Budget Expectations: July 2019

The euphoria is palpable as Nirmala Sitharaman - the first female, Finance Minister of independent India, if one discounts Indira Gandhi, who handled the finance portfolio, in 1970-71, while being Prime Minister – rises to present the budget on July 5^th; the question on everyone’s lips: will she make history by announcing a “dream budget”?

Challenges:

Growth & Employment: The NDA govt. is faced with the twin challenges of decreasing growth & rising unemployment. GDP growth figs fell to 5.8%, in Q4 2019, the lowest in the last 20 quarters while unemployment is at a 45 year high-7.9% as per CMIE, in June 2019 & 6.1% for 2018 as per the periodic labour force survey (PLFS),  released by NSSO (National Sample Survey organization).

Lower growth means that the revenue estimates announced in the interim budget - such as GST revenue growth of 21%, which was anyway too ambitious, is likely to fall further short even while demands for a stimulus to pump prime the economy, to counter slowdown, inevitably rise. Prudent to revise the tax nos. downwards & increase the non-tax revenue targets.

The auto sector – generally seen as a proxy of the national manufacturing economy - is sputtering during the last few months; however, that could be attributed to the NBFC crisis & the weakening of disbursal of credit, to buyers, thereof. Bring shadow banking under greater ambit of the RBI & release a liquidity lifeline.

Drop in Investment Rate: Investment rate, in the country, is trending around 28-30% which means that with an incremental capital to output ratio of 4, India can theoretically grow at 7-7.5% unless assisted by productivity gains which can, perhaps, add another 0.5% extra. Prime Minister, Modi’s  target of moving India to a $5 trillion economy, by 2024, against the $2.74 trillion in 2018, demands a growth of 12.8% per annum; alternatively, the economy can grow at a slightly lower rate but the rupee should appreciate against the dollar which would decrease the competitiveness of exports, which are already stagnating & hence a no go. Thus, unless the investment rate does not go up to 51% (12.8 X 4) achieving a $5 trillion target is unlikely. India is more likely to become a $4 trillion economy by 2024 growing at 8%. Household savings have dropped from 23% to 17% & private consumption contributes 59.5% to GDP growth even as exports stagnate; simultaneously, household indebtedness has grown in India  which means that while a higher household savings rate is desirable for higher investment rate, it is unachievable looking at the secular trend line. 

High Logistics & Power Costs: Responding to govt. requests for increasing investments, Industry bodies initially complained about “environmental hurdles”, in 2013, which Modi make an electoral issue under “Jayanti Tax” & later got his Minister, Prakash Javadekar, to accelerate clearances. Industry bodies then shifted goalposts to complain about the high cost of capital, which the current RBI Governor, Shaktikanta Das, has partially addressed vide three rate cuts, totalling 0.75%, this year, although transmission is tardy contingent as it is on systemic liquidity & higher interest rates offered on small savings. It might be prudent for the RBI to fix the repo rate at a real rate of 1.5% which combined with inflation of 4% (say) adds to 5.5%.  Industry's grouse on high logistics cost, in India, (14%  of GDP as per Economic Survey 2017-18) against less than 10%, for China & Western economies & the high cost of power - since industrial power subsidizes domestic power - are, however, legitimate. Removal of power subsidy is a delicate political issue but addressing T&D (Transmission & Distribution) losses, largely on account of “power theft”, should be taken head on. Increase of solar power capacity to 29GW (7.8% of the total installed power capacity of 356GW) & with planned capacity of 100GW, in solar by 2022, should ideally lower prices & the govt. should pass on the benefits to industry first to help in lowering costs & hopefully increasing exports. Reduction of logistics costs, though, is a medium term project since it needs investment in roads, railways, waterways & ports. With capacity utilization at 76%, large corporates might not increase investments in greenfield projects especially when cheaper assets are available vide IBC (Insolvency & Bankruptcy code). The govt. should therefore shift focus from cry baby large corporates to the MSME (Micro Small & Medium enterprises) sector which account for 29% of GDP, 45% of manufacturing, 50% of exports & 11 crore jobs; Minister, Nitin Gadkari has expressed an intention to increase export contribution  to 75% & increase employment to 15 crore people. The disproportionate focus we give to large corporates can be gauged from the fact that, as per the RBI, organized private sector jobs increased from 7.23 million, in 1978-79, to 11.97 million, in 2011-12, or 4.7 million in 33 years (or only 1.4 lakhs per annum) while the heavy lifting, on job creation & exports is being done by the MSME sector who are suffering because of lack of credit at reasonable interest rates.

NPA crisis: The “Twin Balance” sheet problem, as eloquently put by the former Chief Economic advisor – Arvind Subramanian – persists. While the IBC has done a yeoman's job on redressing the steel sector, stress in power, aviation, telecom sectors persist & watering down of the RBI's 12^th Feb circular can only provide cosmetic comfort.

The Bimal Jalan committee, which was entrusted with the task of recommending a formula for the transfer of RBI surplus to the govt., is yet to submit its report. It is possible, however, that this surplus could be used by the govt. to recapitalize banks.

Total Deficit of 9%: Former Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, reduced fiscal deficit (FD) from 4.5% in 2013-14 to 3.4% in 2018-19. The BJP was handed an unexpected international oil price drop bonanza, in 2014, but kept domestic prices nearly flat, by increasing excise duties, on petroleum products, from an ad valorem rate to a fixed excise duty, thereby increasing the tax revenues from 0.88 Lakh crores, in 2014, to 2.6 lakh crores, in 2018-19, an increase of 1.72 lakh crores which is 0.9% of GDP of 187 lakh crores, in FY 19; thus if oil products are brought under GST the entire reduction in FD achieved would be reversed. Meanwhile, the NDA govt. launched the UDAY scheme, in 2014, as part of power sector reforms, under which NPAs of the state power sector companies were transferred to the books of the state govt. in lieu of which the FRBM limit of 3% of the states FD has been breached. The combined fiscal deficit of the centre & the states would actually be about 7%. Sajjid Chenoy, of JP Morgan, says that if “off balance sheet” financing vide state PSUs is added then FD is around 9%. Critics could argue that countries like South Korea sustained FD of 12% while countries like Egypt failed even at 3% since the former used it for creating capital assets giving returns higher than the cost of capital, a worthwhile sustainable investment, while the latter used it for consumption; however India is no South Korea & having seen the aftereffects of the stimulus between 2009-11, we need to tread carefully; the NK Singh committee has allowed an “escape clause” of 0.5% FD extra under specified circumstances; while sticking to the fiscal glide path is recommended, a  0.2-0.3% deviation might not invite the displeasure of international rating agencies aware as they are of the international headwinds.

