Paris Bombings: The Takeaways

The ghoulish shootings in Paris in January post the publication of Charlie Hebdo cartoons is now followed by bombings at 6 locations, in the same location, killing over 129 people & injuring many others – an eerie replay of the Mumbai attacks - meant to create mayhem in places where human concentration – both locals & tourists - is highest.  Intelligence failure it definitely was for the chatter on social media that generally precedes such events was missed by sleuths; or was this event a “lucky one” as the IRA once grimly warned: “You have to be lucky every time; we only have to be lucky once.”  With the perpetuators not yet liquated & the support networks still to be unearthed, a second tide of attacks cannot be dismissed, perhaps, putting at risk the impending summit level “Climate Change” talks scheduled next month.  The Islamic Caliphate Da’esh has claimed responsibility

All large urban conglomerates can be easy targets as the multiple attacks across Europe in UK, Spain, France, Netherlands, Belgium & Denmark during the last 15 years has proved.   London has avoided a Paris like situation by installing CCTV cameras in public places rekindling the ethical debate between “Privacy” & “Security”. While the state would be keen on absolute surveillance powers,  the Edward Snowden revelations warn us of the perils of a “Big Brother” Orwellian state & hence the need to tread on middle ground.  

France is home to about 5 million Muslims – the largest in Europe – largely from their former colonies in Northern Africa. The consequences of Paris like deadly shootings is generally a wave of xenophobia – generally fanned by enterprising politicians -with demands for denial of emigration, clampdown on  refugees fleeing war/persecution  et al; the former goes against the principle of labour mobility effecting economic vectors while the latter goes against the UN convention of the Rights of Refugees. France, thankfully, has only imposed a partial Emergency & is desisting from making policy changes on the above listed issues which, hopefully, would become an international template. Islam or minority bashing has been avoided by the mainstream media.

The positive outcome of the situation is the decision by G-20 – whose mandate is largely economic - to take up for discussion the issue of terror in its summit meeting, starting this Sunday, at Turkey. The lackadaisical attitude of the UN in not defining “terror” yet because of a lack of consensus – courtesy the competing interests of rival states - hopefully will be reversed. Inclusion of “state sponsorship” of terror into the consensus resolution is an absolute must. 

The West has generally been dismissive of the pleas, for action, of nation states at the receiving end of terrorism, assuming it to be a developing country phenomena fuelled by poverty.  Violence in places like Lebanon, Israel , the Indian sub- continent  et all were attributed to sectorial strife forgetting how the same was encouraged by the colonial masters under the policy of “divide & rule”. The narrative is slowly changing post the dastardly act of 9/11 & the Paris bombings hopefully would help in the evolution of a globally co-ordinated anti- terror drive. Any further delay would be inherently suicidal.

The commonality of "Islamic terror", in both the French acts, makes certain analysts come to the conclusion that Islam is inherently fundamentalist. The fatwas issued against Salman Rushdie for writing the “Satanic Verses” or Taslima Nasreen being ousted of her country, Bangladesh, due to death threats because of writing “Lazza”   are but a few examples that buttress their argument. The decimation of Christian minorities in Lebanon or the Hindu minority in Bangladesh & Pakistan, post partition, give credence to such views. However, it is important not to forget that “Sufism”  - a strand of Islam - enhanced religious unity in the Indian sub- continent & efforts should be made by all the leaders to ensure that moderate leadership amongst Islamic nations is strengthened.  Just as Western Monarchies taking on Papal authority after the crusades led to the reformist movements in Christianity, strengthening moderate leadership in Islam is a key to reduce the hold of religious institutions. Elucidation of secular principles through education would be a natural corollary & the template created by Kemal Ataturk in Turkey is worthy of replication; paradoxically, though, Turkey today has already veered towards the right. Egypt, on the other hand, throws up an ethical dilemma between supporting a “moderate military dictatorship” versus a “fundamentalist democracy”.

