Pragmatic Euphony  

“We the people of India”

Indian Republic is in danger. It is is not in the danger of being killed by a military coup or a Tahrir Square type revolution. It is not even in the danger of going into coma for a few years as it happened under Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the 1970s. Entering its 64th year, the Indian Republic has gone well past that stage.

The danger to Indian Republic comes from being bled to death by a thousand cuts. Every single day it is stabbed, jabbed and knifed — in seen and unseen ways. Some of these wounds are superficial. They heal quickly. Others need more care. Sometimes when they heal, they leave permanent scars. At times, some wounds don’t heal fully. They continue to fester, weakening the body and soul of the Republic.

In an ideal world, the Republic either would never be hurt or would have the capacity for self-healing. In a real world, it is a constant process of getting hurt and healing. That healing touch and care for the Republic, in the real world, is provided by democracy. Democracy means that it is “We the people of India” who will help the Republic recover once it is hurt. No messiahs are going to alight from a different planet to take care of our Republic.

That is the reason on 26th of January, 1950, it was “We the people of India” — not the Queen of England or Mahatma Gandhi or Dr. Ambedkar — who solemnly resolved “to constitute India into a Sovereign, Democratic Republic”. It is our Republic… of We the people of India. We need to look after it. Happy Republic Day everyone.

Related Posts:

I want my constitution

Differentiating between the Independence Day and the Republic Day

Let us stop this jamboree of a Republic Day Parade

Republic Day parade in the 1950s

• Share

Shouldn’t all the US aid to Pakistan also be counted towards supply line costs?

The story is a couple of days old but will certainly be quoted by many analysts, particularly in DC and in Islamabad. This AP story says that Pakistan’s closure of supply routes costs US six times more for the new route via Central Asia.

Pentagon figures provided to the AP show it is now costing about $104 million per month to send the supplies through a longer northern route. That is $87 million more per month than when the cargo moved through Pakistan.[AP]

More details on the story are at ABC News:

The cost estimate includes the added costs of the combined ground and air movements being used to offset the closed border crossings. …When Pakistan closed the border crossings, only 30 percent of NATO supplies flowed through them, most of it fuel.

…A Defense official says most of the added costs come from the diversion of supplies originally intended to go through Pakistan that now arrive by ship in other countries in the region for eventual air transport into Afghanistan. For example, there is the added cost in diverting some cargo from Pakistani ports to Indian ports where the supplies are either flown into Afghanistan or transported northward by train for delivery through one of the NDN routes.

Additional costs come from the transportation of more materials through the NDN, and the even pricier cost of flowing in supplies on direct flights from the U.S. or Europe into Afghanistan. The direct flights cost ten times what it would cost to transport materials through Pakistan. That is one of the reasons it is the least used option. Transporting materials through the NDN is estimated to be three times the cost of transporting supplies through Pakistan.[ABC]

First the minor quibbles. One, it isn’t clear from the 512 percent increase in monthly costs whether the cost being compared for two different months pertains to the same quantum of supplies. A possibility exists that more supplies may have been moved in to recoup the reserves which would have been consumed in the days immediately after the supply routes were closed by Pakistan. [Update - This was echoed by ISAF Spokesman Brig Gen. Carsten Jacobson: "The critical face in re-adjusting logistics is always in the first weeks. That is obviously past."]

Two, the facts are hidden deep down in the story. Transporting materials through the NDN is estimated to be three times the cost of transporting supplies through Pakistan. And, direct flights to Afghanistan cost ten times of what it would cost to transport materials through Pakistan.

Now to the major question. Money is fungible. US military and civilian aid to Pakistan (not to count CSF payments), before it came to a halt in 2011, was essentially a facilitation fees paid to Pakistan Army to allow supplies to be sent to Afghanistan via Pakistan. If you add the $20 billion paid to Pakistan by the US (excluding CSF payments) since 9/11, the cost of transporting goods via Pakistan would be greater than supplying troops in Afghanistan via alternate routes. Essentially, cutting off aid to Pakistan and using northern supply routes is still cheaper than supplying goods via Pakistan.

