The Indian Century - Livemint.com

The Indian Century

Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:23:00 GMT

The Indian Century was a series of articles that Mint published in our Views pages in 2007. Here, we invited 25 influential political leaders, businessmen, civil society activists and writers to explain what they thought would be the main challenges and opportunities that India would face in the decades ahead, as it emerged out of poverty and moved towards prosperity.

In his opening essay, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wrote: “In the past four years, (the Indian economy) has grown at more than 8%. In the first half of 2006-07, the growth rate rose to nearly 9%. This is an impressive achievement for a democracy of over a billion people. Yet, this is not enough… We must work hard to make the growth process more inclusive and equitable.”

That statement unknowingly laid the terms of the subsequent debates in the series. How could India balance economic growth and social concerns? We had free marketers crossing swords with those who believed the government must do more to control the market. There were calls for a better system of education and more financial inclusion.

But the underlying message in most of the essays was one of hope.

A third miracle? | Sharad Joshi

Sharad Joshi — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:23:00 GMT

India accomplished two major miracles in the 30 years between the late 1960s and the late 1990s. In the 1960s, India transformed itself from a basket case in food production—when even the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN had given up hope—and started making rapid strides in its fields. In the 1990s, India made a shift from the lower half of the single-digit rates of economic growth to the upper half. Gone are the days of the Hindu rate of growth of 3% to which India was stuck for five decades after independence. And the 11th Plan now contemplates rates of growth that may turn double-digit.

A third long-needed miracle could take place in the coming two decades—provided some lessons are learnt from the first two.

The food miracle was achieved by simply giving up the inhibitions about the Green Revolution technology. The worsening of relationships with Pakistan and the arm-twisting by the US using PL 480 (food aid) shipments as a weapon propelled the first non-dynasty prime minister to take courage in both hands, to urge people to give up one meal a week and to let his minister for agriculture go ahead and introduce the high-yielding varieties of wheat and associated Green Revolution technologies. The Green Revolution was a success par excellence and, naturally, had many claimants to its paternity.

The quantum jump in the rate of economic growth, by contrast, had no political or technocrat heroes. A nation forced to pawn its gold reserves had willy-nilly to move away from the Nehruvian concepts of paramountcy of the public sector, industry as spearhead of economic development and licence-permit-quotas as the solution for all problems of scarcity.

Manmohan Singh as the finance minister under former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao ushered in the first-generation economic reforms. These reforms in the 1990s were strictly limited to the financial and industrial sectors and left agriculture largely untouched. Singh was very hesitant to accept the enormity of the departure he had ushered in—just as modest as he is now about underlining the enormity of the departure he is making from the Nehruvian doctrine of neutrality in signing the nuclear deal with the US.

Hence, the changes made under those reforms were superficial. Most of the structures and paraphernalia related to the socialistic economy remained in place. The India-Bharat divide continued to worsen. People at large and entrepreneurs, in particular, got the impression that the 1990s’ economic reforms represented a short-term lucid interval before the dynasty returned with socialistic sloganeering. For full eight years after Singh’s first budget, there were no signs of the quantum jump in the rates of GDP growth that was subsequently to make its appearance. Indian entrepreneurs were still hesitant to unleash their capacity for adventure and innovation. It can also be said that for seven long years they were trying to forget the nightmare of the socialistic misadventure of four decades.

It was only with the coming into power of the first totally non-Congress government at the Centre, which boldly went ahead with “Pokhran”, futures trading, new telecommunications and intellectual property rights policies and spoke not so much of “eradicating poverty”, as of “India shining” that the Indian entrepreneur felt reasonably assured that he could spread his wings and take off.

It is noteworthy that it was only after 1998 that we witnessed the rate of GDP growth shifting to the upper half of the single digit and touching 10.3% for a brief quarter in 2004, as well as the emergence of the first Indian multinationals and dominance of the software industry by Indians.

The National Democratic Alliance and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) finance ministers vie with each other to claim the credit for this new incarnation of the Indian economy and industry. The fact is that the credit does not go to either for any positive action taken. The fact that the rate of growth in the agricultural sector has not kept pace with other sectors and has, in fact, dipped even below the pre-1990 levels clearly proves that the quantum jump in overall economic growth is not related to any actively pursued governmental policy.

The higher rates of growth have happened in spite of the government rather than because of the government. The increase in the rate of GDP growth is directly related to the extent to which the government abstains from making a nuisance of itself by interfering in the free market forces.

The present rate of growth under the UPA would have been even higher if the Congress party had shown vis-à-vis the Left Front the same determination in economic matters as it showed in the matter of the nuclear treaty.

It is a pity that even the tide of suicides of more than 150,000 farmers has not awakened the government to the need to bring economic reforms to agriculture, notwithstanding platitudes of priority sector credit and pointless and empty bailout packages.

If economic reforms come to agriculture, if the property rights of land are vested absolutely in the farmer, if entry and exit into agriculture is made smoother and easier, if the crass infrastructural infirmities in the field of marketing, laboratory and information network are attenuated, if foreign institutional investments and foreign direct investments are allowed in agriculture as also in commodity markets, agriculture will, without doubt, show a boom that might be even higher than that of the Indian stock market.

The coming 20 years might produce yet another miracle and India, on the strength of the genius of its people and of its institutions freed from the shackles of Nehruvian socialism, might shift to an era of abundance with rates of growth as high as 15%.

Sharad Joshi is a Rajya Sabha MP and founder of Shetkari Sanghatana.

Wallets wide open | Nandan M. Nilekani

Nandan M. Nilekani — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:53:00 GMT

The remarkable vision of Jamsetji Tata was but just one instance of the philanthropic urges of eminent Indians of that era.

The Benares Hindu University came about by the efforts of Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Annie Besant, ably supported by a donation of land from the Maharaja of Kashi and Dharbanga. Aligarh Muslim University was spearheaded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and supported by several donors, including the then Aga Khan. Bombay was a great centre of philanthropy in the 19th century. The Gateway of India was built partly with money from David Sassoon, and if we go back to 1854, the Mahim Causeway linking Mahim to Salsette, was actually built by a donation from Lady Avabai Jejeebhoy.

Post-independent India, however, saw philanthropy on a rapid decline—the focus on the public sector and the alienation of the country’s business classes was not conducive to giving.

