Tuesday, 13 December 2011

Right Way to Legal Reforms – by ADITYA SWARUP

23 Nov 2011 TNIE
Aditya Swarup is a lawyer and currently pursuing his MPhil in civil procedure from the University of Oxford.

In 2009, the Union government released the vision document 'National Mission for Jus­tice Delivery and Legal Reforms'. The document included a series of policy initiatives aimed at reducing the pendency of cases from an average of15 years down to 3 years within a 3-year period. The highlights of the proposed initiatives included increasing court working hours, provid­ing a greater number of courts, training judicial officers, legal education reforms and the usage of information and communication technology (ICY) support systems. A large part of the reforms are merely structural and institutional, and aimed at, providing a greater number of facilities to accom­modate the existing caseload, which does not necessarily help the existing legal framework.

The Cabinet recently approved a proposal for the formation of an advisory council. Under the scheme of the 13th Five Year Plan, around Rs 5,000 crore is alleged to have been allocated for the purposes of overhauling the judicial system. With more than three crore cases pending in courts, it is quite clear that a gargantuan effort would be required to ad­dress the case backlog. Will the mere allocation of such vast monetary means provide the necessary fillip for reforms implementation?

In 1959, a series of suggestions were made to address the increasing case load in the United States. The reforms that made their way out of these suggestions were to increase the number of courts, and judicial officers, and provide better case management systems, similar to those envi­sioned and proposed to be implemented in India. The result was contrary to what was expected. The records showed that the caseload actually increased subsequent to the implementation of the reforms. Similar measures were suggested in the UK with the same results. We now know the two main reasons for the failure of these measures - they failed to address the culture of litigation prevalent in the country and they had insufficient case management procedures to check the prac­tice of giving extensions to litigants.

The legal reforms proposed in India suffer from similar deficiencies. In a landmark paper by re­nowned Judge Richard Posner, it was very right­ly argued that increased structural reforms would have only an ad hoc effect. While being initially effective, in the long run, realising the growing efficacy of the legal system, it would merely result in more litigation. To buttress his argument, he drew upon a rather unusual analogy - while initially a new highway would serve the purpose of easing out traffic, road conditions would in fact induce people who had previously used other modes of transportation, to switch to driving. This would only result in leading to greater congestion. The solution is then not merely to structurally enhance the system, but to enhance it keeping in mind and providing for the social milieu in which the enhance is to be carried out, if it is to have any efficacy at all. Similarly, in proposing reforms to reduce the caseload then, one must also address the culture of litigation prevalent in the country.

Undeniably, the culture of litigation in a coun­try has a lot to do with the attitude of its litigants, and addressing this issue would involve an in­quiry into the reasons as to why people break the law and the implementation of laws and proce­dures to ensure compliance with the law.

The second reason why such measures failed, and may fail in India's case too, is the general attitude of the system - the judges as well as lawyers. The increasing use of unimportant and irrational reasons to secure adjournments has always been considered to be a major factor in causing delay. Not much has been done to ad­dress it. The landmark Woolf Reforms which were implemented in the UK in 1998, addressed this very problem of backlogs, and failed on the very count that it failed to account for/address the issues of frivolous adjournments.

India's 2009 vision document seeks to import case management procedures to handle this prob­lem. Case management involves the setting of dead­lines for the different stages of trial and refined procedures for the submission of documents. While formerly being introduced in the US and the UK, the measures proved ineffective because of the lax attitude of the judges in granting extensions despite such deadlines - a problem frequently observe in India. Today, the UK is debating whether to intro­duce a 'no-nonsense' approach in their procedural law, implying that judges cannot grant adjourn­ments and reprieve from missing deadlines unless there is 'a good reason' to miss such deadline.

Nurturing such an attitude in India would not require vast structural changes, as envisaged in the vision document; clear strictures against granting unnecessary adjournments would be sufficient. Judges often grant extensions and adjournments under the garb of doing justice' to the parties of the case; failing to realise that 'doing justice' also involves deciding the case in time. Mere lip-service is paid to the phrase 'jus­tice delayed is justice denied'.

