Meaningless Reforms that Distract, bring out yet again the Ineptitude of UPA Govt.

We are probably the most innocently naive subjects of a contemporary democracy. Last week Prime Minister Singh announced a few policy actions disguised as major reforms. These reforms were widely hailed by the media as the second inning of Prime Minister Singh. Commentators across the media networks and intellectual community decided to forget the ineptitude and corrupt governance choosing instead to re-brand him as a courageous leader who is not afraid to fight with the firebrand and errant Mamata and put his government to risk. Media narrative and discussions shifted to whether Congress would be able to retain majority, if these reforms were good or bad and if this meant UPA was back in action after years of slumber. We conveniently chose to shrug aside a report from the UN that India is home to the highest number of infant deaths in the world due to lack of healthcare and nutrition. We forgot Coalgate which had made us forget 2G which in turn had made us forget CWG which in its own very recent era made us forget cash for votes and the list can go on.

Let us examine the much praised reforms for their practical utility:

Petroleum pricing - I discussed this particular issue in details in earlier post (Read here). Rationing of LPG is an intellectually bankrupt decision and would create a black market for corrupt politicians and dealers. Diesel price hike and excise cut on petrol were good steps that had to be taken out of necessity. No action on Kerosene was yet again a clear signal this government has no intent to reform petroleum pricing and it wont let go of its legitimate black money machine.

FDI in Retail - I am a supporter of FDI in retail. BJP is both wrong and hypocritical in opposing FDI in retail when the party itself proposed this when in power.

40% of fresh produce goes waste in India due to supply chain bottlenecks. Farmers get a fraction of retail price while middlemen pocket all the profits. Retail labor productivity in India is 6% that of the US. In food retailing, it is 14% that of Brazil. Modern trade and an integrated supply chain is the solution to both lower prices at retail end and better incomes to the farmers and producers. As far as fears of jobs is concerned; firstly Big Bazaar, Spencers, Pentaloons, Shoppers Stop and otters are now present in all major cities and I have not seen any report that quantifies job losses or destruction of local communities as is widely propagated by the critics, secondly every change naturally leads to a disruption to the status quo and therefore there is no argument to protect the status quo that promotes inefficient subsistence retailing and illegal hawkers.

In all the developed and majoremerging nations, big box hypermarkets, supermarkets, specialty retailers and mom and pop stores have learned to coexist and I see no reason why it wont be the case in India.

So I should be all praise for this reform except that it comes with a caveat that renders it meaningless. UPA government has conveniently left final approval of opening a store owned by a foreign investor to concerned states!. This condition makes this reform meaningless. No retailer would invest in India knowing very well that it may very well end up with a holding company approved by the central government but no scale as State Government hold on to approvals. Congress led Kerala has already rejected FDI in retail in addition to opposition ruled states. There are a number of other ludicrous restrictions and conditions that raise more questions on the policy than answers (Read here). I need not mention this same government had launched this reform in Nov 11 and took it back under protest from its allies and that Congress had dubbed FDI in retail as 'Anti National' when BJP proposed FDI in retail. So this particular reform is not only half hearted aimed to fool people but also hypocritical.

FDI in aviation - A welcome step indeed. Who would invest is a question we all know the answer of - no one!. Aviation industry globally is in a turmoil. Japan Airlines just came out of recession. Most of American airlines are either coming out of bankruptcy or going through bankruptcy. Qantas is struggling. If one needs to invest in the Aviation sector, there are many lucrative destinations. Air India is a mess that cant be cleaned up. Jet, Spicejet and Indigo are fighting the battle to make money and be sustainable. Kingfisher is bankrupt and I doubt if anyone would invest there. A real reform in aviation would have been the decision to shut down Air India, auction its assets and save taxpayers the promised $ 5 bn bailout over next few years. Second reform would have been to mandate state government standardize sales tax on aviation fuel and reduce taxes that treat air travel as a luxury.

