The Anti-Incumbency Inherent in the Constitution!

ROOT causing Congress party's decimation in the recent State Assembly elections, especially in Delhi, and a similar decimation of the BJP in Karnataka earlier this year, one can find that quite a lot of blame of lacklustre performance at the State level is being attributed to the lacklustre performance of the ruling party at the Center. Said in other words, people heard lauding Congress' good governance under Sheila Dikshit in Delhi last 15 years are attributing this December election defeat to the poor governance by Congress at the Center.

This blaming scheme probably has its roots in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, which distributes such subjects of governance to the Center that had rather been in State control so that a performance or failure of a State government can clearly be attributed to the State government alone. This arrangement of subjects - while it gives more control to those that run the Central government - creates a confusion among voters while assessing the performance or failure of their incumbent State ruling party, thereby rendering them clueless about which party their vote must go in current elections.

Whether this confusion is the genius of the Constitution or of the people that reserve the right to remove such confusion is an easy question to answer. Its the people, who hold the right to amend the Constitution - the legislators, that need to act and amend the Schedule-7 so as to re-arrange subjects of governance between the State and the Center. These people include elected members of State assemblies apart from MPs, for according to Art 368 an amendment to Schedule-7 needs approval from more than half of the State assemblies.

Now, in the interest of those political parties that have aspirations at both State and Central level politics I believe there is value in picking up this cause of an amendment to the 7th Schedule that is also long pending. There are some parties like the BJP, of course, that would like to keep the 7th schedule that way, what with the manufactured image of some of their larger than thou candidates whose projected national image is expected to win them State elections also. But is it really going to help once they gain Central power and continue to be subject to the same Constitution that is bound to pull them down, eventually?

Isn't it time we realized why people get bored of incumbent political parties even if, for a moment, we assume those parties were doing the right things? Isn't it time we saw the anti-incumbency inherent in our Constitution?

Tall Statutes, Taller Statues and Dark Shadows!

ALTHOUGH the author of this article appears to uphold the consideration promised in return to the original surrender made by the princes, and it deserves its respect, it may be important to ponder as to why there must have been such a surrender in the first place. 

With all their valor and revering subjects in their respective States, why did those princely States end up surrendering such huge amounts of money and property to a Union they were so reluctant to join in the first place? Given that affiliation and inclusion to either the Indian or the Pakistani republics was optional to these princely States, their inclusion amid heated expressions of reluctance must have been a coercion if not a conquer. In such a case what value does The Union hold to the people who belonged to these princely States and what reverence can be expected from them towards the Indian Union which upon a simple amendment to its constitution in 1971 repealed all the payments promised to the people of the dissolved princely States?

It is also questionable had these princely States not submitted and not reluctantly got coerced into The Union, would they have been in as poor state of existence as now? The Hyderabad princely State and its people, for instance, are having a bitter experience in the Indian Union now where their homeland - Andhra Pradesh - is being split in two much against popular demands against such division. Can we now pat Sardar Patel's back posthumously or our own backs for this abuse of centralized political power in inflicting pain to the Telugu people of Andhra by The Union? Did all the people who subscribed to this union in 1950 deserve this? Dont we need some time to slow down and think about a re-writing of such a constitution that lets someone to care so little for the very people of this union?

Isn't it even higher levels of stupidity to let national parties like the BJP and the INC to make this topic a bait to fish for popular votes in upcoming elections? Isn't it stupid to take sides of either of these parties (and their philosophies too) and thereby appear to support such continued acts of brutal coercion, division and undemocratic rule?

This statement by the author though summarizes to some extent the right spirit for us to derive from this piece of history bearing very well in current context:

In the end, the abolition of Privy Purses will remain one of the most shameful events in our constitutional history. The nation saved Rs.4 crore annually but lost its honour. It is equally regrettable that neither the Janata Party in 1977 nor any subsequent non-Congress government did anything to redeem Patel’s pledge. What purpose will, then, be served by spending Rs.2,500 crore to build the tallest statue in his memory?

Gottilla! Gottilla!

To all those "Kannada gottilla" speakers, here's my humblest response to your non-Kannada (especially Hindi) words spoken to me: "GOTTILLA!!"

In fact this approach worked like a magic this morning in my bus. One guy asked me about a bus stop in Hindi and I said the word - GOTTILLA pretty earnestly. After some murmuring and a long pause, the guy spoke again, this time in Kannada, however broken, and I gave a helping response in Kannada with a smile. He smiled too!

This should teach us two lessons - (1) that the people that come into our cities, no matter how fresh their migration is, they do have the capability to speak a few words because they want to make a living here, and (2) that it needs a little friendly, earnest and shrewd force to get those Kannada words out of their brains and mouths. We only need to be smart enough to realize (1) and strong enough to sustain (2)!!