It is against these structural challenges that the Finance Minister rises to present the budget on 5^th July.

Options:

Raise resources: The govt. can explore following opportunities to raise revenues

(a)Auction assets like spectrum, coal blocks etc.; however, with the telecom industry under stress & polluting resources like coal facing international approbation, there might not be many takers. Bringing in international mining majors like BHP Billiton & Rio Tinto, though, would help enhance competition & bring in the latest technology & management practices.

(b)Privatization: While Niti Aayog has prepared a report on 42 companies that can be privatized; their offer for sale might attract an interest similar to Air India.  A better proposition would be to sell the land assets of defunct companies, pay VRS to the employees & use the remaining money for infrastructure development. Against a disinvestment target of 0.8lakh crores, the govt. achieved 0.85 lakh crores, some vide the abominable practice of forcing another govt. entity to pick up the slack to bail the govt. out. It is time to target 1.5 lakh crores of genuine divestment as it happened under the Vajpayee regime.

(c)List Insurance companies: Merge General insurance companies-United India Insurance, National Insurance & Oriental Insurance); follow it up by divesting at least 10% each in the merged entity & Life Insurance corporation of India. The General insurance companies have a solvency of 150% against the industry trend of 230% (as per a Money control report) & these companies have taken losses in the recent floods & therefore divestment could be postponed. Listing LIC could easily net the govt. at least 50,000 crores this year.

(d)Sell Infra assets: NHAI can monetize completed assets to interested sovereign wealth funds, pension funds et all & use the proceeds to fund further infra assets. Corporatize all major ports & divest upto 49% & use the proceeds to decongest thereby aiding ease of business & exports. Manage likely trade union protests, at ports, by convincing them that the entire proceeds of divestment in a specific port would be used for expansion of that port only aiding creation of more jobs.

To avoid the accusation that the govt. is selling family silver, make a budgetary announcement that all the proceeds of the sale would flow into an infra fund & shall be used for building infra alone; in other words one asset is being sold to build another with the bonus of additional employment.

(e)Add an income tax slab of 40%:Prudent to tax rich tax payers with incomes over 5 crores at 40%; else keep the 3 tax slabs but add a surcharge to effectively create a 40% slab.

Increase MNREGA Spends: MNREGA spends increased from 30,000 crores in 2014 to about 52,000 crores in 2018. Since rainfall is delayed this year & a drought is likely, increasing MNREGA spends to 80,000 crores would be helpful. Since the BJP has promised to bring piped water to all households in the next 5 years, it might be prudent to use the MNREGA money to dig lakes on govt. wasteland on rural & urban outskirts & feed them with rainwater & storm-water drains & use the water so collected to provide piped water which is a low cost option to vanity announcements of bringing river water vide canals - with its attendant land acquisition challenges, ecological disasters & sub optimal  Relief & Rehabilitation measures due to a leaky machinery.

Geo-tag these assets to ensure that projects do not get completed only on paper.

Transfer Fertilizer & Food subsidy vide DBT: India spends about 75000 crores annually vide fertilizer subsidy. The subsidy is paid to the producers & not farmers directly leading to perverse incentives. Subsidies to producers, has remained unpaid effecting industry health. The govt. can announce removal of the fertilizer subsidy & transfer Rs 5000/- per farmer extra over & above the Rs 6000 promised under the PM KIsan scheme to remove leakages & stimulate the rural economy. This could invite criticism of not benefitting tenant farmers though.

India spends 1.84 Lakh crores as Food subsidy& the Food Legislation passed by parliament promises to benefit 2/3^rd of the population or about 18 crore families; prudent to transfer Rs 10,000/- per family to eliminate leakages vide the Public Distribution System (PDS)

Increase spends on Infrastructure: The interim budget promised a capital expenditure of 3.36 lakh crores predominantly in defence (1.03L crores), Roads& Bridges (0.68L crores) & Railways (0.64L crores). It might be prudent to enhance the spends on the latter two to at least 0.8 lakh crores each.

Others which could be addressed outside the Budget:

(a)Factor Market Reforms: While there is a demand for factor market reforms – land & labour- it is difficult to be implemented because of the impending state elections in 4 states; land is a state subject & we have witnessed the hasty retreat of the NDA govt., in the first year of their previous term, on the land ordinance. Industry would always demand a “hire & fire” policy which is a political hot potato; prudent to continue to manage demand cycles vide off roll accretions as is the current practice; one can add apprentices to strengthen the labour force. Showcasing the Rajasthan labour reform model to be emulated by other states is a better proposition.

(b)Focus on MSME: Jaitley had promised, in 2015, a road map of reducing corporate taxes from 30% to 25% & has struck to the commitment by progressively doing so for corporates up to a turnover of Rs 250 crores which accounts for 99% of the companies. The large companies (Turnover above 250 crores, courtesy, tax incentives, anyway pay an effective tax rate less than 25%.

Focussing on the credit needs, at reasonable interest rates, for the MSME sector, prudent, to create growth, jobs & exports. The recent announcement of increasing non-collateral loans to this sector from 10 lakhs to 50 lakhs is a recipe for disaster as it could buy growth in the short run only to turn into NPA’s in the medium term. With an efficient minister, Gadkari, handling MSME, expect him to make announcements on this sector outside the budget.

(c )Create a super regulator: India has multiple regulators – RBI for banking, SEBI for corporates, IRDA for Insurance, HDB for housing finance companies etc.; the govt. planned to clip the wings of the RBI by creating another regulator, for Fintech companies, which is regressive. Since many regulatory issues are falling in between the stools & leading to regulatory turf wars, prudent to combine all of these agencies & create a super regulator. Light touch regulation on NBFCs & chit funds have led to systemic risks; hence stronger regulation recommended.

(d)Entice supply chains from China to relocate: China became a manufacturing powerhouse, during the last 30 years, because of Western, South Korean, Taiwanese & Japanese investments while India became an IT superpower bypassing the manufacturing revolution.  The US-China trade war is a once in a lifetime opportunity to correct this historical wrong. Entice supply chains to relocate to India under the “China+1” policy instead of countries like Thailand & Vietnam- which otherwise offer the advantages of FTA (Free trade agreements) with attractive Western markets. It might be prudent to enter into a FTA with complementary economies like US & EU; however such announcements shall be made outside the budget.

Conclusion:

Indian GDP figs are under a cloud for some time & former Chief Economic advisor, Arvind Subramanian’s paper has accentuated the same; time to put MCA 21 database into the public domain along with the GDP calculation methodology & invite criticisms for correction & rectification in the next 6 months to avoid embracing the “fudged nos” reputation of China.

