India After Gandhi: Ramchandra Guha

After a pretty long time I am writing about a book. India After Gandhi, by Ramchandra Guha, takes us in the era, which history books in school end at. For most of us, India's history ends with Nehru's famous tryst with destiny speech and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. But, in reality India's history as a nation, begins from 1947, when her existing boundaries and shape came into being.

The book talks about all the major events that have shaped the present situations in the country since 1947.

The enormous tasks and challenges presented by the independence, partition and the British mandate to the princely states of being free to join either union or declare independence from both. The country's first cabinet faced challenges from different directions at the same time. These ranged from rehabilitation of those displaced by the partition; uniting people who were divided along all imaginable lines like religion, caste, language, territory, etc.; presenting to the country a set of rules and regulations that would govern them with fairness and most important of all, food and shelter. 

The book very nicely describes the way Nehru's cabinet negotiated through the amazingly complex maze and labyrinth. Negotiations, persuasions and debates were the only ways used in resolving almost all disputes. Guha describes the challenges faced by the constitutional assembly and the bureaucracy in turning the nation into a democratic society based on universal adult franchise. With the benefit of hindsight that we now have, the book makes us realise how fortunate we were to have leaders of the calibre of Nehru, Ambedkar, S. P. Mookerjee, J. B. Kriplani and others. Nehru's staunch belief in democratic process meant that many of his favourite ideas and views were critically debated and he was constantly ready to accommodate the concerns of the opposition too. Several proposals of his were modified and watered down but each was fiercely debated in Parliament.

The country has never been without challenges. Right from independence, there have been movements aimed at seceding from India, external invasions and internal troubles. The book talks about some of the successes and failures that the nation has seen in this regard. It also talks about the way India went on to build its economy and the push and pull from within about the direction of the development. As we read the book, we realise how leaders with strong grass root connections can actually give a good shape to discussions and debates on various issues. Of course, this has its pitfalls, like Indira Gandhi responding to the masses' disappointment with her infamous garibi hatao slogan. One of the most glaring examples of not being connected to the masses and acting on suggestions of coterie is that of Rajiv Gandhi reversing the Shah Bano judgement and then opening the locks of the Ram temple/Babri masjid in Ayodhya.

Guha also talks about the statesmanship of opposition leaders like J. B. Kriplani, A. B. Vajpayee amongst various others, which sort of makes the reader a little sad when compared to the politicians of the present. He talks of the deterioration in the democratic processes since Indira Gandhi's time, which has continued till date. Increased instances of governments trying to become more populist and trying to enforce their mandates (and views) without thorough discussion in the legislative platforms provided by the constitution. A very pertinent point, which stands out till date, was made by Nehru and is quoted in Guha's book, which sums up the democracy that we are:

 The quality of men who are selected by these modern democratic methods of adult franchise gradually deteriorates because of lack of thinking and the noise of propaganda... He [the voter] reacts to sound and to the din, he reacts to repetition and produces either a dictator or a dumb politician who is insensitive. Such a politician can stand all the din in the world and still remain standing on his two feet and, therefore, he gets selected in the end because the others have collapsed because of the din.

The book ends with the results of the 2004 elections, considering the fact that since 2004 till date it was a contemporary period for Ramchandra Guha, rather than a history. The book is a great reading for those who want to understand the country and its political and economic discourse since 1948. It definitely helps in reshaping our views about the decisions that were taken at that time, which of course continue to affect us till date.

The FDI threat?

The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, finally 'bit the bullet' and announced a slew of economic reform measures. When cornered, even a cat puts up a fight. The government definitely was cornered by a lots of issues. The biggest being fiscal deficits. Now, there may be a big, big controversy and disagreement over how oil companies compute their losses made on sale of diesel, petrol, kerosene and LPG below market prices. But, the point is that these are auditor-approved losses and hence, the government has to compensate for these losses, as they do not allow the oil companies to freely set these. And hence, the government had to raise the price of diesel, as crude price was rising through the summer and almost through the entire year. But, that is not the point of discussion here.

The second, which we would all agree with is the aspect of foods getting destroyed due to lack of adequate storage and distribution infrastructure. Hence, an artificial inflation, when harvest quantities at farms are not drastically short. The government, on its part, failed to erect cold storage facilities, store houses and a flexible policy on farm harvest procurements. For decades, the wholesalers in the agriculture produce market committees (APMCs) have ruled the roost and enjoyed a monopoly in procuring farm produce. The monopoly extended to labour that could be used to load and unload the produce. The farmer was forced to pay for labour to unload his produce. He couldn't get cheaper labour of his own to do the work. These two monopolies- the wholesalers and the APMC labourers- have never worked in favour of the farmers. What more, they are such a strong political force, that very few have dared to take them on. These people have never invested or enabled anybody to invest in infrastructure that will prevent loss of food products between the farm and the fork. The government's monopoly too, has hurt the cause. We keep on hearing about how grains are rotting in granaries and not effectively reaching those who need them. But, will FDI solve this particular problem? I do not think so.

