A recent news report details how a Bengali migrant laborer in Kerala was refused help by residents after falling off a train. Oran, injured and bleeding, went door to door asking for help, and nobody answered. I do not intend to highlight regional antipathy in one particular state or part of the country. His story is probably true of millions of migrant labourers in different parts of the country. Many of them probably take the same ignoble decision that Oran took: he managed to reach the nearest temple, and hanged himself with a rope.

Suicide may serve as a gory extremity of this divisive issue. But it also serves as a timely reminder of a much more difficult issue that India’s “civil” society has to solve for itself. If one were to believe that such antipathy is reserved only for poor migrants, take a look at one of the most trending blogposts in India recently: “Open Letter to a Delhi Boy“, and its sequel: “The National Loss of Collective Shit“. The posts intend to highlight and confirm many stereotypes regarding the allegedly less-than-intellectual-little-more-than-neanderthal Delhi crowd, by a girl from, well, somewhere south of Delhi.

What could have been a well aimed jibe at all that is funny and stupid about Delhi’s brash and rich, turned out to be a venomous rant against Delhi culture. So the posts themselves turn out to be a reflection of cultural prejudices rather than posts trying to indicate the perceived hollowness of Delhi culture.

Indeed, these prejudices run deep within us: the “Madarasis eat sambhar-chawl” to “Punjabis eat rajma-chawl” to how “south Indian languages are so funny” to how “Punjabi is so crude”. These are a reflection of how inward-looking we remain for all our newly acquired prosperity. And this problem cannot be solved by a mass agitation involving Anna Hazare and his cronies. It cannot be solved by hunger strikes and political boycotts. It is a social issue which requires a collective response, but such collective response hinges on collective awakening, and a collective will to action that has nothing to do with corruption, caste, poverty, or religion. Let us see how much stomach civil society has for this fight.

Reblogged from Deep Volition:

“Fault Lines” host Avi Lewis interviews Arundhati Roy, Indian author and activist, circa 2010. Ms. Roy breaks down the “Maoist” indigenous community’s striving in India to keep their homeland through responsive force; borders being blurred between national and international governments due to cross-cultural elite structuring of the political machine; connections between extreme market growth, false development and poverty; the “hallowing out of democracy” in the manifestation of military states; and …

Some interesting comments on the Maoist movement being made by Arundhati Roy (minute 10 onwards). I generally find her a little difficult to make sense of, but she was fairly lucid during this part of the conversation.

Reblogged from A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog: Occasional Musings:

Opponents of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi have called for him to quit over phone transcripts in which he boasts of his popularity with women, as his camp hit out at the intrusion into his private life. The transcripts form key evidence in an investigation led by prosecutors in Bari, southern Italy, against eight people suspected of providing Berlusconi with dozens of young women in 2008 and 2009 in order to win lucrative contracts, including with aerospace firm Finmeccanica. Al Jazeera’s …

Just in case, you thought only our politicians are bad or corrupt, watch the news clipping on this blog for recent news coverage of the Italian PM.

There have been recent news reports (though surprisingly few – here and here) on new government regulations that ostensibly seek to protect cell phone users from unwanted marketing calls, but may actually amount to restrictions on individual rights to free speech and expression. The telecom regulator TRAI introduced regulations which will come into effect on September 27, which limit the number of free SMSes a person can send to 100 a day.

The TELECOM COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS CUSTOMER PREFERENCE (SIXTH AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS (read clause 8), 2011 state that call phone service providers cannot permit the sending of more than 100 SMSes a day. For post-paid subscribers, the limit is 3,000 SMSes per month. According to news reports, TRAI’s reason for this regulation is to check “Unsolicited Commercial Communications”. While this may reduce the number of marketing messages being received by irate cell-phone users, the larger ramifications of this regulation directly affects the freedom of individuals to send as many messages a person wants.

One direct effect of this regulation is on the competition between service providers and the benefit to cell-phone users: If Airtel can provide more free messages to its consumers than Vodafone or vice-versa, it means the two will compete to provide cheaper and cheaper services for free SMSes to consumers. In the end, consumers benefit.  Putting a blanket limit on free SMSes ensures that the cell phone companies now don’t have to compete to provide cheaper services. Net result: consumers lose.

