A few days ago I read an advertisement in The Times of India which began with the question: “How true is our fairness?” This set me thinking. What does it mean? Does it mean that we regard ourselves as fair while we are not? Does it mean that we are so obsessed with our being fair that we fail to notice our ugliness? Or does it mean that we are dark or fair only when compared with some other thing.
Let us take the first proposition: “Does it mean that we regard ourselves as fair while we are not?” How true it is in our daily life. For example, take the case of Shashi Tharoor. He thinks that if he stays in a Five-Star hotel, likes gym and privacy, pays for his stay in the hotel out of his hard-earned money, it’s fair enough. But a vast majority of people think otherwise. The same is the case with his boss, Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna.
If Sonia Gandhi travels by Economy class and Rahul Gandhi travels by train, they think they are being austere. But again a vast majority of people think otherwise.
Most of the time this is the case with all of us all the time, whether we are politicians, businessmen, doctors, engineers, scientists, policemen, teachers, man, woman, child, husband, wife, son, daughter, etc.
Let us take the second proposition: “Does it mean that we are so obsessed with our being fair that we fail to notice our ugliness?” Again take the example of Shashi Tharoor. He thinks that if he is paying from his own pocket for his stay in a Five-Star hotel, why should there be any objection to it. But when you think of it in the context of hundreds of people starving and some even committing suicide, does it not look ugly that he should be leading a life of luxury when the very people whom he is supposed to serve, protect and nurture are hardly able to make both ends meet? Many believe it does.
Similarly when Sonia Gandhi travels by Economy class and Rahul Gandhi by train, they believe that they are saving money for the nation. But when considered in the context of the money that is spent on their security and the harassment it causes to hundreds of people on account of their security arrangements, does it not look ugly that they should even pretend to be austere. Many believe it does.
Now let us take the third and last proposition: “Does it mean that we are dark or fair only when compared with some other thing?” Again, how true it is. We are what we are, fair, dark or in-between. We are more corrupt when compared with Western countries and less corrupt when compared with some Asian and African countries. Similarly, we are more secure economically and militarily when compared with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc., but we are less secure when compared with China, Russia and the United States of America.
Thus, it will be seen that it is all a question of our mind. Mind is very, very mercurial. It rolls back from one extreme to the other within no time. So let us not waste our time on trivial things such as debate on austerity and continue our journey on the road to progress.
I know Dr. Amartya Sen must be giving his toothless smile and wondering whether all Indians are argumentative!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
NEED OF THE HOUR: A TRULY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE CENTRE
When India became independent, the people of India adopted a Constitution, which provided for a federation of States with a unitary form of government at the Centre.
It was the right decision because security and unity of the country were of paramount importance at that point of time.
Since the Congress Party was in the vanguard of the Independence Movement, it became the ruling party both at the Centre and in the States.
Over a period of time the Congress lost its original shine but managed to remain in power by appealing to the vote banks of Muslims and under-privileged sections of Indian society.
This provoked the pro-Hindu middle class to consolidate the Hindu votes under the banner of Bharatiya Jan Sangh (present-day BJP) and challenge the supremacy of the Congress Party.
The end result of the division of votes between the Congress and the BJP was that those States which voted for or aligned themselves with the Congress Party or the BJP flourished while the others were neglected. They were compelled to choose between one and another alliance or suffer the consequences of their inaction. Not only that, they had to compete with these alliances in order to survive in their own States. This state of affairs produced a feeling of frustration, cynicism and disillusionment among the non-Congress and non-BJP States and compelled them to seek an alternative.
The alternative is the creation of a truly federal government at the Centre, which owes its allegiance to the Constitution of India and looks after the interests of all the States, irrespective of their religious or secular credentials.
The time has now come when there should be a Union of States with a truly federal government at the Centre. The government at the Centre should represent the Union of States of India and not one or the other so-called national political parties.
To achieve this objective the Constitution of India may have to be amended, which is not possible at the present moment.
The alternative at present is that in case there is a hung Parliament, the President should convene a meeting of all the elected Members of Parliament and ask them to choose the leader of the House. Members of Parliament should be asked to give their first, second or third preference in case no person is able to secure more than fifty per cent of the votes in the first instance. The Prime Minister thus chosen should form a truly federal, national government and remain in power till the full term of the House. In case there is a vote of No Confidence against the Prime Minister, it should be followed by a Vote of Confidence in the new person who should be elected through the same procedure adopted in the first place. The old Prime Minister should continue to remain in power till a new one is elected in his place.
This is the only way in which we can establish a truly federal, stable and viable government in the country.
So far as controversial issues like Indo-US Nuclear Deal, Kashmir, Sri Lanka crisis, international trade and commerce, climate change, world peace, international financial structure, etc., are concerned, these should be solved after proper discussion and debate both within and outside Parliament.
Let us hope that common sense rather than blind faith in secularism or Hindutva will prevail in the end in the larger interest of the people of India and the whole world.
THE NEED OF THE HOUR IS A TRULY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE CENTRE.
It was the right decision because security and unity of the country were of paramount importance at that point of time.
Since the Congress Party was in the vanguard of the Independence Movement, it became the ruling party both at the Centre and in the States.
Over a period of time the Congress lost its original shine but managed to remain in power by appealing to the vote banks of Muslims and under-privileged sections of Indian society.
This provoked the pro-Hindu middle class to consolidate the Hindu votes under the banner of Bharatiya Jan Sangh (present-day BJP) and challenge the supremacy of the Congress Party.
The end result of the division of votes between the Congress and the BJP was that those States which voted for or aligned themselves with the Congress Party or the BJP flourished while the others were neglected. They were compelled to choose between one and another alliance or suffer the consequences of their inaction. Not only that, they had to compete with these alliances in order to survive in their own States. This state of affairs produced a feeling of frustration, cynicism and disillusionment among the non-Congress and non-BJP States and compelled them to seek an alternative.
The alternative is the creation of a truly federal government at the Centre, which owes its allegiance to the Constitution of India and looks after the interests of all the States, irrespective of their religious or secular credentials.