A set of people who would be affected by entry of Wal-Mart, etc. are the kirana shop owners and people whom they employ. But, they have been weathering the heat from players like Big Bazaar, Reliance Fresh, More, etc. Why would they suddenly wilt if Wal-Mart arrives on the scene? As I have said in a previous post, big retail shops tend to sell products in large packaging. E.g. a toothpaste of 200 gm., or three soap-bars together. But, when a city like Mumbai has more than 50% of its population living in slums, are they going to buy from the big retailers? Mind you, many of them are not poor in the perceived sense, but just that they can barely make their ends meet. Most of them, have a monthly credit with the local kirana store. And they buy stuff in small packages. A bar of soap, half-a-kilo of sugar at a time, etc. FDI in retail, if implemented as seen in North America and Europe, is not going to help these marginal families.

A bigger issue that should be of worry to many, is the accounting practices of many of the wholesalers and kirana store owners. Never, do we get a receipt, with its sales tax and VAT numbers. Most of the sales accounting is done on a piece of newsprint quality paper. So, many of us, of the salaried class, whose income taxes are routinely cut even before we get to see our pay-check should be definitely worried if these kirana stores are paying the taxes that are due. Will the big-box retailers be honest enough to pay their taxes? May be not 100%, but compliance would be way better than the kirana stores. If you haven't noticed, do check the receipts you get from stores like Big Bazaar, D'Mart, etc. They do carry a CST/BST number and VAT registration number and the sales do get recorded into their accounting system. Kirana stores have, for long, not modernised their business practices. If they do not, then they would definitely lose business to the big-box retailers, whether Indian or foreign.

Finally, is the government in a looking-London-talking-Tokyo mode? There was a time when the unions of employees of leading national banks went on strike, refusing computerisation in banks. They feared that this would lead to job losses. They pressurised the banks into agreeing on a fixed pace of computerisation, which was so slow that banks would never have achieved computerisation in a reasonable time-frame. To get over this, the government allowed private banks into the market. These had completely new labour, free from the union tactics of nationalised banks' employees. They introduced a slew of computerisation and digitisation in their working, which made banking easy. People flocked to them in large numbers. This scenario made the unions of public banks realise that if their branches are not computerised fast enough, they would any way lose business and customers. And after two decades of allowing private banks, government banks are still competing and flourishing, only because their employees chose to adapt. Similarly, is the government forcing the wholesalers and kirana owners into modernising their business practices through another way? Ghee seedhi ungali se nahi nikal raha, to ungali tedhi karni hi padati hai.

Finally, is FDI in retail going to benefit anybody? It is definitely a double-edged sword. Consumers may get better quality stuff at cheaper rates. Producers may get better deals. But all depends on how honestly is the policy implemented and how honestly is the implementation tracked to achieve its stated goals.

Privatising health care: A planning commission proposal

The Planning Commission of India came up with a radical proposal to move the mechanism of managing and delivering primary healthcare from the government to a select network of private organisations. Though this is still a proposal and the final outcome may differ, it is a dangerous move. Of course, we agree that the current government handled system of primary health care is in shambles, but then privatisation is not the answer to improvement of services.

The Planning Commission, instead of suggesting a sustainable mechanism of improving easy accessibility to and availability of healthcare, wants the government to get out of it to a large extent. Instead, it wants the these activities outsourced to the private sector!! Nothing could go far wrong from that. Do you think any private sector healthcare provider would want to invest in remote and rural areas? The Planning Commission wants the healthcare centres modelled along the lines of those in the US and Mexico. But do you know that around 50 million people in the USA are uninsured and hence, do not have access to healthcare. That amounts to 16 % of the population in a country which is the world's largest economy. Did the concept of 'managed care' (as defined in the Planning Commission's draft) help assure access to healthcare?

The health industry in India itself is testimony to the fact that the private sector isn't interested in spreading into areas which are not financially viable. So, we see big hospital chains only in metro cities. The small towns and villages are served either by small individually operated hospitals or government ones. Of course, I am not asking super specialty facilities in every town, but that's the point. Run a search through the internet and you will find thousands of instances where private hospitals have not reserved beds for treating the poor people free of cost, despite this being mandated by law and Supreme Court judgements. And we want to leave basic health care in the hands of the private enterprise?