The rise of the nanny state also meant that it was expected to be the provider of all public goods and do all the social service. And finally, the extortionist levels of taxation imposed by the state crippled the entrepreneurial class, and business growth was akin to, to use an Indian expression, building a house with sand— money slipped away through your fingers.

This did not facilitate the generation of wealth, especially first generation wealth, which is so critical to philanthropy—the wealth of people who, in a free market, would have risen from humble beginnings and not forgotten what they left behind.

India post-1991 has been a different story. The freeing up of the economy through reforms has led to the flowering of a vast number of entrepreneurs from different backgrounds and regions. The fast growing economy, the development of a modern stock market and the flow of global capital has done wonders for India’s risk takers. This, along with the opening up of more and more sectors to private enterprise, has resulted in India having the largest number of billionaires in the developing world.

It has been fashionable to portray capitalism in India and elsewhere as “red in tooth and claw”, but the rise of a market economy is serving to make us more philanthropic, not less. The writer Andrew Sullivan has pointed out that no other country gives even half as much in charity as America, the most free-market nation in the world, does. Essentially, wealth and economic and social freedoms leave people with the means to do good.

Similarly in India, the number of charitable organizations began to explode at the same time in the 1980s that the market began to loosen up, and now there are close to 40,000 such Indian organizations, run primarily by individuals, private bodies and businesses.

Giving by Indians has certainly soared, but not enough. In a country with as much stark poverty and income disparity as India and which has just tentatively embraced free market ideology, it becomes all the more critical that the rich embrace philanthropy. It is the moral and ethical thing to do—but not only that. For the rich, philanthropy is also pragmatic.

As Adam Smith wrote, “No society can be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” A democratic country where the majority of the people are still not well to do, and who have access to communication, will simply not countenance a situation where the rich seem to be little concerned about the lot of others.

Moreover, as the country asserts itself globally, the rest of the world will rightly expect that India solve its most pressing and endemic problems on its own, without recourse to aid and help from elsewhere. And as the performance gap between public governance and the private sector continues to grow, there will be more and more pressure on private actors to contribute and make a difference.

Philanthropy is also vital to making entrepreneurial capitalism acceptable to the people as the best form of the economy for the country.

The rapid rise of philanthropy among India’s business leaders is thus the fork in the road between India becoming a modern equitable free market democracy or going back to a stultifying socialistic state.

It is not that there is an absence of philanthropy. The money raised for tsunami relief in 2004 was, for instance, far more quickly and easily raised than in any previous calamity. A confident nation can far more easily be roused to respond to a tragedy.

The serial social entrepreneur Rajat Gupta, has been able to raise substantial amounts from Indian philanthropists for the Indian School of Business and the Public Health Foundation of India. And many prominent business families have done decades of great charitable work, quietly and without fanfare.

However, when you look at the scale of wealth created in India in the last few years, the giving simply does not compare. And when American universities limit the number of Indian students because their record as alumni donors is very low, it is a very telling comment!

If the 21st century truly has to be India’s century, then the rich will have to open their wallets wide open.

(Nandan M. Nilekani is the co-chairman of the board of directors of Infosys Technologies Ltd.)

The farm challenge | M.S. Swaminathan

M.S. Swaminathan — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:35:00 GMT

In India, the world leader in annual milk production at 100 million tonnes, an estimated 75 million women are involved in growing or collecting the fodder and feed essential for the dairy animals to produce more milk. In contrast, hardly 100,000 dairy farmers are involved in producing nearly 70 million tonnes of milk in the US. This is a good illustration of what Mahatma Gandhi described as “production by masses”, in contrast to the “mass production” technologies of the West. There are two important implications. First, we must improve the productivity and profitability of mass production technologies through labour diversification and not displacement. Second, we must mainstream gender considerations in all areas of agricultural research, education and extension. In other words, agricultural strategies should become pro-poor, pro-women and pro-nature.

Feminization of poverty and agriculture is increasingly becoming a reality. The National Commission on Farmers has dealt with this issue in detail and has urged that appropriate support services including crèches and day-care centres, should be provided to women farmers and farm labour. The National Academy of Agricultural Sciences has prepared a policy paper for the technological empowerment of women in agriculture (Swaminathan, M.S. (Ed.) 2007, Agriculture Cannot Wait, Academic Publishers). Its recommendations should become part of the research and education strategies of our agricultural institutes. Rural women can master new technologies, whether it is hybrid seed production or induced breeding in fish, or information and communication technologies, provided the methodology of training is learning by doing, a method I term “techniracy”.

Our food security challenge today is not only increasing production but, more importantly, enhancing the purchasing power of the rural and urban poor. We need a paradigm shift from unskilled to skilled work in the case of the poor, particularly women, so that there can be addition to the economic value of their time and labour.

Small-scale farming and micro-retail constitute the largest self-employment sector in the country. In both, women play a significant role. Development programmes which could affect their work and income security adversely should be avoided. At the same time, management tools which can confer on small producers the power and economy of scale should be introduced so that their economic survival can be safeguarded. The self-help group (SHG) movement, along with cooperatives, can provide such power of scale both—in the production and marketing phases of farm enterprise.

Last-mile and last-person connectivity has now become possible thanks to new technologies such as the cellphone. It is important to give greater attention to capacity building and content creation. A priority step should relate to the empowerment of rural families with knowledge relating to their entitlements. Knowledge is the key to social and economic development. The goals of “Literacy, health and food for all” can be achieved soon through innovative applications of information and communication technologies (ICT) by, for example, imparting adult literacy to the workers employed under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme.

The village resource centres being established by the Indian Space Research Organization at the block level enlarge the technological opportunities available to rural families in areas such as health care, natural resources management and disaster management. There is an urgent need for public-private-people partnerships to reduce the transaction costs and non-performing assets of rural credit through ICT-supported credit and extension initiatives by banks and the corporate sector.

The partnerships should result in socially sustainable and financially viable models of rural digital empowerment. Gram Sabhas should be fully involved in providing policy oversight at the village level. At least one woman and one male member of every panchayat should be trained as knowledge managers. The Jamsetji Tata National Virtual Academy for Rural Prosperity, which represents the celebration of rural genius and creativity, can play a big role in this.

Numerous studies have been made of the causes of farmers’ suicides. The most important cause is the non-remunerative and risk-prone nature of farming, which leads to chronic indebtedness. While the structural dimensions of this sad phase in our agricultural history, such as credit reform and pricing of farm produce, particularly cotton, are receiving attention, the human dimension relating to the widows and children belonging to the affected families needs greater and urgent attention.