More importantly, this affects how individuals communicate with others in society. In this respect, it is similar to saying, person A cannot speak more than 1,000 words a day, or person B cannot put up more than 3 blog posts or 5 Facebook updates a day. Granted these are extreme examples, but the effect of these regulations is similar. And why a 100 SMSes? How can anyone decide what is a reasonable limit on the number of free SMSes which can be sent? Why not 1,000? Why should someone set a limit on this at all? Suppose ardent supporters of Anna Hazare (I am not one!) wish to broadcast the latest demonstration he wants to conduct at Jantar Mantar, should they be restricted by a limit on the number of free SMSes they can send?

Lastly, is the convenience of not receiving marketing messages worth this restriction? Is this the only way TRAI can find to prevent marketing communications to consumers? Can marketing companies not give each of their agents 15 SIMs and allow them to send 1,500 SMSes a day? Do all marketing companies only use the facility of free SMSes, and can they not afford to pay for sending SMSes if the government sets a limit on free messaging? The truth is that only cell-phone users will be hurt by this regulation, and in a bad way.

Over the last few months, people have either whole-heartedly supported Ana Hazare’s crusade against corruption, or have cautioned against the dangers of un-deliberated actions by civil society. Some have also taken pains to highlight how the movement is seemingly undemocratic.  One of the most interesting analyses I read of the whole movement explains the middle class support for the movement like this (my paraphrasing):

The reason the Indian middle-class came out in such high numbers to support Anna Hazare is not it’s particular concern for corruption. It goes deeper than that. This government promised economic and infrastructural reform to the Indian middle class, and it has not done anything in this regard. The tenure of this government has also been marked by high inflation, to which a global recession has also added. These factors have hit India’s growing middle class hard. They saw their incomes and their standard of living grow during the 1990s, and are becoming more and more aspirational. The lack of any energy on the part of the government in bringing in essential reforms, combined with a stagnation in income levels has greatly annoyed the middle-class.

This has in turn exacerbated this population’s anger against acts of corruption by government officials. In short, “There is a clear connection between the dramatic curbing of lifestyles and ambitions through rising prices and dips in earnings to growing insecurity and coming out on the streets in anger at the threat to the Great Middle Class Dream. The anger is directed at the government headed by Manmohan Singh for letting them down after giving them so much hope.”

Of all the opinions going around on whether the Lokpal movement was needed, or whether it is good, this reasoning for its broad-based support seems the most appealing to me. If it were not for the fact that many acts of corruption have come to light during its tenure, this government has done so little it may as well not have existed!

The simultaneous occurrence of high food inflation and large foodgrain stocks in our granaries has been a matter of concern. The aim of this paper is to understand the fundamentals of our foodgrain market and policy that
lead to this situation and to suggest policies for rectifying this. The central argument of the paper is that it is imperative that we look at the entire system of food production, food procurement and the release and distribution of food. Trying to correct one segment of this complicated system is likely to end in failure. The paper argues that there are two different motives for foodgrain procurement by the state – to provide food
security to the vulnerable and to even out foodgrain price fluctuations from one year to another. Further, how we procure the food has an impact on how we release the food, and vice versa. Inspired by the sight of foodgrain
going waste, it is often made out to be that our central problem is that of poor foodgrain storage. This paper disagrees with this popular view. While we no doubt should improve our storage facilities, it is important to be clear that this in itself will not lower the price of food. To achieve that we need to redesign the mechanics of how we acquire and release food on the market.

Click below for the article:

Indias_Foodgrains_Kaushik_Basu

Today’s Hindustan Times reports that rules were changed to allow Mr. Thomas to make him eligible for a post at the centre.  The government apparently creates a shortlist of officers who can hold the posts of joint secretary and above at the centre.  If an officer doe not make it to this panel, he cannot make it to Delhi.  This rule was amended to allow those who had vigilance cases against them, but were cleared, to be empaneled.  The news report further states that Mr.  Thomas may have been the only beneficiary of this rule-change.

One issue here is definitely the ease with which rules can be changed to favour/ disfavour officers within the government.  However, the other issue is that of transparency.  The rules that stipulate restrictions on the empaneling of officers do not seem confidential.  However, they are not in the public domain.  After searching for a while, what I could find was this set of guidelines for the promotion of IAS officers.  This is also a departmental note, and not simplified so that the general public can understand it.