Another case is about drug research. The pharma industry too has been spending millions of dollars (rupees, pounds, etc.) on developing drugs that cure lifestyle diseases, but very very few are involved in discovering medicines for T.B., which kills thousands of poor every year!! This is a fact and can be searched easily on the internet. The point I am trying to make is that the private sector, by definition, will be looking to maximise its return on investment. Hence, they are not going to willingly venture into areas where they see losses or no return on capital!

We in India hail the telecom sector as an example of what privatisation achieved. Sure, we have the lowest call rates in the world, sure mobile usage has peaked and reached various corners of the country. But, this was partially fuelled by the government's decision to give spectrum at affordable cost. And still, many taluka headquarters aren't served by anyone else other than BSNL! Forget remote places, but on the popular beach of Ladghar in Dapoli (Ratnagiri, Maharashtra), the only network they ever receive is BSNL's (March 2012). Moreover, when it comes to customer service (and especially billing disputes), most readers would agree that the private sector is as good (or bad) as BSNL. So much for the private sector's achievements.

The Health Ministry has rightly torn into the Planning Commission's proposal and the furious uproar has led to the Commission saying that these are proposals and not final action plans. I hope this is not implemented. It will be the beginning of a dark era in primary health care. And till now, I haven't even talked about what the unholy nexus between private parties and those in the government can possibly do to see that the private sector is not unnecessarily burdened with the social objectives of the government. That would lead to a cheap game of playing with the lives of the vulnerable people.

I am waiting for P. Sainath to say something about this. It would turn out to be a wonderful piece by him.

RTE and the government's responsibilities

With the Supreme Court of India upholding the constitutional validity of the Right to Education (RTE) Act (2009), many human rights' and social organisations are cheering out loud. This, they say, will allow children of economically weaker sections to study in private schools, where tuition costs are definitely higher and perhaps not affordable to all those who are meritorious enough to deserve them. But, the main hurdle, like all other laws of our country, is how to effectively implement this act. The implementation should not unduly burden those students' parents who are legitimately paying their wards' fees, through their hard-earned (and well deserved) salaries. How will the government ensure this?

The government imposes a 2% education cess on all the taxes that we pay (income tax, service tax, etc.). Thus, all those who pay taxes, are already sharing a certain amount of the burden. So, isn't the ball now in the government's court, to put this money to its stated use? If schools begin to pass the burden of those students whom they admit under the RTE Act provisions to the others who have already paid full fees, this situation will lead to double taxation on the families. The Minister for HRD, Kapil Sibal, has said 

...under the RTE Act schools which have not taken any benefit from the government will be compensated by the government...

 But, what has not yet been clarified is what would constitute these 'benefits'. Most education institutes have received land at concessional rates from the government. This is the basic government policy, so that infrastructure costs get lowered and the cost of education does not spiral skywards. Thus, the government has to clearly list the items which would render a school ineligible for such compensation. In the Times of India, HRD Minister Kapil Sibal has written

Reimbursement provided by government, therefore, will be adequate to meet the costs of educating children from weaker sections in such schools. But states must put in place open and transparent systems, preferably online, for reimbursement in a time bound and efficient manner.

Granted that the institutes will be reimbursed student expenditure at a rate decided by the government. But, what is the guarantee that records will not be fudged? Though Mr. Sibal says that most education institutes are run by charitable and religious trusts, many such trusts are headed by politicians, who were part of formulating the RTE Act. Recently, the Maharashtra government decided to conduct an actual head count of the number of students enrolled in government-aided schools. Unsurprisingly, it found that the head count was inflated, in some cases, by more than thrice the actual number of students attending, thereby siphoning government money into the pockets of the schools (and 'charitable' trusts). With these charitable trusts being headed by political persons, we can now realise, where the government's money goes.

In many countries (especially in the developed ones), school education is the state's responsibility. The provincial government runs the schools and functions like the educational institutes in our country. Thus, with the government partially (or fully) subsidising primary education, this reduces the financial stress on parents. Providing education is definitely the responsibility of the government. This has been the case since the beginning of civilisation. In ancient India, education of all sorts received infrastructure and operating support from the state. The sages built and lived in ashrams, which were developed with help from the king/emperor. Universities used to run on support from the empire and the wealthy in the community. This is because an educated society definitely has a better outlook towards life. Educated people can take informed decisions and also realise what it takes to lead a better life. That is why education should be a social issue, not a privilege. By asking unaided schools to share the government's burden the government is trying to shrug off its responsibility. Instead, it should improve and strengthen the government-run schools by introducing better infrastructure and increasing the accountability of the teachers employed.

