After months of talk, it’s go time for new PM

John Ruskin, the 19th century British art critic, once re marked that the greatest contribution that an aristocratic duke could make to the modern world would be to take a job as a grocer. This apparently bizarre suggestion goes to the heart of middle-class dignity -an idea that I identified in my last column to explain the significance of Narendra Modi’s victory. In our unequal, hierarchical Indian society, we need to correct our misguided notion about what constitutes a dignified life. Much like Ruskin’s Victorian society, Indians believe that dignity is not compatible with being a petty kiranawallah. When so many people work in shops, this prejudice is cruel and destructive -it cuts off decent, hardworking people from the respect of others and from self-respect.

Modi’s landslide victory invites us to be more imaginative in thinking about the nature of human dignity , to move from prejudice to a question. By electing a chai-wallah’s son, who affirmed the aspirations of the millions who have pulled themselves up in the post-reform decades through their own efforts into the middle-class, we are forced to challenge our assumption that selling vegetables is socially degrading. If an upper-class zamindar, who takes time off from his idle life of breeding race horses to stand behind a counter in the belief that supplying people with good vegetables at a fair price, or driving them to their destination in a three-wheeler, is inherently worthwhile, the prejudice might give way to a fairer assessment of human worth.

Ruskin is not only challenging how we judge shopkeepers; he also wants shopkeepers to take their own dignity more seriously . Modi’s victory has made us believe that: 1) anyone can aspire to middle-class status; 2) if one imbibes its values of thrift, ambition, industry and prudence; and 3) a middle-class society is a good society.

Narendra Modi has now been prime minister for six weeks and it is abundantly clear that this is a “Modi Sarkar“. He has established direct contact with secretaries at the head of government departments, encouraging them to take decisions and get in touch with him if things go sour. Ministers have an ambiguous place in this setup, which is probably a good thing considering the mediocre level of his cabinet. Ministers could not be happy -they have been forbidden to hire relatives or introduce personal considerations in their decisions.

Otherwise, this has been a period of welcome silence and calm after the din and clatter of the election. Now we need to see some action after months of talk. In one respect Modi should not be silent. He should learn from his predecessor’s mistake and insistently make a compelling political case for economic reform. He must keep educating Indians about the link between reforms, jobs, opportunities and prosperity . He needs to explain that only the competitive market (not giveaways) can deliver a middle-class society and that a rules-based capitalism leads to dignity, not crony capitalism. Unfortunately, he frittered away a golden opportunity to do this in the disappointing address of the President.

Modi has spoken about “tough“ decisions that are urgently needed to enforce financial discipline, and they risk losing popular good will. With this warning he has set the stage for a hard-nosed budget on Thursday. When it comes to price increases, he would do well to follow TN Ninan’s advice -take price increases in small bites and frequently, and avoid the fiasco over the increase in railway fares.

Achche din aane wale hain (Good days are coming), was Modi’s response to his victory.

Those few words carry a massive burden of aspirations but with a clear majority in the Lok Sabha and supremacy in his own party , he is the first Indian leader in a long time to have the freedom to act on his convictions. He is getting plenty of advice -the politico-bureaucratic system is trying to co-opt him, attempting to make him one of its own. He is being advised to be prudent, to make incremental changes and not unsettle the system. But he must not forget that an aspiring nation has elected him precisely because he is an outsider and wants him to shake up the system. So, he must not listen too much to others and follow his own dharma.

It Is All about Execution

Narendra Modi's defining qualities are a sense of purpose.

If there is one lesson we have learned about leadership in recent years, it is that we overvalue intelligence and undervalue determination. When choosing our leaders we betray an instinctive bias for thought over action even though history teaches us that great leaders were great doers, not great thinkers. Outstanding leaders have always had the qualities of resolve, purpose and determination in abundance, and this helped them to change the world. With a PhD from Oxford University, our last prime minister was probably the leader most generously endowed with intelligence and academic credentials. But he failed. He neither had the willpower to prevail over events, nor the ability to translate thought into action. Sickened by the drift and paralysis of the last government, the Indian voter has now chosen the opposite type of leader.

Narendra Modi's defining qualities are a sense of purpose, accompanied by attention to detail, and backed by plenty of grit and fierce determination. These are quintessential abilities of an implementer, someone who knows how to get things done. These qualities were on generous display during his election campaign and if he runs the country as well as his campaign we have good reasons to be hopeful. The answers to India's problems have less to do with new ideas and new laws and more to do with implementing old ideas and old laws. Modi reminded us of this truth time and again during the past year, and those who know him well have said the same thing-his strength lies in execution. It is time we had an executive in charge of our country, someone capable of delivering results. It is for this reason that I-a liberal, secular Indian who does not find Hindutva or BJP particularly appealing-voted for him.

Indians do well in strategy, lag in execution

McKinsey & Co, the respected management consulting company, discovered in a famous global study in the 1990s that high performing companies distinguished themselves by execution. Its data on India reinforced the bias for action. In its sample of 35 major Indian companies, based on interviews with more than 600 executives, it concluded: "While many Indian companies perform well on strategy, they are lagging in execution.

Foreigners sometimes remind us that Indians are bright. But they are too polite to add that they can also be 'over-smart'. Indians think and argue too much, see too many angles, and don't act enough. It makes hiring and recruiting talent particularly difficult, for we come out sounding good in interviews, and how do you separate the doers from the talkers? The gap between thought and action is so pervasive in Indian life that I sometimes despair if weak execution is, in fact, a deficit in character.

My experience as a practising manager and later as a board member or consultant confirms that while most managers usually achieve a reasonably robust strategy, they implement poorly. I am also associated with a private equity fund that has invested in many Indian companies over the past 10 years, and it has reinforced this conclusion: The best firms are not the ones with the best business model but the best execution ability.

The story of Narendra Modi's climb from serving chai to passengers on the railway platform of a sleepy Gujarat town to 7, Race Course Road illustrates many things, including his leadership style. As he rose in life to take on positions of increasing responsibility in the RSS and later in the Gujarat government, Modi was not content with laying broad policies. Unlike our previous prime minister, he did not abdicate responsibility for implementation to those below him. He surrounded himself with people with execution ability like himself, set clear, measurable goals, and created small 'implementation' teams. Instead of pronouncing on strategy, he got into the messy details of a project, monitored day-to-day performance, removing obstacles for those who were implementing it, staying close to them and motivating them. He recognised those who took initiative and risks, and punished those who played safe and behaved like bureaucrats. And he did all this without appearing to be interfering or micro-managing. Thus, he got fairly ordinary Gujaratis to do pretty extraordinary things.

I first heard Narendra Modi speak at Shri Ram College of Commerce in Delhi in February 2013, and it opened a window to his leadership abilities. It was his first speech in a long campaign to be prime minister, and he declared his ambition right away. Unlike coy Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party, who danced coquettishly around the subject, Modi sent an unambiguous message that he was hungry for the job. He was off to a head start, and his clarity of purpose was refreshing for the Indian voter.

Modi was also unambiguous about his specific goal-it was to gain a clear majority for the BJP. The chattering classes laughed each time he said it and thought he was mad. They did not know that impossible ambitions drive successful leaders. Managers call these 'stretch' targets, and their purpose is to rally troops around difficult tasks. Impossible targets have a way of motivating soldiers who forget their differences. They feel they 'own' the goal and the battle. Thus, charismatic leaders are known to achieve astonishing commonness of purpose among their subordinates-what business managers prosaically refer to as 'alignment'.

Great leaders are not nice people

Related to this, was another feature I observed about Modi's campaign-the importance of a unified team. Great leaders are not 'nice' people who seek popularity, and certainly not ones you would invite to a polite dinner party. Narendra Modi had to ensure unified command and had to get rid of rivals and sceptics, which explains why he had to marginalise L.K. Advani, Jaswant Singh and others. And why, at the same time, he had to move his most trusted lieutenant, the ambiguous Amit Shah, to perform the miracle of turning Uttar Pradesh around. And why, despite opposition from inside the party, he tied up with unsavoury, blemished politicians B.S. Yeddyurappa and Ram Vilas Paswan.

The word executive comes from 'one who executes'. The hallmark of an effective executive is good planning and attention to detail, which is an important lesson I learned at the company where I worked for many years, Procter & Gamble. (The other lesson was how to write a crisp one-page memo because you were not allowed a second page). Modi, as I have said, is an implementer, and hence planning and detail come naturally to him. What we saw on television was great oratory but behind the scenes was months of planning with dozens of karyakartas, who worked with discipline to orchestrate each event minute by minute.

Finally, Modi is a flawed individual, not unlike most of us. In his place, I would have expressed remorse a dozen times for the events in 2002, without of course, incriminating myself. I would have had a powerful think tank to feed me data, especially on economic and foreign policy issues. I could go on and on about his deficits. But at the end, his positive attributes clearly outweigh his faults. If there is one truth I would underline it is that without realising it, Narendra Modi seems to follow the British scientist Jacob Bronowski's advice. He believes that the world is not understood by contemplation but by action-"the hand is the cutting edge of the mind, as Bronowski put it.