India faces structural challenges which can only be addressed in the long haul. India becoming a $5 trillion economy by 2024 is as ambitious as doubling farmer incomes by 2022. Rational estimation of targets supported by institutional strengthening & execution efficiency would be a saner alternative.

Are Indian Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) Safe?

The 7 phase Indian General Elections, started on April 11^th  2019, to elect the 17^th Lok Sabha -  the House of the People – the Lower house of India’s Bicameral legislature & soon enough the EVM controversy erupted again; opposition leaders alleged that buttons on some of the EVMs were missing, non- functional or wrongly favoured the ruling BJP.  The Election Commission of India (ECI) rejected the claims insisting that the EVMs are “tamper-proof”. There has been a long pending chorus to revert back to a paper ballot system.

While the ruling BJP, now, rubbishes the charges, it had levelled similar allegations post losing the 2009 general elections & the then ruling Congress Party called the charges “astonishing”. Incidentally, the BJP spokesperson GVL Narsimha Rao then wrote a book “Democracy at Risk!! Can we trust our Electronic Voting Machines?” with a foreward by its patriarch LK Advani & messages by  TDP’s (Telugu Desam Party) Chandrababu Naidu & Stanford University’s  Prof David Dill; Dill wrote “Electronic voting machines are especially vulnerable to malicious changes by insiders such as designers, programmers, manufacturers, maintenance technicians, etc. Of course, these problems are magnified enormously when the design of the machines is held secret from independent reviewers.” He thus alludes to all the usual suspects - the classic "insiders" - & the need for "transparency" which are legitimate observations..

Rather than dispense with the EVMs, activists have attempted to refine the process - a mature reaction to a problem. Subramanian Swamy, approached the Courts, in 2009, with a prayer, to issue a directive to the ECI, to incorporate a system of “paper receipt” as convincing proof to the voter - that the EVM has rightly registered his vote to the intended candidate - & secured a positive judgement, from the Supreme Court, in Oct 2013. The honourable court directed the govt. to extend financial assistance to the EC for VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit trail) deployment. While demand for a recount, till then,  meant rerun of the EVMs,  it was to be replaced, going forward, by the recount of the paper receipts instead, creating greater "transparency". The cost as estimated, by the Court, in 2013, was a pittance Rs 1690 crores (13 lakh units X Rs 13000 per unit); since 2017, all Indian elections have been held with VVPAT enabled EVMs.

One nagging doubt still persists: If all loopholes have been successfully plugged, why do ruling parties, then & now, support EVMs, even while the opposition cries foul?

Brief History of EVMs in India

MB Haneefa invented the first Indian EVM, in 1980, & it was first used, in 1981, in 50 polling booths of the North Paravur constituency of southern state of Kerala; they were, finally, commissioned, in 1989; the 2004 general elections were conducted entirely on EVMs. The acknowledged advantages of EVMs include saving on paper, elimination of “invalid” votes & quicker announcement of results. Earlier instances of some cases of “invalid” votes being higher than the difference of votes polled by the winner & the first runner’s up, leading to demands for a recount & court battles, is now history. The key takeaway: 23 year delay from 1981-2004 is yet another instance of the famed boisterous Indian democracy's execution - deployment & course correction - mess that plagues governance. 

Controversies, however, continued to besiege the technological solution. In 2010, a techie, Hari Prasad claimed that the EVMs could be hacked & with a few hardware changes programmed to favour a particular candidate; he was criminally charged - for alleged theft of the EVM - to be dropped later only after sending across a chilling signal to all potential challengers.  As per an India Today Report, on May 12, 2017, by Prabhash K Dutta: In 2014, an EVM, in Jorhat, Assam, during a mandatory mock drill appeared to favour the BJP; the opposition lodged a protest with the ECI who claimed that the EVM was defective & assured that none of the faulty EVMs would be used; later, In 2017, at a mock drill to demonstrate VVPATs, the EVMs left a paper trail more for the BJP than the votes cast for the party; the EC on receiving complaints suspended 19 EC officials & claimed that the EVMs were used for demonstration without  sanitizing; similar complaints were received at Dholpur, Rajasthan, a few months later to which the EC clarified that of the EVMs received for the by-polls, 10 were found to be faulty with technical errors in the control unit - of which 8 were detected prior to voting & 2 during voting & prompt corrective action was initiated. The same year, Shrikant Shirshat, contesting from the Saki Naka ward of BMC (BrihanMumbai Municipal corporation), claimed that while he & his family members voted for him, in ward no 164, they ” disappeared” & he was shown as securing zero votes.

The discourse of EVM misbehaviour listed above does not enlighten us to distinguish between a case of “malfunction” – a technical defect in the machine which is legitimate – & “tampering” – manipulation aimed at fraud; hence the need to understand what is an Indian EVM like.

Indian EVM

EVMs consist of a control unit - that remains with the election official at a voting booth - a balloting unit - on which the voter casts his vote - & the VVPAT. They are run on batteries for ease of deployment even in areas without electricity. The machines are connected by a 5 metre cable & can record a maximum of 2000 votes. M2 EVMs (2006-10) can cater to a max of 64 candidates, while M3 EVMs (post 2013) can cater to a max of 384 candidates including NOTA – 16 per balloting unit connected sequentially.  An additional polling official is needed in booths where M2 EVMs are deployed to watch the VVPAT status Display Unit (VDSU) kept on the presiding officer’s desk while there is no such requirement for M3 EVMs. Cost of M2 EVMs (Balloting unit & Control unit) is Rs 8670/- & they have a lifespan of 15 years. Clearly, this Indian "Frugal Engineering" prowess is obviously a source of pride.

EVMs have other advantages including saving on paper & hence a solution to environmental degradation; instead of issuing a ballot paper, the polling officer enables the ballot button & the voter then can cast his vote in the secrecy of the voting compartment by pressing the blue button against the name & symbol of the candidate & visual & audio confirmations is received by a red light & a beep sound respectively. The VVPAT slip - containing the serial no. name & symbol of the candidate - gets displayed for 7 seconds before dropping into the box as an additional proof.  The voter can give a written complain if his vote preference does not match with the paper trail under rule 49MA, of the Conduct of Election rules, 1961; the polling officer shall warn the voter of the consequences of making a false declaration & on getting the written complaint arrange for a the voter to record a test vote in the presence of candidate or his polling agent present in the polling station & himself & allegation if found true arrange for stoppage of further counting of votes in the voting machine & inform the returning officer accordingly. This "warning", of punishment, if accusation is proved false could  turn away genuine complainants; HareKrishna Deka, former DGP (Director General of Police) of Assam, in April 2019, did not lodge a complaint when told that he could suffer from a 6 months imprisonment if his complaint was proved untrue. If an ECI order can intimidate a former top gun of the police force,  one can easily visualize the impact on lesser mortals; perhaps, ECI should tone down the order to instill confidence & deepen democracy. 