My experiences with the Maharaja

Photograph ©: Vinay Bavdekar

It was conference time, and since I was being funded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, it was compulsory for me to travel Air India, at least till its hub in a foreign country. Beyond the hub, I was free to travel any airline, preferably a code-sharing partner of the Maharaja.  I was flying international with the Maharaja for the second time. Last time too, I had taken Air India to travel to Frankfurt and back.

I had to fly to Hangzhou in China. Air India said that I would have to fly to Hong Kong and from there to Hangzhou. The Maharaja would drop me in Hong Kong and from there I was supposed to fly any other airline. It turned out that if I were to book any other airline, my ticket would have been way cheaper than that it cost me on Air India. Why does this happen, I do not know? But, since DST had agreed to pay me whatever it costs, I didn't have to worry too much. It turned out that even Cathay Pacific is cheaper than Air India.

Most of Air India's international flights now begin from Delhi. New Delhi T-3 has become the hub for Air India's flight operations. Many flights routes have been converted into via Delhi routes. So, although my flight was numbered AI-310, I had to fly to Delhi on a Airbus aircraft (possibly an erstwhile Indian Airlines aircraft used for domestic operations). The Mumbai-Delhi leg was pleasant. The flight took off after a 20 minute delay. However, AI staff announced this well in time, so that we didn't have to keep wondering what happened to the aircraft. AI should retire its Airbus A320 fleet. The aircraft looks aged, the interiors speak volumes of its age. When most aircraft (including AI's new Boeing fleet) are donning white coloured interiors (not seats), the A320 has yellow interiors, which makes the atmosphere seem dull. Anyways, once that's out of the way, I enjoyed the flight, except for the toilets, which were stinking like those on railway stations. The food was good, and most importantly, the flight landed in Delhi 5 minutes before the scheduled time. Delhi-Hong Kong was on AI's new Boeing 777. The interiors were well maintained. The ambiance is way better than the A320, with soothing lighting and spacious seats. The in-flight entertainment system was functioning well, with new headphones kept in the seat-pockets. The movie stock was nice and the music collection, too, was great. The crew was mild mannered and polite. The air hostess in our part of the flight deck was extremely polite and tried to cater to passenger demands with utmost care. The flight took off on time and landed in Hong Kong 20 minutes before its scheduled time of arrival.

After the conference, on my return leg from Hong Kong to Mumbai, it was again time to be served by the Maharaja. This was against the back drop of the news when oil companies had refused to give fuel to AI aircraft, because AI hadn't cleared their bills. My worry was whether we would be able to even take-off from Hong Kong. But, we did take off on time. Here again, the crew was well-dressed, well-groomed, strict, yet polite and mild mannered. At this point, I would like to point towards the behaviour of passengers. Almost everyone in the flight were Indian citizens or persons of Indian origin. A Gujarati family, the moment they entered the flight, started saying "Air India hai, kuch bhi ho sakta hai", on anything that didn't happen as per their desire.  The desire might have been completely impractical or misplaced. E.g. when dinner was delayed due to turbulence, they got agitated and restarted their rhetoric against AI. A kid (hardly 5 years old) of the family told her father that she had been given non-vegetarian food. The father immediately began a rant against the steward without any verification. The steward just looked and said, "Sir vegetarian hi to diya hai, aap khud hi dekh lijiye."  After sometime, another passenger got drunk and began creating nuisance. Because of his nuisance, I couldn't concentrate on my movie. When the steward tried to calm things down, the drunk passenger became more abusive. At this moment, the senior steward stepped in and gave a nice mouth lashing to the passenger, who really deserved it. It also perhaps helped in sobering him down.

For the Delhi-Mumbai leg, we had to change aircraft and we were back into the A320. When boarding in Hong Kong, we were allotted seat numbers on our boarding passes. But when we entered the plane, we were told it is free seating. The saying, "Early bird catches the worm", worked well for me. I was the third person to enter the aircraft and got into the seat that was printed on my boarding card. The later ones faced problems and there was a lot of chaos that led to the flight taking off almost 20 minutes late. Families got separated, those allotted window seats insisted on having one, and those who didn't find a favourable seat walked into the business class as a protest. AI should have managed this better. They should know before hand, what aircraft would be pressed into service. Seat configurations are different even for different A320s. Or else, allot seat numbers only after the aircraft is finalised. This would have helped saved passengers a good 20 minutes apart from the troubles and agitations that they had to face. At Mumbai airport too, the aircraft was not parked at an aero-bridge, but in the parking bay of AI aircraft. This bay, is closer to Kalina side, whereas the airport terminal is at Sahar side (i.e. Andheri side). We were ferried across in a bus.