The time has now come when there should be a Union of States with a truly federal government at the Centre. The government at the Centre should represent the Union of States of India and not one or the other so-called national political parties.
To achieve this objective the Constitution of India may have to be amended, which is not possible at the present moment.
The alternative at present is that in case there is a hung Parliament, the President should convene a meeting of all the elected Members of Parliament and ask them to choose the leader of the House. Members of Parliament should be asked to give their first, second or third preference in case no person is able to secure more than fifty per cent of the votes in the first instance. The Prime Minister thus chosen should form a truly federal, national government and remain in power till the full term of the House. In case there is a vote of No Confidence against the Prime Minister, it should be followed by a Vote of Confidence in the new person who should be elected through the same procedure adopted in the first place. The old Prime Minister should continue to remain in power till a new one is elected in his place.
This is the only way in which we can establish a truly federal, stable and viable government in the country.
So far as controversial issues like Indo-US Nuclear Deal, Kashmir, Sri Lanka crisis, international trade and commerce, climate change, world peace, international financial structure, etc., are concerned, these should be solved after proper discussion and debate both within and outside Parliament.
Let us hope that common sense rather than blind faith in secularism or Hindutva will prevail in the end in the larger interest of the people of India and the whole world.
THE NEED OF THE HOUR IS A TRULY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE CENTRE.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: ITS CAUSE AND CURE
American dollar is the principal cause of the present global financial crisis.
Since dollar also happens to be the preferred currency for world trade, it is the most sought-after commodity in the world – thus enabling America to earn huge profits by way of trade, commerce and investment.
Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia have legal arrangements to invest their surplus profits in American bonds. Developing and even developed countries preferred to park their savings in American dollars as it was considered to be the safest currency in the world.
Thus a huge chunk of money found its way into American coffers like water flowing into the sea.
Americans did not have the need to live within their income. On the other hand, they invested their surplus money in building up a formidable armament industry, space and pharmaceutical research, real estate, automobile and civil aviation enterprises.
With their newly found wealth and invincible military power they dominated the United Nations and its organs, and created institutions like the World Bank and IMF which acted as the banker of the banks of the world.
All this happened because America believed in free market economy and allowed its entrepreneurs to do whatever they liked so long as they brought profits, dividends and capital gains into the American coffers. America became a superpower. They did not have to compete with anybody except themselves. This led them to become reckless, irresponsible and over-ambitious.
American banks lent money to people to buy over-inflated properties at ruinous rates of interest when they had no tangible source of income. When such insolvent homeowners could not pay their monthly instalments, the banks failed. And when banks would not lend money to each other, the whole financial system collapsed like a house of cards.
In the meantime, another event took place. Being saturated with their own markets in the West, America wanted to have access to the resources and markets of the developing countries of the world. This gave rise to concepts like globalization, intellectual property rights, and WTO and pollution control. They attempted to get control of the oil rich countries in the Middle East by promoting democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. Thus the whole world got enmeshed with American interests in one way or the other – leading to a ripple effect. Thus, when American economy collapsed, it had its repercussions in other parts of the world.
What is the cure?
Pumping more money into the financial system and lowering interest rates will only aggravate the situation and maintain the status quo.
The solution may be very simple. We need to have a neutral universal currency. All other currencies should be pegged to this currency so that no single country gets an undue advantage. There should be a universal bank with a board of governors representing some strong currencies of the world such as dollar, pound, euro, yen, Yuan, etc.
The universal bank should fix the rates of exchange of these currencies and these rates should hold good for at least six months or one year at a time. Money should be used only as a medium of exchange and not as a commodity to be sold or speculated upon.
I believe such a step will go a long way in stabilizing world economy.
Since dollar also happens to be the preferred currency for world trade, it is the most sought-after commodity in the world – thus enabling America to earn huge profits by way of trade, commerce and investment.
Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia have legal arrangements to invest their surplus profits in American bonds. Developing and even developed countries preferred to park their savings in American dollars as it was considered to be the safest currency in the world.
Thus a huge chunk of money found its way into American coffers like water flowing into the sea.
Americans did not have the need to live within their income. On the other hand, they invested their surplus money in building up a formidable armament industry, space and pharmaceutical research, real estate, automobile and civil aviation enterprises.
With their newly found wealth and invincible military power they dominated the United Nations and its organs, and created institutions like the World Bank and IMF which acted as the banker of the banks of the world.
All this happened because America believed in free market economy and allowed its entrepreneurs to do whatever they liked so long as they brought profits, dividends and capital gains into the American coffers. America became a superpower. They did not have to compete with anybody except themselves. This led them to become reckless, irresponsible and over-ambitious.
American banks lent money to people to buy over-inflated properties at ruinous rates of interest when they had no tangible source of income. When such insolvent homeowners could not pay their monthly instalments, the banks failed. And when banks would not lend money to each other, the whole financial system collapsed like a house of cards.
In the meantime, another event took place. Being saturated with their own markets in the West, America wanted to have access to the resources and markets of the developing countries of the world. This gave rise to concepts like globalization, intellectual property rights, and WTO and pollution control. They attempted to get control of the oil rich countries in the Middle East by promoting democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. Thus the whole world got enmeshed with American interests in one way or the other – leading to a ripple effect. Thus, when American economy collapsed, it had its repercussions in other parts of the world.
What is the cure?
Pumping more money into the financial system and lowering interest rates will only aggravate the situation and maintain the status quo.
The solution may be very simple. We need to have a neutral universal currency. All other currencies should be pegged to this currency so that no single country gets an undue advantage. There should be a universal bank with a board of governors representing some strong currencies of the world such as dollar, pound, euro, yen, Yuan, etc.
The universal bank should fix the rates of exchange of these currencies and these rates should hold good for at least six months or one year at a time. Money should be used only as a medium of exchange and not as a commodity to be sold or speculated upon.
I believe such a step will go a long way in stabilizing world economy.