While this process takes care of malfunction during polling, how do we know if the EVM does not have any "hidden votes" already recorded?

Prior to the commencement of poll, the presiding officer presses the “result” button to demonstrates to polling agents present, the absence of hidden votes already recorded; a mock poll with at least 50 votes is then conducted to satisfy poling agents the match between the result stored in the control unit, VVPAT slip released & the choice recorded. Presiding officer then presses the “clear” button & the “total” button to show a “0” result before commencing actual poll. There is a “close” button to be activated -by the electoral officer – at the end of the voting day - to stop further voting.

ECI has instituted further checks & balances:

The arrangement of names of candidates in the ballot unit is in an alphabetical order: first for national & state recognized political parties followed by independents; sequence is contingent on candidate name & party affiliation & thus cannot be ascertained beforehand. The loading of names is done by the engineers of the manufacturers ECIL (Electronics Corporation of India Ltd) & BEL (Bharat Electricals Ltd).

EVMs are allocated to polling stations vide a two stage randomized process through an EVM tracking software developed by the ECI; the first at the district election officer level to allocate assembly constituency wise in the presence of political parties & the second randomization at the returning officer level to allocate them polling station wise in the presence of candidates or their agents.

ECI has always contended that the EVMs used in India are tamper proof since they are made from a “one time programmable chip” – which can neither be read or overwritten -  unlike EVMs used in US & other nations are not personal computer based & hence “cannot be accessed or connected to any external device vide the internet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or an USB”.

Is there a possibility of trojan horses being burnt into the chips used in EVMs?

Rajat Moona, Member of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) an apex advisory on EVMs on VVPATs, to the ECI, in an interview, to the Economic Times, on Sept 13, 2018, states that blank chips are imported by Bharat Electronics Limited & Electronic Corporation of India Ltd & the source code developed & programmed by them is coded on the EVM chip & deployed in the new M3 EVM machines; the source code is also verified by the TEC. For VVPAT too source coding is done in India. He did not mention the details regarding M2 EVMs but had an explanation for VVPAT malfunctions.

“VVPAT, unlike an EVM, is a mechanical , not an electronic device & is always more vulnerable to error” & added that while VVPATs went through the rigor of 50 degree Celsius tests, root cause analysis of malfunctioning of VVPATs, in Bhandara & Gondiya bypolls, showed that exposure to direct intense sunlight caused errors. They were expected to be operated in an enclosed environment & in rooms & inherently come with sensitive sensors; a hood is now added to protect the sensors now.

ECI, to its credit, has been extremely prompt in addressing complaints & has run hackathons with an invitation to hack the hardware. while ECI’s explanations & checks & balances listed above are indeed comforting why have many countries, in the world, reverted back to using paper ballot?

International Experiences on EVMs

In this world of about 200 countries about 120 practice democracy & less than 40 countries experimented with EVMs & less than 20 persist with its use. Since EVMs are environmentally friendly – since they reduce paper usage - & ensure quick announcements of results – enhancing efficiency - why have all the democracies not adopted the process? Cost of the machines cannot be a reason since a tried & tested "frugal engineering" solution from India is readily available. Germany introduced EVM in 2005 but its constitutional court scrapped its usage, in 2009, on charges of lacking “transparency”, forcing the country to revert back to a paper ballot just like Netherlands & Ireland.

As per a BBC report: In 2017, EVMs used during the Venezuelan elections, allegedly inflated the actual turnout by at least a million votes while Argentinian politicians rejected e-voting plans fearing manipulation of results & on concerns of ballot secrecy; partial recount was carried out in the Iraqi elections, in 2018 following reports of technical glitches & EVMs became of source of contention in the presidential elections in Congo amid reports that they had not been thoroughly tested.

This raises the question:

Are the EVMs hackable?

University of Michigan scientists were able to change results by sending text messages from a mobile phone. Likewise, Dhiraj Sinha, of MIT, believes that rigging is possible with the use of a very small receiver circuit with an efficient antenna – perhaps, invisible to the human eye  to avoid detection; however mass scale rigging needs the connivance of the machine manufacturers & the ECI. Wireless hacking is contingent on the availability of a radio receiver containing an electronic circuit & an antenna & ECI claims EVMs contain so such circuit elements. Is it however possible that such bugs be introduced by unscrupulous elements during the periodic maintenance of the machines?

Saurabh Bharadwaj, a computer engineer & an AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) MLA, demonstrated on May 2017, in the Delhi assembly, with an EVM prototype, that it can be hacked. ECI, however, dismisses those claims.

Solutions:

Yogendra Yadav, of the Swaraj Abhiyan, in an article on June 6^th 2018, has argued that “any electronic gadget can be programmed & hence manipulated” & hence the focus should not be on the “design of the machine but the administrative protocols that govern its use”. Since Indian EVMs cannot receive external signals, it has to be individually fiddled. Likewise, the chip does not recognize party names or symbols but records votes by the serial no. of the candidate – which is arranged alphabetically by the candidate’s surname; thus  a machine needs to be fiddled after the candidates are finalized for each constituency & a particular EVM allotted – which is about 72 hours before polls.

He has suggested the following, to the ECI, to instill confidence, instead of “hackathon” challenges

(a)ECI must allow experts nominated by the registered party to examine random samples of new machines stored anywhere in the country

(b)Amend election rules to allow a voter to register an objection if he suspects that the paper slip did not match the party he voted for. If the booth records more than 1% (say) of such objections it should be made mandatory at the time of counting to match the EVM count with the paper trail count of that booth

(c) Publicity campaign to educate voters on VVPATs.

(d)Strict adherence to the rule of replacing a malfunctioning EVM within 30 minutes or ordering a re-poll.

(e)Alter the current counting pattern of simultaneously counting booth nos 1- 14 under  "round 1"; begin with matching EVMs & paper trail in one randomly chosen booth for each counting table; only if there is no mismatch, proceed with counting

(f)Candidates who finish 2^nd or 3^rd to be allowed to call for paper trail matching in any booth of their choice before the result is declared.

Former Chief Election Commissioner, SY Quraishi, echoes Yadav's views; writing in The Hindu on April 4^th he says “The top two runners-up in the constituency can choose any two VVPATs to be counted as they have the highest stake in the results. This would serve to do away with a large sample, as only four machines per Assembly would have to be counted to ensure public faith in the system. This is on the analogy of the highly popular and successful Umpire Decision Review System in cricket”While this might delay declaration of election results by a few hours, it would also help in ending controversies & harmful debates.