Such an attitude must be developed alongside the use of technology as a tool for case manage­ment. The vision document advocates the use of ICT in courtrooms. These may involve filing documents online rather than in court, comput­erisation of judicial records, video-conferencing facilities and the like. A little foresight would include notification of court dates, reminders for submission of documents and service of docu­ments via e-mail. Such systems are immensely efficient in Singapore and Hong Kong.

An economic superpower, as India claims to be, requires, as of right, an efficient legal system to resolve disputes. The vision document provid­ing for the legal reforms are precisely what they say - a vision. Learning from what has been written about the implementation of this vision in the past two years; one can easily infer that the reforms focus too much on structural chang­es. Indeed, a pivotal part of implementing a na­tional policy would also involve borrowing from and learning from other legal systems, because it is imperative for us to understand that they at some point faced the same issues.

It is necessary for the advisory committee to not only draw from their systems, but also learn from their mistakes. Only then can we even claim to be on the right path to overhauling our legal system. It is only hoped that the advisory com­mittee being formed to implement the reforms takes note of these concerns.

City's growth has tested infrastructure

 ... says former chief urban planner of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority G Dattatri, who has stressed on the need to implement green strategies to combat the problem

Chennai: Rise in popu­lation and a phenomenal growth of the city have stressed Chennai's infra­structure to the maximum and there is an immediate need for a state urbanisation policy incorporating poli­cies on habitat and housing, according to an expert.

Delivering a special ad­dress on "Namma Chen­nai-Ezhilmighu Chennai” organised by the Federation of Indian Chamber of Com­merce and Industry here on Tuesday, former chief urban planner of Chen­nai Metropolitan Develop­ment Authority G Dattatri said that the population of Chennai was expected to be 200 lakh in the next 15 years and there was an immediate need to raise the quality of living of 50 per cent of the low and medium income families.

"There is an acute short­age of affordable housing, adding to the already grim slum situation," he said, adding that, "Integrated townships are the need of the hour rather than transporting the slum dwellers into integrated communi­ties or ghettos."

Some of the key issues faced by Chennaiites
1. Rising population and acute shortage of affordable housing
2. Rising vehicle popula­tion resulting in con­gestion of roads and lanes full of parked vehicles
3. More areas becoming flood prone as paved areas have increased and drainage outlets silted
4. Generation of waste has gone up with rise in medical, hazardous and e-wastes
5. Potable water quality poor due to breakage in sewerage and storm water drains
6. Parks and open 6 spaces are disappearing
7. Tree cover is fast dwindling
8. Gross deficiencies in schools and health centers where basic facilities are missing

F1CCI meeting on Namma Chennai-Ezhilmighu Chennai on Tuesday

He also said that the need of the hour was green strategies for the city's in­frastructure. Highlighting the need for regional plans, Dattatri also stressed on the need for pilot area plans for two neighbourhoods in col­laboration with the CMDA and city corporation besides residents' associations.

Urging FICCI to take up these initiatives at the government level, he also stressed the need for im­provement in sanitation and basic facilities in corporation schools and health centers in collaboration with corpo­ration and civil society.

He said the adjoining dis­tricts of Kanchipuram and Thiruvallur were becoming highly urbanised and that the urban population of the three cities was 96.51 lakh as  per recent census. He said a major concern was the rise in vehicular population. Car ownership had risen from two lakh to four lakh while two-wheelers had risen from four lakh to 16 lakh, stretch­ing the city's infrastructure to the maximum.

Dattatri also said most of the arterial roads were con­gested with traffic and lanes were full of parked vehicles. Besides, more areas were becoming prone to floods as paved areas had increased and major drainage assets - ­Cooum, Adyar and the Buck­ingham canal- were silted.