All in all, it was a mixed experience. The flight performance was good, almost on time everywhere. The crew did behave well, with me at least. Considering the fact that they know the dire straits in which the airline is and that their future is completely dependent on the whims and fancies of certain IAS officers and central government ministers, rather than strategic business decisions. But some mismanagement on the airport side, caused stress to certain passengers. And I didn't have to worry about food. Moreover, the route is inconvenient. Why ferry everyone to Delhi and then take them out of the country? Another flip side is that AI hasn't yet joined Star Alliance, which means passengers are bereft of benefits such as seamless connectivity, accruing travel miles for travelling partner airlines, etc. But so is the case with Jet Airways and Kingfisher, India's other two international airlines. Once this happens, it would be even better flying with India's airlines.

IITs propose to hike fees by five-fold

In a recent news by rediff.com, there is a story that IITs have proposed to increase the fees for the UG degree course by five times. The proposal says that this will allow IITs to become independent of government funding and hence more autonomous. The committee headed by Dr. Kakodkar made this proposal to the government. The committee based its recommendations on the way IIMs charge fees in which, course-oriented degree programmes are financed completely by the students and research-oriented programmes are funded through various sources, like MHRD, DST, other government organisations and private industries.

But, how much justified is this? In another report, that appeared in the Times of India, the logic used was that one-third expenses should come from students, one-third from government and one-third generated through research projects. And there is a provision for extending low-interest loans to economically backward students. However, unlike foreign universities, where scholarships and tuition waiver are given to certain students, the committee doesn't make any mention of the same to students coming to IIT. Scholarships  in foreign universities are based on various criteria, ranging from academic excellence, sports excellence to ethnic origin. IITs already extend tuition waiver, free accommodation and free basic messing to students from the SC and ST category, irrespective of their economic status. Why don't they apply the economic backwardness criteria to these students?  If their parents are economically well to do, why should they be extended such privileges.  And there is nothing in store for meritorious students. Additionally, in foreign universities, the students have the opportunity to work on campus and earn some money to substitute their living expenses. The way IIT curriculum is designed today, it leaves the students with very less time to work and earn some money. Also, there exist no opportunities on IIT campuses, where students can be employed as part-timers. IITs, ironically, pride on the fact that their course structure is so intense that students have to over-work and under-sleep to stay on track.

Another point, the committee's report doesn't mention is the plan to increase revenues through research projects and technology licensing. Research projects, currently, are mainly available through government agencies like DST, DRDO, BRNS, etc. So, indirectly it is the government and tax-payer who are funding the research work. Contribution for research and consultancy projects through private industries is very low, when compared to the government sources. How do the IITs plan to change this scenario? Will there be an increase in contribution towards research from private firms and endowments? And, what about earning through technology licensing? How much do IITs currently earn through technology licensing? Will the committee set any reasonable revenue targets from technology licensing that IITs should aim to achieve?

And finally, IITs should reduce the stuff they dole out for free. Through its Centre for Distance Engineering Education Programme (CDEEP), IIT Bombay transmits its courses for free to institutes that are interested in beaming those to their students. Similarly, other IITs too have such distance education programmes. The question is, when IIT students pay fees to attend these courses, why should others view it for free? Why doesn't IIT charge them too for it? If financial autonomy is desired in running degree courses, then such free doling should be completely brought to a halt

To sum it up, costs of education have increased. But,the government has to play its role in keeping the cost incurred by students at a reasonable level. Schemes to bring in meritorious students should be there in place, in form on scholarships and not only low-interest loans. IITs can augment its earnings through other sources too, but there needs to be concrete planning to enhance those earnings. And finally, esteemed individuals and trusts in the Indian society should try and create endowments or chairs in IITs, rather than donating money to foreign universities. This would definitely attract some talent to the IITs.

Junior Sardi-man's unabashed pro-Cong opinion

Ever since the trial court in Bhopal has delivered its judgement on the gas-leak case, everybody has begun writing his or her own opinions about it. And the million dollar question is, "Who was responsible to let Warren Anderson go scot free?" For twenty four odd years, nobody has bothered to ask this question. But now, suddenly, everyone seems to have woken up to the fact that Andersen was whisked away in a government car and taken to Delhi in a government plane.

Fingers are being pointed from then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Arjun Singh, to then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and then External Affairs minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. But, the fact is we shall never know who truly helped secure a free passage for Andersen.