Well this is the way relations can be strengthened. The imposition of Hindi, like a ghost-god that instills fear in the vulnerable, has instilled fear of attracting fellow countrymen's wrath of traitorship. This has made Kannadigas sitting ducks in the fire of Hindi Imposition and they've accommodated themselves to respond in Hindi on the very first utterance of that gottilla word.

In short the subtle negative in gottilla that has been working against us can easily, this way, be converted in our favour.

Of Financial Inclusion, Hindi Imposition, Gandhiism and InOrganic Growth

You've read the ATM story, haven't you? If you go into an ATM in Hubli, Karnataka and if you were among those crores of Indians that don't know Hindi, you are highly likely to be surprised by this ATM's user interface being in Hindi and English alone. Yes, there could be more ATMs in Karnataka that provide instructions in Hindi than ones that provide instructions in Kannada. This is a glaring trait of our bank markets that one can notice across the country - banks are yet another channel through which Hindi is imposed upon a large non-Hindi geography of India. 

At a time when India is reported to be suffering from poor financial inclusion across the country, the RBI - the central bank that governs all other banks operating in the country, and chartered to increase financial inclusion, sets such standards to these banks with regards to customer services and customer interaction that the banks are all but bullied to perceive better returns in displaying allegiance to the RBI than vowing to serve their customers' original, uncorrupted needs; those needs that require banks to offer services in a language the customer is most comfortable with. 

A brief look at some of the circulars issued by RBI to all types of banks in India will tell us what kind of strikingly lopsided a language plan has gone into the making of its language policies. These policies openly declare Hindi alone as the sacrosanct language that banks must accept in undeterred fashion and impede no processes involved in serving customers using Hindi whereas a similar treatment is not even dealt with for 21 other languages listed as Scheduled languages in the Constitution of India. 

The very act of making one language mandatory as opposed to making 21 other scheduled languages optional in a diverse market such as ours shows how market agnostic these RBI's regulations are and exposes the undesirable government control over a supposed market transaction. The people of India cannot afford to rest so much control in a banker of banks that remains market agnostic but never fails to uphold aspirations of a central government to promote Hindi in the market.

In fact, it appears from the powers entrusted in RBI, it could well be using it to dole out market benefits to banks as an incentive to promote Hindi usage and service among customers and employees respectively. Being instructed to adopt Hindi enablement as one of its top goals, the RBI finds success in this incentive route. A statement issued by RBI's former governor (Mr Subbarao) backing Hindi usage as vital to increasing financial inclusion in India sent a shocker to anyone who understands a customer's actual needs. This is an unfortunate development happening in an intersection of governance and market. 

While imposing Hindi through banks is evidently making financial inclusion a more elusive mirage, RBI has also been making many other things difficult for non-Hindi speaking Indians. The encouragement (and incentives ?) provided to nationalised banks to celebrate Hindi Day, Week and now Fortnight has in a way solemnized this unnecessary and expensive government intrusion into market territory. This has also added on most of India a huge annual tax burden camouflaged under the notion of a mythical financial inclusion, and an even more mythical national interest. In the wake of such Hindi imposing programs inserted by the government into the market, national interest could well be getting compromised, what with the interests of customers being thrown into air. Mahatma Gandhi once said that protection of customer interest should be the top undertaking of any business if it wishes to survive in a market.

In the wake of these anti developments it would be in the best interest of customers, and Indian citizens in general, that the Govt of India ceases to interfere in the operation of banks to this degree where it has to tell them what language must be used and what languages may be used. In a broader sense, the central government must also realize and honor the linguistic diversity in India and stay away from politics of raising the promotion of one Indian language above that of all other Indian languages. 

GOI must immediately make appropriate amendments in the Constitution to accord and reflect equality to all languages of this country. To start with, it should first make all languages listed in Schedule-8 as official languages of the Indian Union and the central government. 

Hindi imposition is an evil remnant of the imperial touch India experienced during the British era. It is in the best of national interest to shed this diseased skin and let Indian growth happen in its own way - organic or inorganic way.

Of War and Peace: Hypocrisy or Democracy?

AT 30 seconds past 9 minutes into this video, while Mr Obama acknowledges being a "direct consequence of Dr King's work" and walking on the steps of Mr King who had said "violence never brings permanent peace; it solves no social problem, it merely creates new ones" while accepting his Nobel Peace Prize, he goes on to say that he cannot sit quiet after being head of State, thereby supporting his warring (violent) route to install peace and his mantra that "war is sometimes necessary."

While this mantra may be true in its own essence, when it comes out of a powerful state such as the USA it exposes how poor its diplomatic abilities are and how weakened its peace-making abilities have become after the days of King and Gandhi, and especially so after existing nearly three centuries as a constitutional democracy.

By accepting that "war.. at some level is an expression of human folly" is Mr Obama hinting that some wars, especially those participated by the USA and other NATO allies are not consequences of human folly? Who is to decide - the NATO forces or Syrian civilians in this case? Will attacking Syria by air be so precisely selective so as to not inflict pain on any civilian and only impact the Syrian armed forces? Even if that precision was achieved does this set the right precedent to future attempts at correcting international wrongs and who needs to correct such wrongs? How is democracy being upheld in a nation (such as Syria that elects its own leaders) when its internal wrongs get corrected by external, unrelated, international and brutal pressures?