He stressed the need for spatial planning at different levels saying it was a key instrument for establishing long-term economic, social and en­vironmentally sustainable development. "Such plans will enhance integration of sectors - housing, trans­port, energy, employment and limit impact of natural and man-made disasters," Dattatri said.

“Integrated townships are the need of the hour rather than transporting the slum dwellers into integrated communities or ghettos “

Experts prepare strategy for sustainable Chennai

Chennai: Experts from different walks of life on Tuesday discussed various strategies to make Chennai beautiful.

Diplomats, green activ­ists, businessmen, former bureaucrats and academi­cians devised various meth­ods to improve the infra­structure and sustainable living in the city.

While most of them high­lighted shrinking open space and dwindling wetland and water bodies, others high­lighted the need to build more desalination plants besides preserving heritage buildings and proper plan­ning.

Nanditha Krishna, the director of C P Ramaswami Aiyar Foundation, said the city lacked planning and through sustainable lifestyle one could attain sustainable development.

She highlighted the need for mini-sewage treatment plants aIl over the city and clean temple tanks so that they would help improve the ground water table. "The TDS of the ground water was 200 and now it has risen to above 700. The salt water intrusion into the ground water table is also too high," she added.

She also suggested the need for setting up factories that could convert waste to energy besides the need for CNG buses like that in New Delhi. "This will bring down pollution in the city," she said.

Nanditha also highlighted the need to ban food stalls to keep the beaches clean.

Founder of ExNoRa In­ternational Chennai M B Nirmal stressed on the need to transform waste into wealth. Citing many ex­amples of how ExNoRa had made a difference in restor­ing 40 water bodies, he said solutions are there in the problem.

Honorary Consul of France in Chennai Kausa­lya Devi said that lack of sustainable infrastructure was one of the biggest chal­lenges before the city. She also said that people had distanced themselves from the civic issues. "Most of us still don't know which cor­poration ward we belong to," she added.

R Ramamurtby, conve­nor of corporate social re­sponsibility panel, FICCI, said there was an imme­diate need to renovate 38 parks' in Chennai besides beautification of Elliots and Marina beach. Highlighting the need for more desalina­tion plants, he also stressed the need to promote Chen­nai as cultural capital of Asia.

Equity of Land Acquisition – by NAMITA WAHI

Namita Wahi is a lawyer and current doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School.

The conflict over land is perhaps the most intractable conflict in Indian society to­day and land acquisition one of the most debated issues. While land is a state sub­ject, 'acquisition and requisitioning of property' fall within the concurrent list, which means that both central and state legislatures can make laws with respect to acquisition of land. The Constitu­tion mandates that any compulsory acquisition of land must be according to a law and not by executive fiat. Such a law must outline the 'pur­poses' for which the acquisition power is exer­cised; the ‘process' that must be followed by the government in carrying out the acquisition; and the payment of 'compensation', which must be a fair equivalent of the value of land acquired.

Much has been written about the Land Acqui­sition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 (LARR) which is slated to overhaul the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA). The LAA, as amended by various state governments, currently governs land acquisition in India. It's working has re­vealed four major problems that have led to wide­spread public discontent. First, the LAA only recognises the rights and interests of land title holders. In doing so, it fails to take into account the interests of those who while not holding title to the land are nevertheless dependent on it for their livelihood. Second, it is a well established legal principle that compulsory acquisitions of land must be for a 'public purpose' as a check against arbitrary state action. However, the LAA contains only an inclusive and not exhaustive definition of 'public purpose' and courts have deferred to legislative determinations of what constitutes 'public purpose'. The third problem derives from the legal requirement that those deprived of their land and livelihood must be paid a fair equivalent of the value of the land as com­pensation. Unlike their approach on 'public purpose', the Supreme Court took the compensation requirement seriously, insisting in its early deci­sions that the compensation payable in case of compulsory acquisitions be the market equivalent of the value of the land. However, through a series of constitutional amendments, Parliament has substantially ousted judicial review of the quan­tum of compensation payable in individual cases. The fourth problem relates to the procedure in­volved in land acquisition under the LAA, which includes notification of land to be acquired, hearing of objections, final declaration and payment of compensation. This procedure has been criti­cised both by the government for delays in ac­quisition and by the people for their lack of participation in the government's decision to take over their land as well as delays involved in the determination and payment of compensation.

