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)