Monday, October 06, 2008
INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL – KYA KHOYA, KYA PAYA?
Now that the Indo-US Nuclear Deal has been concluded, it is high time that we examine what we have gained and what we have lost.
So far as the plus side is concerned, we shall be able to access nuclear reactors, fuel and technology from NSG countries. It had been denied to us for the last 34 years. We shall now be able to enhance our supply of nuclear energy in the years to come.
We can also have the good feeling of being considered a nuclear power next only to USA, Russia, France, UK and China.
So far as the minus side is concerned, we have given up our age-old policy of non-alignment and allied ourselves with USA. This means that we are now part of the Cold War between US and EU on one side and China and Russia on the other.
Since we have not signed the NPT but have agreed not to conduct nuclear tests for fear of losing our right to engage in nuclear commerce with NSG countries, we shall not be able to influence rest of the world with our nuclear power. In other words, we have reduced ourselves to the status of an Impotent Nuclear Power.
The United Nations is an imperfect organization. It is governed by the United Nations Security Council, which consists of the Five Nuclear Powers who have the right to veto any resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations needs to be reformed or better still to be replaced by a more democratic and effective World Order. By subjecting ourselves to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is part of the United Nations, we have lost our moral right and capacity to reform the world organization or to replace it with a New World Order.
The cost of producing a unit of electricity through nuclear technology is more than the cost of producing electricity through traditional sources. If the rich countries of the world are sincere about alleviating poverty in developing countries of the world, it is logical that they should bear the burden of purchasing electricity at a higher cost rather than passing it on to the poorer countries. It will also help in reducing pollution in the most industrialized countries of the world.
Till now India and China were regarded as contenders for regional supremacy in the Asia-Pacific Region. With the signing of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal India has entered into strategic alliance with USA. Now the countries of Asia-Pacific Region will have to choose between China and USA for leadership. Most of the Muslim dominated countries of this region will find it difficult to side with USA on account of its war against terrorism. They would have loved to accept the leadership of India but would now go under Chinese influence. By aligning with USA India has lost the moral right to lead the countries of this region and denied them the chance of a third alternative.
The outcome of the Indo-US Deal can be compared with a glass being half-full or half-empty. Those countries or people who stand to gain through trade in nuclear reactors, raw material and technology will say that the glass is half-full and those who are unable to profit from this deal will say the glass is half-empty.
Only the future will tell whether the glass is half-full or almost empty.
So far as the plus side is concerned, we shall be able to access nuclear reactors, fuel and technology from NSG countries. It had been denied to us for the last 34 years. We shall now be able to enhance our supply of nuclear energy in the years to come.
We can also have the good feeling of being considered a nuclear power next only to USA, Russia, France, UK and China.
So far as the minus side is concerned, we have given up our age-old policy of non-alignment and allied ourselves with USA. This means that we are now part of the Cold War between US and EU on one side and China and Russia on the other.
Since we have not signed the NPT but have agreed not to conduct nuclear tests for fear of losing our right to engage in nuclear commerce with NSG countries, we shall not be able to influence rest of the world with our nuclear power. In other words, we have reduced ourselves to the status of an Impotent Nuclear Power.
The United Nations is an imperfect organization. It is governed by the United Nations Security Council, which consists of the Five Nuclear Powers who have the right to veto any resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly. The United Nations needs to be reformed or better still to be replaced by a more democratic and effective World Order. By subjecting ourselves to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is part of the United Nations, we have lost our moral right and capacity to reform the world organization or to replace it with a New World Order.
The cost of producing a unit of electricity through nuclear technology is more than the cost of producing electricity through traditional sources. If the rich countries of the world are sincere about alleviating poverty in developing countries of the world, it is logical that they should bear the burden of purchasing electricity at a higher cost rather than passing it on to the poorer countries. It will also help in reducing pollution in the most industrialized countries of the world.
Till now India and China were regarded as contenders for regional supremacy in the Asia-Pacific Region. With the signing of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal India has entered into strategic alliance with USA. Now the countries of Asia-Pacific Region will have to choose between China and USA for leadership. Most of the Muslim dominated countries of this region will find it difficult to side with USA on account of its war against terrorism. They would have loved to accept the leadership of India but would now go under Chinese influence. By aligning with USA India has lost the moral right to lead the countries of this region and denied them the chance of a third alternative.
The outcome of the Indo-US Deal can be compared with a glass being half-full or half-empty. Those countries or people who stand to gain through trade in nuclear reactors, raw material and technology will say that the glass is half-full and those who are unable to profit from this deal will say the glass is half-empty.
Only the future will tell whether the glass is half-full or almost empty.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Weapons of Mass Destruction
“Imagine Leonid Brezhnev on the reviewing stand at Lenin’s Tomb, surrounded by underlings, watching the May Day parade. The Soviet Union’s full military might is there on display. First come battalions of elite troops, impressive soldiers, all six foot two, marching in absolute lockstep. Right behind them are phalanxes of state-of-the-art artillery and tanks. Then come the nuclear missiles – it’s an awesome show of strength. But after the missiles comes a straggle of six or seven civilians, unkempt, shabbily dressed, utterly out of place. An aide rushes up to Brezhnev and begs forgiveness. “Comrade Secretary, my apologies, I do not know who these people are or how they’ve come into our parade.
“Do not be concerned, Comrade,” replies Brezhnev. “I am responsible for them. They are our economists, and you have no idea how much damage they can do.””
American President Ronald Reagan told this story to Alan Greenspan, former head of Federal Reserve Board.
American Army did not defeat the Soviet Union. It collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable economy. Russian economists should have known that a closed-door centralized economy could be stretched to a certain point and not beyond that.
The same is true about free-market economy. Free-market economy can function within certain parameters. If it is stretched beyond those parameters, it is bound to collapse.
For example, free-market economy is incompatible with democracy. It is the fastest way of creating wealth but it cannot ensure equitable distribution of that wealth by itself. If it is regulated, it won’t be a free-market economy. If unregulated, it is bound to result in a wide gap between the haves and have-nots. In a democracy if the number of have-nots is more than that of haves, they will vote against the government and the result will be either instability or continuous law-and-order problem.