One of the conspiracy theories doing the rounds is that Ronald Reagan called up Rajiv Gandhi and pressurised him to release Andersen. Rajiv Gandhi's supporters have come out in his defense stating that such a thing never happened. And those who believe in this conspiracy theory say that Rajiv could have done nothing, except accede to Reagan's demands, because the US was a superpower at that time and the USSR was on the verge of a collapse. One such person, is the ever pro-Congress Rajdeep Sardesai. In his blog titled "Denials, Contradictions and Bhopal tragedy", he says

If the decision was taken by Rajiv Gandhi - and it is impossible to believe that a prime minister would be unaware of it - then it was one of the wiser decisions he took. You can blame Rajiv for opening the Babri Masjid gates, for allegedly conniving in rigging elections in the Kashmir valley in 1987, for his handling of the LTTE problem - all issues which had disastrous consequences - but on the Anderson question in Bhopal, he probably took the right option.

Moreover, 1984 represented the high noon of American 'exceptionalism' - the belief that the United States alone has the right to bring civilization, or democracy to the rest of the world. With Ronald Reagan as President, the US military-industrial complex was dominant and on the verge of winning the Cold War. A country beset with internal strife and a Hindu rate of growth could scarcely have challenged a mighty superpower. If Reagan did ring up Rajiv as has been suggested and ask for Anderson to be released, then letting him go was a pragmatic decision taken in the best national interest at the time.

Well, so junior Sardi-man feels that Rajiv was pragmatic in releasing Andersen, because India was too weak to stand the might of the Americans. Did someone tell him about Cuba and the Bay of Pigs saga? A tiny country beat the hell out of forces trained by the USA. Even Iran, which is facing economic hardships, is resisting the US. Then, why is it that India couldn't bear the brunt of US anger? Are we so weak, to meekly surrender before the US? Sardi-man says that our economy wasn't strong, there was internal strife. I agree to that situation. But then, Rajiv's decision of releasing Andersen, if taken under the above circumstances, is still wrong. Why is he trying to find the "right" things about Rajiv's decision, when it cannot be absolutely justified. And, what was the guarantee, that despite releasing Andersen, the US would not have adversely acted against India? Particularly, when it has a track record of attacking allies after the purpose has been served. After all, Reagan didn't send a written note through official channels. Just an alleged conversation over the phone. But Sardi-man tries to valiantly protect Rajiv Gandhi. And he of course, asks a good question in the end, but not without blaming the BJP

The fact also is that both Congress and BJP have ruled Madhya Pradesh since 1984, the Congress for a lengthy 19 years. If you travel through Bhopal's JP Nagar colony where more than 300 people died and several more were affected by permanent limb and respiratory diseases, its apparent no government has made a serious effort to reach out to the victims. When two years ago, some of them held a dharna outside the prime minister's residence, they were whisked away and spent a week in Tihar jail. Who let Anderson out is a red herring, the real question to ask is: why did it take 26 years for the Indian state to wake up to the plight of Bhopal?

Well, Rajdeep, your intentions are good, but why do you always try to soften the blow on the Congress and more specifically, the Gandhis?

Ripping the Fabric, The Decline of Mumbai and its Mills: Darryl D'Monte

Realms of paper, hours, days and years of policy making (or changing), scores of protests have been spent analysing, dissecting and brooding over the Mumbai mills and its workers. Most of these point at the great textile strike of 1982 as the reason for decline of the mills. What has been made popular is that the workers were responsible for the decline, as they struck work in difficult times.

Darryl D'Monte's book is a refreshing change. D'Monte takes a holistic view of what caused the decline of Mumbai's production industry. The only problem (probably) is that D'Monte focusses on what has been done to make use of mill land, now that the mills have closed down. So, for those who are looking at what has been the effect of the 1982 strike on workers' lives, you will be disappointed.

D'Monte points out all that was wrong with the government- both state level and central-- policies that triggered the downfall of the manufacturing industry in Mumbai. He points out that the socialist India's policy of promoting handloom and cottage industry was the starting point of declining of mills. Organised mills, like the ones in Mumbai, were placed with restrictions that didn't allow them to compete freely in the market. On the other hand, unorganised powerlooms sprung up in the villages as cottage industries, which didn't have workers' unions, and used government policies to undercut the mills. Coupled with this, was the Maharashtra government's policy to not allow mills to expand but ask them to setup industries in the backward areas to develop those places.

Then, there were the mill owners, who did not reinvest the profits they earned, for modernising and improving productivity of the mills. Instead, they gave way hefty dividends to shareholders (of which, they were the largest). As time went by and as machinery became technologically backward, it made economic sense for mill owners to shut it down and sell off the land.

And last of all, the political parties. In 1946, the Bombay Industrial Relations (BIR) Act ruled that there would be only one union, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS), that would be allowed to represent all the mill workers. This union went into the control of the Congress, which was the ruling party of the day. And slowly, corruption crept into the union and union officers started colluding with the mill owners. D'Monte highlights the case of Khatau Mills, where the owner, Sunit Khatau, engineered the defeat of sitting mill president and brought in a person of his choice. This was done so that the new president would consent the sale of the mill's land in Byculla and Khatau would restart the mill with a reduced number of workers.

