L K Advani Mantra: Physical and social, that is second to none

BJP Prime Ministerial Candidate L K Advani says: 

• “India won swaraj in 1947, thanks to the struggles and sacrifices of crores of patriots. But, even after 50 years, we have not yet succeeded in transforming swaraj (self governance) into su-raj (good governance). By good governance I mean adherence to suraksha (security), samruddhi (prosperity) and shuchita (probity in public life).”  
  
• There is no better way of understanding and experiencing India than road travel. It was agonising for me to see, in large tracts of our country, the lack of the most basic necessities of economic growth and social progress. 
  
• However, every once in a while, I also saw symbols of development that radiated hope. For example, after travelling on excruciatingly bad roads for several weeks, my yatra suddenly encountered a beautifully laid highway, a 200-kilometre-long stretch from Sambhalpur to Rourkela in Orissa. Built and maintained by Larsen & Tourbo (I was struck by its corporate slogan “We make things that make India proud”), this was one of the first experiments of PPP in road construction in India. “
  

Hello, is anyone out there? I am saying some truth about THE BIG BLUNDER OF LEFT!

Yes, Mr Shashi Tharoor says in a interview to The Economic Times.

“You have always been apolitical in your views. What made you join hands with the Indian National Congress? 

In a parliamentary system, political parties matter. Parties decide who should form the government which, in turn, decides the course of the entire nation. When I was making early decisions (to enter politics), I looked for values and wondered how I could make a contribution towards liberalism and social democracy. 

In the end, there was no doubt, it had to be Congress. There is very little scope in our system to stay independent and contest polls. Of the three national parties, the Left sadly is a prisoner of 19th century ideologies; it’s not a party to initiate progress and development…”

Blind media….

In the business of reporting news many misreporting happens in all kinds of media. 

See today’s one in the rediff: 

• “In a surprise move, the 84-year-old Chief Minister drove to the memorial of late C N Annadurai early this morning and sat on a fast there demanding immediate ceasefire in the Sri Lankan army's offensive against the LTTE. 
  
• Pranab Mukherjee [Images] and AK Antony have been discussing this with their officials over phone. These two are busy in electioneering. Hence they may not be arriving before noon in Delhi. Doctors attending on DMK chief Minister Karunanidhi have expressed concerns over the health of 88-year-old politician.” 
  

This is only one example, think of every reporting persons do the same in some or other day.

The news items are already skewed, now again misreported means what sort of services these people are doing for The Society? 

Thanks to unelectable people

Shortcut to India Parliament

We all accept crooks in the subject of ‘politics’ but not in ‘science’

V. Raghunathan asks some basic questions as a citizen of India but the relevant is very high both in terms of time and the future democracy is concerned. 

• “The abysmal attendance record of some of our celebrity parliamentarians—as measured by mere signing of the register and not by participation in the parliamentary proceedings—has been much in the news recently. Clearly, no attendance requirement applies to our representatives. Why? 
  
• Criminal background and behaviour, which may be unacceptable in students or employees in any decent school or organization, are perfectly acceptable for our parliamentarians. Why? 
  
• Our education minister does not have to be an educationist or the minister for urban planning an architect. Nor is it essential for a parliamentarian to be a degree holder in political science or have a record of public service. Why? 
  
• One would imagine that neither running of industries nor running of the state is a part-time job. How, then, do we expect industrialists such as Rahul Bajaj and Vijay Mallya to juggle their industrial empires with statecraft? Or a senior leader such as Sharad Pawar to juggle statecraft with cricket? Or a Govinda (incidentally, he did not attend a single parliamentary session in 2007) or a Jaya Prada to juggle their Bollywood careers with parliamentary sessions? But we have put them there as members of Parliament. Why? 
  
• While a 56-year-old colonel is too old to run his regiment, an octogenarian parliamentarian is not too old to run the country. Why? 
  
• Corporate governance is important, but not so country governance. Why?”
  

The idea of an independent has arrived……..

The Association for Democratic Reform associate Ajit Ranade has reasonable questions like why there is no single law that regulate or governs Indian political parties. Ajit writes in the today’s TOI: 

“Our democracy functions through parties, but our parties themselves do not function democratically.  

We need a comprehensive law to regulate the functioning and funding of parties. We need to enforce inner party democracy, transparency in finances and criteria for entry and advancement. Until then we have to depend on the voice of the lone independent, both from within or outside parties who will make sure that the script returns to genuine democratic dialogue.”  