Modi’s moment is about middle class dignity

If Indians won their political freedom in August 1947 and their economic freedom in July 1991, they have attained dignity in May 2014. This is the significance of Narendra Modi’s landslide victory. The hopes and dreams of an aspiring new middle class have been affirmed for the first time in India’s history. Modi has made millions believe that their future is open, not predetermined, and can be altered by their own actions. In a fine book, Bourgeois Dignity, Deirdre McCloskey explains that the same thing happened during the great transformation of the West in the 19th and early 20th century when the industrial revolution created a middle class that changed the master narrative of western societies.
The typical voter who elected Modi was not a Hindu nationalist. He was a young, middle-of-the-road person, who had recently migrated from a village to a small town. He had got his first job and his first cellphone and he aspired to a life better than his father’s. The stocky, selfmade , son of a station chai-walla inspired him with his message of development and governance, making him forget his caste, religion, and village. The young man became convinced that his battle was not against other Indians but against a state that would not give him a birth certificate without paying a bribe.
The chai-walla assuaged his other Indian middle class insecurities. Our young aspirer discovered that he did not have to speak English to get ahead. “If the chaiwalla can aspire to lead our nation without English, there is nothing wrong if I am uncomfortable in it,” he thought. “I too can be modern in my mother tongue.” When he witnessed Modi perform aarti on his television screen in a riveting performance at the Dashashwamedh ghat by the Ganga in Varanasi, he felt deeply moved. Suddenly, he did not feel ashamed of being Hindu. The “secular” English speaking intelligentsia had heaped contempt on his “superstitious” ways and had made him feel inferior and inadequate. During his long campaign of political theatre, Modi decolonized his mind and thus bestowed dignity on him.
Modi mentioned the word “development” five hundred times for each time he mentioned “Hindutva”, according to a computer analysis of his speeches by Dr Walter Anderson, a US state department official. For a young person who belongs to the post-reform generation, and who has risen through his own initiative and hard work, “development” is a code word for opportunity in the competitive market place that Adam Smith called a “natural system of liberty” . This system flourishes in Gujarat, and not surprisingly the state is ranked number one on the Freedom Index among all Indian states. The government in this system helps create an enabling environment that allows free individuals to pursue their interests peacefully in an open, transparent market. After that, an “invisible hand” helps to gradually lift people into a dignified, middle class life, raising living standards all around.
Underlying dignity is the freedom that reforms bring when economic decisions move from the offices of politicians and bureaucrats to the market place. When Modi said that we should make development a jan andolan, a mass movement, he legitimized rules-based capitalism (in contrast to crony capitalism). In this respect he is like Margaret Thatcher and Deng who made their people believe in the market. It was the job that a reformer like Manmohan Singh was supposed to perform. But he didn’t even succeed in selling economic reforms to Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party. Modi should learn from his failure and convert the RSS to his “development” agenda, marginalizing its Hindutva agenda. McCloskey explains that the same thing happened in the West in the 19th century when the narrative of middle class aspirations for a better life triumphed over all other narratives as people became comfortable with market institutions.
Unlike the mood of diminished expectations in the West, ours is the age of rising expectations in India. Having attained hard-fought dignity, the aspiring voter is filled with self-confidence after electing Modi. But he is also impatient and unforgiving. If Modi does not deliver on his promises for development and governance, he will not be shy to boot him out at the next election. The ball is in Modi’s court.

Modi shouldn't forget Fareed and millions like him

It has been an exhilarating month. We have marvelled at the sights and sounds of India's great election mela on our television screens. The image, most memorably etched in my mind is of a confident Muslim boy, Fareed, in a small town in Western UP. When the female interviewer asks his name, he retorts with a flirtatious smile, "Who wants to know?" He tells us proudly that the pucca street on which they are standing was a kaccha village road not long ago. As the camera pans, he points to three barber shops, two beauty parlours, an electronics store and an unfinished tower. "This is going to be our mall!" Fareed runs a small business delivering flowers to the big city nearby, but business has been rotten in the past two years; most of his friends have lost their jobs. "Do you think I'd be hanging around chatting... even to a beautiful woman?" She blushes. "That's why I plan to vote for Modi. Yes, I know, Muslim and Modi, but he promises jobs and growth."

It is because of Fareed and the million hopes of young Indians that I endorsed Narendra Modi in my last column . It brought lots of hate mail. BJP's supporters were offended that I had called Modi communal and they passionately tried to convince me, an unrepentant liberal, about the true meaning of secularism. Congress fans dismissed my column as 'paid news' . My intellectual friends were aghast - how could I have abandoned sacred secularism for profane growth? Since I had made enemies of everyone, I must have done something right. A friend in Mumbai tweeted despairingly, 'why can't we have growth and secularism?' That would be a no brainer. Alas, it is not on offer. None of us wants to give up secularism but if growth continues to fumble, it is secularism which will be endangered. History shows that right-wing extremism thrives during unemployment and disaffection. Yes, it is a risk to vote for Modi but it is riskier not to vote for him as he is our best chance for jobs, growth and the demographic dividend.

In less than two weeks there will be a new government. Going by the latest polls, Modi is clearly ahead. If the polls are right - which they were not in 2004 and 2009 - and assuming he is elected, his first priority should be to reassure Muslims that he is the leader of all Indians and his government will not allow the events of 2002 to happen again (as they haven't in Gujarat); he is also duty bound to protect minorities against the daily acts of discrimination, especially by functionaries of the state.

The next priority should be to forge an alliance with chief ministers, making them partners in governing India and bring about genuine federalism. Having been chief minister for three terms this should be a natural. This alliance will allow well-managed states to implement reforms rapidly that would take too long to enact in a fractured central Parliament. Arun Shourie has recently explained that Article 254(2) of the Constitution allows a state law to prevail over a central law provided the President gives assent (which means, in effect, Modi's government has to be in favour of it.) Once a few states begin to implement the reform, others will see the benefits and follow suit. A partnership with chief ministers will motivate the more aspirational states to focus on raising India's Doing Business ranking, and as India becomes more competitive, investors who are presently fleeing China for Vietnam, Thailand and Bangladesh might well add India to their list.

Modi should begin each day by remembering why he was elected by Fareed and millions like him: to create jobs and skills. Expectations are running high and he must cool them down, explaining the lag between investment and growth. Attacking inflation is equally important and there is no better ally than Raghuram Rajan. Modi should follow the recipe which has brought No 1 rank to Gujarat in economic freedom - focus on infrastructure, bring in lots of talented persons, free up space for private initiative, empower the bureaucracy, and deliver public goods brilliantly (water, roads, electricity, education and health). Finally, don't subvert institutions; respect them but reform them.

Secularism or growth? The choice is yours

This month’s national election may well be the most important in India’s history. Our country faces a limited window of oppor tunity called the ‘demographic dividend’ and if we elect the right candidate, prosperity will enter crores of lives. And in the course of time, India will become a middle class country. If we elect the wrong candidate, India will experience a ‘demographic disaster’ and the great hope of youth will turn into despair.

India’s opportunity comes from being unique ly young — the large majority of people are of working age. Such a demographic situation gener ally brings a surge in economic growth as gains to society from those in the productive age far outweigh the burden of supporting the old and the very young. The dividend typically adds two percentage points to per capita GDP growth per year, as many economically successful countries have demonstrated in the past.

We should vote for the candidate who has the ability to harvest the demographic dividend. He will achieve it by investing in infrastructure and skills training; cut red tape to encourage private investment; and eliminate unproductive subsi dies. This will create masses of new jobs. People in those jobs will consume more, which will give impetus to consumer industries. They will also save more, which will drive investment and growth. With more production, inflation will gradually decline. Falling fertility in the demo graphic transition will improve women’s health which will add to the workforce and improve social indicators. Higher income and lower sub sidies will improve government’s finances, mak ing it possible to invest more in education, health and welfare of the poor.

Who among the rival parties is best capable of delivering the demographic dividend? Certainly not the regional parties — they are mainly obsessed with local issues. The Aam Aadmi Party is con cerned with corruption and crony capitalism and has shown little interest in attracting investment or creating jobs. Between the two national parties the Congress is ambivalent. Its reformers under stand the power of the demographic dividend but they are usually trumped by a ruling dynasty that favours equity over growth, preferring give-aways to win votes from the poor. Although Congress new manifesto does speak of jobs and growth, it is a half-hearted attempt. Because of this ambiva lence, reforms and infrastructure building slowed in the UPA government, confusing investors and paralyzing the bureaucracy. And this led to a trag ic fall in India’s growth and rise in inflation.

That leaves the BJP. As an opposition, it has been a disaster. However, the BJP’s thinking in the past year has been dramatically transformed by Narendra Modi who is single-mindedly focused on investment, jobs, skills and growth — key ingredients in realizing a demographic dividend Modi has proven to be a consummate implement er, a rare skill among India’s politicians. His suc cess lies in giving clear direction to the bureauc racy, which could help him un-gum the system at the centre. Given clarity of purpose, the Indian bureaucracy is capable of high performance, as we saw in Narasimha Rao’s first two years from 1991 to 1993. For these reasons, he is our best chance to deliver the demographic dividend.

Modi is likely to reduce corruption as well based on his record. Those who think he will fail to manage a coalition do not give him credit for being a shrewd politician who has recently wrest ed leadership of his party. The BJP without Modi is an unappealing option; nor is voting for him vote for RSS’ social agenda. The RSS is afraid in fact, that its Hindutva programme might be marginalized by his economic agenda. But there is a clear risk in voting for Modi — he is polariz ing, sectarian and authoritarian. There is a great er risk, however, in not voting for him. It is to not create jobs for 8-10 million youth that enter the market each year. One per cent rise in GDP rough ly adds 15 lakh direct jobs; each job creates three indirect jobs, and each job supports five people This means three crore people are impacted by one per cent growth. Restoring growth to 8% is prize worth thinking about when casting one’ vote. There will always be a trade-off in values at the ballot box and those who place secularism above demographic dividend are wrong and elitist.