The widows are predominantly young. They have some rainfed land ranging from 2 acres to 10 acres. Land is becoming the most precious asset in our country. These women need to be enabled to farm their land in an economically sustainable manner.

Based on extensive consultations with the affected women, I have launched a Federation of Women Farmers for Sustainable Livelihoods, consisting of about 1,000 women farmers to begin with. To give the power and economy of scale to such women farmers cultivating small holdings, they will be assisted to form SHGs.

Every women-farmer SHG will be supported by a gyan chaupal (village knowledge centre) and will be provided with an entitlements pass book, with information on all the schemes, government, non-government and banks, that they can access. These chaupals will be operated primarily by the women/children of the families where farmers committed suicides.

For the purpose of imparting the necessary skills, a Women Farmer Capacity Building and Mentoring Centre will be established in Wardha. The aim is to bring about a paradigm shift from unskilled to skilled work.

Our hard-working farm women and men have helped the country to achieve a fair degree of self-sufficiency in food. Our agriculture is, however, currently at the cross-roads. If farm ecology and economics go wrong, nothing else can go right in agriculture. Farmers need life-saving support in the areas of conservation farming and work and income security.

“Jai Kisan” should not remain merely a slogan. Mahatma Gandhi, during a visit to the National Dairy Research Institute in Bangalore in the early 1930s, indicated his profession in the visitors’ book of the institute, as “farmer”. He thus signalled that farming is the noblest of professions. Revival of this spirit is the pathway to our agricultural salvation.

M.S. Swaminathan is member of Parliament and chairman, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.

The Indian Century is a special series of guest columns that will run in this space throughout 2007, the 60th anniversary of India’s independence. We invite influential thinkers, academicians and policymakers to write on the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in the next century. We also welcome your suggestions on people you think ought to contribute to this series. Do write to us at theindiancentury @livemint.com

Staffing the world | Rajendra S. Pawar

Rajendra S. Pawar — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:51:00 GMT

After establishing itself as an outsourcing hub, India needs to emerge as a reservoir of global talent.

Globalization and the outsourcing boom have undoubtedly transformed India. From a developing country, we are today an emerging economy and a superpower in the making. Over the last few years, India has clearly moved up the offshoring value chain—from being a low-cost destination, we are today known as a knowledge hub to the world.

But where do we go from here? The growth paradigm of the developed world requires fuel of another kind— knowledge workers and skilled professionals. The developed world’s requirement of skilled professionals is only going to increase with time. By 2020, the developed world will have a shortage of 40 million working people, says a report, “India’s New Opportunity—2020”, brought out by the All India Management Association, the Boston Consulting Group, the High Level Strategic Group and CII.

Rajendra S. Pawar is chairman of NIIT Ltd.

The developed world is already finding it difficult to find talent. A recent study undertaken by global HR consultancy Manpower Inc. “Talent Shortage Survey: 2007 Global Results” says 41% of employers worldwide are having difficulty filling positions due to lack of suitable talent available in their markets. The countries hit by this acute talent shortage are Costa Rica (93%), the US (62%), Japan (61%) and New Zealand (62%). Talent shortage appears to be least problematic in India (9%), Ireland (17%) and China (19%).

For the developed world, this is a serious matter. Manpower shortages can cripple economic growth. They can escalate wage rates, thus reducing the competitiveness of these nations.

For India, the workforce shortages in the developed world pose a huge opportunity. Despite the increase in jobs, educated unemployment in India is on the rise. By 2012, India could have an unemployed population anywhere in the range of 19-37 million, the largest share of which will be educated youth. By 2020, India is estimated to have a surplus working population of 45-50 million people.

With this surplus working population, it may appear that India has all it takes to bag the 40-million-jobs opportunity. However, the reality is far from that. India is facing a peculiar manpower paradox—while it is a young country (over 50% of its population is below 25 years), it is facing a shortage of skilled manpower, even domestically.

The manpower crunch in India is more serious than we think. The reason—while urban India has witnessed stupendous growth in jobs, many of India’s children still drop out from school, girls are still not sent to school and youngsters are forced to take up jobs instead of completing their graduation.

Out of the 200 million children in the age group of six to 14, about 59 million are not attending school in India. Even those who get educated are often not employable. Every year, India produces 300,000 engineers and approximately two million college graduates. But only 10-15% of the graduates are suitable for employment in offshore IT and BPO industries. Nearly two-thirds of the 300,000 engineering graduates need to be reskilled so that they can get jobs in the IT industry.

Even those who find jobs need to undergo training and be reskilled. Today, India needs to skill/reskill one million working executives. Emerging sectors such as retail, banking, financial services and insurance are facing an acute shortage of manpower. The banking industry, which currently employs 900,000 people, is expected to add 600,000 more over the next five years. But it’s unclear how this increased demand will be met.

So, while there is a big opportunity knocking at India’s door, a concrete action plan is needed to convert it into reality. India needs a sharp focus on global talent development. This can be done by making education and vocational training more market-driven.

If the education system does not transform itself, we may lose out to other Bric economies, particularly China and Russia. In terms of sheer numbers, the opportunity lost can be huge. As per estimates, remote services could bring in $133-315 billion of additional revenue into the country every year and create an additional 10-24 million jobs (direct and indirect) by 2020.

The task of developing global talent can be approached in two ways—by companies/training institutes going global in order to develop talent in those nations, and by developing talent indigenously. At NIIT, we are working on both these models of global talent development.

Given our vast pool of qualified manpower, track records in service delivery in sectors such as IT, and lower costs, India appears poised to cash in on the 40-million-jobs opportunity. However, several initiatives on the part of industry, government, NGOs and industry associations are required to convert the opportunity into reality.

Clearly, the existing education and training infrastructure cannot meet all the manpower needs. We need to begin from the primary schools in villages and cities, work with underprivileged children and encourage them to get educated. We need to change our education system and focus on job-oriented courses.

Education and vocational training needs to be aligned with market demand. This can be done by mapping the demand for professionals today and by projecting future demand and working towards enhancing the skill-sets needed for these jobs.

India has some natural advantages—it has the world’s largest English- speaking population. But countries such as China are working overtime to cash in on the global labour crunch. One-fifth of the Chinese population is learning English. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that the total English-speaking population in China will outnumber the native speakers in the rest of the world within two decades.