Indeed, our current home minister P Chidambaram wrote in his article in the Indian Express which was published later in book form. He said “…what we need is comprehensive law to regulate political parties just as we have a companies Act to regulate the affairs of companies we must have a law that will lay down detailed rules to govern the functioning of political parties” (p. 280). 

After writing this he was in UPA government for five years but he could not do anything on this idea. Because no political party is willing to buy his ideas and result is all they wanted to make is fool of people and the business community. 

Much of the party is still nostalgic for the Nehruvian socialism that for so long impeded India’s growth

The Economist has Leaders article on Indian general election, it has taken its position by saying (seems to be) in one line that ‘India is in Great Socialist Darkness for long time’. Some excerpts:

• “India’s general election got under way... It will be spread over five stages, taking four weeks and involving 6.5m staff. In 543 constituencies, 4,617 candidates, representing some 300 parties, will compete for the ballots of an electorate of 714m eligible voters. In 828,804 polling stations, 1,368,430 simple, robust and apparently tamper-proof electronic voting machines will be deployed. It is hard not to be impressed by the process—and its resilience. 
  
• A poor, diverse country of more than 30 main languages and six main religions, India also has, in the Hindu caste system, a tradition of hierarchy seemingly at odds with a system of universal suffrage. The country suffers security threats that would provide many a government with the excuse to suspend elections. Kashmir has been riven by insurgency for more than two decades; parts of the north-east for even longer. Maoist revolutionaries-cum-bandits stoke another fire in India’s interior and staged attacks as polling began this week. Yet, apart from the brief months of the “emergency” in 1975, India has never curtailed its people’s right to choose their rulers. And now, more than ever, that right is to be prized. 
  
• The election comes amid the deepest global economic slump for two generations. India faces difficult choices as it seeks to escape the worst of the downturn. 
  
• Yet Mr Singh’s government has made scant progress towards one of the main goals it set itself in 2004. This was to reform India’s creaking, corrupt administrative structures so that policies formulated in Delhi might actually be implemented in the villages where most Indians still live. Partly because of that failure, and despite sharp falls in the poverty rate, appalling numbers of Indians are still desperately poor. One-quarter of the world’s malnourished live in India, among them 40% of all Indian children under five. To Mr Singh’s credit, it is the plight of the poorest, not India’s GDP growth-figures, that is usually the starting-point for his policy speeches. This is also shrewd: the poor do not care about his achievements as a diplomat and globaliser, which scarcely impinge on their lives. 
  
• As in other countries, elections in India tend not to be dominated by grand national issues. And, as elsewhere, an Indian election may look splendid from a distance, but up close can be ugly. Campaigns are dominated by personalities, money and, in some places, intimidation. Many candidates seek votes through beggar-thy-neighbour appeals to the self-interest of a particular linguistic, caste or religious group. 
  
• Even in such an unpredictable contest, two outcomes are sadly fairly safe bets. First, parliament will have to make room for a lot of shady characters. Nearly a quarter of the current members have faced criminal charges. Nor are their alleged offences all petty. They include murder, rapes and kidnaps. 
  
• Much of the party is still nostalgic for the Nehruvian socialism that for so long impeded India’s growth. 
  
• In power, the BJP also had a creditable record of economic management. But it has not escaped its origins as the political wing of the Hindutva, or “Hindu-ness” movement. 
  
• For this reason, The Economist, if it had a vote, would plump for Mr Singh’s Congress. But in reality, the choice between the two big parties is not the one on offer. In India the poor, proportionately, are more likely to vote than are the middle classes. It often makes sense for them to back regional parties campaigning on local issues: they are more likely to fulfil their promises. But it does make for hopelessly unwieldy governing coalitions. One solution would be to introduce national thresholds below which parties would be ineligible for seats in parliament. But reform would need the approval of those elected under present arrangements, so it is not on the cards.”
  

Not a single party leader was ready to make that promise

In a interview with Rediff Mr Jayparakash Narayan President of Lok Satta Party says: 

• In what way Lok Satta is different from the other political parties? 
  
• The conventional parties are trying to make the people a beggar by offering free things like free TV, free rice and free electricity. Instead of seriously making efforts to eradicate poverty and enabling the people to stand on their own feet with dignity, they want to reduce them to beggary. They have made politics a business. They buy voters with money and liquor and on coming to power they make ten times more money. They eat the public money and remaining they would use for distributing free TV, free rice and electricity. Divide and rule remains their political philosophy. They divide people in to Hindus, Muslims, in the name of region and castes. 
  