चयन का सही आधार

आने वाले कुछ सप्ताह में मैं मतदान करने के लिए जाऊंगा। मतदान बूथ पर मेरा सामना खामियों-खराबियों वाले उम्मीदवारों से होगा, लेकिन मेरे सामने उसे चुनने की मजबूरी होगी जिसमें सबसे कम खामी होगी। यहां सवाल यही है कि किस आधार पर मैं अपनी पसंद के उम्मीदवार का चयन करूं? सामान्य सी बात है कि मैं उस उम्मीदवार को वोट देना पसंद करूंगा जो करोड़ों भारतीयों के जीवन में संपन्नता-समृद्धि लाने में मददगार हो। इस संदर्भ में भ्रष्टाचार, महंगाई, सेक्युलरिज्म और आतंकवाद जैसी बातें भी अपेक्षाकृत कम महत्व रखती हैं। कोई भी भारतीय तब तक चैन से नहीं रह सकता जब तक कि सभी भारतीय अपनी जरूरतों को पूरा करने के संदर्भ में दिन-प्रतिदिन की चिंताओं से मुक्त नहीं हो जाते। सभी राजनेता गरीबों के प्रति अपनी चिंता दर्शाते हैं, लेकिन करोड़ों गरीब और निम्न मध्यम वर्ग के भारतीय गरीबी रेखा से थोड़ा ही ऊपर जीवन-यापन कर रहे हैं, जो अपने आर्थिक जीवन में सुधार के हकदार हैं।

सभी भारतीयों के जीवन में समृद्धि लाने के क्रम में मैं दो आधारों पर उम्मीदवारों का चयन करूंगा। इसमें पहला आधार क्रियान्वयन की क्षमता है। किसी काम को करने की क्षमता को मैं किसी विचार को हासिल करने से बेहतर मानता हूं। वादा तो कोई भी कर सकता है, लेकिन यथार्थ के धरातल पर उसे कुछ लोग ही उतार सकते हैं। मैं उस उम्मीदवार को वोट दूंगा जो विचार और क्त्रियान्वयन के बीच के अंतर को पाट सके। मेरा दूसरा आधार भारत के सीमित अवसरों से जुड़ा हुआ है, जो महज दस वषरें में खत्म हो जाएंगे। इस अवसर का आधार है जनसंख्या लाभ की स्थिति। यह एक तथ्य है कि भारत ऐसा युवा देश है जहां की अधिसंख्य आबादी कामगार वर्ग में शामिल है। जनसंख्या के लिहाज से जैसी हमारी स्थिति है वह हमें आर्थिक लाभ की स्थिति प्रदान करती है, क्योंकि उत्पादक वर्ग के लोगों की संख्या अधिक है जो गैर उत्पादक वर्ग को सहयोग देने की स्थिति में हैं। विश्व बैंक के मुताबिक लाभ की यह स्थिति प्रति वर्ष प्रति व्यक्ति जीडीपी विकास में दो फीसद का अतिरिक्त योगदान देती है। पूर्व-पश्चिम के सर्वाधिक सफल देश जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ से भलीभांति अवगत हैं। हाल के वषरें में चीन को भी यह उपलब्धि मिली है। मैं उसे वोट दूंगा जो जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ की शक्ति को समझेगा और उसके अनुरूप एजेंडा तय करेगा। इसके लिए बुनियादी ढांचे में निवेश करना होगा, कौशल प्रशिक्षण देना होगा और गैर उत्पादक सब्सिडी में कटौती करनी होगी। उद्यमियों के लिए निवेश का माहौल बनाना होगा, जिससे बड़ी तादाद में नए रोजगार पैदा होंगे।

गरीबों को सब्सिडी की नीति के बजाय इस तरह के कदमों से दीर्घकालिक समृद्धि आएगी। जब लोगों को रोजगार मिलेगा तो वह अधिक उपभोग करेंगे, जिससे उद्योगों को ताकत मिलेगी। इससे वह अधिक बचत कर सकेंगे, जिससे हमारे देश की पूंजी में इजाफा होगा। इसका असर आगे चलकर अधिक निवेश और विकास में झलकेगा। अभिभावक और कर्मचारी अपने बच्चों की शिक्षा और स्वास्थ्य पर अधिक खर्च करेंगे, जिससे भविष्य में हमें अधिक उत्पादक श्रमशक्ति हासिल होगी। अधिक उत्पादन से महंगाई भी नीचे आएगी। उच्च आय और कम सब्सिडी से देश की राजकोषीय स्थिति मजबूत होगी और सरकार तब शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य और गरीबों के कल्याण के लिए अधिक काम कर सकेगी। जाहिर है हमें देखना होगा कि प्रतिस्पर्धी दलों में इसके लिए कौन अधिक बेहतर है। इसके लिए क्षेत्रीय पार्टियां उपयुक्त नहीं, क्योंकि वे मुख्यतया क्षेत्रीय मुद्दों पर केंद्रित होती हैं। वे धर्म व जाति के कार्ड खेलने में महारत रखती हैं, लेकिन आर्थिक विकास पर शायद ही बोलती हैं। आम आदमी पार्टी की मुख्य चिंता भ्रष्टाचार और क्रोनी कैपिटलिज्म है, न कि निवेश और नौकरियों का सृजन। क्षेत्रीय दलों और उनके नेताओं को वोट देना अपने मत को बेकार करना होगा, जैसे कि सपा के मुलायम सिंह, बसपा की मायावती और यहां तक आप के केजरीवाल को भी। दो राष्ट्रीय दलों में कांग्रेस के भीतर बैठे सुधारवादी जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ की शक्ति को अच्छी तरह समझते हैं, लेकिन वे कुछ कर पाने में असमर्थ हैं, क्योंकि सत्ताधारी वंश विकास का बहुत इच्छुक नहीं।

सोनिया और राहुल गांधी गरीबों को तत्काल कुछ दिए जाने के पक्ष में हैं, बजाय इसके कि नौकरियों और रोजगार के माध्यम से सतत चलने वाली विकास प्रक्त्रिया का इंतजार करें। उनकी प्राथमिकता सड़कें और ऊर्जा संयंत्र नहीं, बल्कि सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली के जरिये खाद्यान्न वितरण, बिजली सब्सिडी और गैस सिलेंडरों में रियायत, मनरेगा तथा दूसरी कल्याणकारी योजनाएं हैं। इस नीति की वजह अधिकाधिक वोट पाने की मंशा है, लेकिन इससे विकास दर गिरती है, महंगाई बढ़ती है और दूसरी तमाम समस्याएं पैदा होती हैं। विकास और समानता की गलत नीति के कारण संप्रग सरकार ने सुधारों को रोक दिया और बुनियादी ढांचे पर ध्यान नहीं दिया। इससे निवेशकों का भरोसा भी टूटा। परिणामस्वरूप भारत की विकास दर नौ फीसद से गिरकर 4.5 फीसद पर पहुंच गई। इस वजह से मैं नहीं मानता कि कांग्रेस पार्टी जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ को समझने में समर्थ है। कांग्रेस संप्रग सरकार के काल में रुकी पड़ीं 750 बड़ी परियोजनाओं को शुरू करा पाने में भी समर्थ नहीं, क्योंकि सरकार में ही सत्ता के दो केंद्र हैं और हमारी नौकरशाही भ्रमित है। इसी का परिणाम अप्रत्याशित भ्रष्टाचार और अन्य नीतिगत अपंगताएं हैं। पिछले दस वषरें को देखें तो भाजपा ने भी रचनात्मक विपक्ष की भूमिका नहीं निभाई। इसने कांग्रेस के विकास विरोधी रवैये का सही तरह विरोध नहीं किया, लेकिन पिछले वर्ष से नरेंद्र मोदी के कारण उसकी सोच में जबरदस्त बदलाव आया है। उन्होंने विकास के एजेंडे के तहत निवेश, रोजगार, कौशल प्रशिक्षण और बुनियादी ढांचे पर ध्यान दिया। मोदी एक बेहतर प्रशासक और अच्छे क्त्रियान्यवनकर्ता हैं। वह विकास प्राथमिकताओं पर नजर रखते हैं, लाल और हरी फीताशाही को रोकते हैं और सेवा में सुधार के पक्षधर हैं। हालांकि केंद्र में गठबंधन के कारण उनके लिए यह सब आसान नहीं होगा, लेकिन उनमें समस्याओं पर जीत हासिल करने वाले एक राजनेता के सभी गुण हैं।

मोदी मेरे दोनों ही पैमानों पर खरे उतरते हैं। इसी कारण मैं भाजपा को वोट देना चाहता हूं। मैंने पहले कभी भाजपा को वोट नहीं दिया, क्योंकि उसकी राजनीति बहुसंख्यकवादी और हिंदुत्व के एजेंडे पर आधारित थी। यदि लालकृष्ण आडवाणी या पुराने लोग इसका नेतृत्व करते हैं तो भी मैं इसे वोट नहीं दूंगा, क्योंकि उनकी आर्थिक सोच भ्रमित है। मैं मोदी की एकाधिकारवादी और गैर-सेक्युलर प्रवृत्तिसे चिंतित हूं, लेकिन कोई भी अन्य पूर्ण योग्य नहीं है। मुझे विश्वास है कि अगले पांच वषरें तक 2002 जैसा कुछ नहीं होगा। मैं मोदी को वोट देने का जोखिम लेना पसंद करूंगा, क्योंकि मैं जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ को खोना नहीं चाहता। एक गरीब देश में रोजगार सृजन पहली प्राथमिकता होनी चाहिए। जीडीपी में एक फीसद विकास से 15 लाख रोजगार पैदा होते हैं और प्रत्येक रोजगार से अप्रत्यक्ष तौर पर तीन लोगों को रोजगार मिलता है और प्रत्येक रोजगार से पांच लोगों की आजीविका चलती है।

Elect to transform India with these eight big ideas

The world is divided between optimists and pessimists. Optimists believe that if the government invests in infrastructure, removes barriers facing entrepreneurs, jobs will multiply, the economy will grow, and the country will gradually turn middle class. Pessimists worry about problems— inequality, crony capitalism, degrading environment, etc. The problems are real but optimists focus on opportunities and lead nations to success. Let’s hope an optimist is elected in 2014 after a decade of UPA’s pessimism, and here are eight big ideas to help him/her restore India to health.

First, bring urgency to growth, rubbishing the false trade-off between growth and equity, which is the destructive legacy of the Left under UPA-I and of the national advisory council under UPA-II. To this end, give priority to investment in power and roads. Second, eliminate the nearly 70 clearances (yes 70, according to planning commission’s new manufacturing policy!) for starting a business, and fuse them into a 'single window clearance' achieved by our competitor nations. India’s notorious red tape is mainly responsible for our 134th rank in World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ report. Every country protects its environment but none stops hundreds of projects in the process.