The proposed LARR Bill attempts to address all four issues. First, by defining 'persons interested' as those having an interest in the land as opposed to actual title and 'affected family' as those depen­dent on the land for their livelihood, it takes a step in the right direction. But the definition of ‘persons interested' excludes landless labourers and others like fisher folk and cattle grazers, which are in­cluded within the definition of 'affected families'. Since only 'persons interested' can raise objections to the acquisition of land, this definition needs to be made more inclusive to include all those who are affected by the proposed acquisition. More­over, the practice of land acquisition has revealed that government officials often deny the existence of these people or their dependence on the land in question insisting upon documentary proof of their association with the land which they do not usually possess. Therefore, the current Bill must be amended to ensure that all affected persons are not only rehabilitated and compensated but are also consulted in the process of acquisition.

In its commitment to payment of fair compen­sation, currently computed at approximately four times the value of the average of registered sale deeds, the Bill marks a positive reversal of gov­ernment policy. Predictably however, the Bill is facing resistance from state governments accus­tomed to acquiring land at less than its market value. And though the lack of state finances could legitimately have been an excuse for such resis­tance by the government in the early years of the republic when India was impoverished by colonial rule and dependent on foreign aid, it is not something that can be accepted without justifica­tion when the economy even though slowing is growing at 7 per cent and India has emerged as a financial donor to other countries.

While it does a slightly better job of listing 'public purposes' than the LAA, the LARR Bill's retention of a broad definition of public purpose as 'any work that is useful to the general public' enables the government to retain wide discretion in its decisions regarding land acquisition. It is true that an exhaustive definition of public pur­pose might be unduly restrictive for government activity. However, given the current development discourse, wherein any kind of industrial or in­frastructural development is justified by the government as being useful to the general public irrespective of its short term and long term con­sequences, such unfettered discretion on the part of the executive does not provide a sufficient check against arbitrary and near-sighted govern­ment action, which is one of the primary reasons for discontent with the current law.

In its inclusion of requirements for Social Im­pact Assessment (SIA) of large projects, the LARR Bill acknowledges the need for public participa­tion in assessing the governmental need for land acquisition. However as the Bill currently stands, the committee in charge of conducting the SIA shall be composed of bureaucrats and not inde­pendent experts, which renders the provision nugatory. While the Bill provides for appraisal of the SIA report by an independent expert group, which has the capacity to make recommenda­tions, such recommendations are not binding on the committee. Furthermore, land proposed to be acquired under the Bill's urgency clause will be exempt from Social Impact Assessment.
The LARR Bill is undoubtedly a step in the right direction of ushering in a culture of justifi­cation wherein the government is required to explain and engage with the people it dispos­sesses of their lands, livelihoods and way of life, of the legitimacy and necessity of such dispos­session. But it must be suitably revised in light of evidence of current state practices if the gov­ernment's promise to enact an equitable and transparent land acquisition law has any chance of becoming a reality.

Market Economy? Or, Market Society? - by S Gurumurthy

5 Dec 2011, TNIE
For thousands of years, retailing in India has been local community business - selling retailers and buying households being familiar with each other. Even now, Indian retailing is mostly neighbourhood, relation-based business

The ongoing debate on the FDI in retail is intolerably super­ficial at times. For a rational debate, the funda­mentals of conflicting alter­natives must be understood. Here are some basic truths about conventional Indian retail. For thousands of years, retailing in India has been local community business - selling retailers and buying households being fa­miliar with each other. Even now Indian retailing is most­ly neighbourhood, relation ­based business.