• What is your agenda? 
  
• We need do three things on top priority. Eradicate poverty, decentralise the government completely, and third -- bring accountability, transparency and fight against corruption.
  
• Poverty can be eradicated within five years and with the present budget of Rs 1 lakh crore for Andhra Pradesh. For this we need four things, compulsory education for every child irrespective of his/her community, caste and creed, free, in private or government sector, with English and computers. We need to develop skills in the youth to make them employable. We want to build 1,000 small towns across the state at a cost of Rs 30,000 crore generating 50 lakh jobs stimulating the economy. We will provide urban facilities in the rural areas. 
  
• Third, we need free health care to the people as a national policy ranging from preventive cure to the treatment and surgery for any big ailment. We can do it through private-public participation and competition between the service providers. Fourth, in agriculture and traditional occupations like weaving, pottery etc, we will enhance income by upgrading skills, using technology and providing access to the market. 
  
• Will it be same as the Zilla Parishad? 
  
• No. It will be much better than that. The will have more power. It will be a local government at the doorsteps of the people. 
  
• Secondly, we will try to achieve Rs 1000 per capita to every town, village and ward. Suppose if a village has a population of 5000, we will give them Rs 50 lakh per annum to meet the local needs like drinking water roads, drainage, toilets at home and in public places, parks, street lighting. They will have to take care of all these things. It will be only 8% of the total public spending. They will not have to go around begging money for these purposes. 
  
• Take a city like Hyderabad where every ward has a population of 50,000. We will give Rs 5 crore to every such ward which will be spent by a ward committee including a local corporator and a local elected citizen from every polling centre. Thus we will build a local government around the citizen, unlike a centralised, remote, incompetent and corrupt government 
  
• How about corruption? 
  
• We will have zero tolerance for corruption and make Right To Information Act a powerful weapon by implementing it completely and fairly. Once the politics itself is clean, we don't spend Rs 5 crore to get elected. When there will be no vote buying, then you can have clean government. 
  

However, Mr Narayan is silent on how he will get money and where and how much he will tax and so on. Unless he has clarity people will start doubting him and his party. If he wanted to be transparent let us share your plan of tax and how to get resources for funding.

Marxist as killer of freedom and new Dailt parties are lover of castes

A friend of mine was studied accountancy and costing and I studied economics. We use to discuss whenever we meet but never on Marxist ideas but in general. One day he suddenly wanted to discuss about the Indian Marxist parties and their approach of economic policy. 

It was not surprise when he said that “these Marxist are destroying our country otherwise would have been much better than the present level”. He went on in fact these people have killed many millions by advocating what they like and like one side minded and never thought of alternatives. He further discovered that “these people considered non Indian or outsider policy advocates as foreigners but these folks never considered Karl Marx as foreigner! What a nonsense he said.

And now Mr Ramachandra Guha writes in the Outlook (April 20 2009) that “..Marxist politicians are in some respects more decent than the rest. Surveys have consistently shown that CPI and CPI(M) MPs are less corrupt and less prone to criminality than politicians of other parties.” 

I gave only one example just imagine in a larger level. And in my view it is wrong to say Indian Marxist are “decent than the rest”. If we say likely or dizzily we tend to fool ourselves. 

Further Mr Guha urges that “A pragmatic Left must also appreciate the benefits of entrepreneurship and innovation, of seeking to increase the size of the economic cake so that there are bigger slices to go all around.” 

At least to me it looks he is asking a dead snakes to show picture but not to attack people! 

Even if the ‘left’ or Marxist decided to accept free market ideas, the world will not be hunger, poverty, inequality (add whatever you think) free world! 

They have done more than enough damages in India. For example, as Mr Bhagwan Das, a research associate of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar said in an interview to TOI in which he says: 

• “What changes have you witnessed in Dalit politics since independence? 
• It has deteriorated. In the pre-independence days, Dalit leaders used to be well educated and informed about issues regarding their community and the society as a whole. The movement was vibrant. Unlike today it wasn't only lip service and vote-bank politics. They encouraged untouchables to take up education. For example, Babasaheb started three colleges across Maharashtra and a school in Mumbai. Ambedkar didn't only talk about fight against exploitation but also against the caste system. But today, everybody uses Babasaheb's name only for political gains. No present-day politician can ever come close to following what the great Dalit leader preached. They don't even know about his teachings and principles. No Dalit leader can ever acquire a pan-Indian identity like Ambedkar. And that's why Dalits continue to wallow in poverty and illiteracy. 
• Do you think that proliferation of Dalit parties and leaders has changed the course of Indian politics? 
• It has certainly, but only for the worse. Instead of abolishing discrimination, Dalit parties have worked to strengthen the caste system, by further driving a wedge between scheduled castes and other groups. Their method of assertion is wrong. Only a few people in the corridors of power have benefited from the ascendancy of some Dalit leaders. For example, a chamar leader will only work for his community since Dalits as a whole are not united.
• Has reservation in jobs, education and legislature helped to improve the lot of Dalits? 
• Quota has helped but it has not been implemented properly. Prejudice against us is very strong and officers from our community are still humiliated at the workplace”.
  

