The top 5 myths about the Food Security Bill

Myth #1: The Food Subsidy Bill is an epochal event - a 'game changer'

• Truth #1: The food subsidy bill is a reformed Public Distribution System (PDS), and some more (lactating and pregnant women, hunger allowance etc). In that sense, it can be called PDS+. The core of the program is the same as the existing PDS - a part of the population is entitled to highly subsidised foodgrains (earlier only wheat and rice; now including millets) which are provided by Fair Price Shops (FPS) across the country.

• Truth #2: The PDS has been in existence, in one form or the other, for the majority of our country's life since independence. We have tried several different versions of the PDS - targeted, universal and then back to targeted. Life's come a full circle, since the food subsidy bill is taking us back to a near-universal coverage.

• Truth #3: The significant departures of the FSB from the PDS are four-fold: (1) inclusion of millets - in my opinion, a long-due and impactful step (2) recognition of PDS food as a right - always existed but good to put it on paper (3) women to be holders of ration cards - was probably true in-practice even earlier, but women's agency within the household is further strengthened (4) equality of prices for rich and poor - this is seen to lead to higher efficiency because of reduced potential of cross-selling.

Myth #2: The Food Subsidy will destroy our fiscal stability

• Truth #1: The food subsidy bill is not astronomically more expensive than the existing PDS. The existing food subsidy bill crossed 1 lakh crore rupees sometime in the early 2010s. The food subsidy bill (which will subsume the existing PDS) is expected to cost somewhere around 1.25 lakh crores. It is a ~25% increase; surely a significant increase, but not one that is going to break India's back.

• Truth #2: The food subsidy burden (PDS + others) has been stable around 0.6-0.8% since when my generation was both. Even a 25% increase in the burden is going to take us to ~1% of GDP. I'm not saying these are small numbers; all I'm saying is that we've been living with these large numbers for a long time and we've both grown, and stagnated, with these numbers. Let's not portray the food subsidy as a cataclysmic event.

• Truth #3: Today I read news reports that India's debt to GDP ratio has gone below 70%. So, we've been reducing our debt/GDP ratio significantly in recent times. Also, debt/GDP ratio in India is lower than in several other major economics; in fact, it is close to the 60% that is required to be a part of the EU. India's fiscal situation is not alarmingly bad.

Myth #3: The bill is throwing money down a dysfunctional drain

• Truth #1: The PDS efficiency is estimated to be around 40% by various agencies. This is extremely poor, but does not compare too badly with existing cash transfers in India. Most Government programs show a similar efficiency level. The argument can then be made that the Government should withdraw from provision. Instead, I make an argument similar to the infant industry argument - live with an inefficient system, improve governance and then reap the benefits later.

• Truth #2: The PDS has worked very well in states such as Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Chattisgarh. The efficiency of the PDS in Tamil Nadu (where everyone - poor or rich, is entitled to 20kg) is above 90%. Hence, the PDS is a leaky drain that can be, and has been, fixed.

Myth #4: There is no point giving rice and wheat, instead of more nutritious food

• Truth #1: In any country, cereals are the cheapest sources of calories and proteins. Giving subsidised rice and wheat ensures that a minimum part of a person's daily needs are met.

• Truth #2: Cereals are the least perishable of foods, and hence best suited for long-distance transportation. The food security bill, in fact, is a positive step in that it goes beyond wheat and rice, and includes millets, which are lower than wheat and rice.

• Truth #3: By giving subsidised cereals to people, the Government is saving them a lot of money. This money can then be used by the households to diversify their food basket. Instead, if the Government were to transfer fruits and vegetables, then wastage would be much higher. Hence, the design and intent is to transfer the most efficient food and then let people save up and buy their own stuff.

Myth #5: The Government should restrict itself to creating jobs

• Truth #1: In an ideal situation, this argument works. But India is unable to create jobs for different reasons - primary among them being labour laws. Instead of arguing against food subsidy at this stage, argue for labour and land reforms and then talk about phasing out food subsidy.

• Truth #2: Wages as a percentage of productivity in every sector has declined in the past few years - i.e. lesser and lesser of our growth is being distributed in the population as wages. The growth we've been seeing is increasingly less inclusive. We can't wait till food reaches the poorest guy by trickling down. More active intervention is needed.