The media reports might be overlooking this calculation but the Pentagon certainly isn’t. Amidst reports that Pakistan army is looking at levying an additional $1000 NOC fee per container that is routed via Pakistan after the routes open, the US response seems logical if you see the bigger picture.

U.S. officials say they could manage indefinitely without that access if Pakistan either makes the closure permanent or offers to reopen it under unacceptable conditions.[AP]

Considering the benefits that accrue to Pakistan’s military-business complex by allowing US supplies to move through Pakistan, it is but a matter of time before Pakistan army finds a fig-leaf of an excuse to resume these supply lines. After all, for all the talk about not allowing US drones to operate in Pakistani airspace, US drones have already struck a couple of times in tribal areas in the last two weeks. For once, by not caving in to Pakistani blackmail, the US seems to be playing the carrot-and-stick game rather well with Pakistan. It is, however, a matter of conjecture if the US can play this game long enough, and smartly enough, in a Presidential election year.

• Share

The K Subrahmanyam lecture

National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon delivered a lecture yesterday to honour K Subrahmanyam, India’s foremost strategic thinker, who passed away in February last year. Mr Menon rebutted the notion that India has never had, and doesn’t have a grand strategy.

The NSA said Subrahmanyam had made four key contributions to Indian strategic thinking: building a consensus that nuclear weapons were the cheapest and most effective way of guaranteeing national survival in an uncertain world; creating an understanding that defence could not be sidelined in the pursuit of development; developing a modern national security structure; and emphasising the need for India to seek autonomy in its strategic decision-making.

For Subrahmanyam, Mr. Menon said, India’s core constitutional values — secularism, democracy and the pursuit of the peoples’ welfare — constituted a road map that provided overall shape to decision-making.[Hindu]

The lecture is worth watching in full. Here it is in two parts, courtesy Ms. Smita Prakash of Asian News International.

If these 27 minutes leave you unsatisfied after whetting your appetite, spare an hour. Go to the IDSA website and listen to this talk by the master himself. In what was among one of his last talks at IDSA (here), recorded on 29 April 2010, Mr. Subrahmanyam gives a tour d’horizon of “India’s Grand Strategy” to probationer officers of the Indian Foreign Service undergoing their 10-day module at IDSA. (Link thanks Rohan Joshi)

My fellow blogger, Nitin Pai conducted an interview with K Subrahmanyam for Pragati. You should listen to the interview in his own voice. You can also download the published interview in PDF.

• Share

Three examples

#1 – Two Prime Ministers – Manmohan Singh and Kamla Persad-Bissessar of Trinidad and Tobago – were among the guests who enjoyed the hearty meal during the just concluded Pravasi Bharatiya conference in Jaipur. Now it has emerged that the catering firm – Sky Feast – has no food licence, a mandatory requirement under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Interestingly, the state health department had deputed two food inspectors to check the food supplied for the two PMs. It now appears that they cleared the food without bothering to check whether the firm had the clearance to supply it.[India Today]

#2 – The Co-ordinating Committee of Secretaries (CCoS), headed by cabinet secretary Ajit Kumar Seth, is a follow-up to the policy for acquisition of assets abroad by PSUs to ensure adequate raw-material, crucial for growth of the manufacturing sector and the economy as a whole, an official statement said. The CCoS will consider proposals which are beyond the powers of board of CPSEs and require a budgetary support.[First Post]

#3 – The Government has allowed MS-Office Software as per DGS&D rate contract, to Government and Government Aided Educational Institutions, including training comprising 24-48 working hours of learning period, on the above software to two teachers per school. MPs may recommend an amount up to Rs.22 lakh in all per annum from their MPLADS fund, to purchase books for schools, colleges and public libraries belonging to Central, States/UTs and Local Self Government as per break up given in recent circular. These institutes will not be entitled for recommendation of books in the subsequent year, but will be eligible in the 3rd year again. The recommendations made in this context will be examined/approved by a Committee chaired by District Education Officer.[PIB]

The conclusion is simple. We suffer from ridiculous rules that rule us. The above examples remind me of Gary North’s Law of Bureaucracy:

Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both.