The problem with Western democracies has always been to use religion to achieve political goals not in their backyard but beyond their shores. The British were guilty of “divide & rule” – between the majoritarian Hindus & the largest minority, Muslims, in the Indian subcontinent and using “jihad” as a route to take on the Ottoman Empire in Turkey during World War 1. Britain’s partner – the US – nurtured & trained the Wahhabi Mujahedeen - during the 1980’s - to win a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Al-Qaeda & Bin laden - products of the same turbulent times - ultimately recoiled on their patron causing wanton destruction on 9/11. The US’s “war on terror” infringed on the freedom of sovereign states:  Iraq to find “weapons of mass destruction” – elusive till date - & Afghanistan; their accelerated withdrawal of boots from the ground, to honour an election pledge, has compounded the problem leading to the rise of forces like the ISIS. The Shia Sunni conflict for supremacy led by Iran & Saudi Arabia has created the Syrian crisis. With Russia & China pitted against Western Nations in this conflict the geo-political scenario has become complicated heralding a humanitarian crisis. Western nations should therefore be forewarned that using religion to achieve political goals could recoil. They should also be more astute & control the arms lobby.

While the above listed strategic direction is long term some short term measures are urgently called for.  Converts to the ISIS cause, due to propaganda on social media, have reached Da’esh territory through Turkey – a western ally. Pressure on Turkey to plug the route is the first step.  Monitoring of social media to stop converts from travelling abroad is the other step. Strengthening the police forces- the first line of defence against terror is an urgent need. While the UN mandates 222 policemen per lakh of population many countries are running with a depleted infrastructure which needs immediate attention. De-radicalization programs for returnees from Syria & monitoring their movements, closely, are imperative.

Nostradamus has predicted the emergence of a tyrant, the 3^rd anti – Christ, from the Middle-East who shall be the cause of World War 3. Many from the earlier generation assumed it to be Saddam Husain – looking at his penchant for war against Iran or invasion of Kuwait. With his death & the emergence of Abu bakr al-Baghdadi as the head of the Islamic caliphate of Da’esh the prediction now sounds more chilling. Hopefully Nostradamus for once shall be proved wrong. Inshallah!!

Minimum Government; Maximum Governance

The 7^th Pay commission recommendations that shall determine the salary structure of the 55 lakh central govt. employees are likely to be released shortly; if the 6^th pay commission recommendations imposed a “burden” of Rs. 90,000 crores on the country, expect a slightly larger outgo this time too. Also expect a “trickle-down effect” of state govt. employees raising similar demands. History is witness to the fact that such pay-out is generally followed by a spurt in consumption, especially of consumer durables & it should be no different this time. This much needed “stimulus” to the Indian economy, shall propel growth rate higher, which has the potential to attract further foreign investment accelerating the upturn in the economic cycle.

Pay-outs without administrative reforms - to shrink the bureaucracy to realistic levels – is however a “burden”. There is evidence that Category C&D jobs – accounting for about 90% of govt. employees - are paid higher than the private sector; Category B employees are paid on par while Category A employees are paid much less than the private sector. Since better governance can be provided by attracting the best talent in Category A – that still accounts for only 5% of govt. employees - & as the Singapore Model has shown, providing pay parity with the private sector is the first step. This should be combined with a simultaneous reduction in C & D category employees to make the bureaucracy nimbler, perhaps through ”outsourcing”; paradoxically,  while  India is  a world leader in “outsourcing” the govt. hasn’t utilized its full potential yet.

In an era where stenos / typists have become extinct in the private sector due to computerization & the expectation that personnel handle their own correspondence, is it not time to replicate the same in the govt. sector too? Likewise, when the “Uber / Ola” economy has taken off & offers Rs. 10/- per KM pricing, is it not imprudent on the govt.’s part to maintain a huge fleet of govt. vehicles?; the cost of the attendant drivers apart from the fuel leakages & repairs must be making the payout much higher than Rs. 10 per KM. Therefore, attempts at creating “Minimum government” should start with these two verticals.

Pruning the govt. sector in certain sectors should be combined with capacity building in other sectors. As an example, while India fancies itself at the High Table of the Security Council, it has only about 900 IFS officers – the size of New Zealand’s & Singapore’s - while permanent members China, UK & France have about 6000 diplomats each; the US leads though with about 20000. An aspiring permanent member – India - should achieve the figs maintained by other aspiring entities - Japan & Germany - 6000. A lean cadre means sparse representation across geographies as also lack of sectorial experts. As an example, of the 54 countries in Africa, India has representation through its ambassadors in only 29 countries. Focus, clearly, on Africa cannot end with the African summit alone; it has to be followed by strengthening our diplomatic corps in the region & beyond. 