Dr Ambedkar and Military Headquarters of War (MHOW)

Well, today is the birthday of Dr B R Ambedkar who was responsible for the drafting of Indian Constitution. If any one wanted to make a sense of one subject like economics or Indian Constitution as a single matter of entity he/she needs to have a lucid understanding of the subject’s concepts and implication in practicality both in national prospective and a world view.

Obviously, people celebrate a person or an idea etc when they like or dislike their life and works. 

Dr Ambedkar was born in MHOW, now in Madhya Pradesh. I happened to study my basic research work in the institute which was established on his name. I visited several times his home there is a Muslim masque beside his home. MP government is trying to make his home into a temple like a Buddha statute type, since he had been converted to Buddhism and they are trying to do the same. 

I was taught a subject called Dr B R Ambedkar thoughts and contemporary issues in society. The whole course work was pass/fail oriented but every bit of his idea was covered in a more intensive caste biased, one side view, deliberately rejecting other side of the coin etc. 

 What I was not taught I learned from a library in the institute. The institute library is not biased it has all kind of books including the liberalism! 

I happened to pick up the liberal ideas and concluded my argument with Prof and friends in our debate that “if a person converts from one religion to another he or she could never feel that he or she is born with the one in which they were born naturally”. For economic benefit anyone can convert to other religions and it was accepted by my friends and Prof in the institute. 

The below are some of the Ambedkar ideas which are relevant even toady. 

He said in the Assembly on 15 November, 1948: 

• “(H)ow the society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether… It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organization of society is better than the capitalist... But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form...which might be better than the socialist organization of today or of tomorrow.” 
  

[Source: Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VIII, pp.401-402] 

• He asked: “On 26th January 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence?” 
  
• He said: “What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by the infidelity and treachery of some of her own people.” His anxiety was deepened by the fact that “in addition to our old enemies in the form of castes and creeds we are going to have many political parties with diverse and opposing political creeds.” 
  
• He queried: “Will Indians place the country above their creed or will they place creed above country” and answered: “This much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost for ever. This eventuality we must all resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.” 
  
• His second thought was about the future of democracy. “There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute.” 
  
• He was emphatic that “We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy.” He asserted that “liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things.” 
  
• “The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.” 
  
• He pointed out the complete absence of two things in Indian society. “One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others. On the economic plane, we have a society in which there are some who have immense wealth as against many who live in abject poverty. …. In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value.” 
  
• He suggested that “the sooner room is made for the realization of their aspiration, the better for the few, the better for the country, the better for the maintenance of its independence and the better for the continuance of its democratic structure. This can only be done by the establishment of equality and fraternity in all spheres of life.” 
  

(Source: Excerpts from P. P. Rao article in the Tribune)

Fund Candidate not Parties!!!

Yes the idea of “Fund Candidate not Parties” is not an issue in this election, but it is a matter of time. 

Former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi Rajindar Sachar says “A straightforward, honest, equitable solution is to ban the corporate funding of political parties, as in the US and the UK. Clean politics mandates this as a minimum prerequisite for all political parties. Let the electorate demand that the manifestos of the parties include such a provision. Let them give a straight answer immediately.” 

He also gives a brief history of how corporate funding ruled out:

• “It is beyond doubt that contributions by companies are given not because of any ideological reason but as a device to be in the good books of the ruling party. Thus, between 1966 and 1969, as many as 75 companies paid down Rs 1.87 crore out of which Rs 144 lakh was given to the ruling party. The ruling Congress party in 1967 alone received Rs 87 lakh. 
  