Related Post: The burden of too many laws

• Share

“We need law and order!”

“Law and order” … is a phrase that has appeal for most citizens, who, unless they themselves have a powerful grievance against authority, are afraid of disorder. In the 1960s, a student at Harvard Law School addressed parents and alumni with these words:

The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive.

There was prolonged applause. When the applause died down, the student quietly told his listeners: “These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler.” [Declarations of Independence: Cross-examining American Ideology by Howard Zinn]

• Share

The tragedy of a public debate delinked from empirical reality

This blogger tweeted a column in Mint by Niranjan Rajadyashkha last evening. Here is the tweet.

Niranjan Rajadhyaksha: The wages of policy inertia and profligacy http://t.co/vPcvtyzm || FY13 could be worst since FY03 (growth rate 3.8%)

December 31, 1969 9:29 pm via TweetDeckReplyRetweetFavorite

@pragmatic_d

pragmatic_desi

While the column will hardly qualify as being charitable to the UPA government, the fact that the growth rate for FY03 (2002-03 to be more explicit) of 3.8% happened under the BJP-led NDA government, attracted the usual hordes on Twitter. Just to put the record straight, I asked Niranjan about the source of his data. It comes from the most authentic source — Reserve Bank of India’s Handbook of Statistics (last updated on September 15, 2011), Table 224.

Let me pre-empt the next question. But what about the 8.5% growth rate in 2003-04? Here is what the Economic Survey for 2003-04 said:

A growth rate higher than 8 percent has been achieved in the past in only three years: 1967-68 (8.1 percent),  1975-76 (9 percent) and 1988-89 (10.5 percent). However, the higher than expected growth in 2003-04, like in the other three years referred to above, was on the back of a year of poor growth (4.0 percent) due to an unfavourable monsoon and fall in agricultural production. [Para 1, Chapter 1]

This much for the facts – to set them straight.

As for the opinion, growth rate at any point of time is an outcome of  combination of factors: legacy policies (economic reforms undertaken by the Congress government from 1991 to 1993 or tax reforms of P Chidambaram’s Dream Budget of 1997), incumbent government’s policies (impetus to road construction under Mr Khanduri or bold disinvestment under Mr Shourie in the NDA government), geopolitical situation (reflected in the fluctuating price of crude oil), geoeconomic situation (global economic crisis of 2008), bad monsoons (leading to negative agricultural growth in 2002-03) and the prevailing political situation (which earned Yashwant Sinha the sobriquet of a Rollback Minister or Dr Manmohan Singh the tag of not really being a reformer).

Politically partisan people can pick the factors of their choice from the above list while ignoring others. That may help them in yelling their opinions but it won’t change the facts.

• Share

What will it take to reform our political parties?

India’s crisis of governance is a direct outcome of the undemocratic nature of our political parties. From the dysfunctional Parliament to absence of ideological positions to a lack of serious debate on policy details, these adverse symptoms are owed to a basic malaise — lack of inner-party democracy in India.

In India, we have tried to treat the symptoms where the treatment has worsened the malaise. You have an anti-defection law which has ended up further weakening the parliament. You now have the spectacle of Election Commission trying to ringfence legitimate electoral politics by its orders to cover up statues of elephants in public parks. Any solution to India’s many problems — and they will multiply by the day unless we act urgently — will involve reform of political parties. What will it take to reform the political parties?