Another drawback of free-market economy is that it cannot function in a global environment at once. One of the basic ingredients of free-market economy is the relationship between supply and demand. In a globalized world you can move capital from one place to another within a short time with the help of internet and tele-communication devices but you cannot move labour easily. Skilled labour needs training and that takes time and money. Then there is the question of integration of people belonging to different social, cultural, lingual, religious and ethnic societies. It is an almost impossible job.
Then there is the question of resources. You do not have oil in all parts of the world. The same applies to agricultural and mineral resources. If those countries, which have these resources, do not have the necessary technology to exploit them or if they demand an unacceptable price for them, nothing happens. Either there should be a world government to ensure equitable distribution of these resources at reasonable prices or it will result in armed conflicts between nations.
The truth is that there is no single economic ideology suitable for all the people of the world at all times; nor is there any possibility of a world government in the near future. Therefore, what we require is a secular economic approach, depending upon the needs of a particular section of society, taking into consideration the social, economic and geographical condition of that part of society at any period of time.
Let us hope that our economists will not prove to be modern Weapons of Mass Destruction but Desirable Tools of Construction
“Do not be concerned, Comrade,” replies Brezhnev. “I am responsible for them. They are our economists, and you have no idea how much damage they can do.””
American President Ronald Reagan told this story to Alan Greenspan, former head of Federal Reserve Board.
American Army did not defeat the Soviet Union. It collapsed under the weight of its own unsustainable economy. Russian economists should have known that a closed-door centralized economy could be stretched to a certain point and not beyond that.
The same is true about free-market economy. Free-market economy can function within certain parameters. If it is stretched beyond those parameters, it is bound to collapse.
For example, free-market economy is incompatible with democracy. It is the fastest way of creating wealth but it cannot ensure equitable distribution of that wealth by itself. If it is regulated, it won’t be a free-market economy. If unregulated, it is bound to result in a wide gap between the haves and have-nots. In a democracy if the number of have-nots is more than that of haves, they will vote against the government and the result will be either instability or continuous law-and-order problem.
Another drawback of free-market economy is that it cannot function in a global environment at once. One of the basic ingredients of free-market economy is the relationship between supply and demand. In a globalized world you can move capital from one place to another within a short time with the help of internet and tele-communication devices but you cannot move labour easily. Skilled labour needs training and that takes time and money. Then there is the question of integration of people belonging to different social, cultural, lingual, religious and ethnic societies. It is an almost impossible job.
Then there is the question of resources. You do not have oil in all parts of the world. The same applies to agricultural and mineral resources. If those countries, which have these resources, do not have the necessary technology to exploit them or if they demand an unacceptable price for them, nothing happens. Either there should be a world government to ensure equitable distribution of these resources at reasonable prices or it will result in armed conflicts between nations.
The truth is that there is no single economic ideology suitable for all the people of the world at all times; nor is there any possibility of a world government in the near future. Therefore, what we require is a secular economic approach, depending upon the needs of a particular section of society, taking into consideration the social, economic and geographical condition of that part of society at any period of time.
Let us hope that our economists will not prove to be modern Weapons of Mass Destruction but Desirable Tools of Construction
Monday, March 31, 2008
Indo-US Nuclear Deal - Myth & Reality
A great deal has been said and written about the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal – most of it simply myth. What is the reality?
Myth No.1 is that America will be doing a great favour to India by selling nuclear reactors and raw material.
The truth is that America has entered into an agreement with France, Britain, Russia and China not to transfer nuclear technology to any other country except among them. India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran are the only countries who can use nuclear technology. Obviously, India is the only country to which America would like to sell nuclear technology. America wants to get rid of its surplus supply of nuclear reactors and raw material and make money out of it.
Myth No.2 is that by signing this deal India would be joining the club of five Nuclear Nation States of the World.
The truth is that by doing so India would be signing indirectly the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty without enjoying the power and privileges of the five Nuclear Nation States.
Myth No. 3 is that even after entering into this deal India would be free to manufacture nuclear bomb, if need be.
The truth is that after entering into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Authority, India would be subject to the same sort of inspection and scrutiny to which Iran is being subjected at present.
Myth No. 4 is that electricity produced through nuclear technology will solve our future energy requirements.
The truth is that electricity produced through nuclear technology is costlier than electricity produced through any other means. Even the most developed countries of the world find it uneconomical, what to talk of a poor country like India.
Moreover producing electricity through nuclear technology involves total dependence upon other countries and storage and disposal of hazardous nuclear waste material.
Can we afford it? Can this be our first priority?
Myth No.1 is that America will be doing a great favour to India by selling nuclear reactors and raw material.
The truth is that America has entered into an agreement with France, Britain, Russia and China not to transfer nuclear technology to any other country except among them. India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran are the only countries who can use nuclear technology. Obviously, India is the only country to which America would like to sell nuclear technology. America wants to get rid of its surplus supply of nuclear reactors and raw material and make money out of it.
Myth No.2 is that by signing this deal India would be joining the club of five Nuclear Nation States of the World.
The truth is that by doing so India would be signing indirectly the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty without enjoying the power and privileges of the five Nuclear Nation States.
Myth No. 3 is that even after entering into this deal India would be free to manufacture nuclear bomb, if need be.
The truth is that after entering into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Authority, India would be subject to the same sort of inspection and scrutiny to which Iran is being subjected at present.
Myth No. 4 is that electricity produced through nuclear technology will solve our future energy requirements.
The truth is that electricity produced through nuclear technology is costlier than electricity produced through any other means. Even the most developed countries of the world find it uneconomical, what to talk of a poor country like India.
Moreover producing electricity through nuclear technology involves total dependence upon other countries and storage and disposal of hazardous nuclear waste material.
Can we afford it? Can this be our first priority?