Third, complete the good work already done to make the Goods and Services Tax (GST) a reality and India a national market. GST will replace the present nightmare of indirect taxes—state sales taxes, central sales tax, excise duty, service tax, entry tax, etc. Since it will tax only the added value at each stage, it will discourage cash transactions as no one wants to lose credit for taxes already paid. Compliance will rise, tax revenues will swell, black market will diminish, and peoples’ morals will improve.

Fourth, create masses of formal jobs by reforming senseless labour laws while creating a labour welfare fund (with contributions from employers and government) to finance transitory unemployment and re-training. Companies have to survive in a downturn. When orders decline, either one cuts workers or goes bankrupt. Successful nations allow employers to ‘hire and fire’ but protect the laid off with a safety net. India’s labour laws insist on lifetime jobs. Hence, Indian companies avoid hiring ‘permanents’ and 90% workers have ended up as ‘informals’ without a safety net. Protect workers, not jobs.

More than half our people are stuck in agriculture and the fifth imperative is to create a second green revolution. To this end: A) Scrap ‘agricultural produce marketing committees’ (APMC) which function as wholesaler cartels in mandis. Opening markets will allow traders and farmers to buy and sell freely, making India into a national market. When large retailers buy from farmers, they will save food from rotting through cold-chains, raising returns to farmers and lowering prices to consumers. B) Discard the minimum support price system, which has created massive distortions—growing rice in water scarce Punjab!— and destroyed the entrepreneurial dynamism of the Indian farmer. C) Reverse UPA government’s damaging decision against genetically modified crops. Recall, Bt cotton doubled India’s cotton production in five years and made us the world’s largest exporter. D) Have a predictable export-import regime for farm products. Stop the present ‘switch on, switch off’ policy which harms the farmer and brings disrepute to India. E) Remove the irrational conditions that are preventing global retailers from entering India. And BJP must get over its unreasonable opposition to FDI in retail. In those states where FDI in retail is banned, consumers will lose the opportunity for lower prices, farmers will lose prospect of higher returns, a third to half of fresh produce will continue to rot, and millions of unemployed youth will be denied jobs and careers in the modern retail economy.

Sixth, sell off hotels, airlines, and all uncompetitive public sector enterprises, including banks, which have been bleeding the country for generations. Especially, break the monopoly of Coal India, which has made India--sitting on the world’s third largest reserves--the largest coal importer in the world. Seventh, abolish all subsidies and replace them by cash transfers into the bank account of the female head of the household via mobile banking. NREGA, PDS, Food Corporation and all such leaky institutions must be phased out. As large sums are involved, employ the world’s best practices to determine who is a deserving beneficiary. Finally, get rid of license raj in education to meet the insatiable demand for good schools.

This is a big agenda but it is achievable by an optimist leader, who is also competent in execution. Such a leader will not only declare this policy agenda but will monitor progress, get into the messy details of execution, not to micro-manage but to encourage the implementers of the policy, and clear barriers. He will thus give the those who have to execute the policies—the bureaucracy--a sense of purpose and this will propel India to high growth, a demographic dividend, and to achieve its potential.

Sunday Times of India, March 2, 2014

अमर प्रेम के भ्रम से उपजी त्रासदी

पिछले एक माह में रिश्तों में पैदा हुई त्रासदी से कई महत्वपूर्ण लोगों की जिंदगी में विनाश आया है। अच्छे लेखक और यूपीए सरकार में मंत्री शशि थरूर की पत्नी की दिल्ली में मौत हुई। कहा गया कि यह आत्महत्या थी। लगभग इसी समय फ्रांस की प्रथम महिला वैलेरी ट्रिरवेइलर को भी पेरिस के अस्पताल में भर्ती करना पड़ा। ये दोनों घटनाएं संदिग्ध विवाहेत्तर रिश्तों के उजागर होने के बाद हुई। सुनंदा पुष्कर ने अपने पति पर एक पाकिस्तानी पत्रकार के साथ अंतरंग संबंधों का आरोप लगाया। ट्रिरवेइलर की जिंदगी फ्रांस के राष्ट्रपति फ्रांस्वां ओलांड के एक अभिनेत्री से संबंधों के कारण उजड़ गई। प्रकरण उजागर होने के कुछ दिनों बाद दोनों अलग हो गए। ये ग्लैमरस सेलिब्रिटीज के बारे में कोई उथले सैक्स स्कैंडल नहीं थे। ये मानव परिस्थिति के बारे में कुछ गहरी और दुखद बातें उजागर करते हैं।

ऐसे प्रकरणों में आमतौर पर वफादारी न निभाने वाले पुरुष को दोष दिया जाता है। उसे झूठा, विश्वासघाती और धोखेबाज कहा जाता है। फिर ऐसे लोग भी होते हैं जो प्रेम विवाह की प्रथा को भी उतना ही दोषी मानते हैं। आधुनिक प्रेम विवाह में तीन पहलू होते हैं-प्रेम, अंतरंग संबंध और परिवार। इनके कारण संबंधित युगल से प्राय: असंभव-सी अपेक्षाएं की जाती हैं। बेशक विवाह के पीछे मूल विचार तो परिवार का निर्माण ही था। फिर इसके साथ रोमांटिक प्रेम आ गया और यह मांग भी जुड़ गई कि जीवनसाथी अंतरंग रिश्तों में भी परिपूर्ण साबित हो।

दार्शनिक एलन डि बोटोन के मुताबिक पुराने समय में पुरुष इन तीन जरूरतों को तीन भिन्न महिलाओं के जरिये पूर्ण करते थे। पत्नी घर का निर्माण करती थी, बच्चों की देखभाल करती थी। एक प्रेमिका चोरी-छिपे उसकी रोमांटिक जरूरतें पूरी करती थी और अन्य प्रकार के संबंध के लिए कोई बाहरी औरत होती थी। भूमिकाओं का यह विभाजन पुरुषों के बहुत अनुकूल था, किंतु आज हम एक ही व्यक्ति से तीनों भूमिकाएं निभाने की नामुमकिन-सी अपेक्षा रखते हैं। ऐसे में खासतौर पर मध्यवर्गीय कामकाजी महिलाएं इन अपेक्षाओं को लेकर बहुत दबाव महसूस करती हैं। फिर घर के बाहर कॅरिअर में सफल होने का तनाव तो होता ही है। ऐसे में वे सिर्फ एक प्रेमपूर्ण, उदार और वफादार पति चाहती हैं।

आधुनिक प्रेम विवाह की इतनी सारी जरूरतें पूरी करने की पागलपनभरी आकांक्षाएं बहुत बड़ा मनोवैज्ञानिक बोझ हो जाता है। इससे शायद सुनंदा पुष्कर और ट्रिरवेइलर की त्रासदियों को समझने में मदद मिल सके। मेरे दो पसंदीदा उपन्यास फ्रांसीसी लेखक गुस्ताव फ्लाउबर्त का मेडम बोवेरी और लियो तोल्सतोय का एना कैरेनिना की नायिकाओं की त्रासदी के पीछे भी निश्चित ही ये ही कारण थे। दोनों महिलाओं को ऐसी आर्थिक सुरक्षा प्राप्त थी, जिससे किसी को भी रश्क हो सकता था पर उनके विवाह में प्रेम नहीं था। दोनों को जीवन से रोमांस की आधुनिक अपेक्षाएं थीं और उन्होंने विवाहेत्तर संबंधों में इसे पाने का दुस्साहस किया। हालांकि समाज उनके इन संबंधों के प्रति उदार नहीं था और दिल टूटने से उनकी जिंदगियां आत्महत्या में खत्म हुईं।

मौजूदा भारत में लोगों के जीवन में रोमांटिक प्रेम का परिचय कराने में बॉलीवुड की मुख्य भूमिका रही। फिल्मों के प्रभाव के बावजूद भारतीयों को यह रोमांटिक प्रेम का मिथक कभी पूरी तरह स्वीकार नहीं हुआ। इसीलिए अरेंज मैरिज की समझबूझभरी संस्था न सिर्फ कायम है बल्कि फल-फूल रही है। संपूर्ण मानव इतिहास में ज्यादातर समाजों में अरेंज मैरिज की ही प्रथा रही है, किंतु 19वीं सदी की शुरुआत में पश्चिम में मध्यवर्ग के उदय के साथ लव मैरिज चलन में आया। यह उसी दौर की बात है जब यूरोप में वैचारिक जागरूकता आई, जिसमें स्वतंत्रता, समानता, व्यक्तिवाद और धर्मनिरपेक्षता जैसे विचार हावी थे। लव मैरिज के साथ ये उदार मूल्य ब्रिटिश राज के साथ भारत में आए। आज ये मूल्य बहुत बड़े पैमाने पर मध्यवर्ग में जगह बना चुके हैं।

चाहे आधुनिक प्रेम विवाह भारत में पश्चिम से आया पर रोमांटिक प्रेम हमारे लिए नया नहीं है। संस्कृत और पाली प्रेम काव्य में हमें इसके दर्शन होते हैं। विद्याकार के खंडकाव्य और सतसई तो इसके उदाहरण हैं ही, कालीदास जैसे शास्त्रीय कवि और बाद में भक्ति काव्य खासतौर पर गीत गोविंद में यह दिखाई देता है। इस काव्य में लगातार निषिद्ध रोमांटिक प्रेम की चर्चा है। ऐसे निषिद्ध प्रेम के मोह से कौन बच सका है। एक सुंदर अजनबी के साथ प्रेम संबंध एक रोमांचक संभावना है खासतौर पर बरसों तक बच्चों की परवरिश के थकाऊ अनुभव के बाद तो इसका आकर्षण बढ़ ही जाता है। सिर्फ शारीरिक सुख ही इस ओर नहीं खींचता पर खुद के अहंकार के पूजे जाने का गर्व भी इसकी वजह होती है।

हालांकि इन आह्लादकारी विचारों पर अपने जीवनसाथी को चोट पहुंचाने का अपराध बोध मंडराता रहता है। विवाहेत्तर संबंधों में हमेशा कोई न कोई तो शिकार होता ही है। भारतीय पुरुष के लिए यह जीवन के दो लक्ष्यों, धर्म यानी नैतिकता और काम के बीच संघर्ष का भी होता है।  देह के आनंद का उत्सव मनाने वाले कामसूत्र में भी कहा गया है कि काम की आवेगात्मक इच्छाओं की लगाम धर्म के हाथों में होनी चाहिए।