• Truth #3: Food is different from other goods and services because it is a fundamental human need. I believe that principally, something as basic as food cannot be left to economic systems, which are falling. Economic systems have shifted from feudalism to capitalism and might shift further. We cannot let the vagaries of our economics affect human lives. Practically, the Government is also the owner of all water in the country - hence, extend the same principle to food and the Government's intervention in food markets is not only justified, but also necessary.

Was Gandhi a Marxist?

This article was published in Satya 2013, annual journal of Gandhi Study Circle, St. Stephen's College.

Was Gandhi a Marxist? This question arises from the fact that both Gandhi and Marx had similar views. Gandhi fought against caste, race and various other social sufferings. He fought against economic exploitation and oppression of the poor by the rich. Marx fought against political subjugation and oppressed humanity in his own way. According to him, capitalism, where the workers are exploited is an unstable system and leads to crises.

Their views were similar but not identical. Gandhi’s approach was quite different from that of Marx. Both of them believed that social conflicts existed because of disparities between the rich and the poor. But, they differed on their views on how the conflicts would be resolved. Marx believed in revolutionary means while Gandhi believed in reformist means.

To elaborate further, Marx’s Dialectical Materialism explains his views regarding class struggles. According to Marx, it is the internal contradictions within the system that brings about a change. The people who are being exploited will organize themselves together and revolt. This revolution would abolish the existing class structure. The English Revolution and The French Revolution are the examples of how revolutions took place because of internal contradictions and finally led to the emergence of a capitalist class.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” – Karl Marx

Gandhi, on the other hand, found class struggles to be quite superficial. His approach to resolving conflicts was through non-violence and Satyagraha. However, there is certain inconsistency in what he believed. On one hand he believed in harmonious co-operation between the poor and the rich, labour and capital and landlords and tenants. On the other hand, he also believed in struggling against exploitation.

According to Gandhi, the struggle against exploitation, unlike what Marx believed, will not take place through bloody revolutions, but through non-cooperation. If the workers can come together in the form of trade unions and refuse to co-operate with the capitalists, then they will be able to control the supply of labour. The capitalists will be forced to increase their wages. In Marxian terminology, Reserve Army of Labour is the biggest hindrance to the increase in wages and Gandhi believed that the only way to overcome this was non-cooperation.

"The idea of class war does not appeal to me. In India a class war is not inevitable, but it is avoidable if we have understood the message of nonviolence.” – Gandhi

What makes me believe that Gandhism is irrelevant today is the fact that people have become excessively self-centred and they are involved in an unending pursuit of acquiring more and more at the cost of the others. Gandhi believed in the mutual love between the labour and the capital. He wanted to convert the capitalists – the exploiters, which he thought could be done only through non-violence and Satyagraha. His theory of trusteeship was based on moral transformation of the capitalists, but we know that in today’s world, people do not give away their wealth (acquired through exploitation of labour and the poor) listening to moral preaching.

What Gandhi wanted to achieve was to educate and awaken the masses, make them conscious of their exploitation, bring them together into a powerful organization, so that they can struggle against the exploiters and fight for their rights. Even though Satyagraha and the non-violent ways might be thought of as moral preaching in the 21^st century, but we shouldn’t forget that it was this weapon which in part led to our Independence. Critics argue that Gandhi’s approach was applicable only to a specific historical context. True, but the need is not to side-line his ideas but to study them and revise them according to the changing situations.

Marx and Gandhi had very similar philosophies about what an ideal society should be. Both of them focused on a society free from exploitation. But again, their approaches to the achievement of this ideal state were different. Marx believed in a classless, stateless communist society which is described in the Communist Manifesto. On the other hand Gandhi believed in a non-violent, egalitarian and a democratic society where everyone is treated equally, irrespective of caste, race, and sex and where there is no discrimination based on income because the entire wealth belongs to the society as a whole.

According to Marx, we would reach communism because of the process of Dialectical Materialism. The germs of a future society lie within the present society and these opposites within the system contradict it and lead to revolution. Feudalism gave way to capitalism, because the germs of capitalism (the exploitation of the peasants and serfs by the lords) lay within the system itself. Similarly, capitalism will give rise to socialism and finally communism would emerge. It would be a society of dignity and freedom, a society with human conditions rather than ‘animal’ conditions of existence.