Now that the mills were closed, and the government and mill owners not interested in getting it started, what can be done with the mills? The mill redevelopment policy came in too late. By that time, even genuinely interested owners had lost the zeal to restart the mills. D'Monte goes into details of all the studies- official as well as unofficial- that have been done to make use of the mill land. Mill land measures upto 600 acres, and that too in the heart of Mumbai, most of it in Lalbag, Parel. He points out how different studies recommend using land for setting up convention centres, five-star hotels, hospitals, developing commercial spaces and open public spaces. The money from the proceeds were to be used to pay the workers. But, most of these plans do not address, what can be done to restore the workers' jobs? Only a few mention using the mill buildings to run non-polluting industries, where workers should be re-trained to take such jobs. The book points out to the rise of the underworld, which found its foot soldiers and bosses from the ex-workers in the mills. With no jobs coming their way, they joined the underworld to make money and help families survive.

D'Monte also describes the unscrupulousness of the mill owners, who twisted the redevelopment policy to make money out of selling the land. Like showing that they didn't have 15% open space and selling the land off. Then, demolishing a few buildings and selling it off further. Phoenix Mills owners, the Ruias, even went to the extent of setting up a bowling alley and spa in the mill compound, after telling the BIFR that, it was the workers who have demanded these 'recreation facilities'. Naturally, workers are angered by such plans , as the areas that they once worshipped as their workplace, were being turned into amusement and entertainment areas. And they didn't have any place in these plans.

D'Monte closes with what can be done about the docklands in Mumbai, which too occupy large swathes of lands that may come up for development. He points out that since this land belongs to the public (government), there should be an all inclusive plan to develop it. Left to the market forces, this would see nothing but commercial structures and high rises for the rich coming up in the place of the docks. While this has happened with the mills, something needs to be done to prevent further use of land by speculators and realtors. The public needs to have something for it as the government has doled out enough concessions to all the industries in Mumbai.

After reading this book, we realise that the mill workers were least responsible for closure of the mills. It was a lethal combination of flawed government policy on priorities for industries, unscrupulous mill owners, corrupt union and politicians tying up with the mill owners to grab their share of the pie in the mill land. The hapless worker became a mere spectator in the bigger game for the mill lands.

Don't want India, but want luxurious treatment by India

On very rare occasions, tabloids print useful news in their papers. And their reputation is what makes sure that such items are read by few amongst the serious newspaper readers. E.g., today's Mumbai Mirror carried a piece of news that should rattle every patriotic Indian and ask the government some serious questions. But, I'm doubtful about how many would ever read that.

Hurriyat chairman wants stylish jeep

This is the headline carried by MM. Now, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has allegedly asked for a swanky bullet proof jeep to go around in the Kashmir valley and rejected the government-offered bullet proof vehicle. So, Mr. Farooq wants to enjoy the hospitality of India and at the same time rant about separating from India. No country would have allowed this. In U.P., if you do anything against Mayawati, by word or action, your security is reduced to a lower grade with immediate effect. But, these separatist leaders have received threats from militants and infact Fazal Haq Qureshi was even shot at. So, our generous government decided to protect the very men who wanted to separate J&K from us. And these people have shamelessly accepted the security of that very establishment against whom they are agitating from autonomy, independence, etc. How can these people even dare to betray their morals? If they want to separate from India, they shouldn't accept the country's security measures. Let Mirwaiz buy his own bullet-proof vehicle. Since he is fighting the state, let him also arrange for his own security and not use the state's forces. How can they fight for independence from India and at the same time, enjoy luxuries bought and paid for by the Indian taxpayers' money?

Dear Shri Sibal Sahab

Dear Shri Kapil Sibal Sahab,

Namaskar! From a student who is studying in an IIT. It does not matter which IIT I am in, but it is a matter of concern to see my institute in the news for some very saddening reasons. That the professors are feeling short-changed due to the pay structure announced by the sixth-pay commission and the huge controversy it is snow-balling into, is not good for the institutes' academic health.

Sibal sahab, I do not know whether you have personally interacted with the IIT faculty or any of their representatives over this issue. I am getting to know things only through the newspapers I read. But, the manner in which rules have been framed and announced, defy logic to a large extent. E.g., you said that only 40% of the Professors will be eligible for special grade pay. This, according to you is to increase the quality and to ensure that only those who meet benchmarks are eligible. How are we going to evaluate two different professors who work in different areas? The use of research output as a benchmark is not good, as some research work has a longer gestation time, before it can show results. What is the 40% figure? Is it 40% of the entire faculty of IIT or 40% of the professors in every department? This will at some point boil down to the number of papers published by a faculty or the number of patents filed. But Sibal sahab, this might actually cause a loss in focus of the faculty, as they begin focussing more on papers, rather than quality work.