Apart from Yadav & Quraishi's sane views, other critics have suggested the following factors to be considered to arrive at a decision on EVMs 

(a)Large Electorate: In the 2014 Indian General elections, the electorate was 810 million & 550 million cast their votes; the figure for 2019 is about 900 million. Obviously, for such large no. of voters, EVMs are a better choice.

(b)Eliminate Ballot Stuffing & Ballot box seizing: Nalini Singh, in the 1990’s, telecast a program visually highlighting rampant booth capture & ballot stuffing & manipulation of the electoral process there-off; some critics have argued that EVMs have put an end to the same.

Others disagree; Chief Election Commissioner, TN Seshan, in the 1990s, cracking the whip, a more aware electorate courtesy the media & increased literacy levels & ECI conducting elections, in phases, under heavy protection of security forces cover, have contributed more to bring sanity. While booths capture by armed ruffians has the potential of being highlighted by the media or paparazzi in this era of CCTV cameras & smartphone ubiquitousness, digital capture of an EVM is inherently silent & hence more deadly. Gauhar Raza, writing in The Citizen, on 30th Mar 2017, raises a probing question: Even if individual candidates do have not have the material resources to launch a digital attack, is there a possibility of a political party or corporate houses with a history of crony capitalism or intelligence agencies of foreign nations attempting the same?

(c)No booth wise secrecy: During the era of paper ballots, votes across booths were mixed & counted so that none would know vote share across booths, helping the marginalized sections vote freely & fairly without the fear of retribution; however, this process has been dispensed with in the EVM era despite the availability of “Totalizer machines”. It is time to introduce these “Totalizer” machines.  

Since EVMs look a better bet because of the above listed reasons, debate has now shifted to:

How Many EVMs & VVPAT slips should be matched to instill confidence?

In March, 2019, 21 political parties approached the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the ECI guideline that VVPAT slips counting would take place only in one polling station in an assemble constituency or each assembly segment in case of a parliamentary constituency; generally a parliamentary constituency has between 5-8 assembly segments. Their plea that ECI be directed to verify 50% of VVPAT slips in each assembly segment of a Parliamentary constituency was rejected by the ECI vide an affidavit filed in the SC, on the ground that it would “enlarge the time required for counting to 6 more days”. This appears an unconvincing argument since the 7 phase general election is spread over 43 days & increasing it to 49 days is a small price to pay for sustaining “trust” in the EVMs & democracy; general elections.started on April 11^th & ends on May 19^th with the results to be declared on May 23^rd.   

ISI (Indian Statistical Institute) was tasked to define the sample size for verification & they reverted with a no. of 479, of the population of 10.35 lakh EVMs -to be used in the General Elections - at a confidence level of 99.9936% level; ECI contended that April-May Lok Sabha polls would cover 4125 EVMs & VVPATs which is 8.6 times the ISI recommendation.  Further, they apprised the Court on the infrastructural & logistical challenges of training & deploying manpower for the 50% exercise.

The SC, in 8th April 2019, ruled on randomly selecting 5 EVMs, for every assembly segment /constituency, instead of 1 proposed by the ECI; this will delay the counting process by 5 hours only, & results will still be declared on May 23^rd. The judgement is, however, silent on the course to be adopted if there is a discrepancy in the EVM & VVPAT count in at least 1 of the 5 EVMs; should 100% of the EVMs & VVPATs for that assembly segment be then counted & matched? The opposition has filed a review petition.

Conclusion:

Democracy gives moral legitimacy to a govt. which is contingent on the electoral process being “transparent” – votes are recorded & counted correctly -  “verifiable” – & in “secrecy”- provided by the anonymity of a secret ballot; VVPATs shall help in “transparency” & “verifiability” & use of “totalizer machines” shall help strengthen “Secrecy”.

It is clear that mass manipulation of EVMs in India is impossible but selective tampering is still a theoretical possibility with the connivance of the interested party, ECI & manufacture’s engineers or maintenance staff. Implementing the administrative protocols suggested by Yogendra Yadav is a solution that needs immediate implementation. Since “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” polling agents at the booth level should keep their eyes & ears open to detect & prevent manipulation.

It is time for India to unite on an EVM solution, to be exported to other countries later, to increase our soft power further.

Is NYAY the Congress’s Brahmastra?

Inspired by the Universal Basic Income (UBI) scheme, proposed by Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian’s in his Economic Survey report, of 2017, Congress President, Rahul Gandhi, announced the NYAY (Nyuntam Aay Yojana) or "Minimum income Plan” recently. Targeted at the bottom 20% of Indian population - consisting of 5 crore families or about 25 crore people - Rahul called it a final assault on poverty. The scheme envisages a Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) of Rs 6000 to each beneficiary’s family, per month (Rs 72000 per annum), which is 12 times higher & hence more enticing when pitched against the PM Kisan scheme, launched by the ruling BJP, that promises Rs 6000, per annum, to land owning farmers.

The Competing Poll narratives

Congress called the scheme NYAY (Justice in Hindi & hence electorally appealing) & plans to run a “Aay pe Charcha” (Discussion on income) thereby cheekily attacking Modi’s erstwhile “Chai pe Charcha" (discussion over tea), launched as a counter, in 2014, to Congress's Mani Shankar Aiyer's "Chaiwala" jibe, at the then Prime Ministerial Candidate, Narendra Modi; the ruling BJP, meanwhile, rubbished it as a poll gimmick with the Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, concluding that the Congress cannot lure the electorate with a “bluff announcement” when the BJP is already giving 1.06 lakh rupees per family (See Table attached); Jaitley's assertion, if true, begs the question: If so, why did the BJP not declare to the world that India has eliminated poverty?

Items	Amounts(Cr.)
Total Payments from 55 Ministries to Bank Accounts  under various schemes	180000
Food Subsidy	184000
Fertilizer Subsidy	75000
PM Kisan Samman Nidhi Payments for Income Support	75000
Ayushman Bharat Subsidy hospitalization for 50 crore	20000
Total	534000
Per Capita over 5 crore families (Rupees)	106800

Arun Jaitley, obviously, is economical on truth here; the schemes run by the 55 ministries include pensions, LPG subsidy, scholarships for domestic & foreign students etc. who might not necessarily be in the bottom 20% of the population. Likewise, The National Food Security Bill, 2013, promises food subsidy to 75% of the population in rural & 50% in urban averaging out to about 67% of the population while NYAY targets only the bottom 20% of population; the food subsidy of 1.84 lakh crores listed in the table above is spread over 67% of the population. Similarly, the fertilizer subsidy is transferred to producers & not customers.