Rising food prices in Singapore - and some potential remedies
Prices of food products have risen in Singapore. The Prime Minister has appealed to people to use frozen food products which are cheaper.
Since Singapore is totally dependent upon imported food articles, this state of affairs is likely to continue in future.
One way to cope with the increased cost of living is to earn more money by increased productivity and use of cutting-edge technology.
Another way is to enter into joint ventures with a friendly country in the production of food products and supply part of that production to Singaporeans at cheaper rates.
India has a huge agricultural sector which has not been exploited to its full potential so far on account of lack of finance and technological expertise.
Singapore can provide finance and technological know-how in the field of food processing, horticulture and floriculture in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir, and at the same time meet the food requirements of its people at an affordable price.
Participation in development and trade is preferable to simple trade.
This will also add to the development of the Asian region.
In course of time this will result in the formation of an Asian Union on the line of European Union, with its own long-term advantages in the not-too-distant future.
Since Singapore is totally dependent upon imported food articles, this state of affairs is likely to continue in future.
One way to cope with the increased cost of living is to earn more money by increased productivity and use of cutting-edge technology.
Another way is to enter into joint ventures with a friendly country in the production of food products and supply part of that production to Singaporeans at cheaper rates.
India has a huge agricultural sector which has not been exploited to its full potential so far on account of lack of finance and technological expertise.
Singapore can provide finance and technological know-how in the field of food processing, horticulture and floriculture in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Kashmir, and at the same time meet the food requirements of its people at an affordable price.
Participation in development and trade is preferable to simple trade.
This will also add to the development of the Asian region.
In course of time this will result in the formation of an Asian Union on the line of European Union, with its own long-term advantages in the not-too-distant future.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE
The Congress has nominated Pratibha Patil as its candidate for the post of President of India.
The BJP too has nominated Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as an independent candidate.
Both parties have manipulated to push forward their own candidates in the hope that in the 2009 general elections if they fail to secure absolute majority, the President may invite the party which sponsored him or her in the first instance to form the government. Once the government is formed, other parties would line up to share power and would help the ruling party to secure a Vote of Confidence in Parliament.
The irony is that neither Congress nor BJP command absolute majority in the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It is the regional parties who command absolute majority. Yet both the Congress and BJP are able to push forward the candidature of their own parties by dividing the regional parties.
So far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it does not recognise any political party or combination of parties such as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc. For the purpose of electing the President of India the Constitution recognises only the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies. Who knows after the 2009 general elections there may not be any such bodies as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc.?
India claims to be a federal polity with a strong bias towards a unitary form of government. It is the Centre, which calls the shots. The States are dependent upon the Centre for their share of revenues. The Centre appoints Governors of States and the States can be dismissed simply by an adverse report by the Governor. Under the present dispensation the States are treated as mere vassals of the Centre. Obviously, such a state of affairs is not conducive to the proper development of States and cannot last for long.
It is high time that regional parties put up their own candidate for the post of President of India. If elected, such a person will not act in a partisan manner at the time of 2009 general elections.
Moreover, if this experiment succeeds, it can be repeated at the time of 2009 general elections. This will also restore the balance of power in favour of the States vis-a-vis the Centre.
A Prime Minister who commands the respect of all the regional parties is anytime better than a person who is imposed upon the nation through convergence of fortuitous circumstances.
LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.
The BJP too has nominated Vice President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat as an independent candidate.
Both parties have manipulated to push forward their own candidates in the hope that in the 2009 general elections if they fail to secure absolute majority, the President may invite the party which sponsored him or her in the first instance to form the government. Once the government is formed, other parties would line up to share power and would help the ruling party to secure a Vote of Confidence in Parliament.
The irony is that neither Congress nor BJP command absolute majority in the Electoral College for the Presidential Election. It is the regional parties who command absolute majority. Yet both the Congress and BJP are able to push forward the candidature of their own parties by dividing the regional parties.
So far as the Constitution of India is concerned, it does not recognise any political party or combination of parties such as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc. For the purpose of electing the President of India the Constitution recognises only the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and State Assemblies. Who knows after the 2009 general elections there may not be any such bodies as UPA, NDA, UNPA, etc.?
India claims to be a federal polity with a strong bias towards a unitary form of government. It is the Centre, which calls the shots. The States are dependent upon the Centre for their share of revenues. The Centre appoints Governors of States and the States can be dismissed simply by an adverse report by the Governor. Under the present dispensation the States are treated as mere vassals of the Centre. Obviously, such a state of affairs is not conducive to the proper development of States and cannot last for long.
It is high time that regional parties put up their own candidate for the post of President of India. If elected, such a person will not act in a partisan manner at the time of 2009 general elections.
Moreover, if this experiment succeeds, it can be repeated at the time of 2009 general elections. This will also restore the balance of power in favour of the States vis-a-vis the Centre.
A Prime Minister who commands the respect of all the regional parties is anytime better than a person who is imposed upon the nation through convergence of fortuitous circumstances.
LET TRUE DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS OWN COURSE.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Election of the president of India
In the words of Woodrow Wilson, the President is the representative of no constituency but of the whole people. The President of India, unlike that of the USA, has no executive power; but he represents “the majesty of the people incarnate”. His office symbolizes the unity and integrity of the State. He is above the chances and changes of party politics; and his election is, therefore, of special importance in a country like India with deep political divisions and numerous political parties.
Constitutional morality dictates that merit should be the sole criterion for the election of the Head of State. But the motivations and machinations of political parties suggest that merit has been subordinated by some groups to caste, creed or gender.
If the President has to be chosen by the democratic process, it is difficult to imagine of a more satisfactory method than that embodied in our fundamental law. There are five cardinal rules laid down in our Constitution to regulate the election of the President.
Firstly, the voting at the election is by secret ballot. Since the Head of State is expected to be above party politics, every vote for or against him is expected to be a conscience vote. This is meant to avoid vitiation of the election process by party politics.