Gandhi asserted that one day moral transformation would take place which would lead to, what he called, Ramrajya. He explained the evolution through non-violence.  Violence and self-centredness are the qualities of a beast. Earlier we were beasts, wandering and hunting animals. Realizing the need to curtail violence, we took to agriculture. Hence Gandhi had faith that this streak of progressing through non-violence would continue till the ideal state is achieved. A man understands co-operation and is morally sound. This is what Gandhi believed we are heading to – from beasts to a man.

In today’s world, Marx seems to be winning the race because we foresee that communism might follow capitalism and socialism. China already claims to be a communist country. But, nowhere is Gandhi’s Ramrajya to be seen. The reason, I believe, Gandhi’s approach is difficult is because it is too ideal, it’s like bringing heaven on earth and converting the devils to angels. Marx’s communism might emerge as a future society because it’s not all that ideal and solves only those problems which can be tackled, given the current stage of human development.

Though both Gandhism and Marxism are similar in spirit, they are very different in practice and it becomes essential to re-read them and make changes to them as the society progresses.

The Unequal Race

Economists, I say, are trained in the art of justifying everything. Perhaps that is what has enabled me thus far to justify inequality. Humankind has developed and flourished due to inheritance; inheritance is the raison d'etre of our race coming to dominate this world. Think of it, a tiger's life is no different from its mother's. A mother tiger teaches the offspring as much as she knew, and then the offspring passes on the same knowledge to its kid. Humans, however, are different in this aspect. Our collective knowledge is stored for eternity, and then added to by every generation. What our ancestors did enables us to do even more. Similarly, what our fathers and grandfathers did enables us to do even better.

For example, I wonder how different my life would have been had my father not decided to join the navy, and instead stayed on in Gorakhpur. There would have been no question of joining DPS, R.K.Puram, and hence no path leading to St. Stephen's. There would have been no exposure to debating and quizzing as much as I got at these two institutions. Probably, there would have been no economics in my life! I am reaping the benefits of a decision my father took. Between me and someone who is still living in a small town, there is not much difference in terms of what we have done. It is the different between what our parents did, their parents did, and so on. The difference between us would be one of inheritance. Perhaps this is what most of us call destiny, or kismat.

I have had the good fortune of being involved in Bandhan microfinance's education program. The more I think of it, the more impressed I am by Bandhan's recognition of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and inequality. Here's a short film I had made back then (I apologize for the copyright violations, of course): Bandhan's development projects. This would give you a better sense of the inequality I'm talking about.

The fact that I can justify this inequality in educational opportunities doesn't necessarily mean that I support it.  While I have absolutely no moral issues with our educational system being competitive, I have a problem with the competition being unequal. Is the competition between a Delhi-educated student and a small town student, for admission into an IIT or an IIM, a competition between equals? I do not think so. This was, of course, the basic principle behind reservations.

The problems that reservations bring up are by no means small. Firstly, there is the problem of identification - a problem that plagues any social scheme in India. How does one identify people who are deprived of education opportunities? Our policymakers have taken an economic and caste viewpoint to this. While caste-based identification is an abhorrence to me, I am not too comfortable with economic selection too, especially in its implementation. Moreover, isn't inequality a question more of degree than of existence? For example, a person who is poor and rural is at a greater educational inequality than one who is rural but rich*. Thus, any policy that identifies people based on the existence of certain parameters is bound to be flawed. The less be said about people mimicking this parameter, the better.

How then can educational inequality be bridged? At a national level, I do not have anything of import to suggest. However, each one of us can contribute something to the cause. While I am usually skeptical of volunteerism, I cannot help but be impressed by Jalnidh's initiative Eclaire. We need more of this.

---------------------------------

* - this is similar to any economists' arguments against using the head count ratio (HCR) as an indicator of poverty. Head counts tend to mask the degree of inequality within the less privileged section.

Satyamev Jayate

Every Sunday morning, Indian television viewers get to see a social issue being discussed in Satyamev Jayate. I never got a chance to view any episode until today. Everyone is aware of the commendable response that this initiative by Aamir Khan has received throughout the country. It is claimed that the show has left a bigger impact on the society than expected.