Time to stop this hypocrisy and talk about democracy as something that settles organically in the minds of people and as a bottoms-up process based on internal demand and the love for absolute self-rule.

The Legal Fortress around Hindi Imposition

Hindi and English are the lone official languages of the government of Republic India. This means ever since India became a sovereign democratic republic, promising to protect the interests of all its citizens, millions of people of non-Hindi background have been rendered as second grade citizens since their government does not deal in their language(s). This is Hindi Imposition in India summarized in a few lines.

With this kind of bias Government of India (GoI) has shown and even institutionalized towards Hindi language and (thereby) people who speak Hindi, and with the protection this institution has provided to Hindi speakers, it appears that Hindi speaking people are double insulated from adverse forces - being governed by a State government and pampered by the GoI both of which designed to favor Hindi people's rights - while non-Hindi people are left bare and helpless out there, exposed to adverse forces. In various circumstances, this is not a metaphor, but very close to reality indeed.

On the other hand, owing to the lack of protection by this institution, people living in non-Hindi States experience insecurity in their own country, with employment, food provision, primary health and even identity services catered to by the GoI being carried on a channel that only speaks Hindi apart from English. These services are freely assimilated by Hindi speaking people whereas they are indigestible to non-Hindi people of India. Be it in terms of getting their fundamental rights protected or even as far until protecting one's own lineage and having a non-decading population over time, lives of non-Hindi peoples of India are subject to substantial stress thanks to policies framed on unfair interpretations of our constitution, such as seen in The Official Language Act 1963.

Simple, yet tough, majority:
Interestingly, Article 368 of Constitution of India (CoI) rests the power to amend the statute in the hands of the parliament alone, whereas some specific parts of the constitution, including the lists in Schedule 7 and Article 368, cannot be amended without approval from a simple majority of State Legislatures. In the wake of an increased number of States being carved out, passing valid amendments to such sections of the CoI becomes a touch exercise to orchestrate - perhaps an outcome favorable to the central government that would like to retain more power with itself. As though in support of such intentions, Article 3 of the same constitution empowers the central govt to do just that - impede the process of State level opinion formation by fragmenting them. Talk about denial of fundamental rights, huh?

A pragmatic, solution oriented approach to the Hindi Imposition problem will call for amendments to Schedule 7 (the Union, State and the Concurrent lists) and some to the Official Language policy, which incidentally have been in demand since long time across the country. The center though has been successful in evading them or putting them off by means of various available interpretations of the constitution, and its protective and tricky fortress of articles that make it very difficult to achieve these essential amendments that will incorporate real federal features into our democracy.

In the backdrop of this sustained Hindi Imposition in India, it is important to see these pieces of law as blocking vital amendments required to stop this unfair imposition and to make way for equality among people of all Indian languages.

(Related read: Let this September open our eyes!)

Telangana and Tungabhadra: A Call for Democratic Uprising

Across the world, boundaries that decide the shapes of Districts or States or even Countries are usually drawn along lines of people's languages, lines of impenetrable geographical structures like mountains and lines drawn by river courses. An exception we see is in India where these widely accepted natural ways of creating boundaries for States are superseded by various actions of the Central Govt - actions that mostly help to remain victorious in elections and to continue centralizing power in Delhi.

While the first of these two intentions seems obvious enough - to retain power, not evil in itself, the second one dealing with increased centralization of power at the Center, stripping the constituent States of those very powers is certainly evil and goes against the spirit of Federalism and the spirit of Democracy. With this kind of superseding taking place in India it is hard for anyone to imagine that the States are indeed federal units in the union that is called India.

One particular comment heard about nations come to my mind in this context - The United States of America is a destructible union of indestructible States, whereas India is an indestructible union of destructible States. But I feel it is immaterial whether a union or a State is destructible or not as long as the responsibility of division and or creating a union rests in the hands of people living in it. But today there is so much confusion, especially in the minds of Telugu speaking people living in Andhra, that a decision either way is going to be a surprise to all of them! Welcoming in the case of some people and unwelcome in the case of others. But when a decision is taken by the people indeed, there is no possibility of surprises and there is no scope for friction to arise out of such decisions.