Secondly, the election of the President is indirect. Nothing would be gained by having the President elected by “the mass man”. The Electoral College consists of the elected members of both houses of Parliament, and the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states. The reason why the members of state assemblies have been included in the Electoral College is to prevent the President being elected merely by the vote of the party or coalition of parties which happens to be in power at the Centre.
Thirdly, there has to be uniformity among the states inter se, as far as practicable. This is achieved by ensuring that the rule of one voter, one vote, does not apply. Every elected member of the legislative assembly of a state has as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by the total number of elected members of the assembly. Uniformity in the scale of representation is brought about by the members of the legislative assemblies of thickly populated states having a larger number of votes than the members of the assemblies of less populous states.
Fourthly, the rule is that there should be parity between the states taken together and the Union. This is achieved by the provision that the elected members of the two houses of Parliament would have the same number of votes as the aggregate of the votes of the elected representatives of the state assemblies taken together.
Fifthly, the election of the President has to be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The object of this rule is to afford the minorities a better voice in the selection of the Head of State.
This method is known as “the alternative vote” in a single-member constituency. At the time when the votes are cast, every member of the Electoral College has to indicate which candidate he votes for in the order of preference. If a candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast, he would be deemed to have been elected and it would be unnecessary to have a recount. But if no candidate has secured an absolute majority of the votes cast, the subsequent preferences have to be taken into account. This is the effect of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1952.
Since the voting is by secret ballot and there is provision for second preference, any attempt by political parties to manipulate the success or failure of a candidate before the election takes place is tantamount to tampering with the election process. The manner in which political parties are behaving at present is a matter of national shame.
Let the democratic process take its own course.
Constitutional morality dictates that merit should be the sole criterion for the election of the Head of State. But the motivations and machinations of political parties suggest that merit has been subordinated by some groups to caste, creed or gender.
If the President has to be chosen by the democratic process, it is difficult to imagine of a more satisfactory method than that embodied in our fundamental law. There are five cardinal rules laid down in our Constitution to regulate the election of the President.
Firstly, the voting at the election is by secret ballot. Since the Head of State is expected to be above party politics, every vote for or against him is expected to be a conscience vote. This is meant to avoid vitiation of the election process by party politics.
Secondly, the election of the President is indirect. Nothing would be gained by having the President elected by “the mass man”. The Electoral College consists of the elected members of both houses of Parliament, and the elected members of the legislative assemblies of the states. The reason why the members of state assemblies have been included in the Electoral College is to prevent the President being elected merely by the vote of the party or coalition of parties which happens to be in power at the Centre.
Thirdly, there has to be uniformity among the states inter se, as far as practicable. This is achieved by ensuring that the rule of one voter, one vote, does not apply. Every elected member of the legislative assembly of a state has as many votes as there are multiples of one thousand in the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the state by the total number of elected members of the assembly. Uniformity in the scale of representation is brought about by the members of the legislative assemblies of thickly populated states having a larger number of votes than the members of the assemblies of less populous states.
Fourthly, the rule is that there should be parity between the states taken together and the Union. This is achieved by the provision that the elected members of the two houses of Parliament would have the same number of votes as the aggregate of the votes of the elected representatives of the state assemblies taken together.
Fifthly, the election of the President has to be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The object of this rule is to afford the minorities a better voice in the selection of the Head of State.
This method is known as “the alternative vote” in a single-member constituency. At the time when the votes are cast, every member of the Electoral College has to indicate which candidate he votes for in the order of preference. If a candidate gets an absolute majority of the votes cast, he would be deemed to have been elected and it would be unnecessary to have a recount. But if no candidate has secured an absolute majority of the votes cast, the subsequent preferences have to be taken into account. This is the effect of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1952.
Since the voting is by secret ballot and there is provision for second preference, any attempt by political parties to manipulate the success or failure of a candidate before the election takes place is tantamount to tampering with the election process. The manner in which political parties are behaving at present is a matter of national shame.
Let the democratic process take its own course.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
FREE MARKET ECONOMY: BOON OR BANE FOR INDIA?
This is the age of free-market economy. What does it mean? To put it simply, it means free movement of capital, labour, goods and services throughout the world.
So far as India is concerned, it means that Indian professionals and skilled workmen will be able to secure jobs in foreign countries carrying higher salaries. It also means that Indian entrepreneurs will be able to sell their goods and services in foreign countries at higher prices, thus increasing their profit margins. In addition, foreigners will be able to open shops and factories in India, thereby creating greater job opportunities for local people. It will also give fillip to tourist, hospitality, banking and real estate industries. We can also encourage foreign countries to open educational, professional and vocational institutes here to meet the skilled labour requirements in India and in their own countries. Indians will be able to buy foreign branded goods in India itself at cheaper rates. Our people will be able to imbibe the habits and work culture of developed countries of the world and thus improve their style of living. The number of opportunities free market economy opens for us is tremendous. But all this is possible only if we are able to provide political stability in our country and are able to create an environment, which is free-market-economy friendly.
It is true that market economy is the fastest way to create wealth. But it is equally true that market economy, by itself, cannot eradicate poverty. In many cases it widens the gap between the rich and the poor. If this gap remains within manageable limits, as in the case of western democracies, it is fine. But if it widens beyond manageable limits, as in the case of many newly independent developing countries, it is bound to degenerate into social unrest, riots, chaos, and anarchy and in some cases even in violent revolution.
Developing countries need stability. Stability is possible only if the same political party remains in power for a number of terms. If there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor, there is a tendency among voters to oust the party in power, no matter whether the newly elected ruling party is competent or not. The newly elected party starts working on its own agenda and the whole process of development suffers a setback.
In the case of a violent revolution, nothing is certain.
India is a vast country with a huge population, exceeding 1 billion. More than 35 per cent of its population is illiterate and unemployed. A major portion of India’s population lives in rural areas, which lack in basic facilities of life such as shelter, clean drinking water, electricity, transport, public toilets, etc. India has a completely fragmented polity, which is divided on the basis of race, religion, caste, class, region and language. It has a judicial system, which is corrupt, inefficient and slow moving. Its administrative system is burdened with self-serving bureaucrats with rules and procedures which are cumbersome can be interpreted differently and are open to corruption. The political system is equally corrupt, inefficient and power hungry. Most legislators do not know how to govern and regard their election to Parliament, State Assemblies and Municipal Corporations as mere opportunities to make more money.