On the face of it, if a rule/ law benefits only one person, it can be struck down as unequal, and therefore violative of the Constitution.  However, because such rules, regulations etc are not put out in the public domain, no one knows how to challenge them.  The argument may be made that aggrieved civil servants can always challenge them since they would know of the existence of such rules.  However, appointments to senior positions within the government affect the general public as well, since the decisions they take shape policies which directly affect citizens.

It is thus, very important that (1) rules regarding appointment, selection, transfer be made available in a simple language to the people at large, (2) the process of changing these rules should be made difficult.  This ensures that rules cannot be changed arbitrarily to suit particular individuals or lobbies, and (3) all decisions regarding appointment which are not deemed to be confidential, should be made public.

The Right to Information Act can only help when people know that such information exists, and can ask for it.  The government has to adopt a policy of disclosing everything that is not otherwise confidential, or trust in government will continue to erode.

If such is the exalted status which a founder of the world’s oldest democracy gave to the media, it is perhaps important for the media in India to take itself more seriously, and get over its highly individualistic attempts at capturing the Indian market.  I propose a few solutions geared to making the media more credible, and of greater utility:

1.  Start with the entire industry agreeing to regulate itself, rather than force the government to clamp down on it.

2. Such regulation should cover:

a.  Minimum standards of content,

b. Transparency regarding the methods by which it covers news and communicates it,

c. Investment in R&D – train young journalists thoroughly so that standards and ethics are in-built rather than enforced, and lastly,

d. A system of sanctions or penalties to ensure those violating these regulations do not get away with it.  This is important as no system of rules can work without ensuring that there is a cost attached to not abiding by them.

It is imperative that the media agrees to govern itself.  Everyone propounds that in the end, free-markets ensure the best results in terms of the final product, and motivating those entrepreneurs (read journalists) to get the best news possible.  However, free markets work best when there is: a. complete transparency, and b.  when there is a low-cost attached in operating in the market (read costs of infrastructure, broadcasting, production etc.).

Complete transparency, and a collective decision to abide by certain minimum standards in many cases, automatically reduces costs of operating in the market.  Therefore, it is essential that there should be self-imposed regulations by which the entire industry agrees to operate.

There are numerous big, noteworthy associations of journalists and newspapers who can take the initiative to frame such regulations.  It is increasingly important that some internal regulatory framework be created at the earliest.

A final analogy for the incentive to frame such regulations:  Corporate Social Responsibility.  One of the reasons companies indulge in CSR is that it increases their credibility within society, and creates a positive image regarding them and their products.  So, they agree to perform certain activities which do not benefit them directly, but end up creating a positive vibe regarding them in society, which in the long run may benefit them.

The Indian media has to take time out from its daily rush to churn news out, and think in terms of gaining greater credibility in the eyes of consumers.  This can only be done by agreeing to set common minimum standards, and letting their audience know that they are going to stick by them.

read more…

The recent order of the ministry of environment and forests (MoE&F) rejecting the application for grant of forest clearance to the Orissa Mining Company (the Vedanta project) has raised a number of important questions. The order cited the company’s non-compliance with a number of laws. But the Vedanta case is just one example. There are several projects in the country where similar issues are relevant. The question really is, are the multiple laws that are applicable in such cases in harmony with each other or are they working at cross purposes?

In a sector such as mining, doing business is inherently complicated. There are at least four broad aspects that need to be addressed—obtaining mining licences, securing environmental clearances, acquiring land, and rehabilitation of people affected by such projects. We take a look at each of the four broad areas, to understand how the applicable laws interact with one another.

Obtaining mining licences

Doing business in the mining sector first entails obtaining a licence for activities such as prospecting and mining. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, lays down the framework for any prospecting, leasing or mining activity to be carried out for specified minerals, and the licences that need to be obtained. The Act allows the central government to frame the rules and conditions applicable both for grant of licences and for the actual activity carried out by enterprises. The licensing authority for mining activities is the state government.

Securing environment clearances

Environmental clearances for industrial activities are governed by a number of laws. Most activities require clearances under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Additionally, for activities in forest areas, clearance is also required under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Acts pertaining to wildlife protection, bio-diversity and the quality of air and water may also be applicable.