So, today I was looking at TRPs of this show. The Television Viewer Rating has plummeted from 3.8 in the first month to 2.9 in the second month. I have always heard people talking optimistically about this show, but the popularity seems to be fading away. Obviously, these ratings are not a true indicator of what the actual situation is.

Though Aamir Khan seems not to be worried about these falling TRPs, his aim has been to improve the viewership. But what I see as a matter of concern is whether the very purpose of the show is fully achieved or not. Today at the end of the show, which focused on caste discrimination, Aamir Khan talked about how those freedom fighters made us free in 1947 because of which we remember them today and similarly, we should also make our society free from the evils of casteism so that the coming generations remember us. What I doubt is that if today’s show was vibrant enough to encourage the present generation to act? It was shown that how people perceived that casteism has almost come to an end at least in urban areas but it exists even today in well reputed universities and practiced by the youth of the country.

Yesterday, I was watching IIFA, which was too uninteresting except a couple of performances by Priyanka Chopra and Bipasha Basu. Not getting into all that, this IIFA was called ‘green’. Before and after every break, tips to conserve electricity and save environment by doing your bit was shown, but I doubt how many of the viewers actually followed it? Or even if they did, will it be sustainable? The problem lies here!

For viewers, Satyamev Jayate might be something worth to watch on a rainy Sunday morning like today, sitting in the drawing room, sipping a cup of coffee. What I think is that human memory is short lived. An hour and a half show on a Sunday is nothing to turn the stone upside down. Ofcourse, it is creating awareness among the masses but I feel there should be follow-ups the entire week after the episode is broadcasted on Sunday, to show more real-life stories, problems, experiences and the ways in which we can fight against them as it is our responsibility as the youth of the country.

I am not denying the fact that in rural areas, thousands of villagers gather in a place and watch the show, which definitely has a positive impact. Ofcourse, the show is doing something noble. Something is better than nothing! It would be wrong for me to say that it’s a half hearted approach, but with little more effort if something substantial can be achieved, it will be in the betterment of our very own society. 

Objectivism and Altruism

I just read this article that attacks Ayn Rand's objectivist theory at several levels. As someone who has barely read a quarter of The Fountainhead, I base my understanding of Rand on this (rather biased) article. Click here for reading the article.

Let me not even attempt a critique of Wikipedia claims was Rand's espousal of full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism. For even those with the most cursory knowledge of economics, it is not difficult to disprove such an assertion. There are so many market failures that unregulated capitalism cannot be optimal even in theory. Marx, of course, takes it further - he says that capitalism is a doomed regime that will one day fall under the weight of its own contradictions. In practice, the numerous crises have taught us that capitalism by itself cannot stand. However, trying to critique Rand at this point would end up becoming a lesson in basic economics, which I do not wish to detail here.

It is the second assertion, which I have accidentally dealt with earlier, that I will elucidate a bit here. As I have discussed in my previous article on norms and compliance (click here to read), many kinds of socially optimal behaviour can be made individually optimal using a set of incentives. In fact, according to the Folk Theorem, if an individual is patient enough, then any outcome in which the payoff to the individual is at least as much as his worst-case scenario, can be sustained. Given that a young person would not discount the future heavily, we can abstract away from the details and state that almost any social outcome can be sustained as a Nash equilibrium.

For our purpose of our argument, it is sufficient to say that Rand's argument that only selfish acts can be sustained, is false and myopic. Human society is a society of repeated social interactions. If interaction between any two individuals occurred only once, then Rand would be correct. However, since we need to interact at several times, we need to also consider how our action today would affect the state that will materialise tomorrow. While a more complete discussion can be found in my article I referenced earlier, let me give a simple example. When someone wants to photocopy my notes, then it would be in my selfish interests to not give those notes because the notes provide me with a comparative advantage that will help me score more. Sharing would reduce my comparative advantage. However, I might need notes in the future, and refusal to share notes today might jeopardize my chances of getting them in the future. Hence, the 'altruistic' task of sharing notes today becomes the Nash equilibrium.