There is no one better to answer this question than Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Here is an extract from his essay from 2001, Reform political parties first:

Comparative evidence suggests that even parties of long-standing authority reform themselves very rarely. It took decades to reform the British Labour party’s internal procedures. The Democratic Party in the U.S. stumbled into reforms only in the late ’60s. Since the democratization of parties is tied to power struggles within the parties, it is not surprising that there have been very few attempts at democratization. But this does not mean failure is inevitable. The rank and file of the party will have to insist that it is in the long-term interests of the party to properly institutionalize procedures. Or, alternatively, the internal configurations of power within parties need to be propitious.

For instance, one can imagine conditions of stalemate within a political party where two contending factions are almost equally arrayed in terms of their power, where both lose substantially if one of the factions leaves the party, and where the only mechanism for reconciling the factions is the institutionalization of fair procedures. Under what conditions the contingent set of circumstances that might give parties reasons to reform might arise is therefore hard to predict. It is not surprising that there have been few moves towards seriously institutionalizing reforms of political parties.

Does the remoteness of the prospect that political parties will undertake to reform themselves mean that intraparty democracy should be legislated into existence? Certainly, comparative evidence again suggests that state regulation is often necessary for party reform. In Germany parties have been required to meet certain conditions in nominating their candidates. Candidates have to be chosen by a direct secret vote of members of the party at both constituency and federal levels. If the party’s management committee objects to a list so chosen, a second vote is held and the results are final.

In the American case, first laws were enacted that required the use of secret ballots in intraparty elections. Laws laying down the qualifications for party membership followed these, in turn followed by statutes specifying the administrative structure of parties, till finally the direct primary was instituted. It is true that in the American system, in some states, minor parties are not required to comply in the same way as the major parties with the legal structures imposed upon them.

If there is legal mandating of intraparty elections in India, we will have to carefully examine the advantages and disadvantages of different nominating procedures. There is a whole range of procedures available that would repay careful study which cannot be undertaken within the confines of this paper. It may be the case that parties can be given wide latitude in setting up their own voting procedures, so long as they are recognizably democratic. My own view is that one must be cautious in involving the state in India for a couple of reasons.

First, I do not think that despite the desirability of intraparty democracy, only political parties that institutionalize intraparty democracy should be allowed to contest elections. Freedom of association, within limits, on terms that one chooses is an equally important value. There seems to be no normative argument why parties that do not function internally democratically should be banned from the political process. We are free not to vote for them, but we cannot silence their voices. I also suspect that it is more important that the large parties have such procedures because they structure access to power in more significant ways than smaller parties. Smaller parties could be given more discretion.

Second and most importantly, there are grave dangers in giving independent commissions more powers to disqualify political parties. Such commissions ought to insist on and oversee the fact that parties do not violate legal norms. But giving them carte blanche powers to decide when a particular party has held internal elections is both normatively and prudentially unsound. Normatively speaking, parties ought to be self-organizing and their structure ought not to be mandated by the state. Prudentially speaking, can we trust independent commissions to fair arbitrators of the process?

The recent record of the Election Commission has been exemplary, but that may be an artifact of contingent circumstances like the quality of election commissioners we have had. The degree to which a party has organized fair internal elections cannot be easily made clear and giving state bodies wide latitude in interpreting this requirement would be to invite disaster. Imagine the prospect of a major political party being disqualified on the eve of elections because of some technicality pertaining to the way in which it conducted its internal elections. Giving election commissioners powers to disenfranchise parties, no matter how worthy the cause, itself runs serious risks. These risks may not be ultimately decisive, but they should be taken seriously. These issues require more consideration than can be given here.

Reforming parties will be a slow and laborious process. I have not touched on many issues that are important to institutionalizing healthy political parties: the sources of political finance, the criteria for membership and so forth. Any attempts to institutionalize intraparty democracy will have to take them into consideration. Nor is the reform of parties a panacea for all ills. But one thing is clear. The reform of political parties will have to be the focus of our political energies.