Therefore, there is a pressing need to act fast. From an outsourcing hub, India needs to transform itself into a repository of talent that can feed global demands for a skilled workforce. We need to focus on global talent development so that an increasing number of Indians can find jobs overseas or in offshoring outfits. Given India’s track record, we have all it takes to meet the world’s global talent needs.

Finance for all | Sanjay Nayar

Sanjay Nayar — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:10:00 GMT

Growth, when unevenly spread, dwarfs overall prosperity. History cites a number of instances where inequalities in growth contributed to angst and social unrest. The fruits of economic development must necessarily touch the socially and economically weaker sections of our society. As Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said: “Democracy means equality, and democracy can only flourish in an equal society.”

Progress must necessarily relate to improving the quality of life of the common man and woman. Only through holistic and inclusive growth can there be sustained consistency in our growth rates. Inclusive and equitable growth, among others, is about solving the paradox of being amongst the world’s top 10 economies in terms of GDP with a large unbanked and underbanked population.

As India moves up the global economic ladder, the imperatives of financial inclusion are well known, and we recognize that the growth has to be equitable and spread out. Several eminent Indian central bankers and other practitioners have advocated many innovative ways in which Indian commercial, cooperative and rural banks can work together, and how they can reorient their strategies to bring in a clearer focus on increasing banking access for the underprivileged. As Usha Thorat, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, aptly commented recently: “There are 93 million mobile users today. The number of mobile phones currently is more than the number of borrowers from the banking system. There is a clear need to increase the outreach and scale up operations at existing outlets.” Many such creative ways have to be thought of, once we ponder over the statistics, which clearly points out that linear growth models may not be sufficient.

When the financial sector reforms were initiated in the 1990s, the banking sector priorities were increasingly aligned to profitability considerations, rather than following the strategy of growing the loan and deposit books. While inclusive practices were never given up, there was a sharper focus on enhancing market share. However, the market penetration today clearly shows we have a long way to go, with only 59% of the adult population having bank accounts. As you unpeel the onion, the situation in the rural sector provides a grim picture—only 39 out of every 100 of the rural population have a bank account. There is also a wide variation across states. While on one hand, 89% of the population in Kerala has a bank account, Bihar is marked by a low coverage of 33%. In the north-eastern states of Nagaland and Manipur, the coverage is a meagre 21% and 27%, respectively. The northern states of Haryana, Chandigarh and Delhi together have a high coverage ratio of 84%.

Also, the number of loan accounts is just 14% of the adult population. Once again the rural sector suffers a greater degree of discrimination

There are global examples that India can benefit from. In the UK, the Financial Inclusion Task Force has identified three priority areas for the purpose of financial inclusion, viz., access to banking, access to affordable credit and access to free face-to-face money advice. Britain has established a £120 million Financial Inclusion Fund to promote financial inclusion and assigned responsibility to banks and credit unions to remove financial exclusion. Basic no-frills bank accounts have been introduced. A Post Office Card Account has been created for those who are unable or unwilling to access a basic bank account.

Financial inclusion and the growing availability of microfinance aims to extricate the poor from dependence on the “moneylender”. However, we have to remember that the bank account is a facilitator, and the microfinance programmes may be solving just half the problem.

The underprivileged don’t just need a transaction platform, or just capital to start that enterprise, they also need the advice to put the debt to use and manage it effectively. More importantly, they also need the forward and backward linkages to the microenterprise they own, or plan to start. The role of financial inclusion will not only be to create these networks, but also to provide funding to ensure sustainability of programmes that enable these networks.

India is a complex country and its potential is inexplicable in mere figures and numbers. In the euphoria about the rising GDP, growth rates and sensex figures, we must not forget the alarming figures of infant mortality, literacy, unemployment and the per capita income of the poorest. A prosperous India can be shaped only by building capacity to deliver at least basic needs to the poorest sections throughout the country. With more than a billion people, of which more than 300 million are still living below the poverty line, and a social fibre meshing multiple religious beliefs, caste and class, it is definitely not an easy task. As India prepares to become an economic superpower, we must expedite socio-economic reforms and take steps to overcome institutional and infrastructure bottlenecks inherent in the system.

Sanjay Nayar is chief executive officer of Citi India

A strategy for medals | Geet Sethi

Geet Sethi — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:01:00 GMT

Sixty years of independence have seen Indian sport go through a roller coaster ride of successes and failures. But before we analyse the pros and cons of our sporting policy and culture, it would be prudent to define ‘The Indian Sporting Culture’. The sporting culture of any nation is not defined by the mass hysteria generated by a single team event such as football or cricket or baseball, but by a country’s performance in disciplines which form part of the Olympic sports.

In any case, even in cricket, which attracts passion and involvement from all cross-sections of our achievement starved society, we have been mediocre at best at the world level with the only creditable feat coming in the 1983 World Cup, where we were “the world champions”. But our sporting identity and our sports policy revolves around those sports which fall under the purview of the Olympic platform and it is here that we have failed to deliver, given our huge talent pool.

Our eight gold medals in hockey are in the distant recesses of our collective memory and the sport has declined to abysmal lows thanks to the indifferent attitude of the games governing body, which continues to function with biased inefficiency and arrogance. This deplorable state of affairs has frequently attracted media attention and editorial comments which unfortunately have always fallen on deaf and old ears.

Except for hockey and a Milkha Singh in the first 20 years of our independence, there was little to cheer about as our policymakers were involved with the more important tasks of figuring out how to erase poverty and unemployment and implementing the ‘licence raj’. The direct outcome of this preoccupation of our policymakers was felt by our international athletes who were treated with disdain, and more as irritants rather than ambassadors. Running from pillar to post to get air tickets sanctioned and trying to obtain clearances for foreign exchange was the pre-tournament preparation of all our top athletes. Starved of money, infrastructure and moving around the world with the tag of one of the poorest nations in the world, our athletes succumbed at the highest level, providing overwhelming proof of the existence of a correlation between economic development and performance in international sport.

The early 1990s saw the opening up of the economy providing hope for our athletes. The growth of IT and the subsequent creation of new age billionaires, along with the sustained economic growth, has changed the perspective with which our citizens view the world and how the world views our people.

The Indian athlete today is a world citizen and global exposure has ensured that we think big and aim high. But, the government still has a mental block when it comes to allocating funds for our sports budget. About Rs450 crore seems an insignificant amount when compared with China’s sports budget in excess of Rs4,500 crore. The correlation between money spent and number of medals at the Asian Games and Olympics provides further reinforcement when one sees China win 10 times the number of medals at both the Asian and Olympic level.