Similarly, the threat from the Northern borders is real with the Chinese indulging in “creeping acquisition” of territory. The most prudent strategy would have been to make peace with Pakistan & shift a vast portion of our 5 Lakh army, in J&K, to the Northern borders. This is, however, unlikely under the current conditions & hence creation of deterrence across two fronts is essential.  Strengthening of the army by raising additional battalions is therefore a logical corollary; however the current defence budget does not allow this luxury. The increased presence of the Chinese in the Indian Ocean & attempts under the guise of a “maritime silk route” to encircle India calls for the creation of a more robust Blue water Navy to maintain control from Aden in the West to the Malacca Straits in the East.  Strengthening the Air-force & cyber-force is urgent since conflicts of the future would be decided either in the air or cyberspace or both. The shortage of personnel in the IB – about 19000 strong & 7000 short - & R &AW - about 9000 strong & 3000 short especially in the area, language & technology domains - also needs to be addressed to achieve our strategic aspirations through covert means if necessary. The reduction of “risk allowance” & other benefits – a consequence of the 5^th & 6^th Pay commission recommendations - which equated intelligence agency personnel with police & clerical staff in other govt. departments, needs to be overturned.  A complete overhaul of the Indian security apparatus is thus, mandatory.

In a federal polity the Centre has the responsibility for "External Affairs" & "Security" which it can efficiently executive through a creative solution by reducing employees in the C & D category & building capacity in other much needed sectors. “Maximum Governance; Minimum Govt.” would remain merely a pipe-dream if not followed up through strategic execution. Perhaps, it is the execution that is missing today.

NJAC Verdict: A critique

The 5 member constitutional bench headed by Justice Kehar, by a majority judgement of 4 -1, declared the 99^th constitutional amendment or the NJAC (National Judicial Appointment commission) Act, passed by Parliament, as ultra vires of the constitution; the bench has posted  a hearing  on Nov 3^rd on ways to make the current collegium system better.  The judgement has been panned by certain legal eagles - Abhishek Manu Singhvi - surprisingly, in his personal capacity & not as spokesperson of the Congress - & Finance Minister Arun Jaitley – who has been unusually harsh & called the judgement the “tyranny of the un-elected” forgetting, perhaps, that he too is an “un-elected” people’s representative & his last attempt at becoming one ended in a disaster at Amritsar with Capt. Amarinder Singh being his nemesis.

The learned judges in a 1030 page judgement have argued that judicial independence is important, especially, in a country like India, where, as per LK Advani, the threat of a dictatorship is very real & civil society is not strong enough. The presence of the law minister & 2 nominated members – appointed by a committee consisting of the PM, Leader of the opposition & the Chief Justice – would constitute political involvement in a judicial process & appointees may feel gratified to politicians, they argue. The possibility of supersession of judges “if not fit” – as worded in the Act, perhaps, was seen as another affront on the judiciary, whose independence the learned bench, rightly, are keen to protect. 

Brief History

The first judges case of 1982 declared executive primacy with the President being the “Appointing Authority” & the Chief Justice the “Consultee” - interpreting “consultation not to mean concurrence”, while the second Judge’s case in 1993 declared the Chief Justice the "Appointing Authority" and the President a ‘Consultee’ - interpreting “consultation as consent” - while in the third Judge’s case, the courts interpreted the Chief Justice to mean a "collegium" of Judges.  Justice Kurien Joseph - part of the bench that heard the 4^th Judges case - has argued that had the bench that heard the 1^st Judges case not ignored Samsher Singh’s judgement of 1974, the need for the subsequent “Judges cases” would not have arisen. 