(source: mapsofindia.com)

Coming to State borders: In the case of the border near Raichur dividing land into Karnataka and Andhra, two rivers decide the contours of this border - the Tungabhadra and the Krishna. While the Krishna river decides the border towards the north of Raichur district, Tungabhadra decides its southern counterpart. The confluence of these two rivers happens inside Andhra at the Srisailam reservoir, within proposed Telangana. With the creation of Telangana State, remaining portion of current Andhra State will be stripped of its control over the Srisailam reservoir and thereby its vast water reserves and irrigation utility. Going by the mood among Telugus during this State reorganization, the new Andhra State may have to beg Telangana for waters that it once enjoyed by being part of the bigger Andhra State, but also faces the risk of Andhra eventually damming the Tungabhadra river flowing within its boundary before draining into Srisailam reservoir. Of course, in this eventuality, the real suffering is experienced by the river and its constituent life forms that are essential for the health of the river itself. At the same time, the Karnataka State runs the risk of a new dam downstream on the Tungabhadra which could lead to significant changes in the ecology of southern parts of Raichur district along the Tungabhadra. This story finds itself repeating with neighboring districts in Maharashtra in the case of Godavari river, which too, enters Andhra through Telangana before passing through Godavari districts in rest of Andhra.

Going back to State reorganization and the politics around it, it is sad to see such wide and deep impacts the politics of State formation could have. This needs to be opposed constitutionally, and the extreme powers of the Center (accorded by Art 3 of the Indian Constitution) to re-draw State borders and thereby gain higher control over States' administrative affairs needs to be questioned, toned down and powers returned to the State governments, which in turn have to do the due diligence of real public consultations before taking such important decisions.

Times, They're a Stoopin'!

The Times of India allowed this article to feature in its daily on July 24, 2013. A one line summary of this article would be this:

It's preposterous, in this context, to say that everyone living in Bangalore is expected to know Kannada. This is one more example of not much thought going into the production of schoolbooks.

The context being alluded to here is the appearance of some Kannada poems printed in Roman script in textbooks of classes 1 and 2. Oh! What a shocker, isn't it? What is? That the author, while talking about textbooks, makes a big mistake in relating the school going children that are taught Kannada to all the people living in Bangalore!

(Source: TOI)

While it is preposterous by itself for a national daily to be carrying such a lopsided report that sarcastically ridicules the State's education system and its appointed bodies, it is sad that it is based on the author's poor understanding of the teaching ecosystem within a school, or even within a city. The author summarily ignores, not even discounts, the vital role of teacher-to-teacher interaction at the school level, and in some cases even at the school district level. For anyone accustomed to the project-work style of teaching in many contemporary schools this should appear like another interesting project for kids to come back with their comprehension of the poems; the author conveniently sidelines all such creativity that a good teacher will anyway possess.

As if it were a given, the author assumes that English teachers in these schools do not know Kannada, neither that they communicate or even share rooms with teachers who know Kannada. How dangerous an assumption, if it were true, this is that it hints at the poorest state of affairs in schools that some of our own children are being educated in. It shows what kind of isolated dins we're sending our children into everyday, where teachers do not talk to one another, do not share lessons they learnt, nor do the schools communicate among themselves, do not evolve the best methods of teaching out of such basic collaborative means. What kind of future citizens (of this city?) are we making out of our children by indirectly providing such isolated wells as schools where one is supposed to learn the fundamental lessons for one's life?

If such assumptions of this author are indeed true, there need not be any doubt that these schools are designed to drive our children down the rotten lane of life. If untrue, I wonder what a national daily like TOI is doing by printing such articles time and again!?

What's there in The Manifest Manifesto

In these days when everyone is throwing his hat in the manifesto ring, I took a look at manifestos floated by some renowned political parties and here's my summary of what one could gather from them and how one can use them as a scale to measure the respective party's political validity in one's constituency. Especially in LA elections during May 2013.

So here is my take on a common man's thumb-rule to reading Political Manifestos:

1. If the manifesto is not in the people's language, junk it and the party. Even if it is a google translation!
2. If the manifesto speaks more in Crores of Rupees than Crores of People, that manifesto is a pack of lies. So is the party too.
3. If the manifesto uses ongoing projects to pat its own back then this party doesn't have a real vision of its own, thereby redundant and potentially unqualified. Escapist.
4. If the manifesto is overly creative, yet fails to touch upon seething local public issues, that manifesto is Elitist, and reflects a party that just doesn't care, but seeks power nevertheless. Junk it regardless of how qualified its candidates could be.
5. If a manifesto echoes your concerns and describes a way it would address your problems, and those of your neighbor, and those of their neighbors, and theirs, that is a manifesto to pick, and vote.

Point #2 above is of special importance because such manifestos that speak about expenditures talk about action under the Executive pillar of our polity. But an election is a time when we elect Legislators who are supposed to make, remove and amend laws in order to protect and serve their people. A party that fails to represent its legislative roadmap is determined to fail on its executive roadmap too. So one can rest assured of not getting those kilograms of rice for One Rupee!!

Point #3 shows how some parties are politically unqualified because they cant even be creative in dreaming projects in the manifesto either because their party's philosophy precludes that or they simply lack the vision to dream. These parties are escapist and inept.

Point #4 shows how some other parties are politically unqualified because of the divine apathy they seem to show towards local public issues that are burning down welfare in local societies. These parties prefer to create a new parallel dimension in public life that is numb to real social issues viz drinking water shortage & excessive waste generation and walk that dimension attracting like-minded numb souls.