इसके कारण एक धर्मसंकट पैदा होता है। एक व्यक्ति दूसरे को धोखा दे या खुद को। दोनों में से कोई भी विकल्प आजमाए, उसकी हार ही है। यदि आवेग को प्राथमिकता दी तो जीवनसाथी के साथ धोखा होता है और प्रेम जोखिम में पड़ जाता है। यदि प्रलोभन के प्रति उदासीन हो जाए तो खुद के दमित होने का जोखिम रहता है। यदि प्रेम प्रकरण गुप्त रखता है तो वह व्यक्ति भरोसे के काबिल नहीं रहता। स्वीकार करता है तो बेवजह का दुख पैदा हो जाता है। यदि खुद की बजाय बच्चों के हित को तरजीह देता है तो बच्चों के चले जाने के बाद असंतोष पैदा होता है। खुद के हित को तरजीह देता है तो बच्चों की कभी खत्म न होने वाली नाराजी का सामना करना पड़ता है। खेद है कि यह दुखद और नैराश्यपूर्ण स्थिति 'काम' के कारण पैदा होती है, कम से कम पुरुषों के दृष्टिकोण से तो यही बात है।

पिछले कुछ दशकों से भारत में विवाह को लेकर रवैया बदल रहा है और युवा अब दैहिक संबंधों पर स्वतंत्रतापूर्वक चर्चा करते हैं। अरेंज मैरिज के बने रहने के बावजूद युवावर्ग उसके प्रेम में पडऩा चाहता है, जिससे उसे विवाह करना होता है। जब उनके विवाह में कोई गड़बड़ होती है तो उनका रोमांटिक भ्रम छिन्न-भिन्न हो जाता है। फिर देवदास की तरह वे टूटे दिल की तीमारदारी में लग जाते हैं। वे यह नहीं समझते कि कभी न खत्म होने वाला प्रेम बॉलीवुड और रोमांटिक काव्य की देन है। उन्हें अहसास नहीं है कि मानवीय प्रेम हमेशा खत्म होता है। हम अकेले पैदा होते हैं, अकेले मरते हैं। इन दो घटनाओं के बीच हमें जो भी साथ मिलता है वह विशुद्ध रूप से किस्मत की बात है। अकेलापन यह हमारी सामान्य मानवीय परिस्थिति है। हमें संकल्प के साथ अपने इस अकेलेपन को एक परिपक्व, परवाह करने वाले और स्वतंत्र व्यक्तित्व में बदलना चाहिए। एक-दूसरे के व्यक्तित्वों और पृथकता की सच्ची स्वीकार्यता ही वह नींव है जिस पर एक परिपक्व विवाह आधारित होना चाहिए।

Modern marriages aren’t made in heaven

In the past few weeks, sexual tragedies have blighted some prominent and attractive lives. Sunanda Pushkar, wife of the writer and minister, Shashi Tharoor, died recently in Delhi. Around the same time, the French First Lady, Valerie Treirweiler, had to be hospitalized in Paris. Both events followed revelations of alleged sexual affairs. Sunanda Pushkar accused her husband of an intimate relationship with a Pakistani journalist. Ms Treirweiler was devastated by the French president, Francois Hollande’s liaison with an actress; France’s first family split a few days later. These are not only titillating sex scandals about glamorous celebrities — they reveal something deeper and infinitely sad about the melancholic human condition. 

The standard narrative in such cases is to blame the unfaithful man, calling him 'scumbag’ and 'cheat'. There is another narrative, however, which holds the institution of 'love marriage' equally guilty. Modern marriage combines three idealistic ideas — love, sex, and family — which make distinctive but unreasonable demands on a couple. To raise a family was, of course, the original idea behind marriage. To it has been added the second ideal of romantic love; and a third — that one's partner should also be a great performer in bed. 

We have a sensible institution in India called 'arranged marriage' which we contrast with 'love marriage'. Throughout human history arranged marriages were the norm in most societies. People got married to raise a family. In early 19th century, with the rise of the middle-classes, 'love marriage' emerged in Europe. It coincided with the Enlightenment, which incubated 'modern' ideas such as liberty, equality, individualism and secularism that quickly swept the world. These liberal ideas, along with 'love marriage', came to India on the coat tails of the British Raj. Initially it infected a tiny westernized minority but today it has permeated a larger middle-class. Most Indians received their ideal of 'love marriage' unreliably from Bollywood, which may explain why good old fashioned arranged marriage is still well and alive in India. 

In pre-modern times, men satisfied the three needs via three different individuals, according to the philosopher Alain de Botton's sensitively male perspective. A wife made a home and children; a lover fulfilled one's romantic needs clandestinely ; and an accomplished prostitute or courtesan was always there for great sex. This division of labour served men well. Given a chance, I expect, my grandfather would have lived thus. But today, we make impossible demands on a single person to meet romantic, sexual and familial needs. She feels huge pressure to fulfil all three roles plus make a career outside the home. What she mostly wants is a love marriage with good and faithful husband. 

The insane ambition of modern love marriage to satisfy so many needs places a huge burden and this might also help to explain the tragedies of Sunanda Pushkar and Valerie Treirweiler. It was certainly behind the tragedies that befell the heroines of two of my favourite novels, Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina. Both women had enviable financial security but also loveless marriages. But both had modern, romantic expectations from life, and dared to fulfil them outside marriage. Society did not forgive their illicit love affairs and their lives ended in tragic suicides. 

Human beings may have become modern and liberal but society remains conservative. Who has not been tempted by illicit love? An affair with a beautiful stranger is a thrilling prospect, especially after years of raising children. There is also fear of death if one is middle-aged — life is passing and when will another chance come? But these exhilarating thoughts have to be weighed against hurting another human being. One must always empathize with the victim of adultery. Even the Kamasutra admits that dharma trumps kama. 

Does one betray another human being or oneself ? Either way one loses. If one decides to have a fling, one betrays a spouse and puts one's love at risk. If one abstains from temptation, one risks becoming stale and repressed. If one keeps the affair secret, one becomes inauthentic. Confessing to it brings needless pain. If one places one's children's interest above one's own, one is disappointed when they leave. If one puts one's own interest above theirs, one earns their unending resentment. This, alas, is the unhappy, melancholic human condition.

Aam Aadmi is not the reforming party India needs, Financial Times,January 26, 2014

The leadership is trapped in the ideas of the old left, writes Gurcharan Das

For the past six weeks Indians have been mesmerised by the stunning success of the Aam Aadmi party, which has propelled its 45-year-old activist leader, Arvind Kejriwal, to chief minister of Delhi. The AAP – or Common Man party – is only a year old but its popularity is challenging the supremacy of India’s two main political parties, the left-leaning Congress and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party.

Yet despite its many commendable features, the AAP is not the party needed to revive investment and growth and unlock India’s potential. Mr Kejriwal’s gentle, charming rhetoric seems to hide illiberal instincts. His party, furthermore, could prevent the formation of a stable government in this year’s national elections if it diverts enough votes from Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata party, the leading contender.

The AAP has rapidly given many Indians a wonderful sense of nationhood. Its transparent fundraising contrasts with the murky electoral financing of other parties. Its strident rhetoric has forced parliament to enact anti-corruption legislation that had been languishing for years. Its politicians’ frugality has embarrassed those of other parties who live in sprawling bungalows with gun-toting security brigades.

A young, aspiring middle class, sick of corruption, is largely driving the AAP phenomenon. Filled with hope and ambition, it wants jobs, opportunities and a better life for its children. But the party’s leadership is trapped in the ideas of the old left and could take India back to its socialist past, the pre-1991 days when it was a perpetual underachiever. Since the leadership is out of sync with the aspirations of its followers, the party may yet hit a wall and run out of steam. It is a fate that has been met by many populist movements before.

The AAP failed its first economics test this month when it disallowed foreign investment in Delhi supermarkets. It did not realise that its supporters would prefer to work in modern supermarkets rather than dingy localkirana stores. It forgot that, the world over, the “common man” shops in supermarkets where prices are lower because large retailers shun intermediaries to buy their produce directly from farmers, passing on the savings to consumers.

Instead of fighting supermarkets, the AAP should have scrapped a law that forces farmers to sell through

official “agricultural produce marketing committees” – in effect, wholesaler cartels. This would benefit consumers, curbing rises in fruit and vegetable prices. It would also, for example, allow supermarkets to buy directly from farmers, keep the produce fresh throughout the supply chain and save food from rotting in the field.

The man in charge of running one of India’s leading cities has the opportunity to transform it into an innovative services hub, and to lift his supporters to the affluence enjoyed in the Asian tiger economies. But Mr Kejriwal does not realise that, since the arrival of the metro over a decade ago, Delhi has changed from an old bureaucratic town of constipated civil servants to become a lively commercial city.

His first move was to give all households 20,000 litres of free water a month – a populist ploy that will not help the poorest 30 per cent of Delhi citizens who are without running water. This middle-class subsidy will lead to meter-tampering and destroy the finances of the publicly owned water authority, leaving scant funds for maintenance, or for laying new pipes in poor neighbourhoods.

What makes Mr Kejriwal unique is his obsession with corruption. But to tackle it he will have to go beyond his favourite idea, the Lokpal, an independent anti-corruption agency with the power to expose wrongdoing by officials. At a minimum, he must eliminate opportunities for official malfeasance by reforming the bureaucracy and the judiciary. He has shown little inclination for this hard work.

Indian voters, unfortunately, do not have a choice when it comes to economic issues. Every party is left of centre; hence, reforms take place by stealth.

The space at the right of centre remains empty. More than the AAP, India needs a liberal party that openly trusts markets and focuses on economic and institutional reform. But this situation might soon change. Mr Modi is openly right of centre. Even though his own party is confused on economic issues, his state of Gujarat has registered double-digit economic growth for more than a decade through his ability to attract private investment. He may not be the liberal reformer India needs but he is decisive, business friendly and gets things done.