Rajeev Dhawan in an article http://www.dailyo.in/politics/njac-sc-judges-justice-kehar-judicial-appointments-constitution-collegium-emergency/story/1/6860.html has argued that no central regime in India liked an independent judiciary; while Nehru believed that the Judiciary was anti- agrarian reforms, Indira believed in a “committed judiciary”and Law Ministers Shiv Shankar & Bharadwaj insisted on their choices – all leading, unfortunately, to many great High Court judges being excluded from the Supreme Court. The uncertainty & unpredictability of judicial appointments of the 1980’s forced the judiciary to seek a more authoritative role vide the 2nd Judges case & a “political farce” of trying to prevent Chief Justice Punchi from making appointments - a view shared by fellow judges - led to the creation of a collegium in 1998. While many exalted at the judiciary trying to set itself free from the Executive, the rigid collegium system that emerged had its inherent flaws. Rajeev says “Justice Kripal ensured that his Delhi colleagues were disproportionately represented in the Supreme Court. Justice Khare influenced Allahabad appointments on a caste (kayastha) basis. Orissa judges, Pattnaik and Passayat, conspired to delay a distinguished judges' appointment.”

These flaws led to the new debate on the “Collegium vs. the Commission” & that forms the genesis of the NJAC.

Singhvi’s Arguments: Article published in TOI

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/candid-corner/usurping-parliaments-power-instead-of-aborting-njac-supreme-court-should-have-given-it-a-fair-chance-to-succeed/

Singhvi contends that “judicial procreation” achieved through the creation of a “collegium” by the 2^nd Judges case in 1993, was a “naked usurpation of legislative power” conferred by the constitution vide article 124 – for the appointment of the Supreme Court judges - & article 217 – for the appointment of High Court judges. Neither the constituent assembly debates nor the constitution - which states that appointment shall be made by the “president after consultation with the Chief Justice of India” approve of such a move he adds.

He unwittingly concedes the appointment of “indifferent sometimes downright unacceptable judges” during 1980-90 led to the judicial intervention in 1993. He argues that since “government in consultation with judiciary” model prevailed between 1950 – 1993 & the “collegium” model during 1993 till date & each of these models had their share of controversies, it would have been prudent for the new model proposed by the NJAC act to be been given a chance to run for a reasonable tenure before arriving at a definitive conclusion, a prospect which, unfortunately, this judgement has nullified. The “incestuous, opaque, cloistered style, inbreeding entirely amongst the judicial/legal family” achieved by the collegium system would have been remedied through “broad-basing, the enlargement of the selection process, the inclusion of diversity in thought, philosophy and approach.” He contends that what the NJAC judgement has treated as its “biggest vice” is in believing in the “infallibility of judges”

Arun Jaitley’s Arguments: Facebook Post

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/indian-democracy-cannot-be-a-tyranny-of-the-unelected-arun-jaitleys-alternative-view-on-the-njac-verdict-2473218.html

Jaitley & Singhvi concur in their views although the parties they represent differ.

Jaitley’s says “The judgement has upheld the primacy of one basic structure - independence of judiciary - but diminished five other basic structures of the Constitution, namely, Parliamentary democracy, an elected Government, the Council of Ministers, an elected Prime Minister and the elected Leader of the Opposition.” He argues that “The Indian democracy cannot be a tyranny of the unelected and if the elected are undermined, democracy itself would be in danger” & cites the continuing credibility of institutions like the Election Commission and the CAG, though appointed by elected Governments. 

On the perils of re-imposition of emergency, Jaitley avers that it was politicians like him who went to jail during the emergency imposed in 1975, when the Supreme Court caved in. Likewise, while the Delhi High Court’s judgement on alternate sexuality was lauded by people like him it was the Supreme Court that overturned the judgement. Therefore the Supreme Court’s belief its own infallibility is belied by history he avers; and now the 4^th Judges case declares ‘Exclusivity’ of the Chief Justice in the matter of appointment excluding the role of the President almost entirely.Finally he argues that having struck down the 99th constitutional amendment, the court decided to re legislate the repealed provisions of article 124 & 217 & called for a hearing on Nov 3^rd on the collegium system, thereby, encroaching into the legislative domain.

Justice Lodha’s Contra view: Article published in the Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/njac-constitutions-will-upheld/article7781047.ece

Justice Lodha while respecting the arguments of legal eagles, disagrees with them & argues that just as the supremacy of the legislature over the executive is borne out by the council of Ministers being accountable to Parliament, “Judicial review” of laws passed by parliament is a role assigned to the Judiciary, by the constitution, to maintain rule of law.  He quotes Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of American Constitution, “where the will of the legislature declared in the statutes is in opposition to the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than former.” He wonders: “when we are one of the very few countries where actions of the political executive in diverse fields — ranging from violation of human rights to wrongful distribution of natural resources and wide range of issues which have huge political ramifications — are brought before the superior judiciary in the public interest litigation, can judges who are appointed with the direct say of the government be relied upon to deliver neutral and high-quality decisions in such matters”.  