Under these circumstances, will India be able to take advantage of free-market-global economy and transform itself from a Third World country to a First World one?
My mind says “No”, but my heart says, “Yes” – miracles do happen!
So far as India is concerned, it means that Indian professionals and skilled workmen will be able to secure jobs in foreign countries carrying higher salaries. It also means that Indian entrepreneurs will be able to sell their goods and services in foreign countries at higher prices, thus increasing their profit margins. In addition, foreigners will be able to open shops and factories in India, thereby creating greater job opportunities for local people. It will also give fillip to tourist, hospitality, banking and real estate industries. We can also encourage foreign countries to open educational, professional and vocational institutes here to meet the skilled labour requirements in India and in their own countries. Indians will be able to buy foreign branded goods in India itself at cheaper rates. Our people will be able to imbibe the habits and work culture of developed countries of the world and thus improve their style of living. The number of opportunities free market economy opens for us is tremendous. But all this is possible only if we are able to provide political stability in our country and are able to create an environment, which is free-market-economy friendly.
It is true that market economy is the fastest way to create wealth. But it is equally true that market economy, by itself, cannot eradicate poverty. In many cases it widens the gap between the rich and the poor. If this gap remains within manageable limits, as in the case of western democracies, it is fine. But if it widens beyond manageable limits, as in the case of many newly independent developing countries, it is bound to degenerate into social unrest, riots, chaos, and anarchy and in some cases even in violent revolution.
Developing countries need stability. Stability is possible only if the same political party remains in power for a number of terms. If there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor, there is a tendency among voters to oust the party in power, no matter whether the newly elected ruling party is competent or not. The newly elected party starts working on its own agenda and the whole process of development suffers a setback.
In the case of a violent revolution, nothing is certain.
India is a vast country with a huge population, exceeding 1 billion. More than 35 per cent of its population is illiterate and unemployed. A major portion of India’s population lives in rural areas, which lack in basic facilities of life such as shelter, clean drinking water, electricity, transport, public toilets, etc. India has a completely fragmented polity, which is divided on the basis of race, religion, caste, class, region and language. It has a judicial system, which is corrupt, inefficient and slow moving. Its administrative system is burdened with self-serving bureaucrats with rules and procedures which are cumbersome can be interpreted differently and are open to corruption. The political system is equally corrupt, inefficient and power hungry. Most legislators do not know how to govern and regard their election to Parliament, State Assemblies and Municipal Corporations as mere opportunities to make more money.
Under these circumstances, will India be able to take advantage of free-market-global economy and transform itself from a Third World country to a First World one?
My mind says “No”, but my heart says, “Yes” – miracles do happen!
Friday, November 10, 2006
ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL
What is happening today in Delhi in the name of sealing is nothing short of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is also part of the ugly face of globalization.
The reason why countries compete with each other to hold international games in their country is that it will attract lot of foreign, domestic as well as foreign institutional investment. This, in turn, will help in modernising and cleaning old urban areas. Airports will be modernized; new malls and buildings will come up in areas where none existed. Roads will be widened and new flyovers and underpasses will come up which will smoothen free flow of vehicular traffic. A number of five-star and three-star hotels and guesthouses will come up to accommodate hundreds and thousands of tourists who will participate in the international games. It will also result in the opening of a number of foreign restaurants and eateries to cater to the eating habits of foreign visitors and local residents. A number of companies will open shops in malls to sell branded goods and services. New jobs will be created and there will be great demand for skilled labour and qualified professionals such as architects, engineers, real-estate developers, financiers, money-changers, tour operators, and so on.
On the face of it, all these developments seem very hunky-dory. But in actual practice, it is plenty of evil disguised as good.
Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher standards of living. It has benefited countries in seeking new markets for their exports and by bringing in lot of foreign investment. But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.
This is not something new. It has already happened in the late nineties in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and Latin American countries. At that time Singapore did not feel the brunt of it because most of its national savings were invested in American bonds and America was the country which benefited most from this crisis.
We are aghast because this is happening for the first time in India and we do not understand the realities of free-market economy.
What then is the solution?
The solution is very simple. Mahatma Gandhi once said that whenever you want to take a decision, imagine yourself looking at the face of the common man of India and ask yourself whether your decision will benefit such a person or not, and the answer to it will help you in arriving at the right decision.
The reason why countries compete with each other to hold international games in their country is that it will attract lot of foreign, domestic as well as foreign institutional investment. This, in turn, will help in modernising and cleaning old urban areas. Airports will be modernized; new malls and buildings will come up in areas where none existed. Roads will be widened and new flyovers and underpasses will come up which will smoothen free flow of vehicular traffic. A number of five-star and three-star hotels and guesthouses will come up to accommodate hundreds and thousands of tourists who will participate in the international games. It will also result in the opening of a number of foreign restaurants and eateries to cater to the eating habits of foreign visitors and local residents. A number of companies will open shops in malls to sell branded goods and services. New jobs will be created and there will be great demand for skilled labour and qualified professionals such as architects, engineers, real-estate developers, financiers, money-changers, tour operators, and so on.
On the face of it, all these developments seem very hunky-dory. But in actual practice, it is plenty of evil disguised as good.
Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher standards of living. It has benefited countries in seeking new markets for their exports and by bringing in lot of foreign investment. But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.
This is not something new. It has already happened in the late nineties in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and Latin American countries. At that time Singapore did not feel the brunt of it because most of its national savings were invested in American bonds and America was the country which benefited most from this crisis.
We are aghast because this is happening for the first time in India and we do not understand the realities of free-market economy.
What then is the solution?
The solution is very simple. Mahatma Gandhi once said that whenever you want to take a decision, imagine yourself looking at the face of the common man of India and ask yourself whether your decision will benefit such a person or not, and the answer to it will help you in arriving at the right decision.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
KEY TO WORLD PEACE
The key to world peace lies in the formation of a World Federal Government.