There are 15 million retail­ers in India, including hawk­ers and pavement vendors. This translates to the great­est retailer density anywhere in the world - more than one retailer for 8 Indians! In con­trast, China, more populous than India, has less than a twelfth of India's retail den­sity; just 1.3 million retailers - one for 100 Chinese.

In India, one retailer does not stock all needs of all cus­tomers. Several neighbour­hood retailers - hawkers, roadside vendors, bunks and kirana shops - taken togeth­er stock and meet all their needs.  The Indian retail busi­ness is estimated at $400 billion. Of which the share of corporate is now 5 percent; the rest 95 percent is handled by traditional retailers. The wholesale-retail trade in In­dia has evolved as part of its social milieu over millennia, organised and linked by local relations. According to an FCCI study, food - read agri­culture - accounts for 63 per­cent of retail trade. Here, some 74 million strong small farmer-wholesaler-small retailers combine - a social in­heritance of generations ­works, not hierarchically, but laterally through neighbour­hood relations.

Some 58.8 million small­ marginal farmers from 6.8 lakh villages sell their pro­duce a147,000 haats/shand­ies to some 15 million whole­salers-retailers. It is the larg­est decentralised business in the world. They all operate within a radius of 16 km of where they are. Yet, only 40 percent of the food produced is traded; the balance 60 per­cent is barter-shared by so­cial relations within villages. This [60 percent] sharing and [40 percent] trading keeps rural India alive. The Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the FDI in retail [June 2009] says that traditional retail employs 40 million people; and finds the corporate retail claim to 20 lakh job "highly exaggerated". The Commit­tee is right. Walmart, with $422 billion global turnover, employs just 2.1 million people.

That is, with more than India's retail business in its balance sheet, it provides less than 5 percent of India's retail jobs! So the organised retail's proven job potential is less than 1/20 of the per­formance of traditional re­tail. Where from did Anand Sharma get his maths that the FDI in retail would generate 10 million jobs then?

This stentorian noise for the FDI in retail makes four claims. One, the organised retail would avoid the huge – Rs 50,000 crore waste of farm products due to lack of efficient supply chain; two, with middlemen eliminated the farmers would get better prices; three, Walmarts and Tescos would procure farm products and export them like they do from China, which traditional retail can­not. Four, it will yield more employment.

The claim about employ­ment is bogus. What Wal­marts and Tescos could not do elsewhere, they would not do here. The next claim, namely, like in China, Wal­marts and Tescos would ramp up India's exports ig­nores the basics of Indian and Chinese economies. China's domestic consump­tion is low, just 35 percent of its GDP; the balance 65 per­cent is its exportable surplus.


It has built this huge surplus over decades. India with a high domestic consumption of 58 percent has no such exportable surplus. Actually, it is sensible for Walmart to bring in goods from China, made cheaper by cheap Yuan, into India.

Already Chinese goods are outselling Indian goods in India. India's annual trade deficit with China, now $20 billion, is estimated to reach $278.5 billion by 2014! Far from making India prosper­ous, Walmarts and Tescos may impoverish it.

The claim that the FDI in retail will eliminate middle­men and enrich farmers is not borne out by facts. See the record of Tesco, the larg­est retailer in the UK, in con­trast. It "exploits small farm­ers in the UK and world­wide"; "hastens their re­placement" with monocul­ture plantations; "poses seri­ous risks for developing country farmers" who have traditionally supplied to lo­cal street markets.

Further, "rather than growing their produce and taking it straight to a market, they have to deal with a chain of middlemen, supermar­ket's standards of uniformity in shape and size, risking re­jection of lot of their pro­duce". Farmer-friendly FDI in retail is contradiction in terms.

The campaign that the FDI in retail would prevent waste by efficient supply chain management ignores two vital facts. One, the national highway forms only 2 per­cent of India's road network, but handles 40 percent of the road traffic! The other roads can handle only trucks small­er than 20; and link only local markets.