The health of democracy requires that we attend to the health of our parties and the party system. Intraparty democracy will prevent fragmentation of parties, make politicians more accountable and enhance the quality of deliberation. The degree to which political parties are willing to countenance grand constitutional experiments without setting their own houses in order ought to be an object of suspicion.[Seminar]

By acting as if reforming the political parties is inconsequential, politicians, public and the media have deflected the attention away from the foremost issue we should be tackling as a polity. The fact that Pratap Bhanu Mehta wrote this essay in 2001, but the issue never made it to public debate, is a disheartening pointer to the reality of our public space. There are no short-cuts to reforming political parties. It is a long haul. But at least we need to start. Now.

• Share

Integrated Action Plan to develop tribal and backward districts in Maoist-affected areas

While the Home Ministry’s press release on IAP — to  be implemented by district level officials with a block grant of Rs 25 crore and Rs 30 crore per district during 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively in 60 districts — is self-explanatory, the process of identifying the districts under the IAP deserves to be highlighted.

At the time of presentation of the budget for the year 2010-11, the Government had announced its decision to introduce a special scheme to address the development of 33 Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected districts.   It was inter-alia, stated that the Planning Commission would prepare an Integrated Action Plan (IAP) for the affected areas and that adequate funds would be made available to support the action plan. The 33 districts (later expanded to 34) referred to in the Finance Minister’s announcement were a sub-set of the 83 LWE affected districts identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs for coverage under its Security Related Expenditure (SRE) Scheme.  This sub-set consisted of those districts where more than 20% of the Police Stations experienced some incidents of naxal violence.  Subsequently, West Medinipur district of West Bengal was added to the list due to the situation prevailing there, taking the total to 35 districts.

While formulating the scheme, the Planning Commission considered that the scheme should not be limited only to the severely LWE affected districts.  It was proposed by them that the scheme should cover other tribal and backward districts also and the following criteria was adopted to identify districts for inclusion in the scheme:

(a)                Whether the district is included in the list of 83 SRE districts identified by the Ministry of Home Affairs;
(b)               Whether the tribal population exceeds 25%;
(c)                Whether the forest area exceeds 30%;
(d)               Whether the poverty ratio in the district exceeds 50%; and
(e)                Whether the district is covered under the Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF).

Districts meeting four of the above-mentioned five criteria and forming a contiguous block were selected for coverage under the proposed scheme.  Thus, with this criteria, a total of 60 districts were selected for coverage under the scheme.

The 60 districts comprised 48 districts covered under the SRE scheme and 12 other districts not falling under the SRE scheme.  The 60 districts thus selected are : Adiliabad and Khammam (2 districts) in Andhra Pradesh; Arwal, Aurangabad, Gaya, Jamui, Jehanabad, Nawada and Rohtas (7 districts), in Bihar; Bastar, Bijapur, Dantewada, Jashpur, Kanker, Kawardha, Koriya, Narayanpur, Rajnandgaon and Surguja (10 districts) of Chhattisgarh; Bokaro, Chatra, Garwha, Gumla, Hazaribagh, Kodarma, Latehar, Lohardaga, Paschim Singhbhum, Palamu, Purbi Singhbhum, Ramgarh, Saraikela and Simdega (14 districts) of Jharkhand; Anuppur, Balagahat, Dindori, Mandla, Seoni, Shahdol, Sidhi and Umaria (8 districts)  in Madhya Pradesh; Gadchiroli and Gondiya (2 districts); Balangir, Debagarh/Deogarh, Gajapati, Kalahandi, Kandhamal/Phulbani, Kendujhar/Keonjhar, Koraput, Malkangiri, Mayurbhanj, Nabrangpur, Nuapada, Rayagada, Sambalpur, Sonapur and Sundargarh (15 districts) of  Orissa; Sonbhadra (1 district), Uttar Pradesh; Paschim Medinipur (1 district) in West Bengal.[PIB]

Read the complete press release here.

Just one question. Expanding the IAP from 33 to 60 districts was hard to explain; how is the government going to justify increasing the IAP to 78 districts now?