Former Finance Minister, P Chidambaram & Praveen Chakravarty, Chairman, Data Analytics department of the Congress, while addressing the media, countered the BJP’s narrative by maintaining that NYAY would not touch the existing merit subsidies.

A poll, conducted by News X, revealed that while the Rafale issue is not gaining traction for the congress (mere 0.3% support), the NYAY scheme has given it an opening  with about 11% of the electorate enthused by the same; the BJP leads on "National security related issues" with about 35% support. Therefore, during the remaining period of the campaign, expect the BJP to constantly hark back on “National security”- eulogize Uri surgical strike on land, Balakot revenge strike on air & ability to strike spy satellites in space while the Congress would focus on bread & butter issues of farmer distress, unemployment, job losses, & Minimum Income guarantee.

India has a population of 137 crores & an electorate of 88 crores, in the 2019, general elections; 25 crores or about 18% of the population is a large base with the potential to swing elections. While the BJP is targeting 12 crore farmers, with the PM Kisan scheme, only 2.97 crore farmers – 1/3^rd of whom are from the critical state of UP - have received the first installment of Rs 2000/-, as per an Economic Times report, on 29^th May, 2019; likewise, while the health scheme - Ayushman Bharat - is meant to target 50 crore people, only 8.9 lakh people have availed of the scheme as per The Hindu Business Line article published on Jan 20^th 2019. Hence the NYAY scheme, if communicated well by the Congress, would help in making the electoral battle more even ended & hence exciting; the scathing statements issued by the incumbent Niti Ayog chief, Rajiv Kumar or the open-ed by the former Chief, Arvind Panagariya, betrays the BJP’s nervousness.

The Mathematics Behind the Scheme

The Tendulkar Committee recognized 22% Indians – or about 27 crore of population - as “Below Poverty Line” stipulating a benchmark daily per capita expenditure of Rs 27 in rural & Rs 33 in urban; faced with a backlash, the govt. appointed the Rangarajan Committee which raised the limits to Rs 32 & Rs 47 respectively & estimated 30% Indians – 36.3 crore Indians in 2011-12 to be BPL - but the NDA govt. rejected the report. Perhaps, the Congress, controversially, assumes poverty to have reduced to 20% during the last 5 years of the NDA regime & is targeting them under the scheme.

The scheme has attracted the following criticism:

(a)How will the scheme target the beneficiaries when India lacks household level income data? Praveen Chakravarthy, said that NYAY shall use the data sets available with the govt. including the Social-economic caste Census 2011, NSSO Household date etc.; the same data sets were, incidentally, used by the BJP govt. to  identify beneficiaries’ for the PM Kisan & Ayushman Bharat schemes.

 (b)Isn’t the spent of 3.6 lakh crores, annually, on NYAY fiscally imprudent?

Praveen has argued that Indian GDP is about 210 lakh crores & 3.6 lakh crores is about 1.7% of GDP; the combined budget of state & centre is about 60 lakh crores annually & 3.6 lakh crores is thus about 6% of the overall budget & hence feasible; willy-nilly he is proposing burden sharing by the centre & the state in a 70%: 30% ratio & that, perhaps, explains why he suggested that the cost of the scheme, would be 1.2% of GDP during the press conference. If no subsidies are touched, then fiscal deficit(FD) would increase from 3.4% to 4.6%; pruning of "demerit subsidies" is therefore desirable..

There appear other alternatives; 
Alternative 1: Former Finance Minister, P Chidambaram, argued that the nominal rate of GDP growth in India is 12% (perhaps he assumed 7-8% real GDP growth + 4-5% inflation) which means that Indian GDP shall be 315 lakh crore by 2023 & revenue growth at 18% means the combined budget of the state & centre would nearly double to 116 lakh crores during the same 5 year period; hence the scheme is fiscally prudent. Of the total 2019-20 national budget of 27.32 lakh crores, revenue receipts are 22.62 lakh crores (tax revenues: 17.07 lakhs & non tax revenues 5.54 lakh crores). If tax revenues grow by even 15% the incremental tax revenues for 2020-21 is 2.55 lakh crores & 2.94 lakh crores in 2021-22. In other words incremental tax revenues, over 2 years at 5.49 lakh crores (2.55+2.94) alone can fund the scheme. 

Alternative 2: Indian Tax to GDP ratio – for the centre & the states - is around 17% while for countries like US is 27% & for the 36 member, Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD) 34%. Increasing the ratio by 2% to 19% - or at 4.02 lakh crores - can more than fund the scheme, Chidambaram averred. Obviously, increasing the tax base will not be easy.

Alternative 3: If 3.6 lakh crores is entirely funded by the centre it could consume 16% of revenues or 13% of budget; if 70% is funded by the centre, the fig shall drop to a more reasonable 2.5 lakh crores (~9% of budget). Since the fig is substantial nevertheless, it would necessitate folding assorted “demerit subsidies” & driving those savings into NYAY or raising additional taxes; Economists like Arun Kumar have suggested reintroduction of Wealth tax, Estate duty, Gift tax, or Inheritance tax – or tax on the Super-Rich – to raise about 1.5 lakh crores; withdrawal of food subsidy to these 25 crore people could add another Rs 50,000 crores; withdrawal of "demerit subsidies" could contribute the rest.

(C )Will the scheme be rolled out in phases as it happened with the MNREGA?

There was widespread anticipation from analysts that the scheme would be rolled out over a 5 year period starting with a pilot, after the new govt. takes over, after May 2019. The MNREGA scheme of UPA I, during 2004-09, was rolled out in phases for maintaining fiscal prudence, helping fine tune delivery & also aid as an electoral issue on the eve of the next general election; Praveen, however, promised roll out, during a maximum period of 2 years, across the country.

He alluded to the 950 Central sector & centrally sponsored sub schemes & suggested that apart from the main 11 - like MNREGA, Fuel, Food, Fertilizer, Health, Education subsidy etc.- they rest could be reviewed indicating that the scheme is unlikely to be fiscally imprudent. Incidentally, Arvind Subramanian, had conceded in his Economic survey, 2017, that the 950 schemes, consuming 5% of GDP, suffer from limitations on targeting due to “misallocation”, “leakages”, “corruption of local actors” & the differing “institutional & implementation capacity” across states; ERGO: districts with the greatest poor suffer from the greatest shortfall of funds.

Conclusion

Direct benefit Transfers (DBT) - money in consumer hands without any strings attached - would boost consumption, spurring production & cranking up the investment cycle creating much needed jobs. It is however conceivable that with the income transfer of Rs 6000 per family, per month, there could be some people who might opt out of the workforce. It could also lead to angst in people falling in the middle 20-67% bracket of the population who too could demand similar benefits; this segment of the population are just above the BPL population but could regress into BPL if there is a health emergency in the family or during an economic downturn.