Walmarts and Tescos can't build roads. The government has to. If it does, Walmart or Tesco are not needed. Two, on storage, a recent MIT pa­per says that as "demonstrat­ed by the case study in rural India, the solution to food storage needs to be a bottom up approach. Communities need to be identified where the people have access to fresh food that is currently wasted and who are willing to put in the time to store it properly. Farm cooperatives are potential candidates."

So, bottom up society, not top down Walmarts or Tes­cos, is the answer;

Finally, the debate on the FDI in Indian retail misses out the most crucial point. Not only Indian retail, the whole of Indian economy functions more on relations, less on contracts. That is why 60 percent of the farm pro­duce is socially shared. The trade in the rest are based on neighbourhood relations. When contracts replace hu­man relations, it yields not "market economy" but "mar­ket society", where even families function on con­tracts.

Margaret Thatcher once said: "There is no such thing as society. There are indi­viduals and families. That is all." But, the experience of the US/West has proved that traditional families cannot survive without functioning traditional society. As the US Bureau of Economic Re­search had foreseen in 1970s, now family functions have been effectively taken over by corporates and the State! Unbridled market first dis­mantles the relation-based society, then disturbs fami­lies, to yield a purely con­tract-based 'market society' finally.

The relation-less retail model of Walmarts and Tes­cos fits the contract-based US/West. But, of late, even in the West, debate on "mar­ket economy" vs "market society" has begun - "market society" being derided as Anglo-Saxon. QED: The real issue is not the FDI in retail, but what does the Indian Government economists and elites want in India fi­nally? A relation-friendly "market economy"? Or, a relation-less "market soci­ety"?

The Undefined Identity of UPA And the State of Atrophy – by Shankkar Aiyar

11 Dec 2011 TNIE
Shankkar Aiyar is a senior journalist who specializes in the politics of economics

The irony is unmistakable. Aadhaar: the phrase with a Hindi/Sanskrit etymology could be deployed to mean basis, foundation, support or cornerstone. It is also the iden­tity, the name of the UPA's most ambitious programme that prom­ised to empower individuals and deliver institutional reforms. This week Aadhaar found itself nirad­haar ! The Parliamentary Standing Committee of the Finance Ministry wrecked the very basis of the idea; the ministries of home and finance questioned the very foundation of the Unique Identification Author­ity of India; the political leadership virtually withdrew its support and the programme peddled as the base far reforms in social sector spending has been reduced into another cornerstone in the altar of failures. The UPA has yet again produced a spectacular display of its ability to convert a promise into a compromise.

The failure of the Government lies in the definition of the idea of identity. There is no disputing the fact that India and Indians require a national identity card - for eco­nomic, social and political rea­sons. What does the UIDAI seek to achieve? The National Identifica­tion Authority of India Bill, 2010 (which was rejected by the Yash­want Sinha-led Standing Com­mittee) states that the NIAI was being set up with the "purpose of issuing identification numbers to individuals residing in India" and to authenticate identities of indi­viduals so as to allow them access to entitlements of subsidies. In short, like the NDA before it, the Congress-led UPA too sought to skirt the critical issue of identify­ing and issuing cards to citizens.
It has escaped the intelligence of all these worthies that any doc­ument with the stamp of Ashoka's lions is enough to convert a resi­dent into a citizen. And that this has been exploited by citizens of friendly and unfriendly neigh­bours cannot be a secret to those in government. Yet, the UPA II agreed to circumvent the stamp of citizenship by deploying the semantics of resident-ship. More critical are the issues of due dili­gence and process. The UIDAI was formed in the summer of 2009. The Government very well knew that the Census would be underway in less than six months. The Government would also have been aware that the National Population Register (NPR) had plans to do exactly what was being proposed for UIDAI - that is enu­merate and authenticate all those residing in India using biometrics. So why were two institutions of the Government engaged in du­plicating work? Significantly, the Cabinet - despite the objections raised by P Chidambaram and the home ministry - cleared the idea and the budget twice - first for 10 crore registrations and again for an additional 10 crore.