Why I put 'altruistic' in quotes is because even this behaviour is selfish in that I still take the cost-and-benefit (to me) approach while deciding whether to share notes or not. However, the key thing to note here is that this selfishness differs from that of Rand in that it has a social context of incentives. In case the societal norms are removed and exchange of notes is made depersonalized (every person uploads his notes voluntarily on a network and others can download it, such that the uploader does not know who is downloading), then cooperation would break down and nobody would share notes. Instead, if anyone who refused to share notes was flogged, then everyone would share notes. The basic point is that seemingly selfish behaviour can also be modified and contained.

Going by my reading of Ms.Bekiempis' article, I can strongly assert that Rand was wrong - selfish behaviour isn't the only sustainable ones. Better outcomes can be sustained, and very often without the need for the Government.

Bollywood, Superstars and Signalling

Most of us with even the slightest affinity for sense and sensibility would cringe after having a look at the 100-crore club, arguably the most elite club in Bollywood right now. For every 3 Idiots and Ghajini, there are Ready, Rowdy Rathore and Bodyguard. The common thread running through these films is obvious - the presence of a 'superstar' - the three Khans, Akshay Kumar or Hritik Roshan. What is it that a superstar brings to the film? Why is it so elusive for films without a superstar to make it to this club, and why is it so easy for otherwise pathetic films with a superstar to make it?

Is it good acting? We would all agree that there are films with better acting than the ones listed above. Is it a good script? Except for Aamir Khan's movies, it can hardly be said about the others. Moreover, there are films with far better scripts that do not even aspire being in the club. I believe that the reason might be signalling. A superstar signals to the audience several things, that I elucidate upon for the rest of this article.

The first problem is the problem of asymmetric information. To see the power of signalling, take a simple example. Would you rather buy a television from a rickety, old, desolate shop or a swanky, new, branded shop in a crowded mall? I believe most would choose the latter. The need for some kind of guarantee that the shop will be around tomorrow to fulfill its warrantee is pressing. There are two similarities between this example and our movies example. Firstly, a television is a durable good, which we use very often. Similarly, we watch movies very often and would prefer to watch good movies than bad movies. Secondly, even though we have no prior information about the quality of the television, we would place our bets depending on the decor of the shop that sells it. Similarly, in situations of asymmetric information, we would tend to choose our movies based on the star. There is a certain standardisation that superstars bring - lots of song and dance sequences, good cinematography and so on. As risk-averse consumers, we would prefer to compromise on the expected quality as long as the variability in quality is reduced.

Secondly, there is the question of correlates. Producers who can afford to have superstars in their films typically can also spend a lot more on marketing than smaller films can. They can bombard our senses with custom-made promos. They can afford the most prominent billboards. They can hire the best musicians, get the most popular actresses to do item numbers and so on. Five years down the line, would people remember Agneepath more or Chikni Chameli more? My guess is the latter. In this sense, I look at films with superstars as behemoths. Yes, they do fail very often too. However, as a percentage, I am sure the chances of success are greater. At the very least, the music stays. Sheila ki Jawani, anyone?

The third and last theme that I explore (or rather, leave as a puzzle) is why the allure of the superstar doesn't wade after delivering several crass films one after the other. On one hand, I can assert that even Shah Rukh Khan needs a Chak De India to make sure that his stock doesn't sink too fast. However, how does one then explain Salman Khan's unfettered run? Why people would subject themselves repeatedly to such films escapes me. Maybe for a large majority of the people, the theater is an escape from reality, and a laugh, no matter how silly, is still a laugh. That requires us to dig deeper, something that I do not do here.

Norms and Compliance

Very often, we find ourselves in a conflict situation - a conflict between our personal (and often, primeval) desires and social norms. By the very fact that 'norms' need to be enforced through a variety of legal rules, religious beliefs and psychological conditioning, it is obvious that breaking these norms would be the more obvious thing to do in the absence of such norms. I sometimes feel amazed at the superstructure of social norms that we have built for ourselves. To me, it is quite surely man's greatest creation. Everything else - including finance and technology (arguably two of the greatest inventions of the last century) - could not have been possible unless we got together as a society and built these norms that could sustain cooperation.