Ideally, the following measures could be implemented:

(a)Since the national food security bill promises subsidized food to 67% of population (~90 crores) & the spent is 1,84,000 crores or Rs 2,044/-  per head or Rs 10,222/- for a family of 5 (~18 crore families); it would be prudent to transfer Rs 10,000 to 18 crore families to stop leakages & pricing distortions in the cereal market. The middle bracket of the population is thus compensated with DBT of Rs 10,000/- per annum while only an additional budget of Rs 62000/- per family for the 5 crore BPL families would suffice. 

(b)The Fertilizer subsidy & the PM Kisan budgets are eerily similar at Rs 75000 crores; perhaps, Modi was planning to eliminate fertilizer subsidy in lieu of direct transfers under PM Kisan after getting re-elected. The NPK – Nitrogenous: Phosphate: Potash – fertilizer ratio is recommended at 4:2:1 but since prices of urea - a nitrogenous fertilizer - are heavily subsidized, the ratio got mangled to 6.8:2.7:1 & needs rectification. By transferring money directly to the farmers accounts, subsidy currently being passed to fertilizer manufacturers can be withdrawn & the diversion of fertilizers to chemical plants – reduced but not eliminated completely after neem coating – eliminated.

Post these direct transfers, governments should eliminate power subsidy to ensure that power distribution companies enter into the green & power producers & banks move out of the NPA (Non Performing Assets) mess; else the UDAY scheme would emerge futile.

Conclusion

Doles - by their very definition - are free & evoke angst; the MNREGA scheme launched by the UPA promised 100 days of employment i.e pay for works & hence not a free transfer although it suffered from lack of asset creation which is now being rectified. Likewise, contributory schemes like the accident death & disability insurance cover of 2 lakhs under, the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana, at Rs 12 per annum, Life cover of 2 lakhs under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Beema Yojana at Rs 330 per annum or the Atal pension Yojana, launched by the NDA, ensure no free lunches; such economic models are inherently better. Money spent on “Free Healthcare & Education”, though, helps in enhancing the human development index & productivity & hence recommended; govt. abandoning responsibility, in Health & Education, to the private sector, would only increase inequality.

Paradoxically, criticism on welfare schemes emanates from the rich & the middle class despite being the largest beneficiaries of subsidized education, LPG & fuel; the poor,obviously, do not have bikes to ride & find it difficult to pay for a refill cylinder. 

Ideally, therefore, the debate should focus on “merit subsidies” & the elimination of “demerit subsidies”.

Indian fiscal deficit (FD) for 2018-19 is 7.04 lakh crores - nearly equal to the "Conditional" & "Unconditional" exemptions granted by the Union govt.; in other words mere withdrawing of exemptions eliminates the FD; PM Modi, in the Economic Times Global Business summit, in Jan 2016, rightly, lamented that benefits given to the farmers or poor are termed by experts & govt. officials as “subsidy” to the poor while those given to industry or commerce “incentive” or “subvention” & queried why subsidies, going to the well-off, are portrayed in a positive manner.

NYAY, therefore, is a poll promise that has brought the Congress back into the game, seen as hopelessly lost, to the BJP, post Balakot. Removing the “demerit subsidies” flowing into many of the 950 schemes & diverting them into NYAY makes the scheme fiscally prudent. Replacing the fertilizer subsidy of Rs 75,000 crores with a direct transfer of Rs 6000/- to 12 crore farmers, under PM Kisan Yojana & eliminating the Public Distribution System(PDS) & transferring the Rs 1.84 lakh crores food subsidy to 18 crore families at Rs 10,000/- per family, would be a preferred alternative to eliminate not only rent seekers & leakages there-off but also distortions in the commodity markets. In short, the nation would be better served if political parties compete on development models rather than merely running down each other on frivolous issues.

The Strange Emotions Behind The Unveiling Indo-Pak Skirmish

A contrarian view: Are we Indians "Emotional Fools?

When the Pulwama attack happened, the right wing was baying for blood while the Left & Liberals - quite rightly - were asking the govt. to think through the "escalation matrix" before reacting & inconceivably got branded as "anti-nationals" in the bargain.

After Wing Commander, Abhinandan, became a Prisoner of War the right wing - rightly - opined that such collateral damage is inevitable during war or war like situations while the Left & the Liberals are running the hashtag #BringBackAbhinandan campaign and lambasting the right wing for lacking respect for peace & human life. A paradox indeed!! 

When IC 814 was Hijacked and taken to Kandahar, in 1999, it was public pressure that forced the government to capitulate and release terrorists - including Masood Azhar - who went on to become our nemesis later. 

Deterrence is effective if it is seen as credible by the enemy & that demands the willingness to bear costs; extreme emotions of jingoism on hearing news of F-16 downed by a vintage Mig 21 Bison & chestfallen when the Abhinandan was captured fray at such strategic calculus. Prudent, therefore, that the entire spectrum of Indian public opinion should shun emotions & learn to think rationally regarding the protection of Indian strategic interests.

Pakistan, clearly, views India as an "existential threat" since the conventional weapons superiority of India to Pakistan is 2:1 & hence uses nuclear sabre rattling & low cost "non- state actors" - euphemistically called terrorists - to break the country "through a thousand cuts" by supporting terror in Kashmir, Punjab, North East, the Naxal corridor or by taking advantage of any other fault lines in India. Therefore, the need to discipline Pakistan should not be in any doubt; our actions against them should be consistent and not necessarily linked to election cycles alone.  This is an absolute necessity especially when India has “Great Power” ambitions & aspires a place at the high table.

Pakistan cannot be taken lightly though; after all, it is the same country which hoodwinked the United States, in Afghanistan, for 18 long years between 2001 till date. India should shun jingoism and quietly build up its capacity - like in 1971- before executing a well thought through course of action aimed at a complete victory & achievement of its strategic objectives. History, offers us another bitter lesson; in 1962, it was not China that attacked India - as our history books less than accurately claim - but our humiliating defeat was a consequence of India running the "forward post" policy - without building its military capacity. Logically, we should not repeat the same mistake again.  

Vice Chief of Army, General Sarath Chand told a Parliamentary Standing committee, that 68% of army equipment is "vintage", 24% "current" & only 8% "state of art" implying an urgent need for modernization. The CAG report, presented to Parliament, in June 2018, noted that of the 152 types of ammunition, used by armed forces, 121(80%) were below WWR (War Wastage Reserve) requirement to fight a 40 day intense war, 55% below MARL(Minimum acceptable Risk Level) requirement to fight a 20 day war & 40% below 10 days- a "critical level"; in other words India is in no position to fight even a short war of 10-15 days & this hopeless situation has remained the same during both the UPA & the NDA years. Hence the need for  the twitter warriors & prime time TV war mongers to shun rhetoric & bravado & run a reasoned debate to force governments to act on building capacity.