Now after the UIDAI has issued over 59 million numbers, the Gov­ernment is faced with a problem. The Registrar General of India (RGI) is registering residents for the NPR. The question is what happens to the registrations done by Nandan Nilekani's UIDAI? Can the RGI which is tasked with a statutory obligation accept biometric registrations done by third-party agencies? The UIDAI wants the RGI to accept the biometric regis­trations and allow it to enumerate beyond the limit of 20 crore. The home ministry has shot down both ideas and wants the non-RGI reg­istrars to stop enrollment.

In 2011, 30 months after its birth, the UIDAI is facing an ex­istential crisis. The NIAI bill has been shot down by the parliamen­tary committee. The committee has found there was "no feasibil­ity study" and has raised issues of "duplication, data security, cast benefit analysis, the reliability of technology, and lack of coordina­tion". It has dubbed the exercise as "directionless". It is faced with a surfeit of objections and opposition within the Government. The finance ministry has raised concerns about coordination and about expenditure. The Planning Commission has raised issues about the administrative struc­ture, checks and balances and audit procedures.

Mind you, this was not just any idea! In his Budget speeches in 2009, 2010 and 2011, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee in­voked the UID scheme to promise good governance. In his Budget speech of 2011-12, he said: "The stage is now set for realising the potential of Aadhaar for improving service delivery, account­ability and transparency in governance of various schemes." The Prime Minister too has chanted the UID mantra. As late as in June 2011, he told editors of newspapers: "We need systemic reforms. If the UIDAI can give unique ID numbers to all residents, we would have discovered a pathway to eliminate the scope for corruption and leakages." Even Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi has voted in favour of the UID, stating it was the solu­tion to "diversion of funds", even asking UID chief Nandan Nilekani to speak about it at the Youth Con­gress jamboree recently.

Indeed, the first meeting of the UIDAI was held at 7 Race Course Road residence of the Prime


Minister. In attendance were the Prime Minister, the finance min­ister, the law minister, the rural development minister, the HRD Minister and Montek Singh Ahlu­walia, along with the cabinet secretary and other secretaries. And there were no murmurs about process or propriety.

How did governance came to such a passe? The debate has un­fortunately got knotted into the personalities and there is an air of schadenfreude about the poster boy being shown his place. Forget the celebrities and personalities for a moment and think about the message going out. This Govern­ment cannot implement or back even the most celebrated of ideas.

In just one week, four major initiatives - the proposal for FDI in retail, the move to hike FDI in insurance, banking reforms and UID - have been shown the door.  Spin doctors would have us believe this is the result of the rift between the party and the Gov­ernment. Fact is, both are united in their lack of identity, what they stand for. That alone can explain the state of atrophy.

The Neo-Nehru’s Communal Game Using the Caste Card – by Ravi Shankar

11 Dec 2011 TNIE

Electoral politics is the dark swamp in which perverse ideas flourish in the humidity of ambition. Of all degenerating concepts that have crawled out, none is more corroding than reservation. Originally meant as a temporary post-Independence device to right social inequity, it has turned Indian politics into a graveyard of ideals.

Bihar's Nitish Kumar is one of India's most cynically successful politicians, who electorally legitimised caste among Indian Muslims; the Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI, Patna) report records 43 castes among Muslims in Bihar. Mayawati is campaigning to polarise lower castes along religious lines by wooing Dalit Muslims with sops. Rahul Gandhi, an unfortunate combination of both, believes social engineering is about traveling into a Nehruvian past where politics had a charming naivete and innocence.