• Share

Malicious report of a so-called Kashmiri Human Rights group

“Despite the hype of peace, people of Jammu and Kashmir have witnessed unabated violence, human rights abuses, and denial of civil and political rights, absence of mechanisms of justice, heightened militarization and surveillance. The figures of violent incidents suggest that 2011 as usual has been the year of loss, victimization, mourning and pain for the people.”[Link]

This is from a report about Kashmir in the past year, 2011, by a so-called “Kashmir-based human rights organisation”, Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS). It further goes on to state:

“In 2011, a total of 233 people have lost their lives due to violent incidents in Jammu and Kashmir. Out of 233 persons, 56 were civilians, 100 were alleged militants, 71 armed forces personnel and six were unidentified persons and counter insurgent renegades,” the rights body says in the report. “Out of the total 56 civilians killed this year, 11 were students, amongst whom seven were minors. Also amongst the civilians killed six were women,” it adds.[Link]

By providing details of only those cases where security forces were involved, the report creates an impression that every single death in Kashmir in 2011 was at the hands of the security forces. For eg., it cites the killing of a Hindu man Ashok Kumar by BSF, and highlights Mohammad Yousuf’s alleged custodial killing. When it harps on Nazim Rashid’s killing in police custody, the report conveniently forgets to mention that he was accused of killing two other Kashmiri young men in collusion with the militants.

This is not the first time such propaganda has been unleashed by “human rights groups” in Kashmir. Such propaganda has been unleashed incessantly over the last two decades to provide canon-fodder to the separatists and their sympathizers in their anti-India tirade. Of course, many foreign journalists (including those based in India) fall easy prey to such propaganda.

Let’s now look at the facts. Out of the 233 killed persons, 100 were militants while the majority of the balance were either political workers or common civilians gunned down by militants. The report further says that “in 2011… no end to disappearances, custodial killings, rapes and arrests”. But the only rape case of 2011 alleged on the Army was the Kulgam rape case, which also turned out to be a fake allegation. Moreover, when it comes to arrest of minors, a Delhi based Human Rights group had openly accused Syed Ali Shah Geelani of misinterpreting their findings to further his own destructive agenda.

The report fails to mention the killing of Moulana Showkat Shah which was initially christened by Geelani as an “Indian army planned conspiracy”. Later the LeT had claimed responsibility for the murder of the respected Kashmiri religious leader. 2011 also saw two sisters in Sopore being dragged out and shot by militants because they were supposedly indulging in un-Islamic activities. Or the one in December where the separatists bludgeoned a shopkeeper to death when he refused to heed their call to shut his shop during a shutdown call.

A friend provided this blogger a list of incidents from April to July in 2011 which have been overlooked by the report. (If anyone has a list for the complete year of 2011, he or she may leave the list/ link in the comments section.)

• April 9: Militants shot dead 42 year old Abdul Rehman at Badergund, Ganderbal.
• April 10: Militants kills 20 year old youth Sajad Ahmad dar at Sopore.
• April 16: 46 year-old Hasina Begum shot dead for participating in elections. (Many liberals often lament the so called absence of democracy in Kashmir. This is what happens to those who support democracy)
• April 25: Militants kills 30 yr-old Mohammad Ashraf Dar at Rafiabad, Baramulah.
• April 28: Bus driver who was attacked by stone pelters, succumbs; accused arrested. (Another manifestation of how separatists allow democracy to thrive in Kashmir. His only mistake was he ferried those employees who were on polling duties during Panchayat elections)
• April 30: Militants kill 20 yr-old Shamsudin Mir at Sopore.
• May 2: IED planted by militants kills a street vendor at Udhampur.
• May 10: Election candidate shot at by militants at Sopore. ( Another one for “Democracy”)
• May 17: Sarpanch shot dead by militants at Sopore.
• May 20: Lashkar terrorists behead pro-Democratic worker Abdul Gani Rather in Kishtawar district.
• May 28: A father and son duo, Ghulam Hassan Mir and Manzoor Ahmad, killed by militants at Bowan, Handwara.
• June 6:  Militant shoots dead a man, Afzal Khan of Sopore, near Lal Chowk area of Srinagar.
• June 7: Militants shot dead a cop, Manzoor Ahmad at Sopore.
• June 15: Manzoor Ahmed Dar shot dead by militants at Shopian.
• June 27: Militants shot dead Muhammad Yaqoob, 50, at Najwan.
• July 25: Militants shot dead Mohsin Ahmed Wani, 35, son of Manzoor Ahmed of Jalalabad, Sopore.
• July 28: Militants kill a man, Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh in Sopore, Kashmir

