenger Trains’ (not as different from ‘Goods Trains’ but slower trains called thus to differentiate from ‘Express Trains) or most trains which ferry seasonal immigrants from Bengal and Bihar to Punjab have conditions which any western observer would consider sub-human. Stand on any platform of Varanasi Railway Station, entry point to what can potentially be India’s leading tourist destination (only city other than Jerusalem which is the leading pilgrimage for two religions – Hinduism and Buddhism) and the filth would tell you the story of all that’s wrong with Indian Railways and tourism.
It was Lalu Yadav’s Railway Budget speech which filled me with rage and prompted this blog-post. I held on awaiting a more objective analysis from the commentators – appreciation of the financial turnaround, credited both to the general economic growth and ability of the managers to leverage that for Indian Railways’ income, along criticism of abysmal service levels at which the Railways operate. This was not to come as ‘Lalu at a B-School’ is too good a TRP boost for any scope for objectivity, and Lalu himself too smart to miss out on the opportunity. It is high time we called Laloo’s bluff, and let him know that frequent visits to business schools have muddled his brain about his primary objective!
Saturday, July 5, 2008
The Idea of Europe
Over last couple of months, I had an opportunity to meet two leaders – one a right wing former Presidential candidate in Poland (right wing in the true sense that he supports free trade, lower taxes, reduced role of Government to the extent that you do not know who your President is, along with conservative views on social and religious issues) and another a left-of-center Member of European Parliament who has an important position on its Foreign Affairs Committee. Since these were ‘closed to Press’ private gatherings, I would not identify them, but I thought it was worth mentioning some eye-opening perspectives on the ‘idea of Europe’
The first challenge is deciding whether Europe is a geographical, political or a cultural concept. If it is a geographical entity then what are its boundaries? If Ural Mountains and Ural River define its eastern boundaries, then would the political Europe (EU) accept Kazakhstan as part of Europe? If Caucasus defines its southern boundary between Caspian Sea and Black Sea, the why is Mount Elbrus (5,621 m) not the highest mountain but the Mont Blanc (4,810 m) as most books say? (It took me 15 precious years to figure out why Kanchenjunga was called the highest Indian mountain peak, when on all maps K2 was shown to be higher – so disputed political boundaries have cost many a student precious marks in Geography examinations for decades!). So both eastern and southern geographical boundaries are disputed, and hence geography does not provide an answer.
Then is Europe a political entity? Or should it be a political entity? Conservative politicians in many European countries would prefer Europe to be a free trade bloc, with their nation states being sovereign entities with no decision making devolved to Brussels. This in essence means Europe should not envision being a political entity - with no desire of a common domestic policy (abortion allowed in liberal France and Netherlands, but abhorred in Poland; welfare state bordering socialism in France but a different structure in post-Thatcher Britain; strong stand of Czech President against stiff European targets regarding climate change etc.) or a common foreign policy (pro-America/pro-Iraq war policy of Britain and anti-war stance of France and Germany). But why should a free trade bloc be restricted to contiguous geographies? It may as well include any other country in Africa or Asia or Latin America whose participation in this trade bloc makes economic sense. But then this will defeat the whole idea of Europe. Thus, Europe just as free trade bloc without a common political character, however low the denominator might be, would not be considered a power along the lines of US, Russia and China, or emerging powers like India.
But even if Europe were to have some political identity, would this identity survive without a military might to defend it? An issue that came up during the discussions was that in case of a threat will anyone in Europe be as willing to die for ‘Europe’ as they would be for Germany or France or Britain or Poland or Italy? This is well articulated rhetorical question by opponents of political Europe, as everyone finds the idea of ‘dying for Europe’ almost laughable! It is argued that NATO will defend Europe, but what if Finland, which is not a member of NATO, is attacked?
And then the most debated issue of all – Turkey! A very pertinent point made was that desire for Turkey not being in EU is Europe’s acknowledgement of Turkey being a secular progressive state. With the status quo, EU has boundaries with a state which shares some of the western ideas (secularism, democracy), in spite of being different (Muslim-majority). If Turkey were to be a part of EU, then EU will have boundaries with Iran, Iraq and Syria – a foreign policy and security challenge that no European policy maker even comprehends. So many European liberals who consider Turkey to be more like them (Europeans), and conservatives who consider Turkey to be an alien culture – both see benefits in Turkey not being a part of EU.
So many perspectives, but no prescriptions for what Europe is or ought to be!
The first challenge is deciding whether Europe is a geographical, political or a cultural concept. If it is a geographical entity then what are its boundaries? If Ural Mountains and Ural River define its eastern boundaries, then would the political Europe (EU) accept Kazakhstan as part of Europe? If Caucasus defines its southern boundary between Caspian Sea and Black Sea, the why is Mount Elbrus (5,621 m) not the highest mountain but the Mont Blanc (4,810 m) as most books say? (It took me 15 precious years to figure out why Kanchenjunga was called the highest Indian mountain peak, when on all maps K2 was shown to be higher – so disputed political boundaries have cost many a student precious marks in Geography examinations for decades!). So both eastern and southern geographical boundaries are disputed, and hence geography does not provide an answer.
Then is Europe a political entity? Or should it be a political entity? Conservative politicians in many European countries would prefer Europe to be a free trade bloc, with their nation states being sovereign entities with no decision making devolved to Brussels. This in essence means Europe should not envision being a political entity - with no desire of a common domestic policy (abortion allowed in liberal France and Netherlands, but abhorred in Poland; welfare state bordering socialism in France but a different structure in post-Thatcher Britain; strong stand of Czech President against stiff European targets regarding climate change etc.) or a common foreign policy (pro-America/pro-Iraq war policy of Britain and anti-war stance of France and Germany). But why should a free trade bloc be restricted to contiguous geographies? It may as well include any other country in Africa or Asia or Latin America whose participation in this trade bloc makes economic sense. But then this will defeat the whole idea of Europe. Thus, Europe just as free trade bloc without a common political character, however low the denominator might be, would not be considered a power along the lines of US, Russia and China, or emerging powers like India.
But even if Europe were to have some political identity, would this identity survive without a military might to defend it? An issue that came up during the discussions was that in case of a threat will anyone in Europe be as willing to die for ‘Europe’ as they would be for Germany or France or Britain or Poland or Italy? This is well articulated rhetorical question by opponents of political Europe, as everyone finds the idea of ‘dying for Europe’ almost laughable! It is argued that NATO will defend Europe, but what if Finland, which is not a member of NATO, is attacked?
And then the most debated issue of all – Turkey! A very pertinent point made was that desire for Turkey not being in EU is Europe’s acknowledgement of Turkey being a secular progressive state. With the status quo, EU has boundaries with a state which shares some of the western ideas (secularism, democracy), in spite of being different (Muslim-majority). If Turkey were to be a part of EU, then EU will have boundaries with Iran, Iraq and Syria – a foreign policy and security challenge that no European policy maker even comprehends. So many European liberals who consider Turkey to be more like them (Europeans), and conservatives who consider Turkey to be an alien culture – both see benefits in Turkey not being a part of EU.
So many perspectives, but no prescriptions for what Europe is or ought to be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