He passionately argues that the power of veto conferred on any 2 members of the 6 member committee for the appointment of judges challenged judicial independence & had "judicial primacy" been maintained the judgement could have been different. He urges that the judgement should not be seen as the judiciary flexing its muscles but performing its constitutional mandate. The executive & the judiciary should work towards making appointments "diverse, fair & transparent" he argues. “Appoint good judges; the rest will follow“ he concludes

Solution

The lone dissenting judgement of Justice Chelameswar provides some starting points for a reconciliation & probable solution. “Proceedings of the collegium were absolutely opaque and inaccessible both to public and history, barring occasional leaks." he laments & urges for “transparency”. He alludes to cases where the apex court collegium "retraced its steps" after rejecting recommendations suggested by the High Court collegium, giving scope for a great deal of "speculation";  going forward such actions should be avoided. He says that “The records are absolutely beyond the reach of any person including the judges of this Court who are not lucky enough to become the Chief Justice of India. Such a state of affairs does not either enhance the credibility of the institution or good for the people of this country”; there is an inherent appeal for “accountability”. He also finds illogical & calls its a "doctrinal heresy", the govt. being totally excluded from the selection & appointment process. 

Executive exclusion is here to stay considering the tonality of the judgement. The govt. decision to accept the judgement & not go for an appeal could be because of the breakdown in relations between the Congress – the principal opposition - & the ruling BJP & thereby the lack of a united Parliamentary voice; the attempt by the former to embarrass the latter perhaps, forced the govt. to accept the judgement. Making the collegium system better appears to be the only solution to end this logjam. Perhaps, that is the best solution too during the current troubled times.

Which economic theory is Right: Left or Right?

The raging debate on what is a superior economic philosophy – the left of centre communism or socialism or the right of centre capitalism – still persists. Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital”& the Soviet model appealed much to intellectuals post the RED revolution in 1917 so much so that intellectuals like Kim Philby - educated in the hallowed institutions in England - turned “double agents”;  it is therefore unsurprising that most of the Indian Leaders – educated at the same institutes - of the freedom movement were attracted to the same tenets.

The leaders of Independent India decided on a “mixed” economy - with both the public & the private sector playing a defined role, albeit the former playing a more dominant role.  Was the decision on a “mixed economy” an act of “political compromise” struck between the rival factions of the Congress or pure “pragmatism” emerging from the ability to “touch tomorrow” is indeed debatable.  Ambedkar argued for non- inclusion of the word “socialist” in the constitution, insisting on posterity to take an adequate call consistent with the times which was ultimately accepted. That perhaps “pragmatism” triumphed at the end can be gauged by two decisions taken during those days. The decision to include the “right to property” – a more capitalistic thought - as a fundamental right &  non - replication of Communist China’s collective farming model implemented by Mao  between 1958 to 1961 during the “giant leap forward” campaign which tuned an absolute disaster.  

The founding fathers were visionaries & damned right they were proved. The Soviet Model  without an iota of freedom with “Big Brother” watching over all your activities - eerily reflected in George Orwell’s classic “1984” - & lack of incentive for individual excellence stifled  innovation. Eventually “glasnost” – openness & “Perestroika” – restructuring were introduced in 1985 but it was too little too late due to which the tottering edifice crumbled in 1991. The shock effects reverberated in Eastern Europe in the “Warsaw pact” countries prompting Capitalists to announce the death of communism with much fanfare & proclaimed the inevitability of capitalism as the panacea to the world’s evils. However Communism survived in Cuba & socialism has taken deeper roots in Latin America with heroes’ like Hugo Chavez emerging in Venezuela. The economic crisis of 2008 has revealed the excesses of capitalism neatly elucidated by Gorden Gekko’s in the film “Wall street”:  “Greed is good.” History is therefore an impartial judge revealing that both the competing economic philosophies have their faults.