These points express how important a democratic process it is to analyze manifestos of parties before deciding upon one's final choice. A manifesto has hitherto been reduced to a grand gala release function akin to other political meravaniges (processions) thereby sidelining the importance people need to attach to these manifestos that are manifestations of the future.

Now, who can come up with a manifesto like the point #5 above? It can only be those parties that have bloomed from among the people in that society, not instead those parties that claim to be national. These local parties see national interest through the lens of local interests while the parties presenting the junk manifestos have just held the scope other way round and see local interests being limited, not achieved, by national interests!


Come May 2013: Vote Local. Vote You.

Of Indian Railways, Terrorism and the NCTC Debate

FIVE DAYS after the twin blasts shook Hyderabad, the central government (GoI) went through its annual chore of reading out a joke called the Indian Railway Budget. The uniqueness of this budget is it spells a comedy and a tragedy at the same time, what with the amount of distress it is indirectly bringing to all Indian States. Here's a look at the miracle as it unfolds in various sheets of newspaper this week.

Basking under the glory of being the largest public sector employer in the largest democracy, yet defying the existence of the Center's comptroller (CAG), Indian railways is the most loss making public enterprise that has never been debated or even considered for decentralization or privatization.

Public loss is Private gain?
Caring least for the massive loss Indian railways continues to make year-on-year and by offering Indian railways as a market agnostic cheap travel option, various central governments seem to have successfully used the public funded Indian railways to achieve multifarious goals like north to south migration, creation of nationwide employment deficits and socio-economic stress factors (like inflation, demand for rapid electrification and demand for urbanization) that could be turned into election manifestos of national parties - especially because national parties are well equipped to encash such factors into votes.

A closer look could reveal that financial loss is just a meager loss that Indian railways could be causing to the Indian union.

The Terror Angle
While alleged to be splurging our moneys and imposing Hindi on all non-Hindi peoples of India, Indian railways is also posing a serious threat to the nation's internal security by acting as an unchecked and unbiased carrier of innocent people and terrorists alike. Operating on such a vast juxtaposition of diverse territories together called India, yet operated by the central government alone comes with its own limitations in vigilance during daily operations. In the name of being an enabler to ensure people's right to move and settle anywhere in India, the railways have acted as an express channel for terror transport especially because of this lack of vigilance - which explains why so few terror attacks it is itself exposed to!!

With the debate around National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) gaining traction again in the wake of these blasts, an important question to be raised will have to be a combination of the suspicion over a centralized Indian railways being the terror enabler and the federal angle that some States are approaching NCTC with: Is the biggest key to Indian terror in the hands of Indian railways, and should counter-terrorism not start by decentralizing it? Is the NCTC destined to fail as long as the Indian railways continues to be a centrally run show?

One For The Master and None For The Little Boy

Today's DNA reports that the Karnataka State Food & Civil supplies minister has decided to write to the Government of India (GoI) seeking restriction on rice exports from the State. Apparently this move has been contemplated in the wake of rising rice prices in the open market, and that "the State has no role in curbing price rise."

We may recall in this context voluntary steps promised by the GoI towards controlling spiraling onion prices, again in the open market. These and many similar instances of government intrusion into a free and open market to regulate prices through lateral exercise of legislative and executive powers present evidence of loose interpretation of governance boundaries or an oppressive attitude towards an open market.

These episodes provide evidence to the fact that governments are exceeding their appointed charter to remain in popularity. But an even more interesting pattern that emerges from such episodes is that all the powers required to suppress free-market forces and regulate market prices seem to have been appropriated by the GoI - the master. The State governments, the little boys, as always, are reduced to mere observatories - which are expected to observe the price rise in local markets and obediently report them to the Center.

The Public Distribution System (PDS) is yet another instrument that portrays the State government as a mere spectator, what with the fickle Central ministry fiddling with the rationing of cooking gas and State governments mutely watching the show unfold.

Another burning matter that surfaces out of this issue is the matter of border and import-export control. If the State governments cannot exert control over what gets exported out from the State and they have to rely on the executive powers of the Center to exert this control, it exposes the sad state of control an Indian State has over its own physical borders. It exposes the mechanism in which the States have been made to bequeath control over their own borders to the Center, making States dependent on a less capable government (GoI) when it comes to protecting itself either from external attacking factors or from leakage of internal stuff through these borders - both against State interests.

These topics are fine examples that help understand the critical loopholes that can exist in a highly centralized governance mechanism. Such holes can only be plugged by proper decentralization of governance and powers. A comprehensively thought over devolution of governing powers is highly overdue in India.

Also read (in Kannada) about other border control issues: ಯಾರ ಗಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಯಾರ ಪಲಾಯನ?

Of Movie Certification, Dubbing and The Mess Around It

(pic:wikimedia.com)

Amidst a legacy of banning screening of movies with scripts that even tangentially deal with the delicate matter of religion and religious institutions, the State of Tamilnadu and cities of Hyderabad and Benglur have successfully upheld this trend and proceeded to either ban or stop screening of Viswaroopam (a Tamil movie made by Kamal Haasan).