It is not that we can’t spare money. Come 2010, and the country will be spending in excess of Rs5,000 crore in creating fresh infrastructure for the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi. Infrastructure which in all likelihood will lie wasted and uncared for after the games. This lopsided view must change. If we are willing to spend colossal amounts of resources on one event lasting two weeks, surely we must complement this with additional funds on an annual basis for our various sports which find representation at the Asian Games and the Olympics.

Lack of timely funds is one of the most common reasons for the inability of our athletes to attain world standards. The gap between what the sports ministry allocates to the various federations and what is actually required is too wide. Private donors and funds are recognizing this problem and trying to plug the gap but sometimes find resistance from the federations who feel threatened that their power or control over the athletes will get eroded.

The only silver lining has been the special tax-free awards which have been instituted to incentivize our top athletes when they win medals at the Asian and Olympic Games. These awards provide enough funds for athletes to further their exposure in their respective sport to attain higher standards.

But for sustained results, we need to inject at least 10 times the amount we do currently on our sports annual budget. Till then our country will chug along providing sporadic achievement, sometimes in chess, sometimes in billiards, more recently in tennis and golf and, of course, in shooting. Clearly, we need more thought, analysis and strategy to convert this erratic sporting performance into consistent medal winning efforts at the highest level.

Geet Sethi is an international billiards champion and author of the book, Success Vs Joy. He promotes GoldQuest, which is committed to supporting sportspersons with Olympic medal winningpotential.

Mission possible? | Jagdish Khattar

Their View |Jagdish Khattar — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:09:00 GMT

The role of the government in economic activity has come down substantially in the past two decades. Yet, critical areas of the economy, entirely or in part, remain the responsibility of the state. The Indian state’s inadequacies with regard to execution and implementation could, therefore, hobble the nation in its onward journey.

There is plenty of evidence, both anecdotal and structured, about schools without teachers, huge village clusters devoid of power, primary health centres ailing without medicines and trained doctors, roads that end before they reach anywhere and fair price shops diverting more grain than they dispense. Unfinished irrigation projects, too, make for a sad commentary. The state’s inability to deliver, despite its propensity to spend on these heads, means that inclusive growth will continue to elude us.

Many of the projections of our future, by which the world has started to define us, assume a proactive and efficient state. A GDP growth trajectory of 8-9%, while derived from a combination of savings rate, efficiency and productivity ratios, takes for granted that infrastructure will not be a binding constraint. Growth is predicated on the belief that the state will build adequate roads, ports, power plants and so on, in the stipulated time, to support enhanced economic activity.

The so-called “demographic dividend” that India looks to reap would amount to nothing without education and basic technical skills for all. A higher proportion of youth, if unemployable, will be more of a curse than a blessing.

The Union government monitors the progress of its projects, which require an investment of over Rs20 crore. Its last full-fledged report, in September 2006, shows that of the 860 projects being monitored, as many as 293 are behind schedule. This, after deadlines were extended for many of them. More disconcerting is the fact, pointed out in the report, that for another 232 projects, no completion dates have been indicated at all!

There is too much at stake. Investment in these 860 projects is envisaged close to a mind-boggling Rs385,000 crore. Of this, over Rs145,000 crore has already been spent. More important, they are in crucial sectors such as roads and highways, railways, power, urban development and telecom, where corporates and civil society are looking to the state to deliver, and to do it quickly.

This is the state of projects controlled by the Centre. State governments are responsible for separate sets of projects in areas that are at least as critical: Education, health care, gender and rural development, apart from roads, power, irrigation and others. Their record is more dismal.

Clearly, it is non-performance on a massive scale. The loss in financial terms is significant, but even more in terms of its long term implications on our people and our growth story. Yet, we are unable to resist the temptation to announce and embark on new projects.

How is the corporate sector able to deliver on large and world-class projects? Companies begin any initiative with detailed assessment of feasibility. There is a clear sense of what is sought to be achieved, and what systems, structures and resources are required to fulfil those objectives.

While the project is coming up, there are defined timelines. Much thought and effort goes into forming teams of people from diverse disciplines who need to work together to make the project possible. Resources and decisions are delegated to them. There is regular monitoring and course correction. A matrix of accountability, together with a sense of purpose, holds together the entire effort. This is not confined to private companies. The solid performance of numerous public sector firms, such as Bhel, NTPC and indeed the Delhi Metro, is proof that there is nothing inherent in the system that prevents performance. With leadership and focus, it is possible for government to deliver and execute almost across the board.

Among the various bottlenecks, a critical one is leadership teams in government getting bigger and unwieldy. The size of cabinets is expanding, accompanied by a bloating bureaucracy. Jobs that were handled by one government department are now split among three or four portfolios. It is in these situations of overlap and treading on toes, ironically, that accountability falls between the cracks!

What is the way out?

The political marketplace continues to punish bad governance through the “anti-incumbency” vote. But given the fast pace at which we aspire to grow, the time it takes before citizens can register disapproval is far too long.

Here is my suggestion. Let us resolve to complete all unfinished projects, both at the Centre and in the states, in the next three years. Until we achieve that, let us restrain ourselves, as far as possible, from announcing any new projects in these areas.

How should we go about it? Nothing less than a “mission approach” will do. We need to put in place a suitable structure, like an empowered group at the Centre, to coordinate among various agencies, take decisions on resources, monitor performance and do what it takes to finish these projects.

I can imagine there would be a range of issues holding up projects: Technical approvals, land acquisition, lack of funds, expenditure beyond budgeted amounts, delay in civil work, and so on. There will be projects where substantial cost has already been incurred, but which are languishing because the government system refuses to sanction more funds. The empowered group can take a call in such cases and, where prudent, provide the extra money, complete the last mile and thus make sure that the investment already sunk begins to yield returns.

When the mission concentrates on individual projects, it will find many where the project is better farmed out to the private sector. The latter already plays a major role in developing infrastructure. Private-public partnership here could do wonders. We now have a transparent system of inviting bids, even providing a viability gap. We can encourage foreign investment as well.

There are ways and ways to make governments effective. Most solutions are known. What we need, though, is focused, determined action. This century may well belong to India. But we must make sure that as we step out to own and captivate this century, we do so without any backlog.