Some of the basic ideas of this short article are from a chapter in our course in Development Economics (which most of us decided to skip for the exams, though).  The idea is simple - if we as humans did not coordinate (and by coordinate I encompass things such as trust and cooperation), then even basic activities would be impossible. Take even a simple barter economy. You make handicrafts and sell it for food. What forces you to ensure that you are exchanging good quality handicrafts? Once you get the food, even if the handicrafts turn out to be of poor quality, you have already made whatever gains you needed to. However, we observe adherence to a certain quality in our society. This is caused due to the repeated nature of the interaction. If I do not supply good quality handicrafts, then very few farmers would be willing to exchange their food in the future.

Take something more private. Why should we be kind to others? Here I am not considering the 'feel good' associated with being kind. Often, the 'feel good' is a part of our psychological conditioning, and is in no way 'good' by itself. However, we would, generally speaking, still find it in our interest to be kind, because of the hope of reciprocity. If I am kind to people today, they would be kind to me tomorrow, and that would be beneficial to me. Similarly, faithfulness. If there was no stigma attached to not being faithful in relationships, then our primeval urges would take over. In this case, I do not quite see why human society would find faithfulness as a useful virtue. Probably a bit more thinking would make it obvious.

Now when you come to think of it, every type of human society, and every activity in human society, is based on such social norms. It is exactly like a repeated form game. The Nash equilibrium in any one game might be for all players to do the socially imperfect action. However, because human society is based on repeated interactions, we are able to sustain socially optimal outcomes even when there is an incentive for individual players to renege.

Take a simple example - driving. Consider that a driver has to actions - follow traffic rules and don't follow traffic rules.  If all other players are following traffic rules, then your not following traffic rules doesn't make a difference and hence it is in your interest to not follow traffic rules. In case all other players are not following traffic rules, you would be stupid to be following traffic rules. Abstracting away from the intermediate outcomes where some people follow rules and some don't, we find that it is in every player's interest to not follow traffic rules (in the language of game theory, a dominant strategy). However, the outcome where nobody follows traffic rules is socially imperfect. Hence, we have a system of rules and fines that make it optimal for every individual player to follow traffic rules. This is the only way that the social optimal can be sustained.

Think about it - where would we be if socially optimal outcomes could not be sustained? The need to make coordination optimal has made humans create such an elaborate system of norms. In one word, it is simply mind-boggling.

A natural corollary of what I have argued, and one that I do not always agree with, is religion. Religion is probably the greatest of these social norms that has survived centuries. What is religion but a means to ensure that all of us behave a certain way? Is it not religion that is the last-ditch effort to ensure that we place an intrinsic value on traits such as truthfulness, honesty etc that are otherwise only functionally important? At this stage, I would leave this argument as such and leave it to the readers to think about it.

Does India really have checks and balances?

Having belatedly started reading Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman's blog (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/), I see that his primary obsession these days is with the discussion on expansionary austerity, i.e. with the Republicans forcing Obama to reduce the deficit, with the argument that it increases growth in the economy. This is an economic debate, that I is beyond the scope of my point here. The idea that caught my attention was that, as Krugman puts it, Republicans have forced Obama to behave like right-winger (for those who don't know, the Republicans are considered the right, and Obama and his Democrats the left-leaning, thought not out-and-out socialists).

Can we imagine such a situation in India? Does the opposition in India really have the muscle to force the Government to do something? In recent times, we can talk about the resignation of ministers, and think further back and we can talk of the JP movement against Indira Gandhi. However, these movements cannot be really called 'opposition-led movements', since the entire nation, or much of it at the very least, was agitating.

The primary flaw as I see in Indian democracy is the close interlinking between the Executive and the Legislature. The executive by very definition has a simple majority in the legislature. Of course, there is the Rajya Sabha which does not show such a relationship by definition, but it is still quite unlikely that the ruling party is much behind the half-way mark here. Hence, the Government can pass any law that it wishes, especially those that do not tinker with the Constitution.

Thus, the only check on the executive has been the judiciary, but even here an attempt has been made by the executive to protect controversial legislation (such as Tamil Nadu's reservation act) in the ninth schedule to protect it from judicial scrutiny. The judiciary, of course, has sought scrutiny over these by means the 'basic structure of the constitution' argument, but then the 'basic structure' would obviously be very narrow in scope -and hence much of the ninth schedule acts escape judicial review.