If this episode made one crowd raise dust by alleging this move as cultural terrorism by the Tamilnadu State, another termed it as a murder of art in the cinema form, while yet another demanded the grounds on which a State government can ban screening of a movie that has been certified as appropriate for the Indian audience by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). While interpretations about this being akin to an act of terrorism or a murder of any form of art are open to subjective debate, the argument that a CBFC certification should be enough for a movie of any genre and topic to warrant screening anywhere in India - a country with as diverse movie tastes as its cultural footprint - is nothing but a belittling of the natural variety in the tastes of the movie-goers in this country. It is but a fantasy to assume that one single board, notwithstanding its size, can certify movies as appropriate or inappropriate for an entire country as diverse and populous as India.

If the certifying board, CBFC, found no objectionable content in Viswaroopam why is its maker finding himself in the midst of such a judicial stalemate in his home and neighboring States? Why are people from his own neighborhood not finding his movie appropriate while a certifying board far displaced from his people found it appropriate? If the Viswaroopam episode has anything to offer for the thinkers and legislators in this country, then it must be the fundamental question of the validity of a central body such as the CBFC itself.

In this age of technology that enables movies made in any language to be dubbed and simultaneously released in all other languages of the world in their respective markets, it is surprising that we are still living with a mechanism so obsolete as to certify movies for the entire subcontinent. Film markets such as Karnataka still practise an unwritten ban on entertainment dubbed in Kannada caring little for the same CBFC certification that these dubbed movies may carry with them. The reasons behind such banning could be several, but the CBFC is apparently blind to such concerns, neither is it empathetic of the audience's entertainment aspirations, thereby leading to unhealthy breaches of a free-market and avoidable litigation.

A certifying body much closer to the audience and finely savvy of its aspirations is the need of the hour. Film certification in India today carries little value in the local context and is therefore leading to all types of conflicts related to screening of entertainment content, leading only to the disappointment of the end consumer of such content. Ironically, the real decider of the quality of a movie and if it is certifiable or not - the end consumer - is being kept in darkness thanks to a deadly combination of an obsolete certification process and a delicate social equilibrium. This has to come to an end by drawing the curtains down on a national certification ideology and letting the markets take it bottoms-up.

Will a Divided BBMP Make the Difference?

Growing! (pic:ces.iisc.ernet.in)

In what can be considered a brave effort at saving Bengaluru - a city plagued by the growth paradigm - Karnataka law minister Mr Suresh Kumar and his Chief Minister Mr Jagadish Shettar have hinted at the need to divide the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in order to make civic administraion more responsive and effective.

This move is laudable indeed because this points at various lessons public administration in India needs to learn in general. Talking about decentralization as the answer to current administrative challenges BBMP has been facing, the Chief Minister's adviser on urban affairs suggests how three smaller corporations could be better than one massive corporation addressing every city matter, centrally.

Scaling this to the national level, the Center still holds close to its chest a rather huge list of items of governance, and the state of administrative affairs in the vast country is no different from how it is in Bengaluru. For instance, if Arunachal Pradesh needs GoI's permission to get two roads laid in the State, or if Karnataka needed GoI's permission to double the railway tracks between two cities within the State, it is this pitiable state of affairs that is begging for increased decentralization in India.

Coming back to Bengaluru - while the idea of decentralizing BBMP and forming multiple corporations could increase efficiency and help control spiraling prices of various local commodities and services, what it cannot ensure by itself is a renewed need to further divide the BBMP, say in another decade, in order to cater to the then size of the city's demands. Apart from the proposed decentralization, the existing BBMP needs to take another brave step and frame legislation to monitor, regulate and wherever necessary restrict migration of people into the city. It will also need to ensure these new corporations inherit this new piece of legislation that is quintessential to making decentralization a success, and thereby a model for the nation to be inspired by. This will be the difference Bengalurians will look forward to from this division, after all.

If cities like Bengaluru can be subject to the adverse effects of poor governance and legislation at the Center and helplessness at the State levels, let us hope that if not negating those effects, this move by BBMP sends strong messages to the Center about decentralization in general, and its skewed nature of policies that fuel people's migration into localized spots across the nation. Over a period of time such migrant patterns are unsustainable and will only make such local hot-spots unmanageable, yet leave local governing bodies helpless to reform. Shall we say, way to go BBMP?

Its a NEET Diaspora Out There

A CBSE book cover (pic:koolskool.in)

In the sequence of National Policies on Development, Water, Labor and other items of national interest coming to light, another of the Center's programs to safeguard its brainchild national interest through establishing uniform standards has surfaced in the matter of education - something that could put a nation on track - the right one or an entirely wrong one.