Jagdish Khattar is managing director, Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Banks for everyone | Vijay Mahajan

Vijay Mahajan — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:01:00 GMT

We all want 10% growth in GDP for India, but for it to be sustainable, it has to be equitable and inclusive. And inclusive growth requires, among other things, financial inclusion. The finance minister and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) governor have both, in the recent past, expressed their concern that a large majority of India’s citizens do not have access to basic financial services. While this concern began with the lack of access to institutional credit, which less than 20% of households were able to get from banks, it is now widely recognized that access to saving services through a bank account is the gateway to financial inclusion. Banks have started responding to this challenge, but we need to examine some additional ways to enhance financial inclusion.

A part of the problem is caused by the inappropriate architecture of our banking system. With few exceptions, all banks try to provide all kinds of services to all kinds of customer segments. Thus while one part of the State Bank of India (SBI) has several thousand rural branches and caters to lakhs of SHGs of poor women, another part of SBI is engaged in large corporate lending and yet another in international banking with overseas branches. This leads to a situation where a small customer, whether rural or urban, is not a priority. She receives indifferent service, facing delays and rude behaviour from the staff, who like to serve bigger, urban customers.

Any bank which caters to the large and the small, the corporate and the individual, and the urban and the rural, will eventually show a bias in favour of the large, corporate, urban customer. The best staff will gravitate to those departments and the worst will be left to provide some indifferent service to the less preferred customers.

The disinterest of banks to serve poorer clients gets further magnified by the fact that politically imposed interest rate controls on small loans make it unprofitable for banks to cater to the small/rural customers. Thus both the individual proclivity of the bank employee and the institutional incentive coincide to ensure that today’s banks can never, never cater to the financially excluded.

How have the other countries addressed this problem? The United States, arguably the most advanced economy in terms of financial services, has had a long tradition of a financial eco-system comprising several tiers of banks and non-bank financial institutions. This included neighbourhood Savings and Loan Associations, credit unions, local community banks, regional banks and only a few nationwide banks.

The international banks such as Citi for which the US financial system is well known, are just a handful, and unlike in India, they do not engage in retail operations in rural areas. In addition to banks, the average American citizen is able to use a wide network of credit cards and ATMs. Of course, in spite of all this, the US banking system does leave out the bottom 15%, who are often prone to predatory lending practices by credit card companies and banks specializing in “subprime”markets.

In France, since 2001, there is a law making a bank account a legal right of every citizen. If a citizen is not allowed to open a bank account by a local bank, he can approach the Bank of France, which will then assign a nearby bank to the potential customer.

In Indonesia, the banking system is multifarious, with simultaneous existence of commercial banks in big cities, branches of provincial banks in small towns, the Unit Desa (village banks) of Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI), the local community banks, cooperative banks and private rural banks (BPRs). The entry level capital for a BPR was fixed at $50,000 which resulted in over 8,000 BPRs being set up. The average Indonesian citizen thus has a lot of choice across banks.

Coming back to India, an analysis of RBI data shows that as many as 139 districts suffer from massive financial exclusion, with the adult population per branch in these districts being above 20,000 and only 3% with borrowings from banks. The NSS 59th round shows that only 27% of farm households have access to bank credit.

Thus, there is no escape from having local banks for local people. Only then can the asymmetry between the user and the service provider be reduced. Otherwise, one has the situation where a poor, illiterate customer has to deal with a large, indifferent institution, whose performance and its employees’ prospects do not depend even an iota on whether it provides any service to this customer or not.

As the current banking architecture has not been able to provide a vast majority of the citizens with access to basic banking services, RBI must create not only a multi-tiered banking system, but also encourage privately owned banks. Local Area Banks must be allowed to come up, may be as many as 200 to cover all the districts.

In addition, RBI guidelines enabling banking beyond branches, through the “business correspondent” model, must be implemented with full gusto. Coupled with the use of technology such as biometric cards, mobile phones and low-cost ATMs, such “business correspondent” outlets can enhance financial inclusion massively, the same way as STD PCOs revolutionalized access to telephones since 1990.

I began by saying that inclusive growth requires financial inclusion, and I have suggested several ways by which financial inclusion can be enhanced. However, we should not make the assumption that by itself, financial inclusion will lead to inclusive growth. For growth to happen at “the bottom of the pyramid”, to use C.K. Prahalad’s much-cited phrase, we need to enhance access by the poor to not just financial services—savings, credit, insurance and remittances—but also to a broad range of opportunities and resources to enhance and secure their livelihoods. This includes access to land and water, basic infrastructure, health care, education and skills. Thus, financial inclusion is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for enabling the poor to participate in the “Indian Century”.

(Vijay Mahajan is chairman of BASIX Group, which works for promoting livelihoods of the poor. He is a member of the committee on financial inclusion.)

(The Indian Century is a special series of guest columns that will run in this space throughout 2007, the 60th anniversary of India’s independence. We invite influential thinkers, academicians and policymakers to write on the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in the next century. We also welcome your suggestions on people you think ought to contribute to this series. Do write to us at theindiancentury@ livemint.com)

Don’t throttle RTI | Arvind Kejriwal

Arvind Kejriwal — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 20:03:00 GMT

Can the Indian democracy claim this century for its own? That seems to me a tall order, even if after factoring in all the positives that have accrued to both the economy, and consequently, society. In part because there’s one vital facet of this democracy that has not yet been truly freed of its chronic mindset of protectionism. This facet is that of governance, which is increasingly being acknowledged as the key to broadbased development. And for governance to be truly democratic, and facilitate equal opportunity for all, an informed citizenry is a must.

It is one and a half years since the Central Right to Information (RTI) Act was passed. There were huge expectations that this law would bring in much-needed transformation in governance. And rightly so. The experience with the RTI Acts in many states earlier had been quite encouraging.

However, the experiences with the central RTI Act have been mixed. A trend can be seen —when you file an RTI application, either you get information in the very first instance; if you do not and if you file an appeal, there is very little chance that you will get information. The appellate process, notably the information commissioners, barring a few exceptions, is perceived to be functioning against citizens rather than protecting their interests.

There is one area where the RTI Act has so far been used with great precision—if any legitimate work was pending in any government department and government officials were not doing it, either because they expected a bribe or simple bureaucratic lethargy. The RTI Act has proved very effective in such situations. Whether it is a pending passport or an income tax refund or an old age pension or a caste certificate or any other work—earlier people used to feel completely helpless in their day-to-day dealings with government. RTI has given ordinary people the power to be able to challenge bribery. There are thousands of people across the country who used RTI and said no to bribes.