This post is not a call for change, I must clarify. India is already too far in its experiment of democracy to make such a drastic change at this moment. This post is merely a commentary - so that the next time we complain about the Government being unreceptive, we know where to look.

Spare the Army!

When Prince falls into the hole, call the Army! When Naxals are to be fought, call the Army! When the Police seems to be failing, call the Army! When bridges collapse, call the Army! Now, when houses collapse, call the Army! The purpose of this post is not to argue that the events mentioned here are not of a serious nature; in fact, they certainly are! However, what I argue is that if the Army needs to be called for almost everything that is of a 'serious' nature, would we call our civic administration 'not serious'? How does this reflect on the state of India's civic administration that a force that is anyway understaffed to carry out its primary duty is being diverted for other purposes?

The natural question arises - what is the harm in making the Army a quasi - civic agency? Why should the Army be limited to defending India's borders, especially at a time when India barely goes to war? The answer is two - fold.

Firstly, the relative tranquility on India's border itself is because of the Army's heavy deployment there. It is because there is a credible deterrent on India's borders that they remain relatively tranquil. If ever our restless neighbourhood sees that India's vigil has lowered, we should be assured that a major offensive is in the offing.

Secondly, a quasi - civic agency has to be placed under the control of a representative Government. This is because the regions that are serviced by a civic agency are well - populated areas, and hence there is a need for greater accountability. This makes the decision - making process less quick. The army operates in an environment where a certain level of accountability has to be forgone, in favour of greater preparedness. For this reason, the army should never be subordinated completely to the legislature or the executive of a nation. However, this does not mean that the Army should be allowed to turn rogue, like in our neighbourhood. Instead, the army should be under the joint control of the legislature, executive and the judiciary, especially the last, but not under the control of any one of them.

Now turning to the other side of the story - the lack of efficiency in our civil bodies - such as the police, the municipalities, the disaster rescue teams etc. These agencies have been eroded due to repeated interventions by the political class, and operate in an environment of dreading accusations of insubordination. The question that I leave the reader with is - how can we make these institutions free of political interference without removing them from the watch of the civilian Government?

Societies : As I perceive

The word ‘society’ exists only as a mental concept, but in reality there exists only ‘individuals’…In the end it is the self-interest and not the common-interest.

Starting the college can be a little daunting if you are unable to figure out what to do with all the time you were going to have in your hands. After long lectures, listening to someone with a beard droning on how interesting statistics is or to someone who has resolved to beat the Shatabdi express, I had to figure out what to do and it was then that I came to know about societies. ‘Societies bring students with similar interests together, for instance, if you have an interest in economics, ecosoc is for you, if you can be dramatic, shakesoc will welcome you, so on and so forth…” This is what I was told. The entire first year of my undergraduation, I thought it was so true. Societies were a good way to improve campus experience. But, the circumstances changed the way I perceive societies.

Some societies in college is what can be called an ‘industrial’ society. There is a sharp sense of ‘individualism’. People ask ‘What’s there for me?’ ‘I, me and mine’ words dominate. ‘If I am not given a post, what’s the incentive to work?’ Worse is, ‘individualism’ marked with ‘groupism’. In some societies, the authority has been centered in the hands of a monopoly group who make decisions that is in their interest. Worst is, if you try to break this monopoly in order to make way for perfect competition, you’ll realize that you should have concentrated more in micro classes! Free entry of firms is very difficult in a monopoly!  

No longer I believe in societies bringing together people with a specific purpose, for if that was, then there will be a new society altogether! The root cause of all this is to make the CV’s look attractive. Most of us fail to understand that it is a strong academic profile with good test scores and grades and challenging courses which is far more important than holding a post in  so-called ‘societies’.

The only thing I am happy about being in a society is that it gave me an opportunity to meet people who helped me get the most out of my time and to make friendships that I hope will last for long.

If ever I feel that I am compromising with my academics because of the societies, I shall quit!

Why DU doesn't need its own admission test

In the midst of what can now certainly be called 'DU-mania', certain sections have suggested that Delhi University adopt an examination system for different courses. The standard argument is that the Class XII boards are (1) varying in the scoring pattern across different central and state boards (2) an unreliable indicator of a student's aptitude for a given subject (3) unnecessarily causing runaway inflation in the cut-off's.