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, enables the central government to take measures for “protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution”. These measures may include (among others) (a) laying down standards for the quality of the environment, (b) areas in which industries or operations may not be carried out, or carried out subject to certain safeguards.

The rules framed under the Act make it compulsory for all new projects to take prior environmental clearance. For a specified category of activities clearance has to be obtained from the MoE&F, while for others, clearance has to be obtained from State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs).

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, prohibits state governments and other authorities from any unauthorised change in the status of areas declared to be reserved forests, and any diversion of forests for non-forest purposes. It prohibits felling of trees within forest areas. Any such action has to be undertaken with the prior permission of the central government. To divert any forest area for non-forest purposes, state governments have to submit formal proposals to the Centre. State governments also have to show proposals for compensatory afforestation.

Acquiring land for the project

Acquiring land for projects has become increasingly contentious in recent years. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 appears to have outlived its utility, which led the UPA-1 to introduce a Bill in the Parliament to bring a new legal framework to facilitate land acquisition. The Bill tried to address several critical aspects of land acquisition. It tried to redefine ‘public purpose’ somewhat more strictly than in the existing Act. ‘Public purpose’ was redefined to include defence purposes, infrastructure projects or for any project useful to the general public where 70% of the land has already been purchased. For acquisitions by companies, the Bill mandated that 70% of the land will have to be acquired directly from the land owners at market prices and that the government would step in under the Act to acquire the remaining 30% for the project.

The Bill also aimed to provide for cases resulting in large-scale displacement. It stated that in such cases a social impact assessment study must be conducted. Tribals, forest dwellers and those with tenancy rights were also made eligible for compensation. It also mandated that the intended use of the land being acquired and the current market value of the land would have to be considered for determining compensation.

The Bill lapsed when the Lok Sabha was dissolved in 2009. It is not known when the government proposes to reintroduce a Bill in the Parliament to address this issue of land acquisition.

Rights of project-affected people

When large projects are planned and land is acquired for those, people are often displaced from the project areas and need to be rehabilitated appropriately. The UPA-1 had introduced a Bill in the Parliament to create a legal framework for rehabilitation of project-affected people. However, the proposed Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007, lapsed when the Lok Sabha was dissolved before the last general elections.

But the UPA-1 government managed to pass a highly contested Bill that recognised the rights of scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act passed in 2006 focuses on the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. The Act seeks to recognise and vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes with respect to forest land and their habitat. The Act mentions 13 separate rights given to forest dwellers. These include (a) living in the forest for habitation or for self-cultivation for livelihood, (b) right to own, use or dispose of minor forest produce, (c) right to protect and conserve any community resource that they have been traditionally protecting and (d) individual and community rights of habitat for primitive tribal groups. These rights have to be formally recorded/recognised by state governments. The Act also prevents any modification of forest rights or the resettlement of forest dwellers unless the Gram Sabha of the village consents to the proposal in writing.

There are additional requirements to be met if developmental activities are to be undertaken in tribal dominated areas (defined as Scheduled Areas in the Constitution). The Panchayat (Extension into Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, extends the part of the Constitution providing for Panchayati Raj in rural areas to Scheduled Areas. The Act requires that government authorities consult the Panchayat or the Gram Sabha before acquiring land for development projects and for rehabilitating persons affected by such projects.

At a conceptual level, there is no apparent contradiction in the applicable laws and each of the laws mentioned above appear to be necessary to ensure that there is fairness for all stakeholders involved. However, a distinction has to be made between the legal principles these laws seek to enforce, and procedural formalities that need to be complied with to be on the right side of the law. Also, a closer look at these individual laws and their implementation will reveal a number of loopholes that need to be plugged to ensure that the spirit and basic principles enshrined in each law are enforced efficiently.

From the point of view of the company that intends to do business in India, all this adds up to a lot of time-consuming process. This is perhaps why the Doing Business index published annually by the World Bank group ranks India at 133 out of 183 counties in terms of ease of doing business. The challenge, going forward, is for us to strengthen processes that are fair to all stakeholders, but at the same time are not unduly burdensome on the company that seeks to make investments in the mining sector.