How does it work? When you ask questions such as—give me the names of the officials who were responsible for doing my work and who have not done it, why has my work not been done so far, when will my work be done now—it becomes difficult for government departments to reply to your queries. Because the responsibility gets fixed. In most cases, before they provide information, they end up doing your job.

But, recently, one such case went up to the Central Information Commission (CIC). A Brigadier had provided transport services to a government department, but the government did not pay his bills. He asked for the names of the officers responsible for keeping his payments pending. His request was rejected by A.N. Tiwari, central information commissioner, saying that disclosing the names of the officers would endanger the lives of these officers. The Brigadier had also asked—why were his bills kept pending for so long and by when would they be paid. Tiwari rejected this request also saying these were queries and this was not permitted under the RTI Act. In the last so many years, people all over the country had been putting these questions and getting relief. With one stroke, Tiwari struck a major blow to the RTI movement. Obviously, Tiwari’s order is illegal and needs to be challenged.

Delhi Police have found a novel way of dealing with RTI. Nahar Singh was attacked by some people in his locality. He made a complaint to the police in 2003, asking for an FIR to be lodged. The Police did not do this. Once the RTI Act came into place, Nahar Singh asked, why the FIR had not been registered. Interestingly, a month after Nahar Singh filed his RTI application, the police officially destroyed the records related to his complaint and replied that the information could not be provided because the records pertaining to his complaint had been officially destroyed. When Nahar Singh approached the CIC, the Police’s action was treated as legitimate and Nahar Singh’s case was dismissed.

This is not an isolated case. Some more cases have come to light where Police had “officially” destroyed records after receiving an RTI request and this was treated as a legitimate excuse by the CIC for not providing information. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, if any official destroys records to prevent disclosure of information, he is liable to be penalized up to a maximum of Rs25,000. Rather than imposing a penalty, the CIC opted to legitimize the misdeeds of officials.

Information commissions were set up to listen to complaints and appeals from citizens who were denied information. They have a duty to ensure that the citizen receives information as permissible under the RTI Act. They also have a statutory duty to penalize officials who violate the provisions of the RTI Act. Commissioners have persistently refused to impose penalties. When questioned by The Indian Express last November as to why there were so few penalties, Wajahat Habibullah, chief information commissioner, said he believed in the philosophy of ahimsa.

So far, out of more than 4,000 complaints disposed of so far, penalties have been imposed in just 27 cases. So, a very clear message has gone to the bureaucracy all over the country—you don’t need to give information under RTI because the CIC is there to protect you. Recently, one person came from Korba in Chhattisgarh. He works for South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. He said—“When the RTI Act came in 2005, for a few months every one in our company was scared of RTI and we were getting information. Unfortunately, some cases reached the CIC in appeal. The complainants and the cases were so badly treated by the CIC that now the officials have openly started denying information saying—CIC mein jaoge. Jao, wahin milenge.” Similar stories have been narrated by many people from across the country, all suggesting that the bureaucracy has simply started ignoring RTI applications.

The RTI Act is the result of a long struggle waged by the people of this country. Can we allow RTI to be killed like this? It is time we demanded that the central information commissioners either protect the interests of the people or quit. I find there’s urgent need to remind one and all that Indian democracy can work for its people, provided it is made thus accountable.

Arvind Kejriwal is founder and head of Parivartan, a citizen’s movement for improving governance. He was a major force behind the country’s RTI Act.

Beyond arrogance | V. Kurien

V. Kurien — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:42:00 GMT

India is destined to be a global leader in years to come. As it moves to its due place in the comity of nations, it has to take advantage of opportunities and bravely face challenges. India needs to be vigilant enough not to develop the arrogance that has become the characteristic of many economically developed countries of the past and present.

Human resources are the most important asset that India has. As many as 770 million Indians are below 35 years of age and 19 million persons are added every year. Indians are young and, if trained properly, they can be global providers of goods and services. Their knowledge of English language is an added advantage.

However, a wide mismatch between the skills in demand and educational institutions’ supply leads to simultaneous occurrence of unavailability of quality manpower and high unemployment. The challenge is to create high-performing institutions of education and training that dynamically and proactively meet the changing manpower needs of different institutions of society. The inadequacy of educational infrastructure, in quality and quantity at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels for both basic and professional education, requires urgent attention.

India has a large endowment of natural resources such as land, water, forest, minerals and energy. However, some of the resources are being used on narrow financial consideration in an unsustainable manner that leads to loss of biodiversity, loss of top soil and increase in salinity, pollution of water bodies and salt water ingress to freshwater aquifers. There is need for nutritional food, water and energy security. All the resources need to be judiciously used for sustainable socio-economic development of our people.

About 29% of rural and 26% of urban people live below the poverty line. Most of these people are unorganized sector workers and small producers, and their low income is due to poor purchasing and bargaining power. They are physically malnourished and carry the additional burden of social backwardness. It will be a challenge to remove not only the economic backwardness but also the socio-physical weaknesses of such a large section of population.

Poor health infrastructure and an expensive formal health-care system are reflected in higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy at birth and lower longevity for socio-economically backward sections of our population. Privatization of health services, in the absence of social security, is putting a tremendous strain even on middle-class families. Providing an affordable health-care system for all is a challenge today and will be more severe in future. Government must play a key role in primary health-care services and develop innovative public-private partnerships at the secondary and tertiary level. Health care and education cannot be left freely in the hands of the private sector.

Democratic governance is the greatest strength of India. More than half a century of peaceful transition of governments at the state and national levels has strengthened India’s capacity to resolve differences peacefully. Every effort needs to be made to strengthen institutions that are the pillars of democracy. Sustainable development will be possible through democratic governance.

Expensive and time-consuming legal procedures are coming in the way of having faith in our judiciary. The information explosion has exposed the weakness of the administrative and judicial system in delivering justice. It is not uncommon to find that powerful and wealthy people get the patronage of the system, while the weak and the poor languish in the hands of the state. Hence, one sees the emergence of groups that are often considered “terrorists”. It will be difficult to understand their growth and patronage without seeing the underlying economic and socio-political deprivation. It will be a challenge for us to reach the status of a civilized society where the preamble of our Constitution is respected both in letter and spirit.