Naivete has nothing to do with Mayawati's letter in September to Manmohan, seeking reservation for Muslims. Last month, Nehru's great-grandson raced to outpace her with six per cent reservation to Muslims in government jobs and higher education. The ministries of home, law, minority affairs and social justice were all pressed into action to find a perfect loophole. They did. A Ministry of Social Justice note, in consultation with the Law Ministry, recommends a simple gazette notification following Cabinet clear­ance, than seeking Parliamentary approval to carve out reservation for Muslims from the existing OBC quota. To divide a nation among communal lines is


bad enough. To make that division among caste lines official, is worse. The Indian politician who preaches economic reform is unwilling to convert existing quo­tas to reservation based on economic status.
A World Bank-University of British Columbia study states that in India, a one per cent increase in the growth rate is associated with a ten per cent drop in the average number of riots, "In situations where the political environment makes it advantageous 'to split the electorate along ethnic lines, or in situa­tion where there are pre-existing divisions between two ethnic groups, or both: lower rates of economic growth should lead to an increase in the occurrence of ethnic violence."

There is nothing more evil and cynical than caste. There is nothing as ugly as communalism. Nothing is more warped than the secularism our politicians and pseudo televangelists preach. To subdivide the nation and take communalism to the next level is the worst danger modern India faces. Rahul Gandhi is com­bining social disparity and communalism to legiti­mise caste. The consequences are scary. Last week, newspapers reported that Prof Devendra K Gupta, VC of the Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical Uni­versity, Lucknow, requested the Medical Council of India (MCI) to award degrees to SC/ST students who failed repeatedly in medical exams. He pleaded for a separate marks/passing system for failed students, so that they can become doctors and practice.

The world is divided into two kinds of phyla: the saint and the sinner. These have three genera: the good, the bad and the ugly. The first has three spe­cies in it: ethical, moderate and revolutionary. The second genus also has three species: evil, traitorous and idiotic. The third genus has three species as well: the saboteur, the divider and the opportunist. From a revisionist-reductionist perspective, all these gen­era and species can be reduced to one - the well-meaning simpleton. It’s time someone taught Rahul Gandhi some political zoology.

China's Objection to Dalai Lama's Visit Outrageous - by SOLI J SORABJEE

11 Dec 2011 TNIE

SOLI J SORABJEE is a former Attorney General of India


Chinese Obsession about the Dalai Lama: The Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that he is not advocating an independent Tibet but is seeking autonomy for Tibet and protection of the religious and cultural rights of the Tibetan people. Yet the Chinese government continues to malign him as an anti-national criminal. Beijing is upset that the Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader and is revered and admired throughout the world, not only by Tibetans but by numerous persons. Beijing's antipathy to the Dalai Lama is manifested in its warnings issued to heads of foreign governments not to associate with the Dalai Lama or attend any functions where he is speaking. If one reads the various statements made by the Dalai Lama, it is clear that they have a strong spiritual or religious content. There is no element of political propa­ganda nor expression of any anti-Chinese sentiments. In this context, the Chinese government's recent advice to our gov­ernment to cancel the Buddhist Congregation assembly in Delhi was outrageous. The attendees and participants in the congregation included Buddhist spiritual and religious lead­ers from various countries. There was nothing political about the assembly. The role of the Dalai Lama was to deliver on the concluding day his valedictory statement, a text of which was circulated and which had no political tone or content at all. It was noteworthy that Dr Karan Singh, an eminent scholar, and the governor of Assam, B P Singh spoke at the function. In a presumptuous move, the Chinese consulate in Kolkata wrote to the state government, asking it to ensure that the chief minister and the governor did not attend the scheduled programme of the Dalai Lama. It is heartening that West Bengal Gover­nor M K Narayanan did attend the programme addressed by the Dalai Lama. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee could not be present at the func­tion because her mother was ill. She conveyed goodwill to the Dalai Lama not only of the people of Kolkata but also of the people of West Bengal. In our Constitution we have the guar­antee of fundamental rights of expression and of assembly which the Chinese fail to understand. It is high time we give a clear signal to Beijing of our disapproval of their meddling in our domestic matters. Indeed, as was rightly observed by Omar Abdullah, the Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, we should show more spine when dealing with the Chinese, particularly in view of the fact that Beijing calls Kashmir a disputed region and questions parts of India's sovereignty.