In conclusion, policy announcement of last week mean practically nothing. When someone with an average level of intelligence knows that, I am sure our technocrat economist PM knows it. But the reforms serve a great deal of political purpose. It has taken the focus away from corruption, once again given people who view Prime Minister Singh as a person of integrity a reason to believe in him and positioned the UPA as taking a step to reform in challenging times while BJP keeps whining as aggrieved opposition.

In truth, it has once again brought to the forefront the ugly face of out parliamentary democracy where majorities can be cobbled together by promising special favors to opportunistic regional leaders. Regional leaders whose only interest lies in keeping power in their respective states, who do not even remotely share ideology or style of governance with the government they choose to support and are often the worse of the lot up for grabs either for money or concessions.

Does an Intolerant Society Deserve Free Speech?

Recent events relating to the cancellation of Salman Rushdie's visit to participate in a literary festival in Jaipur and Government's summoning of the Social Media Chiefs asking them to censor content highlights the restrictive free speech situation in our country. We have been subject to these experiences time and again - M.F. Hussein's paintings and the court cases which made him leave the country for the fear of his life, ban on release of 'Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle With India' and many other books and movies that seemingly can harm social harmony or defames a popular figure.

On the other wise, Indian Government formally objecting to BBC on Top Gear's India special show and on Jay Leno's joke about Golden Temple highlight the intolerant nature of our society. What is unfortunate is that even our Judiciary seems to have jumped into this debate and has started giving in to their individual interpretations of morality in legal matters. Just the last month, one of the justices described a live-in relationship as immoral and a western fad while upholding the legality of it. This is a disgrace.

I have been asking myself, whether an intolerant society deserve free speech in the context of restrictive free speech in our country and intolerant nature of our society? I believe the answer is affirmative - we need free speech first as a matter of principle being a liberal and secular democracy and second to get rid of this very intolerance.

The value and relevance of free speech in a democratic society cannot be underestimated. John Stuart Mill in his essay on 'Liberty in Utilitarianism' said "there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered." Denial of free speech essentially denies the freedom to stand for what we are and therefore must be protected. Voltaire famously said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Restrictions on free speech due to obscenity, immorality or social in-harmony has been a subject of debate not just in a young democracy and diverse society like India but also in mature and largely homogeneous societies in the West. Right to free speech always invariably involves tolerance for a great deal of non sense and matters which are in bad taste.

However, due to a diverse, overly religious and significant illiterate population in India, an act of non sense takes the form of discrimination, defamation or offensive. The 24X7 sensation hungry media plays along by portraying and magnifying non sensical acts as crafted acts of vengeance or offense against one by the other. Politicians find an easy and beneficial solution by applying censorship laws in the name of public benefit. Our large and charged illiterate population often fails to understand that these censorship and defamation laws help the government avoid criticism and escape accountability while our educated middle class is too indifferent and stretched to make ends meet in an increasingly consumerist society to really bother about these trivial issues. So what we get is cancellation of Rushdie's visit, ban on sale of books or release of movies that have anything controversial and politicians playing to the gallery by protesting Jay Leno's jokes and BBC's programming.

I believe if we are to survive and flourish as a true democracy, any test for allowing further restrictions upon free speech must strive to be more stringent. Legal restraints upon individual freedom of speech should only be tolerated where they are absolutely necessary to prevent infliction of actual harm or to secure the liberties of others. A remote possibility that someone will be harmed or unsubstantiated claims that the stability of society will be undermined is not sufficient justification for legal prohibition. People always find it easy to adopt double standards and find some persuasive reason to not tolerate other's right to free speech but as a society we must strive to create capacity to tolerate views of others. We must be taught right from the beginning that an open and free exchange of
ideas, confronting old ways of doing things and debating the relevance of established ideas on morality and societal norms in the present context is the best way to create a dynamic and intellectually vibrant society. Else, we would continue to be a developing country, not just economically but socially as well, that is striving to become a developed society.