Indian strategy, therefore, should be built on three bedrocks: in the short run, as Deng Xiaoping, of China, once said "hide your strength; bide your time"; in the medium term, as the former US President, Theodore Roosevelt wrote "Speak softly but carry a long stick"; & in the long run the immortal tenet of Sun Tzu should prevail: The supreme art of war is to win without fighting!!

Is Strategic Containment of China a Possibility?

Recently, in Sept. 2018, the US trade representative Robert Lighthizer & his counterparts from the EU, Cecilia M & Japan, H Seko issued a “statement on non-market oriented policies on practices of third countries” with specific emphasis on industrial & state subsidies & forced technology transfers – a clear dig at China.  While the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada) Agreement was signed to replace NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Association), in Nov’18, a thaw in the US relations with EU & Japan, if achieved, could help co-ordinate the “Strategic Containment” of China. The Big “IF” remains.

Post the 2^nd world war, the US, formed a military alliance NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in 1949; they even rejected the USSR’s offer, in 1952, of withdrawing from East Germany & allowing for German reunification in lieu of Germany forbidden to join NATO. They rebuilt the vanquished, West Germany & Japan, under the Marshall plan & imposed on them a pacifist constitution to constrain their military rise. Under clause 5 of the NATO Act, US was treaty bound to provide mutual security which Trump refused to ratify, in July 2018, at the NATO summit sparking off  unease among allies. He further demanded the doubling of EU nations spent on defence from the NATO target of 2% of GDP, & undiplomatically, left soon after perpetuating his tempestuous reputation. Incidentally, only 5 of the 28 NATO nations-US, UK, Poland, Greece & Estonia,  have fulfilled even the 2% target with France spending 1.8% & Germany 1.2% & the latter planning to touch the 2% target only by 2030. Trump railed against the German plan to construct a gas pipeline to Russia- who supplies 60% of German needs- perhaps, seeking a share of the pie to be fulfilled by US shale gas companies.  He, resents, rightly,  Germany saving on defence while funding an export drive & accumulating a trade surplus.  While there is bipartisan consensus, in the US, on “burden sharing”  impetuous Trump’s  brusque treatment of allies with a potential to distort transatlantic- EU - & transpacific - South Korea, Japan etc.- partnerships  is being viewed with trepidation.

Trump's unpredictability & revisionist policies are forcing EU to explore for alternatives & revise roadmaps since it faces a precarious situation of doubtful NATO trust, US-EU trade war & unilateral US withdrawal from the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran & Brexit on one front & Russian interference of propping up a fringe - extremist Left or fascist Right & malignantly influencing democratic processes - on the other. Trump might become the “unintentional force behind the creation of a new western order” opined German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas while French President Emanuel Macron averred that EU should seek “Strategic autonomy” after the US “with whom Europe built the post –war multilateral order seems to be turning its back on this shared history” & advocated building strategic partnerships with Russia - contingent though on the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis - & Turkey - subject to Erdogan managing his pan-Islam, anti -Europe project - since neither China or the US think that Europe has a strategic autonomy comparable to theirs; building on the advances in EU defence  integration during the past year, he passionately envisioned a greater European role in resolving conflicts in MENA(Middle east & North Africa) - especially Syria, Libya & Sahel. In an interview to Europe 1, in Nov 2018, Macron called for a “real European Army” to protect the continent from Russia, China & even the US after the US pulled out of the 2016 Paris treaty for climate change & the 1987 intermediate range Nuclear forces treaty with Russia-imperilling European security; Trump called the proposal "insulting".

While Trump's actions that upend the relationship with allies is under legitimate fire, there is some method to the madness of the US launching a trade war with China. Of the $352 billion Chinese trade surplus in 2018, US accounts for $323 billion implying that the US is funding a competitor’s rise to challenge the unipolar world architecture. Even if US actions cool world trade growth for some time, squeezing China on trade, forcing them to drop export subsidies, reducing non-tariff barriers & denying hi technology loot or forced transfers makes eminent sense. Likewise, is opening up to North Korea - a client state of China - taking advantage of President Kim’s distrust of China post the Middle kingdom’s  complicity in Kim’s uncle, Jang Song Thaek’s plot, to assassinate him. However, Kim seeks control of some nuclear weapons & delivery systems for regime preservation while the US wants capping on both, delaying closure of an agreement; Trump reneging on the Iran deal & US forcing regime change of Gaddafi , in Libya, in 2011,after he agreed to freeze his nuclear ambitions,  legitimately creates distrust.

Trump’s revisionist foreign policy is costing allies across the world; lack of support, when India took on China, during the Doklam imbroglio, in Aug 2017, forced Prime Minister, Modi to quietly seek a “Wuhan reset” with President, Xi.  Similarly, Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, reciprocated to Chinese rapprochement efforts seeking hi technology as a counter to western technology denial.

Against this background, the US-EU-Japan joint statement is interesting despite questions persisting on whether it is a strategic rethink or a tactical retreat by the signatories. Putin wants a weakened NATO to stop its eastward expansion & a compromised Trump is seen as delivering on the same; paradoxically, EU, now, wants greater engagement with Russia as a counterbalancing force, even while Trump himself is keen on a reset of the US-Russia relations against the advice of his bureaucracy, driven as it is by a cold-war ideology & agenda, largely underwritten by a military industrial complex. Russia is compelled into a Chinese embrace, post the UN sanctions, to keep its economy afloat by military & energy sales; if EU & US agree to target only China & open up to Russia, with EU offering  alternative markets to diversify Russian energy sales, Russia - concerned with China’s encroachment into its perceived sphere of influence in central Asia,  could extricate itself from the dragon’s bosom; perhaps, Russia could then  be induced to reduce meddling in EU internal affairs as a quid pro quo.

US, EU, Russia, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Australia & India could emerge as a QUAD PLUS to tame China into following a rule based world order, with a consequent  reduction of conflict in the South China Sea & beyond, if only Trump does not suffer from a “short attention span”. He should quickly close a trade deal with the EU & Japan & keep his focus on targeting China alone. Since President Xi, can remain head of state for life - after he secured a removal on term limits for himself - the trade attack should be sharpened to weaken Xi’s position to encourage domestic challengers to his suzerainty; else the “liberal” world  order would face the gravest challenge - from "Mao reborn" & what is euphemistically called “socialism with Chinese characteristics" .