However, I believe that for a University aspiring to be world-quality, conducting its own admission test is going to be suicidal. My argument is primarily two - fold. Firstly, any aspiring world-quality University has to have a very strong research base. That requires the cumulative efforts of several faculty members. If the DU does conduct its own entrance exam, then a major drain on the faculty's time would be to ensure that the examination is able to select the most deserving candidates. The alternative is to outsource the job, like the IIMs have done in recent years. However, there is a marked distinction between the IIMs and DU. While the quality difference between the top IIMs and the laggard IIMs is substantial, it isn't hopelessly wide. However, the same cannot be said to be true of DU. Even in today's age, there are courses and colleges that have their cut-off's in the late 60's and early 70's. My argument is that an entrance examination is not really the best idea for the University as a whole, since the university is too large (very aptly characterised by an elephant in the logo).

Secondly, as I have been maintaining for some time, the answer for some of DU's ills might lie in greater decentralisation. Component colleges of DU should be provided with great flexibility to set their admission criteria and course structures. If this is not done, the laggard colleges within DU are going to be too much of a burden on ones that have potential for success.

In conclusion, what is the solution to the sky-high cut-off's that I endorse? I see the answer in restructuring the Class XII boards, bring about greater uniformity and reduce the 'inflation' of grades. If even DU were to quit the Class XII boards, then what would be the significance of these exams? Would we not be better off scrapping these exams then? DU being linked so intricately to school education, in my opinion, is not a bad thing, and this link should be fine-tuned to come out of this mess.

-Subhashish

The Lost 'Human' Status of Womankind

Her chin was bruised, her left eye was black…’what happened?’, someone asked…she bit her lower lip and said softly, ‘O, I just..Umm…fell off the stairs’

From the mighty queens the world-history talks of, to the modern-metro-woman; the fair sex has travelled a long way. Yet, each morning the paper brings in a new story, of how a woman was raped, physically abused or burnt alive somewhere or the other. The question is: ‘Has our society progressed culturally?’

It was only yesterday, when I read this grisly article about how a young girl, aged 18, was inflicted violence upon, for escaping from her husband’s house in Afghanistan. She pleaded and begged them to understand the fact that, had she not fled, she would have been killed. But her efforts were in vain. They sliced off her ears, smashed her nose, and left her on the mountainside to die. This does not date to long back, it occurred last year.

‘Concrete-encased high school girl murder’ was a 1988-89 incident in which a Japanese girl, Junko Furuta, 16 at that time, was murdered. For 44 days, she was assaulted, beaten with metal rods and golf sticks, put up with acids on her body, made to eat cockroaches, and drink her own urine by four boys. Finally, one day, death brought her solace. Her murderers continue to move freely even today.

Our own country too falls in line, where in one state, ‘didi’ is the new talk-of-the-town; the ‘Khap’ is (in) famous for the ‘Honor killings’ carried out in their states so as to prevent inter-caste marriages. Absurd, it is; despite the existence of several worldly laws for protection of their rights, an unimaginable number of women have been subjected to inhuman treatment. The laws have proved to be ineffective to the frontier.

What is most shocking is that, even today i.e. in the 21^st century, the male-dominated society refuses to acknowledge ‘women’ as ‘humans’. The acts of violence range from battering assault, rape, female infanticide, female foeticide, dowry deaths, prostitution, trafficking, women being beaten in the suburbs, arrest of women searching their husbands and children, sexual assault of refugee and displaced women, abuses against women in custody, domestic violence, abuses against women workers and the list goes on….

The so called ‘weaker sex’ continues to be ‘a forced slave’ of man, not a willing one. ‘She’ is supposed to be calm, submissive and a meek individual. Women like Aisha and Furuta keep suffering all their lives, and many such incidents are lost without trace. The problem is in the core of all things; our values are going down the drain. What is the point of fancy growth rate figures, if basic human rights are snatched away?

The entire while in which I wrote this post, I kept thinking, whether it would serve a purpose at all. I couldn’t find an answer. But, why I continued is because John F. Kennedy once said,

““All this will not be finished in the first hundred days, nor will it be finished in the first thousand  days, nor in the lifetime of this administration, nor perhaps during our lifetime on this planet Earth, but let us begin it…!!””