The rise of socialistic parties like Syriza in Greece as well in continental Europe & the continued hold of the socialistic parties in Latin America is but a reminder of the new people’s voice.  Contrast this with the rise of China to a $10 trillion economy -the 2^nd largest in the world - after initiating & sustaining economic reforms.  Winds of change are blowing across both the worlds – the capitalistic countries are appreciating socialistic principles better with economists like Thomas Picketty raising concerns about the rise in economic inequality in an un-bridled capitalistic system while communist countries like China - post reforms - are enjoying the variety & choice offered by a quasi free market economy.  Perhaps the excesses either of capitalism or communism needs to be shunned & a middle ground found.

What are the lessons for India? Free enterprise should be the name of the game & in a mixed economy scenario the public & the private sectors should compete & the best allowed to win. Regulators should play arbitrators & should be safeguarded from coming under external influences. Ease of doing business should be massively simplified through an IT backbone & the growth in innovation clusters should spur a “start-up” culture & jobs. The consequent rise in economic activity would spur govt. tax revenues which should  be used for uplifting the plethora of people living below the poverty line - estimated by different commissions to be anywhere between 22% to 40% of the population. Is it not a paradox that while the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 proclaimed our country as “socialist”, the concept of a “social security net” - a socialist tenet – has eluded our citizenry even while capitalistic economies have embraced the concept? 

Therefore neither the Right nor the Left is fully right; the right economic philosophy paradoxically lies somewhere at the centre.

Is Modi picking up the right battles to fight?

Rampant corruption allegations & paralysis of governance of the UPA II, propelled Prime Minister, Modi, to power in 2014; of course his fluent oratory & “development” mantra did win many hearts. Divine providence, perhaps, was at play too. None expected the BJP to breach the magic fig. of 272 in the Lok Sabha nor imagined a drop in the oil prices to under $50 dollars per barrel. Both did happen giving the ruling dispension enormous heft which unfortunately is getting squandered. Is it because Modi is not picking up the right battles to fight?

Along with his allies, Modi enjoyed a brute majority in the Lok Sabha but lacked a majority in the Rajya Sabha. Instead of belittling the opposition’s intelligence & wildly hoping that a bill pushed through the Lok Sabha but stalled in the Rajya Sabha could be rummaged through a joint session he should have kept the back room channel diplomacy open with the opposition – a successful strategy adopted by both Narsimha Rao & Vajpayee. Instead he pushed through his agenda through ordinances which further hardened the opposition onslaught leading to a parliamentary logjam.

The slogan of “Congress Mukt Bharat” during the elections & subterranean attempts later on were fine but the BJP spokespersons’ repeated disparaging comments on the 44 seats won by the Congress as reason for them to shut up & mildly accept the ruling party’s diktat was sheer arrogance which turned off even the liberal supporters of the BJP. Had the PM created an opening with the opposition – especially the Congress – he would have been in a better position to rush through his economic legislations creating a genuine feeling of “ache din”. Unfortunately he did not.

Instead of remaining non- committal for long on the Congress’s demand for the constitutional position of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Modi should have emerged as a statesman either by agreeing to their demand or by announcing on the floor of the house that the post was being denied citing precedence but expressing his willingness to make changes in rules to include the leader of the largest party in the panel which decides on appointments of CVC, CIC etc. The 2^nd alternative eventually happened but post a long hiatus during which time the relations between the parties was soiled due to jingoistic sloganeering & chest thumping in TV studios & beyond.  By not doing so, he has widened the chasm which continues till today much to the detriment of the legislative process because of which the economy suffers. The economy had bottomed out in 2013 & is on an upward trajectory but the growth rates as per the new revised index have flummoxed many economists including the Chief Economic Adviser to the govt.

It is to Modi’s credit that the Lutyens’ bureaucracy has been disciplined. The arrest of agents accused of stealing govt. documents was a signal to crony capitalists not to meddle with governance through industrial espionage. Current account deficit (CAD) being under control was as much due to financial jugglery – preponing receipts & postponing expenditure - as well as “heavy lifting” done by the UPA; oil price drop was an unexpected bonanza for the NDA which could have been used for public spending to revive the investment climate. His “rock star” like foreign visits helped International investors refocus on India. He only needed a competent 2^nd line to deliver the goods, off-course with greater decentralization of power & responsibility. He, unfortunately, chucked predisposed as he is to a centralized Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) & a command & control structure.