These, and there are many more unfortunate Kashmiris, for whom no petitions will be signed nor will any protests be staged. Their names will not be found on any list released by a Human Rights  group. No celebrated ‘Kashmiri’ writers sitting in foreign lands and writing about conflict in Kashmir will highlight this aspect. No candle-light protests will be organised to lament their death.

The reason is simple. The Kashmir conflict has created a whole industry, both inside and outside Kashmir, whose livelihood and importance is dependent on keeping the conflict and its memories alive. They are supported in their cause by many ISI-backed NGOs posing as Human Rights groups in Kashmir. Ghulam Nabi Fai was just one of the more direct and blatant ISI agents. But there are many others who do it surreptitiously and indirectly. Then there are some others who do it without even realising that they are being stringed along by anti-India forces.

While the governments of India and J&K have done a good job of containing the violence in Kashmir by bringing it down to the lowest levels in two decades, the challenge of countering Pakistani and separatist propaganda remains as strong as ever. The government must bring the truth out to counter this malicious narrative. It must win this battle to ensure lasting peace, security and livelihood for the average Kashmiri.

• Share

State-led success and low growth rate

Arvind Panagariya in the Times of India:

One, these expenditures have hovered around a bare 1% of GSDP. Two, and much more importantly, private expenditures on health dwarf public expenditures in Kerala: in 2004-05, the latest year for which we have data, whereas public expenditures amounted to just 0.9% of GSDP, private expenditures were a gigantic 8.2%. The corresponding India-wide figures were 0.9 and 3.6% of GDP, respectively.

The proportion of the population accessing public health services reinforces this story. In 2004, only one-third of rural and one-fifth of urban population chose the public health system for non-hospitalised treatment. Likewise, only about one-third of the population in both rural and urban areas chose public facilities for hospitalised treatment.

This same pattern is observed in education. NGO Pratham carries out extensive surveys of children in school up to 16 years of age in rural India. According to its latest report ASER 2010, excluding two or three tiny northeastern states, at 53% Kerala has the highest proportion of students between ages 7 and 16 in private schools in rural India. The corresponding figure for the nearest rival, Haryana, is barely 40%. No matter how we look at it, the conventional and dominant story of Kerala as a state-led success crumbles in the face of hard facts.[ToI]

From the conclusion in India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts by Utsav Kumar and Arvind Subramanian [pdf]:

The analysis of growth in the 2000s throws up one more quirk, relating to Kerala. The conventional wisdom is that this state is Scandinavian in its social achievements but sclerotic in its growth performance because of investment-chilling labor laws and strong trade unions. This is reflected in a labor force that has voted with its feet by emigrating to the Middle East. The abiding caricature is of the lazy, argumentative Malayali, discussing Foucault and Gramsci over endless cups of chai while living parasitically off the remittances sent by relatives in exile. However, the data suggest that the conventional wisdom and the caricature are dead wrong. Kerala posted among the highest rates of growth in the 1990s (4 percent per capita), continued its stellar performance in the go-go 2000s (7.5 percent), and exhibited great resilience during the crisis, experiencing virtually no decline in growth.

India, evidently, is capacious enough to allow both Bania, reforming Gujarat and Marxist, and reform-resistant Kerala to flourish. Or, to put it more honestly, the Indian growth miracle, including the experience of the 2000s, continues to confound.[Paper]

• Share