No party seems capable of winning a majority in the forthcoming elections, and voters are reconciled to another coalition. The AAP’s role might well be that of a spoiler, which will mean instability in a country where decision making has been paralysed for the past five years under Congress party rule.

The writer is the author of ‘India Grows at Night: A Liberal Case for a Strong State’

आप से ज्यादा उम्मीद नहीं

आम आदमी पार्टी को दिल्ली चुनावों में मिली सफलता से तमाम भारतीय नागरिक मंत्रमुग्ध हैं। आम आदमी पार्टी का नेतृत्व 45 वर्षीय सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता अरविंद केजरीवाल के हाथों में है, जो फिलहाल दिल्ली के मुख्यमंत्री हैं। यह पार्टी महज एक साल पुरानी है, लेकिन इसकी अपार लोकप्रियता भारत के दो प्रमुख राजनीतिक दलों-वाम नीतियों के प्रति झुकाव रखने वाली कांग्रेस और हिंदू राष्ट्रवादी भारतीय जनता पार्टी की सर्वोच्चता को चुनौती पेश कर रही है। अपनी तमाम प्रशंसनीय विशेषताओं के बावजूद आप वह पार्टी नहीं है जो अर्थव्यवस्था को वापस पटरी पर ला सके अथवा रोजगार और विकास के संदर्भ में भारत की क्षमताओं को बढ़ा सके। वास्तव में यदि आप आगामी चुनावों में पर्याप्त सीटें जीतती है तो यह प्रमुख प्रतिद्वंद्वी नरेंद्र मोदी के नेतृत्व में एक स्थिर सरकार की संभावना को अस्थिर कर सकती है।

बहुत कम समय में आप ने तमाम भारतीय नागरिकों को राष्ट्रीयता के संदर्भ में एक नया और चमत्कारिक नजरिया दिया है। आप ने जिस पारदर्शी तरीके से चुनावी चंदा इकट्ठा किया वह दूसरी तमाम पार्टियों के लिए शर्म का विषय होनी चाहिए। इस पार्टी ने भ्रष्टाचार के मसले पर जिस तरह का कड़ा रुख अख्तियार किया उसने संसद को भ्रष्टाचार रोधी कानून लोकपाल को पारित करने के लिए विवश किया। इस पार्टी के सादगी भरे आचरण ने बड़े बंगलों में रहने वाले और भारी सुरक्षा का तामझाम रखने वाली दूसरी पार्टियों के नेताओं को शर्मिदा होने के लिए विवश किया। युवाओं और मध्य वर्ग की आकांक्षाओं तथा भ्रष्टाचार की महामारी जैसे कारक इसकी चमत्कारिक सफलता के लिए मुख्य रूप से जिम्मेदार हैं।

इस संदर्भ में यह भी एक तथ्य है कि नई उम्मीद और आकांक्षाओं से भरा हुआ यह वर्ग रोजगार के नए अवसर तथा अपने बच्चों के लिए एक बेहतर जीवन की उम्मीद रखता है, लेकिन दुर्भाग्य से आम आदमी पार्टी का नेतृत्व भारत के पुराने वामपंथी विचारों में जकड़ा हुआ है। यह भारत को 1991 से पूर्व के उस समाजवादी अतीत में ढकेल सकता है, जब हमारा देश कोई खास प्रगति नहीं कर सका था। यदि आप नेतृत्व अपने समर्थकों की आकांक्षाओं को नहीं समझता है तो पार्टी को बहुत जल्द नुकसान पहुंच सकता है और तमाम अन्य लोकप्रिय आंदोलनों की तरह यह भी अपनी लोकप्रियता खो सकती है।

विगत सप्ताह में आप अपने पहले आर्थिक इम्तिहान में फेल साबित हुई। इसने एक गलत धारणा के आधार पर सुपरबाजार में प्रत्यक्ष विदेशी निवेश को इसलिए अनुमति देने से इन्कार कर दिया कि इससे सुपरबाजार में नौकरियां खत्म होंगी। वह इस बात को नहीं समझ सकी कि इसके समर्थक किसी गंदे किराना स्टोर में काम करने की बजाय एक आधुनिक सुपरबाजार में काम करना पसंद करेंगे। वह भूल गई कि विश्व में सभी जगह आम आदमी अथवा कॉमन मैन सुपरबाजार से सामान खरीदना पसंद करते हैं, क्योंकि यहां कीमतें अपेक्षाकृत कम होती हैं। यहां कीमतें इसलिए कम होती हैं, क्योंकि बड़े खुदरा व्यापारी किसानों से सीधे उत्पाद खरीदते हैं और बिचौलियों की भूमिका नहीं होने के कारण बचने वाला लाभ उपभोक्ताओं को मिलता है।

सुपरबाजार पर प्रहार करने की बजाय आप किसानों को अपना उत्पाद कृषि उत्पाद विपणन समितियों को बेचने के लिए विवश करने वाले कानून को खत्म करती ताकि फल और सब्जियों के दाम नीचे आते। थोक बाजार को खुला करने से प्रतिस्पर्धा बढ़ेगी और व्यापारी किसानों से सीधे सामान खरीद सकेंगे, जिससे महंगाई घटेगी।

सभी घरों को 20 किलोलीटर नि:शुल्क पानी देने का विचार बेतुका है। इससे दिल्ली के 30 फीसद गरीबों को कोई मदद नहीं मिलेगी। सब्सिडी की नीति से गरीबों के घर तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने अथवा आधुनिक विकास कार्यो के लिए धन नहीं बचेगा। इसी तरह कैग द्वारा बिजली कंपनियों की ऑडिट से बिजली की आपूर्ति नहीं बढ़ने वाली, बल्कि इससे बिजली क्षेत्र में निवेश और हतोत्साहित होगा। असल में कंपनियों के खातों का ऑडिट पेशेवरों द्वारा होना चाहिए न कि राजनीतिक रूप से अभिप्रेरित सीएजी द्वारा, जो बिजनेस की बारीकियां नहीं समझता। 2002 में जब से दिल्ली की बिजली कंपनियों का निजीकरण हुआ था, बिजली के वितरण में नुकसान और बिजली चोरी 57 प्रतिशत से घटकर 17 प्रतिशत रह गई है। इस बीच जितनी लागत बढ़ी है उतने रेट नहीं बढ़े हैं। 2002 से बिजली की लागत 300 प्रतिशत बढ़ चुकी है जबकि बिजली दरों में मात्र 70 प्रतिशत की वृद्धि हुई है। अगर केजरीवाल ऊर्जा वितरण में सुधार चाहते हैं तो उन्हें बिजली कंपनियों का एकाधिकार तोड़कर उनकी संख्या बढ़ानी चाहिए ताकि आपसी प्रतिस्पर्धा बढ़े। प्रतिस्पर्धा बढ़ने से कम दाम में बेहतर सेवा मिल सकेगी।

भ्रष्टाचार में लिप्त अधिकारियों का स्टिंग ऑपरेशन और दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय में सीटें आरक्षित करने का विचार भी सही नहीं है। भ्रष्टाचार के प्रति कड़ा रुख केजरीवाल की असाधारण विशेषता है। किंतु इससे निबटने के लिए केजरीवाल का प्रमुख उपाय जनलोकपाल सही नहीं ठहराया जा सकता। इससे अधिकारियों की शक्ति घटेगी और प्रशासन, पुलिस व न्यायपालिका में जरूरी सुधार लागू नहीं हो पाएंगे।

दुर्भाग्य से आर्थिक मुद्दों पर भारतीय मतदाताओं के पास कोई विकल्प नहीं है। भाजपा के अलावा हर पार्टी का झुकाव वाम की तरफ है और वे खुद को समाजवादी कहलाने में गर्व महसूस करते हैं। दक्षिण की तरफ झुकाव का स्थान रिक्त है। आप के बजाय भारत को एक ऐसी उदारवादी पार्टी की जरूरत है जो अर्थव्यवस्था में सुधार के लिए खुलकर बाजार पर भरोसा करे न कि नौकरशाही और राजनेताओं पर। ऐसी पार्टी को आर्थिक और संस्थागत सुधारों पर ध्यान केंद्रित करना होगा। किंतु यह स्थिति जल्द ही बदल सकती है। प्रधानमंत्री पद के भाजपा के उम्मीदवार नरेंद्र मोदी दक्षिण की ओर झुकाव वाले हैं और फिलहाल देश में सबसे अधिक लोकप्रिय भी हैं। यद्यपि उनकी खुद की पार्टी आर्थिक मुद्दों पर भ्रम का शिकार है, किंतु उनका राज्य गुजरात एक दशक से भी अधिक समय से दोहरे अंकों में आर्थिक विकास कर रहा है। इससे मोदी की निजी निवेश को आकर्षित करने की क्षमता का पता चलता है। वह एक उदारवादी सुधारक नहीं हैं, जिसकी भारत को सबसे अधिक आवश्यकता है, किंतु वह फैसले लेने वाले, व्यापार को बढ़ावा देने वाले और चीजों को दुरुस्त करने वाले व्यक्ति हैं।

आगामी चुनाव में किसी भी पार्टी को स्पष्ट बहुमत मिलता नजर नहीं आ रहा है और भारतीय मतदाता किसी नए गठबंधन पर विचार कर रहा है। फिलहाल चुनावी दौड़ में मोदी सबसे आगे चल रहे हैं, किंतु बहुत से लोगों का मानना है कि आम आदमी पार्टी इतनी सीटें ले जा सकती है कि मोदी एक स्थिर सरकार का गठन न कर पाएं। इस प्रकार आगामी चुनाव में आप खेल बिगाड़ने की ऐतिहासिक भूमिका अदा कर सकती है। इसका सीधा अर्थ यह होगा कि देश में अस्थिरता छा जाएगी। पिछले पांच साल से कांग्रेस पार्टी की फैसले लेने की पंगुता जग-जाहिर है।

Inflation, not corruption, will be the key issue in LS polls

In the last assembly elections, the aam admi complained inconsolably of rising prices. TV clips showed voters quoting the prices of potatoes, onions, and dal. Pundits put it down to the ‘usual election whining’, but more than corruption, inflation turned out to be the reason for Congress’ defeat. Even though it has slowed a bit recently, all political parties are warned — the aam admi is not going to forget the pain of inflation in the coming general election. 