While Modi’s stratagem of mandatory retirement of politicians after 75 years is welcome he could have implemented the policy in phases. Had he included tried & tested hands of the Vajpayee era like Yeshwant Sinha, Murli Manohar Joshi, Jeshwant Singh (he could have been re-inducted into the party) et al with a strong MOS being tagged to them with the message that the younger lot who deliver would be promoted to Cabinet Rank in 2 years’ time, he would have had a team that would have been on the ball from day 1; after all it is unfair to expect the current lot - despite the best pedigree & competence - to deliver immediately, denying them a “learning curve”. That policy ails the govt. to this day.

Lack of experience in ministerial experience should be made up through association with “think tanks”; after all most of the bureaucrats in specialized functions like Finance, Defence et al are generalists & while being good with knowledge of govt. processes, might not be able to come out with innovative solutions always. By announcing the demise of the planning commission from the ramparts of the Red fort on Aug. 15^th last year before working out the contours of the proposed NITI Ayog, Modi lost the plot. Vivekananda Foundation or the India Foundation has tried to step into the vacuum but much still needs to be done. It is precisely due to this reason that the BJP was forced to either rebrand the old UPA programs or execute them remarkably better than their predecessors but is yet to come out with any original scheme till date. That is the sad story.

Modi has picked up certain fights which are unnecessary. Nomination of Gajendra Chauhan as the head of the FTII has elicited wide protests from even traditional BJP supporters. Rather than viewing withdrawal on this issue as a defeat he should have appointed a more respectable face like Anupam Kher or Amitabh Bachan. Appointing Shatrughan Sinha - peeved at not being offered a cabinet berth- could have mollified him partially & ensured his continued loyalty to the party; perhaps this would have kept him away from Bihar where his proximity to the opposition is creating flutters. Simultaneously, Modi should persist in disciplining the institute which has seen multiple strikes in the last few years & the first step would be to ensure that students overstaying in hostels be asked to vacate the premises. He appears more keen on the latter.

Coming back to the economy, any economist would have indicated that utilization levels across industries like Steel, Cement, Auto etc. are low & hence despite the rapidity of environment & other clearances, Industry was unlikely to accelerate investments unless demand picks up. The surest way to do so would have been been by increasing rural demand by modifying the MNREGA to create assets & growing urban demand by accelerating the payouts of 7^th pay commission recommendations. Combine these vectors with the increased tax benefits on housing & New Pension Scheme to the salaried class - already announced in the previous 2 budgets – & demand  revival is waiting to happen. However, in sectors like coal, iron ore etc. where demand exceeds supply, supply side initiatives as well as legal solutions were more desirable. While there is some forward movement on coal through the auction mechanism - although open bidding without sectoral restictions would have been more prudent strategy at price discovery - a legal solution to the stalled iron ore mining issue is yet to be initiated. Reviving the mining sector could have helped revive the animal spirits in ancillary sectors like tyres, commercial vehicles etc. thereby leading to a higher trajectory to the Primary Manufacturing index. Consequently, we would have saved on foreign exchange too with a drop in imports. Services linked to those industries would have seen an uplift too.

With infrastructure companies reeling under heavy debt and asking for a haircut & Public sector Banks bearing the blunt, it was clear that expecting investments from the private sector was a pipe dream. Govt. spending or public sector spending was the solution. Strangely, while this should have been announced in the first budget, it was delayed to the 2^nd & even today we see no acceleration in the govt.’s resolve to get the same implemented. The govt. should identify Roads & Railways as 2 areas for spending & work on completing these projects in 2 years by which time the economic cycle would have taken a steep upturn forcing the private sector to consider investments. Bank capitalization & dis-investments should have been the concurrent strategy which unfortunately is being attempted now when the stock market is dipping effecting valuations.

It is a known fact that when the private sector sees returns they would do so with or without the “land bill” or the “Labour law” reforms. While both are, indeed, important, non- implementation of those would not stall economic recovery. The govt. now seems resigned to the fact that the land bill cannot be passed in Parliament & is hence wants states to make their own laws. Surely, shifting the labour laws from the concurrent list to the state list would also help in creating competitive federalism. Modi should therefore choose which battles to fight.