Another proposal from your ministry (and probably yourself too) is that IITs should start increasing the fees and reduce subsidies. This, would be the proverbial last nail in the coffin. Today, IIT education being affordable attracts a lot of meritorious students, irrespective of their economic backgrounds. At the Masters' and Doctoral level, many of them manage to sustain themselves through their stipends alone. No good institute can function without the generous support of the government. If you go back in history, the best universities of their era, the Takshashila and Patliputra Universities, were supported by the kings and the wealthy of their time. They attracted scholars from all over the world at that time. So, if you force the IITs to increase fees and reduce subsidies, then you might end up restricting their access only to those who can afford IITs not who actually deserve them. Look at Germany. Their entire higher education is sponsored by the federal government. And they have one of the finest research institutes in the world. So, government support is not a lost cause.

Sibal sahab, those who compete for and get through IITs are mostly students of the middle class families. Students of bank clerks, managers, a babu working in your department strive to get through the JEE or GATE exams, so that they can develop themselves by gaining access to the best resources in India. Even the children of the lower middle class aspire to get into an IIT. The rich or super-rich manage to send their children to universities abroad, paying thousands of dollars as fees. This, is simply not possible in India and you know it very well.

Over the years, especially after independence, many universities and colleges have declined in the quality of the work and services that they provide. Many colleges haven't recruited permanent teaching staff for more than 10 years. But, IITs have consistently managed to raise the bar and improve the quality of the output. You cannot allow IITs to go downhill. This has been possible because of a careful selection process that every IIT has for selecting faculty.

Your ministry has also written to the IITs to reduce expenditure on travelling, supplies and library procurements. Already, laboratories are forced to procure sundry stuff, such as glassware, regular chemicals, etc. through the contingency funds of the Ph.D. students. Contingency funds were supposed to help students deal with their research contingencies. Instead, they are forgoing it for sundry supplies. From where else should a laboratory cut corners? A Ph.D. student gets to travel to an international conference only once during his/her tenure as a research scholar. These conferences help a student to network, seek good post-doctoral opportunities and also job offers. They offer a place to dissect research work and see if it can be improved upon. Do you want to cut this down too? The funding, as it is, is not even enough to purchase a return ticket of the economy class for the cheapest flying route. The students have to apply to atleast two-three organisations, before they have sufficient money to travel to the conference and get back to India. Sibal sahab, if you managed to rent out your Luytens' Road residence at market rate, you may manage to fund the travel of atleast five students every year.

Finally, you have said in various interviews that since the government is providing 100% funding, it is the government's right to put in place rules and regulations as it is answerable to the Parliament. Isn't the same true with DRDO? Doesn't the government fund DRDO completely? Isn't the government answerable to the Parliament for the work of the DRDO? Yet, no one seems to be asking DRDO to cut down its expenditure. Nor putting stricter norms in place to maintain the "quality" of DRDO officers and scientists. Almost 30 years have passed, Sibal sahab, since the Arjun tank projected commenced. Yet, the DRDO is not able to meet the Army's specifications. Don't you think that the DRDO should be evaluated in a similar manner that the IITs are? The CAG has several times castigated the DRDO in regard to its way of handling projects. Yet, no one ever put such caps on grade pay in DRDO. Then, why is the restriction being enforced on IIT? If the government is answerable to the Parliament, then why has the ministry issued directions to hire M.Techs. at lecturer position and reserved 10% of the sanctioned positions for lecturers? I heard that this order was subsequently withdrawn, but why was such an order was given in the first place? Do you increase the bar, or bring it down. On one hand you want to ensure quality by restricting grade pay. On the other hand you want Masters' students to take care of teaching students. Are these two activities not conflicting with your goal of nurturing future Nobel Prize winners?

Sibal sahab, no one at IIT is asking for the sky. All people want is to be treated with dignity and a set of processes that allow a researcher to focus on his/her work. Did you ever think of introducing procedures and enforcing them in the various administrative departments of IITs? Do you know, how much time and energy a student loses every year if he/she ever gets into dealing with the administrative staff of IIT? Please try to look into that too. If you are able to improve the functioning of the administration, you will end up providing a much favourable ambience in the institute. Then, you may not even need to look at cutting funds, as they will be utilised efficiently.

I may have argued on the surface and not touched upon things in great detail. But still, I would urge you to re-think on the decisions that you have made, and in future, keep IITs in the news for what they are best known for- education and research.

Thank You,

A student at an IIT