• Perception and reality have not changed. Thus we find that in 2003-2004 the BJP got Rs 90 crore as against the Congress’s Rs 65 crore. The peak of the BJP was Rs 155 crore in 2004-05, down to Rs 137 crore in 2007-08. The rise in the share of the Congress during this period was phenomenal, starting from 2002-03 at Rs 53 crore, upswinging to Rs 265 crore in 2007-08. More significant, the corporate-political nexus is illustrated by corporate donation to the BSP of Ms Mayawati rising in 2002-03 from Rs 10.9 crore to Rs 55.6 crore in 2007-08. Does one need more proof of invidious entry of the corporate sector in our body-politic and of the dangerous consequences.”
  

Kushal Neta, Nirnayak Sarkaar (Determined Leader, Decisive Government)

Gujarat’s Chief Minister Narendra Modi says in a interview to Rediff “Dr Manmohan Singh has not even visited all the states in the five years of his prime ministership, while Advaniji is a leader who has, at some point in time, spent a night in our 400 districts.”

Wisdom of Untersuchungen...........

Now, we are in once again hardcore election time if anything matter at most in economics is the public finance in which the elected government will do its job as business as usual. 

There are differences in assessment of the performance of a company or consumer behaviour (read as benefits or gains or loss) from a market: buying and selling things. 

But when it comes to the assessment of a representative of people in a democracy it is always a difficult job and the odd will prevail at most. In other words as Buchanan said “..in political exchange, there is no decentralized process that allows "efficiency" to be evaluated deontologically, akin to the evaluation of a market. Individuals cannot, by the nature of the goods that are collectively "purchased" in politics, adjust their own behavior to common terms of trade. The political analogue to decentralized trading among individuals must be that feature common over all exchanges, which is agreement among the individuals who participate. The unanimity rule for collective choice is the political analogue to freedom of exchange of partitionable goods in markets.” 

Though, Mr Bob McTeer President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said economist Johan Gustav Knut Wicksell  “…favored a mild form of socialism, achieved gradually and built on the foundations of a welfare state”. 

But public choice theory economist James M. Buchanan Jr quoted in his Nobel lecture and is quite interesting to ponder. In fact it is also right time to remember what he has said decades ago. Excerpts from his lecture: 

• “The science of public finance should always keep... political conditions clearly in mind. Instead of expecting guidance from a doctrine of taxation that is based on the political philosophy of by-gone ages, it should instead endeavor to unlock the mysteries of the spirit of progress and development. (Wicksell, p. 87.). 

• If utility is zero for each individual member of the community, the total utility for the community cannot be other than zero. (Wicksell, p. 77.) 

• ... neither the executive nor the legislative body, and even less the deciding majority in the latter, are in reality ... what the ruling theory tells us they should be. They are not pure organs of the community with no thought other than to promote the common weal.
• ... members of the representative body are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, precisely as interested in the general welfare as are their constituents, neither more nor less. (Wicksell, pp. 86, 87.) 

• It would seem to be a blatant injustice if someone should be forced to contribute toward the costs of some activity which does not further his interests or may even be diametrically opposed to them. (Wicksell, p. 89.) 

• ... whether the benefits of the proposed activity to the individual citizens would be greater than its cost to them, no one can judge this better than the individuals themselves. (Wicksell, p. 79.) 

• The ultimate goal ... is equality before the law, greatest possible liberty, and the economic well-being and peaceful cooperation of all people. (Wicksell, p. 88.)”

Election is a fish out of water bowl………

After economic reform, many or almost all left party politician, left academic, unions, etc blame the reform process because poor people have not got benefits from ‘economic prosperity’ that our country has seen last ten or fifteen years. 

Here People's Democratic Party President Mehbooba Mufti says in an interview with BS. 

“What are the issues you expect the political parties to address in the election campaign?

The economic issues will certainly dominate the election campaign across the country. The fact is that the economic prosperity that we have achieved in the last decade is not evenly distributed across the society and regions. People and smaller parties like ours are looking forward to the major players to spell out policies that would translate this prosperity into visible results on the ground”. 

Let me ask are the ‘economic prosperity’ was achieved evenly and distributed well before the economic reform, which was started in 90s? 

It is not surprise, if any of these group answers with odd or muddled narratives.

People and politician was never a mutual discoverer-it is odd

In an interview to The Business Line Mr Sashi Tharoor says: 

"Do you think that you have too closely identified yourself with the US on several issues that, perhaps, you have also created some doubts in the minds of people? 

Many in the Left have been going around thinking that I am some sort of an American agent. I find this slightly odd because the Left was the first to correctly denounce the George Bush administration’s veto of me in the race for UN Secretary-General. If I were an American agent I would probably be there (the US) and not here... So this seems a slightly preposterous charge..."