Earlier this week some students in the pre-university grade from Karnataka approached the Supreme Court demanding to quash one of Medical Council of India's (MCI) notifications - one that forces these students to study subjects based on CBSE curriculum to clear the National Eligibility and Entrance Test (NEET), different from their current State curriculum. This new qualifier test is not just an unnecessary replacement of the erstwhile Common Entrance Test (CET) in Karnataka, but also a tragic one for a majority of students in all non-Hindi States since the NEET is rendered only in Hindi and English! This is a dual blow because it is a blow by the Center to the State governments that are seen as subordinate here, and a blow of Hindi imperialism on non-Hindi speaking peoples of India.

The MCI was established in the pre-independence year of 1934. The basis for its establishment back then could be related to the bringing in of alien western methods of medication into colonial India by the British who obviously required to oversee its installation. But the 1956 version of a new Act with the same name empowers the Government of India (GoI), just a six year old republic having no semblance to the British power in terms of medical knowledge supremacy, with supreme powers with regards to establishing uniform standards in medical education in the entire of India and to oversee the registration of medical institutes, professionals and professional courses across the wide nation.

With no sign of medical know-how supremacy at the Center per-se, yet sheer authority in its hands, it is obvious that the MCI has created avenues for its abuse. Although Education is a concurrent subject today, the Center has been able to wield MCI as a weapon to bring education (at least in medical profession) under its sole control. Rolling out programs like NEET that are a combination of the CBSE curriculum menace and Hindi imperialism, it is also able to enable more students from the Hindi belt States to clear NEET because the test is administered in Hindi and no other Indian language. Given the current skew in number of professional institutions across India, NEET leads to a big undesirable diaspora paving way for further sliding of the BIMARU state definition. More importantly, programs such as NEET take away the rights of States to conduct their own qualifiers whereas establishments such as MCI limit the States rights to start new professional institutions based on their own needs.

As seen from this series, a suppression of legislative powers at the State level by the Center has been causing havoc in so many spheres of life that the Indian democracy is now really questionable from many an angle. If such a fundamental right as Education can be held in the concurrent list for so long and the Center being solely responsible for progress under this heading does little but use it to fuel its hidden agenda (of Hindi imposition and uncontrolled migration etc.) it is time that the States educate themselves and demand change.

National Interest: Heads, I migrate; Tails, You're exiled?

Dr Sarojini Mahishi

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India do not provide for equality of opportunity for all citizens based on language, yet if recent media reports are to be relied upon, observations made by a Karnataka High Court division bench after hearing a PIL seeking implementation of Sarojini Mahishi Varadi hint at the courts having misconstrued this minute detail of the said Articles. Reported observations:

English has became a global language. So think practically...Though the state cabinet approved the Mahishi report owing to political reasons, we cannot accept such recommendations and pass orders.

Besides, the report shows the court as having misunderstood the meaning of a PIL and burst out at the petitioner saying it cannot direct the State and that the demands of the petitioner are against national interest:

We cannot direct the state to provide jobs on the basis of language. It is illegal and also against national interest. Only Parliament can do such things (legislate)

Although I'd like to stop writing about the PIL and the court's observations, finding the phrase "against national interest" being used here doesn't let me do so! Which national interest is it against for a State legislative arm to pass a fully fair legislation, one that is even allowed under the Indian constitution? However, it would be tragic if we discovered that the judiciary interpreted the States' legislative action to be against national interest.

In this backdrop it is vital to recall some provisions in the Indian constitution: one that assures every citizen a fundamental right to live and settle anywhere in the country, another set of provisions that provide the central government an easy signature to supersede the governance of any State under Sections 355 & 356.

Agreeably, the former provides a right to move around, but is often misconstrued, even by some media houses, as a right that overrides the host State's duty to ensure that welfare of its original residents is not compromised by such in-migration.

This provision of an unconditional right to settle in any State is so unscientific, especially given the linguistic and cultural heterogeneity juxtaposed to become India, that if people continue to migrate into and out of a few financially promising States how are these States supposed to accommodate their highly dynamic populations and how are they supposed to roll out welfare programs for an ever changing demography, whereas that was not the original intention at the time of carving out linguistic States.

On top of this jeopardy that States are left to deal with, a shortfall of good administration as a fallout of this unforeseen and uncontrolled migration to a State could expose it to this latter provision allowing the Center to supersede its power in spite of being financially promising.

Sandwiched between these two provisions, the State Executives are being reduced to mere stenography centers taking directions from the Center under constant fear of being whipped for not accommodating the in-migrantion and consequent socio-economic aftermath. If that is the state of the executive, the legislature is under suspended animation because of inaction and fear of going against national interest by any of its actions!

All this is not helping build a good democracy from the roots. If States are the fundamental units of this union called India it is pitiable that these very States are reduced to such bad condition where they're mere caretakers of amoeba shaped real estates while the Center is busy converting all national assets into capital and framing laws to retain States in paralysis.

If the Indian union has to succeed, the State Legislatures and the State Executives must be freed up, and the Center must agree to look at the States as peers in running this nation and not subordinates who can be issued directives and whipped when fancied.