The World Federal Government should ideally comprise the continents of Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, Australia & New Zealand, and rest of the world.
All members of the WFG should have an equal right to vote.
The Constitution of WFG should have democracy, rule of law, preservation of human rights, equality of opportunity and a secular approach towards social, economic and political ideologies and issues as its basic features.
It should have its own World Federal Army and World Federal Court.
Each continent of the world should have its own World Regional Government comprising Nation States within the continent and a Constitution, Army and Court similar to that of WFG.
In case there is a dispute between one region of the world and another, it should be solved by the WFG. Similarly, if there is a dispute between one Nation State and another within a particular region, it should be solved by the WRG of that particular region alone.
The same pattern should be adopted for States within a Nation State or City States like Singapore.
Special emphasis should be given to Local Self-Government within a State because it is primarily responsible for the welfare of the people at the grass-root level.
There should be strict division of duties and responsibilities among the various units of the WFG.
For example, the WFG should deal with only those issues which are of a global nature, such as world-peace, world environment, world travel, world communications, space research, world health care, world trade, world finance, world broadcasting, poverty alleviation, etc.
The WRG should deal with issues, which are normally dealt with by nation-States with special emphasis on those that relate to language, culture and way of life of the people of that particular region.
Each federating unit will maintain its own police and para military forces, and will be responsible for maintaining peaceful relations among its member States.
The Local Self Government organizations should concern themselves with the basic necessities of life, such as education, housing, job creation, health care, sanitation, water and electricity supply, transport, etc. and the most capable technical and experienced people should be put in charge of such organizations.
At the bottom level, the family should be considered as the basic unit of the WFG and
should be enabled to perform its duties in the most desirable manner.
I believe in this age of advanced technology, internet, television, cell phone, jet planes and bullet trains, we have got the means to lead a peaceful and satisfactory lifestyle, if only we are able to apply our minds in the right direction.
*********
The World Federal Government should ideally comprise the continents of Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, Australia & New Zealand, and rest of the world.
All members of the WFG should have an equal right to vote.
The Constitution of WFG should have democracy, rule of law, preservation of human rights, equality of opportunity and a secular approach towards social, economic and political ideologies and issues as its basic features.
It should have its own World Federal Army and World Federal Court.
Each continent of the world should have its own World Regional Government comprising Nation States within the continent and a Constitution, Army and Court similar to that of WFG.
In case there is a dispute between one region of the world and another, it should be solved by the WFG. Similarly, if there is a dispute between one Nation State and another within a particular region, it should be solved by the WRG of that particular region alone.
The same pattern should be adopted for States within a Nation State or City States like Singapore.
Special emphasis should be given to Local Self-Government within a State because it is primarily responsible for the welfare of the people at the grass-root level.
There should be strict division of duties and responsibilities among the various units of the WFG.
For example, the WFG should deal with only those issues which are of a global nature, such as world-peace, world environment, world travel, world communications, space research, world health care, world trade, world finance, world broadcasting, poverty alleviation, etc.
The WRG should deal with issues, which are normally dealt with by nation-States with special emphasis on those that relate to language, culture and way of life of the people of that particular region.
Each federating unit will maintain its own police and para military forces, and will be responsible for maintaining peaceful relations among its member States.
The Local Self Government organizations should concern themselves with the basic necessities of life, such as education, housing, job creation, health care, sanitation, water and electricity supply, transport, etc. and the most capable technical and experienced people should be put in charge of such organizations.
At the bottom level, the family should be considered as the basic unit of the WFG and
should be enabled to perform its duties in the most desirable manner.
I believe in this age of advanced technology, internet, television, cell phone, jet planes and bullet trains, we have got the means to lead a peaceful and satisfactory lifestyle, if only we are able to apply our minds in the right direction.
*********
Monday, February 20, 2006
Paradox of Our Time
The paradox of our time in history is
That we have taller buildings
But shorter tempers
Wider freeways
But narrow viewpoints
We spend more
But have less
We buy more
But enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families,
More conveniences
But less time
We have more degrees
But less sense
More knowledge
But less judgement
More experts
But less solutions
More medicines
But less wellness.
We have multiplied possessions
But reduced our values
We talk too much,
Love too seldom
And hate too often.
We have learned how to make a living
But not a life
We’ve added years to life,
Not life to years
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back
But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour.
We’ve conquered outer space
But not inner space
We’ve cleaned up the air
But polluted the soul
We’ve split the atom
But not our prejudice
We have higher incomes
But lower morals
We’ve become long on quantity
But short on quality.
These are times of tall men
And short character
Steep profits and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace
But domestic warfare
More leisure but less fun
More kinds of food but less nutrition.
These are the days of two incomes
But more divorces
Of fancier houses
But broken homes.
It is a time when there is much in the show window
And nothing in the stockroom.
That we have taller buildings
But shorter tempers
Wider freeways
But narrow viewpoints
We spend more
But have less
We buy more
But enjoy it less.
We have bigger houses and smaller families,
More conveniences
But less time
We have more degrees
But less sense
More knowledge
But less judgement
More experts
But less solutions
More medicines
But less wellness.
We have multiplied possessions
But reduced our values
We talk too much,
Love too seldom
And hate too often.
We have learned how to make a living
But not a life
We’ve added years to life,
Not life to years
We’ve been all the way to the moon and back
But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour.
We’ve conquered outer space
But not inner space
We’ve cleaned up the air
But polluted the soul
We’ve split the atom
But not our prejudice
We have higher incomes
But lower morals
We’ve become long on quantity
But short on quality.
These are times of tall men
And short character
Steep profits and shallow relationships.
These are the times of world peace
But domestic warfare
More leisure but less fun
More kinds of food but less nutrition.
These are the days of two incomes
But more divorces
Of fancier houses
But broken homes.
It is a time when there is much in the show window
And nothing in the stockroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