Economists have struggled to understand why India’s consumer prices have been rising 10% a year for the past five years when prices in the world have been reasonably steady. Even in poor, emerging economies, prices have risen at half the rate as India’s. Inflation is complex but it has become clear that India’s inflation is the result of the same bad policies that brought down our growth. Huge government spending without commensurate production has meant that too much money has been chasing too few goods. 

UPA II put massive funds into villagers’ pockets. Rural wages thus rose an unprecedented 15% a year in the last five years. Farmers received a bonanza — they got high minimum support prices for grains besides fertilizer and energy subsidies plus loan waivers. Rising wages are a good thing when they reflect climbing demand in a prospering economy. To an extent, this is true of India, which experienced a ‘golden age’ of growth and prosperity till 2011. These rising incomes changed the aam family’s food habits — eating fewer cereals and more protein, fruits and vegetables. But escalating rural wages have also been the result of ‘make work’ jobs of NREGA, which did not create productive assets. Had the same money been invested in factories, roads and power plants, prices would not have risen to this extent. 

The obvious answer to inflation is to revive economic growth. To its credit, the government has realized its mistake, and is desperately trying to approve projects that have been stuck for years in red and green tape. But investments take time to translate into jobs and growth. There are quicker ways to tame food inflation fortunately. One of them is to scrap ‘agricultural produce marketing committees’ (APMC), which function as wholesaler cartels in mandis rather than protecting small farmers. Like most of our bad economic ideas, this is a hangover from Indira Gandhi’s socialist days. 

Freeing wholesale markets will bring competition as traders and farmers are able to buy and sell freely. International retailers will be able to buy directly from farmers, and with their formidable cold-chains, they will also save food from rotting in the fields and mandis. This will result in higher returns to farmers and also lower prices to consumers as supermarkets will pass on the savings from bypassing middlemen. Economists have been urging the scrapping of APMCs for years. Rahul Gandhi has now discovered this idea, and since he has put his weight behind it, it might get implemented in the Congress-ruled states. Powerful local politicians, however, control APMCs — let’s watch if Rahul Gandhi has it in him to take on this powerful vested interest. 

The Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) first action should have been to scrap the APMC in Azadpur Mandi near Delhi. It would have brought quick relief to consumers by curbing prices of fruits and vegetables. But it did the opposite. AAP scrapped foreign investment in supermarkets, denying aam admi the potential for lower prices. It did not realize that around the world it is the aam admi who shops in supermarkets because of lower prices. Besides, AAP’s aspiring supporters would any day prefer to work in modern supermarkets rather than in kirana stores. 

Of our three main political parties, only the Congress seems to have understood that inflation can be controlled by APMC reform and foreign investment in supermarkets. The BJP has chosen the trader against the aam admi and opposes FDI in retail. The AAP’s leadership, oddly enough, does not seem to be in sync with the aspirations of its followers. It is trapped in old ‘povertarian’ ideas of the Old Left which ensured that India remained an underachiever. Given the crucial role that prices will play in the coming election, can the Congress convert its advantage into votes?

Book Review: 'An Uncertain Glory' by Jean Drèze and Amartya Sen , 'Transforming India' by Sumantra Bose, The Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2013

Indian reformers did not sell their liberal reforms to the people, who concluded the free market helps the rich alone.

Two and a half years ago India was the envy of the world. It had survived the global financial crisis, and its economy was growing at a rate of 9% a year, creating masses of jobs and lifting millions out of poverty. This happy situation was the reward of free-market reforms that began in 1991. As government reduced the regulatory shackles on business, dozens of innovative firms emerged that competed brutally at home and began to succeed on the global stage. India's governments after 1991 kept reforming, if slowly. Even slow reforms added up to make India the world's second fastest-growing economy.

But the present government, led by the Congress party, changed course, guided in part by the ideas of the eminent economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. The starting point for achieving prosperity, Mr. Sen argues in "An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions"—written with Jean Drèze—is an immediate attack on illiteracy and ill health. Such an approach, he says, will produce a healthier and more literate workforce and lead to higher economic growth. Higher growth, in turn, will bring larger revenues for the state, allowing further attacks on illiteracy and ill health.

Under the influence of Mr. Sen's ideas,Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress party, and her National Advisory Council—which includes Mr. Drèze—have concluded that India's free-market reforms weren't helping the poor. Asserting a trade-off between growth and equality, the council advised changing the government's focus to spending on welfare. Instead of building roads, for example, it preferred to give away cheap food and energy and waive loans to farmers. Its flagship program was a guarantee of 100 days employment to everyone in rural areas. Approvals to industry for new projects came to a virtual halt, mostly on environmental grounds. As a result, investors lost confidence, and inflation shot up. India's economic growth has now plummeted to a rate below 5%.

Part of what led to this change of course in India was that reformers didn't sell the country's liberal reforms to the people themselves, as Margaret Thatcher did in the U.K. in the 1980s, for example. Hence the broad population got the impression that the free market helps the rich alone and not the common man. India ended up reforming in a furtive or incomplete way because no political party had bothered to explain the difference between being "pro-market" and "pro-business." To be pro-market is to believe in competition, which helps keep prices low, raises the quality of products, and leads to a "rules-based capitalism" and economic growth, a state of affairs that helps everyone, not just the rich. (This lesson and others were brilliantly explained by Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya in "Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries," published earlier this year.) To be merely pro-business, by contrast, means leaving the control of economic decisions with politicians and officials, an arrangement that easily leads to "crony capitalism."

In the midst of India's worst economic crisis since 1991, the country's current left-of-center government has just enacted a food-security law, with enthusiastic support from Messrs. Sen and Drèze: It will distribute grains to two-thirds of India at roughly 10% of the market price. This policy has shocked many people because official surveys show that only 2% of Indians claim to be hungry. In any case, past experience shows that less than half the food from such programs reaches the intended beneficiaries; the rest is lost in inefficiency and corruption. A month ago Ms. Gandhi told Parliament that if there was no money for her food-security law, it would just have to be found. And if the public-distribution system was broken, she added, it would have to be fixed. How she did not say. The opposition protested that such policies were a blatant bribe to win votes before elections, but it didn't try to stop them for fear of appearing hostile to the poor.

The obstacles to India's long-term prosperity remain political, but Sumantra Bose's "Transforming India: Challenges to the World's Largest Democracy," though offering a well-researched chronicle of India's recent political history, doesn't provide answers either. The book tells the story of democracy's evolution in India from the 1950s and makes the excellent point that, over the past two decades, India has changed from a country dominated by a single nationwide party into a robust multiparty, federal union. The regionalization of the nation's political landscape has decentralized power, given communities a distinct voice and deepened India's democracy. The running of India, as Mr. Bose notes, is now in the hands of the states and the regional parties.

With power shifting to the states, strong and decisive regional leaders have emerged in recent years. Many have delivered good governance and attracted investments and jobs. The rise of the regions is spreading the economic boom to distant corners of the land as new consumer subcultures thrive. But it hasn't resulted in local, homegrown voices in support of liberal reforms at the regional level. Instead, crony capitalism has become even more embedded in India's economy.

In the end, India's story is one of private success and public failure. Prosperity is indeed spreading, but it is happening amid appalling governance. Indians despair over the delivery of the simplest public services. Where the state is desperately needed—in providing law and order, education, health and drinking water—it performs poorly. Where it is not needed, it is hyperactive, tying people in miles of red tape.

While they recognize India's many problems, neither Messrs. Sen and Drèze nor Mr. Bose provides a satisfactory solution. It seems elementary that in such a situation either you must enhance state capacity or limit your ambition; thus it is difficult to understand why Messrs. Sen and Drèze in particular insist that only the state directly deliver food and employment through its bureaucratic machinery; they are even skeptical of cash transfers to the poor that would, at least, not damage labor and food markets. Instead of "make work" schemes, why not create sustainable opportunities for employment creation by eliminating regulation and other impediments?

More than even economic reforms India needs reforms for the institutions of the state—the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the police. It needs to become a strong liberal state with the ability to take quick, decisive action, uphold the rule of law and punish the corrupt, and of course make itself accountable to the people. India's hope may well lie with its aspiring young, those who have just entered the middle class or who are about to reach it. They are about a third of the country now and will be half in a decade. They are puzzled as to why their tolerant nation offers astonishing religious and political freedom but fails to provide economic freedom.

In a country where two out of five people are self-employed, it takes, on average, 42 days to start a business; the entrepreneur is a victim of red tape and corrupt inspectors. No wonder India ranks 119 on the global "freedom index" (from the Heritage Foundation) and 134 on the World Bank's global measure of "ease of doing business." Two decades after the 1991 reforms, India has still not become a manufacturing powerhouse like China, and its economy is driven by services. How can India hope to provide jobs for the millions of young people on its farms? Sadly, the vast majority of Indians still work in the informal economy, not in legally established companies.

The secular, political space at the right-of-center is empty, and none of the existing Indian parties is likely fill it. The answer may well be a new liberal party that trusts markets rather than officials for economic outcomes and focuses on reforming the institutions of governance. Such a party may not win votes quickly, but it would create a demand for reforms. It would also show voters that open markets and rules-based government are the only civilized ways to lift living standards and achieve shared prosperity.

—Mr. Das's most recent book is "India Grows at Night: A Liberal Case for a Strong State."