Centralized Democracy and Zero Sum Welfare Games

Right Choice in Water Management?

AFTER presenting draft policies for national development at the 57th NDC meeting, which in all measures appeared to solemnize appropriation of States' duties and powers by the Center, PM Manmohan Singh has now moved from discourse on fiscal management to a discourse on water management, this too at the national level! At this juncture it is necessary to realize that there is no other public good of more local relevance than water, and any such attempt at managing water so far removed from the river basin, borders on mis-management at best.

As though reacting to the childish demands arising from some ignorant states, the omniscient central govt has proceeded to push its draft national policy on Water Management - purportedly tailored for the entire country. Not to mention that this presentation immediately drew flak from states that realized the Center's infringing in State affairs that this policy would lead to.

Fundamental Hydrological Impact
This draft of National Water Policy floated earlier this year was presented at the NWRC meeting recently, again chaired by Dr Manmohan Singh. It is said that although this policy allows States the right

[2.1] to frame suitable policies, laws and regulations on water; there is a felt need to evolve a broad over-arching national legal framework...

But the policy's very existence remains questionable because of this allowance: If the States were allowed to make their own policies and ways of managing water, why did the Center have to intervene in this pure State item? The motivation for the entire central policy on water management seems to be this felt need for it. How is one expected to know who felt this need to evolve a national legal framework, and what is the basis to believe that this feeling is going to care for the interests of people in all States, like promised? And even if it did, why must the States bequeath this legislative exercise to a remote governing body and make a fundamental mistake in democracy? It is important to realize the invalidity of an over-arching legal framework of general water management principles across basin-levels - which is considered the basic unit in hydrological planning:

(vii) All the elements of the water cycle, i.e., evapo-transpiration, precipitation, runoff, river, lakes, soil moisture, and ground water, sea, etc., are interdependent and the basic hydrological unit is the river basin, which should be considered as the basic hydrological unit for planning.

(pic:thehindubusinessline.com)

Further, in the name of enhancing water availability across the country, regardless of the geographical condition, need and potential to utilize water, this policy goes to the degree of envisioning inter-basin water transfers to achieve equity and social justice:

5.5 Inter-basin transfers are not merely for increasing production but also for meeting basic human need and achieving equity and social justice. 

This highly criticized approach of interlinking of water bodies like rivers is certainly not a good example to set for the whole nation, and certainly not the one to base State funding on. This inter-basin linking could raise dust in the international arena also, and cost India a fortune with little gain.  Inter-basin transfers are known to disturb the delicate hydrological eco-cycle in the concerned river basins and could also render them useless in the long run.

Fiscal Deprivation
First at the NDC, now at the National Water Resources Council (NWRC): this sequence of appropriation of rights and duties raises the question if this was why we needed the GoI and this was why we needed a Prime Minister, then why at all did we elect our State legislatures and what was the need for our Chief Ministers? Such moves of the GoI are reducing our State Executives to mere stenography centers (taking dictation orders all the time) and more importantly, rendering out State Legislatures defunct. Such moves of the GoI are liable to receive public contempt for belittling people's immediate representative circle and appropriating its legislative rights and duties. States frequently seeking the Center's intervention in items best resolved within or between States is not a good sign to reckon with in the years to come.

In affairs like this one related to water management, where

The local communities have to be involved actively (in the management of water resources),

it is surprising that the Center wishes to play an even more active role, so active that it can even deprive the States of the funds they will require to involve actively in water management. Don't the States deserve enough room for legal innovation, practical experimentation and debate among themselves before arriving at their own solutions? As per an official in the Water resources ministry at the Center about this Water policy:

Even though it won’t be mandatory, states will have to toe the policy’s guidelines to get central aid on water-related schemes. 'It will be a guiding document. Moreover, assistance to states under central water schemes will be given only in accordance with the water policy. States will have to align themselves with it.'

So here is a central government that receives most of the taxes paid by people in different States, and then lays various conditions on the States when devolving money back to the States - which is ultimately where the tax moneys will have to be spent. This rather amusing but lossy arrangement of cash transfers between governments, coupled with the rather rude condition for returning money to the States, is not only increasing the latency for cash transfer to the final intended recipient, but also modifying the final intended recipient based on central policies and how well the States adhere to them.

This arrangement has created a deliberate government bias towards non-performing States at the cost of performing ones in the name of social equity. As feared, this leaves a huge burden on performing States and runs the risk of slowly swapping such States under the BIMARU definition. With institutions such as NDC & NWRC, this Center-heavy approach to Indian governance makes welfare appear to be a zero-sum game across different Indian States. Catering to one State's water needs by depriving another State of its deserving water needs is against the spirit of a union of federating States, and against the spirit of inclusive and sustainable growth.

(Also in this thread:
1. The Inclusiveness Story told on The Rapid Indian Railways
2. Moving the BIMARU under a Shining Skin)