Desire or dharma: Dilemma that is as old as the vedas

Over the past few weeks we have been mesmerized by the tragic story of Tarun Tejpal. He was a moral voice to a whole generation, looked up to for courageous and uncompromising journalism. The evidence of sexual assault against the founder editor of Tehelka suggests that he not only failed a young colleague but collectively all journalists, workingwomen, and his legion of admirers. Millions of words have been written on this story but no one has explained why men in positions of power behave badly. We need to try and understand the nature of human desire in a patriarchic society where male narcissism is an ever-present reality and men believe they are more attractive than they really are.

Desire is instinctual energy deriving from primal biological urges. The Rigveda says, “The cosmos emerged from the seed of kama, ‘desire’, in the mind of the One”. A primordial sexual act of incest populated the earth, according to the Aitareya Brahmana when Prajapati, the primeval creator, desired his daughter. She ran away and took the form of a doe. He turned into a stag, copulated with her, and deer were created. Then she turned into a cow, he became a bull, and cows come into being… and so on. The gods said, “Prajapati is doing what is not done”. A serial act of rape, sinful and violent, was the “origin of species”—a somewhat more colourful version than Darwin’s.

Human beings are not only governed by instinct. Desire travels from our senses to our imagination, and often gets focused onto a specific person. Society exploited this idea by creating the institution of marriage for the purpose of social harmony. Hence, the Dharmashastras insist that sex is only for procreation. But men and women found a way to communicate their fantasies, and this gave rise to romantic love and the art of seduction. By the Epic period when the first kingdoms were formed, kama also meant ‘pleasure’ and in fact became a trivarga, one of the three aims of life, along with artha and dharma. The elite embraced the courtly ideal of the nagaraka, ‘man-about-town’. Kamasutra taught us the sixty-four arts, wherein Vatsyayana instructs, “If you are kissed, kiss back!” Patriarchy ruled, however, and Draupadi’s disrobing in the Mahabharata is the most celebrated display of male power, and it led to a ghastly war.

Sexual desire did not sit well with the ascetic, however. In the earlier Upanishadic period, our society’s idea of the good life was challenged by the “renouncer”. Rishis like Agastya suffered sexual anxiety over losing hard earned spiritual energy through tapas, which is reflected in the many myths of tempting apsaras who bring about the involuntary ejaculation of semen. The renouncer countered by speaking adeptly of the loathsome nature of a woman’s body. The object of desire becomes an object of revulsion in the Buddhacharita, for example, which demonizes the feminine ‘other’. The tension between the householder’s act of desire and the ascetic’s conquest of desire reflects the dual nature of human beings—the erotic and the ascetic in all of us—but it did not disturb the unhappy male domination of society.

To try and understand Tarun Tejpal’s actions in the historical context of male power in society is not to excuse his wrongdoing. In a patriarchal society men want to control the reproductive body of women. The man’s viewpoint pervades the Vedas, the epics, and Sanskrit love poetry.  But all our texts also warn against the dangerous nature of human desire and remind us of boundaries. Even Vatsayana cautions in the Kamasutra that kama must be governed by dharma.

Sexual assault is a crime and it has less to do with sex than with power and male domination. All societies have been patriarchal and it is a tribute to the global women’s movement that the world has begun to change its old paradigm. Governments around the world are instituting legal changes. In India, the new anti-rape law and the Vishakha guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace are part of this global trend. They must be quickly implemented and we must keep trying to make relations between men and women more equal and less hierarchical. The prize too is a big one—a safer and more civilized India.

Our bullion-dollar troubles can end if India goes for gold

It was a subdued Diwali this year. Gold trading on Dhanteras was down by 50%. Traders blamed it on mostly on the lack of gold supply which was 83% lower than last year. But policy makers cheered. Their draconian policy of restricting gold imports was working. India’s trade deficit had declined and the rupee had calmed. But it is a temporary victory. Gold smuggling is on the rise and will eventually triumph, undermining a great victory of the 1991 reforms, which was to kill the havala market. There is breathing room, however, as gold forecasters expect world prices to fall. Western and Chinese investors are losing interest in gold as their economies pick up, which should also dampen Indian investor interest.

India absorbs about a quarter of the world’s gold, and the finance minister is quite right in wanting to limit its import. A recurring theme of world history is the constant loss of Western gold and silver to India. Two thousand years ago Roman senators grumbled that their women used too many Indian spices, silks and fine cottons, and India was draining the Roman empire of bullion. Pliny the Elder called India the ‘sink of the world’s precious metal’ when he heard that a Roman ship touched an Indian port daily.

The Portuguese similarly complained in the 16th century that their hard won gold and silver from South America was being lost to India. The British Parliament echoed this refrain in the 17th century. But India kept sucking Western bullion because Western consumers hankered after Indian luxuries and Indians were not interested in Western goods. As books had to be balanced, they were balanced with bullion. Only Britain’s Industrial Revolution reversed the flow in the 19th century when Indians finally found something they wanted from the West—cheap, durable cottons from the mills of Lancashire — as handlooms worldwide gave way to machine-made cloth.

Soon after Independence, India’s leaders forgot their grand trading heritage and closed our economy in the mistaken belief that trade had impoverished India. Touting the false mantra of ‘self-reliance’, they adopted an import-substituting path, and India lost out in the great trading boom after World War II. India’s share of world trade declined from 2.2% in 1947 to 0.5% in 1990. It was only after 1991 that India regained its historic pre-eminence in the world economy.

Given the one-way flow of gold over the centuries, a staggering amount has accumulated in India. The World Gold Council estimates it to be over 20,000 tonnes, worth $1.1 trillion or half of India’s GDP. For years economists have wanted to use this unproductive asset for productive investment. And happily, the process has begun. Gold loans, bonds, and deposit schemes are all steps in the right direction. In these schemes owners of gold earn interest by depositing it with banks, which in turn releases part of it in the market, thus reducing India’s demand for imported gold.

The bigger prize is to convince temples to do the right thing and deposit their vast gold stocks in banks and earn interest. Jamal Mecklai, the currency expert, had suggested earlier this year that if Tirupati temple were to deposit a third of its holdings at two per cent interest, it could earn Rs 3,000 crore a year. Tirupati did just that in May, beginning with a 2,250-kg deposit with the State Bank of India. This is a triumph! If major temples follow suit, gold will soon flood the domestic market, imports will stop, the global gold price will fall and the rupee will strengthen.

But this government is shy to go for an all out public campaign. It worries about people’s sentiments and of the opposition playing the religious card. Gold is, after all stridhana, ‘woman’s wealth’. Although a daughter now legally inherits her share of family property, families still insist on giving her inheritance at marriage as gold jewellery. But young Indians today are sensible and they will buy the idea that an inflation-proof gold linked certificate exchangeable for gold is the hip thing to receive at marriage rather than a bunch of clunky sets. So go for it, Reserve Bank. The road to India’s economic future may well be paved with gold.

Secularism or development: Making the right choice

At long last India’s democracy is moving in the right direction in offering voters genuine choices in the upcoming general elections. One of these is a choice between “left of centre” and “right of centre”economic policies — a polarization that exists in many democracies and ends in educating citizens about two distinct paths to prosperity. The two main parties, Congress and the BJP (after Narendra Modi became its official candidate) now reflect this polarity.

The Congress party’s starting point is an immediate and massive attack on poverty. It focuses on spending on social welfare and on subsidies to the poor. Its assumption is that a better-fed population will be more productive, and this will lead to more inclusive growth. Modi’s BJP, on the other hand, believes in direct measures to induce growth. Some of these are investment in power, roads and ports, cutting red tape, and encouraging entrepreneurs to invest. The resulting investment creates jobs, raises peoples’ incomes, and brings in higher taxes for the state. The higher taxes, in turn, provide the resources to attack poverty, illiteracy and ill health.

Obviously, a successful nation needs both growth and equity in the end but resources are limited and governments are forced to prioritize. The right of centre Modi-led BJP gives priority to economic growth whereas the left of centre Congress gives priority to equity and redistribution of growth. This choice was underlined recently in the much-publicized dispute between India’s two global superstar economists, Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati.

A second choice before voters is between competing styles of leadership. Modi is a strong, determined leader, who leads from the front while Rahul is shy, reticent, and leads from behind. Rahul is more likeable and compassionate; Modi is dictatorial but with his obsession with implementation, he is more likely to get the job done. Both are reasonably intelligent, but we make a mistake in overvaluing intelligence. Our current prime minister is hugely intelligent but he has failed to deliver results because he lacks determination, which in the end is more important in delivering results. Modi, on the other hand, has shown willpower and purposiveness in trying to root out corruption in Gujarat. Incidentally, business leaders make the same mistake in over-valuing intelligence when they recruit new employees. It is always better to hire for attitude and train employees in skills.

In the past two weeks, both leaders have made welcome moves to overcome their personality deficits. Rahul showed determination in overturning the Congress’ immoral ordinance on criminals in politics; Modi showed concern for the poor and a secular mind-set when he declared “shauchalya before devalya”, toilets before temples.

A third choice before the voter concerns the important issues of secularism and corruption. The BJP is a Hindu nationalist party and is inclined to see the world through majoritarian eyes. The Congress professes to be secular but its secularism often amounts to appeasing minorities in order to win votes. Still, a voter deeply wedded to secularism, will choose Congress over the BJP. When it comes to corruption, the Congress has broken all records and is seen by many to be profoundly corrupt. The BJP too has skeletons in its closet but the voter is likely to be influenced by Modi’s cleaner record against corruption in Gujarat. Thus, there is a third polarization — does one vote for a nonsecular BJP or a corrupt Congress party?

Sharp choices bring clarity to decision making for the confused, middle of the road voter, someone like me. Ultimately it amounts to this: Should one risk India’s precious secular and collaborative traditions for the sake of good governance and prosperity? But by choosing secularism over development, one might deprive millions of young Indians a chance to realise their capabilities, to rise above their lot into the middle class, and the nation a demographic dividend. It is an unappetising choice. It would be easier if Modi were more secular and compassionate, or if Rahul Gandhi showed more determination, gave more priority to growth, and was less tolerant of corruption.

Alas, it is not a perfect world and the best one can hope is to choose the less worse of the two candidates and call it a “wise choice”.