Lack of functional accountability from public institutions in service delivery is hampering growth and development in the country. Developing institutional mechanisms for accountability will be a challenge for the future. While the Right to Information Act is an important step in the right direction, its compliance will be a challenge. Democratic and decentralized governance with a high level of accountability will help in building effective and efficient institutions. Such a set-up will bring instruments of development in the hands of the people. More and more people, especially the underprivileged, will automatically join such institutions when they see that timely justice is delivered.

The federal structure of the country can survive if there is fairness in resource allocation among different regions. Excessive political considerations in deciding major investments, setting up of national institutes and allocation of resources lead to a sense of exploitation by one region over another. Hence, one sees calls for autonomy from the existing structure at the local, state and national levels. Inter, and intra-regional inequality in economic development is a challenge that needs to be handled in a fair and transparent manner. Equity needs to take precedence over growth and societal interest cannot be inferior to individual interest. In the name of growth it will be unacceptable if a significant section of the population remains at subhuman levels.

Broad-based production and service delivery systems will lead to involvement of the masses against the dominant trend of a few controlling large market shares. Some of the basic facilities such as education, health and utilities that have empowering potential need to be controlled through either ownership of the means of production and delivery and/or regulation.

The Amul model of dairy development has shown how landless, marginal, small and big farmers can be brought into the fold of the cooperative system while maintaining high levels of efficiency and strong bargaining power of the producer-members in milk-collecting, processing and marketing enterprises. It has also led to fair compensation for value addition at different stages.

In contrast, some of the “innovations” in the form of “farmer groups” by agribusiness companies for “agricultural production only” lead to marginal gain at best and exploitation at worst. Privatization of existing public sector enterprises is not an answer for improving their performance. The challenge is how to revitalize while maintaining the public status.

India belongs to all Indians. Not listening to the majority voice will be an option for disaster.

V. Kurien is the founder chairman, NDDB and the father of India’s White Revolution.

Tired of socialists | Jaithirth Rao

The Indian Century — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:58:00 GMT

Milton Friedman once mentioned that both Japan and India imitated Britain when they embarked on their transitions. In 1868, after the Meiji revolution, Japan imitated Britain as it was in 1868—committed to free markets, vigorous global trade and laissez-faire market capitalism. Japan saw Britain in this incarnation as its role model. In 1947, free India noticed that Britain had a Labour government committed to socialism, nationalizing the coal and steel industries, restricting free markets, and India decided to imitate this version of Britain, one that was largely inspired by the Fabians. Laski and Attlee, the London School of Economics gurus, had an emphatic influence on free India’s leaders.

One could argue that it was indeed a pity that India did not get its freedom in 1868. The zeitgeist of the times would have ensured that India would have committed itself to a market-oriented growth option instead of one that was focused on redistributing wealth before it was created. Instead, even leading Indian businessmen approved of, and advocated, nationalizations and state interventions as enunciated in the well-known Bombay plan.

As the predations, restrictions and interventions of socialistic India got stronger, a point of view emerged which argued that not only was the infamous permit-licence raj crippling the Indian economy, it was becoming a menace to individual liberties. A baneful nexus was developing between the Indian elite and the Indian government, which was inimical to markets and supportive of a state which could all too easily slide into a fascist prototype.

What we today call crony capitalism was shown up by economist R.K. Hazari, who came up with data that influential Indian businessmen were cornering licences (a formal barrier to entry for less well-connected entrepreneurs) and frequently not setting up the businesses and factories that they were licensed to start. The era of shortages suited the business and political elite.

It was at this time that C. Rajagopalachari and Minoo Masani founded the Swatantra Party as a defender of private property rights, an opponent of the permit-licence raj (an expression coined by Rajagopalachari) and of the ever-growing Indian state. It is interesting to note that the Swatantra Party got its support from the disappearing princely order—the maharajas and nawabs of India, not from businessmen who preferred a Faustian bargain with state socialism rather than press for free markets.

By 1967, the Swatantra Party, with its emphasis on minimalism in government, gained ground and in at least a couple of states, it was on the verge of power. But the party never fully matured into an alternative to the socialism-obsessed Congress or to the numerous parties based on regional chauvinism, caste followings or religious ideology that have since developed on the Indian scene. After its ill-fated merger with the Janata Party and the fragmentation of that party, people even gave up the hope of campaigning on a quasi-libertarian platform. But the Swatantra Party ensured that India did not drift into the worst of socialist excesses such as collective farming. That remains one of its most enduring legacies.

With the possible exception of Narasimha Rao (and that, too, for a short period), no Indian leader or party seems to have a genuine sympathy for, or commitment to, market-friendly principles in a political sense. At best, they pay obeisance to the market when forced to. By upbringing and temperament it is an interventionist state that they are comfortable with. At the first chance, or under the slightest pressure, they revert to the tired socialist doctrines of envy and distribution of largesse. The BJP preferred not to privatize oil companies when it had the chance. The patronage associated with doling out petrol dealerships was too important to lose. The Congress seems to suffer from nostalgia for the “Hindoo” rate of growth because if no one gets wealthy, there is no one to envy!

That is why we are forced to ask ourselves: should we not have a political party that is a khullam-khulla defender of markets and an opponent of an intrusive state?

S.V. Raju of the Indian Liberal Group has been trying to register a political party that is expressly opposed to socialism. He is making very little headway. The broader question is whether, even if he did, would such a party have electoral success? The general view is that without the benefits of caste permutations, religious zeal, regional passions or dynastic PR, no political party can succeed in contemporary India. Does this mean that we concede the intellectual forum to leftists and obscurantists? Once we do this, as citizens of the republic we lose the right to complain as they perpetuate our poverty and ensure that we will never catch up with the Koreas and the Chinas. Whatever our decision, in the practical realm we must take heart from the Swatantra experience. The Party members did not become ministers—but by their very existence and by their bold articulation, they did influence the polity for the better. Herein lies an opportunity.

Even if it is not a formal party, only a society, it is important that the argument for economic and political freedoms (which are intertwined) must be made loudly, clearly and cogently. In this area, we can learn from the Fabian Society, not their ill-conceived ideas but their organizational methods. They kept talking, writing, communicating—and over time, their ideas became fashionable among politicians who may have never heard of the Fabians. The revived Swatantra should, at a minimum, aim to fulfil this role.

Jaithirth Rao is an entrepreneur and a writer.

The idea of India | Aruna Roy

Aruna Roy — Fri, 11 May 2007 11:54:00 GMT

All that is old is not gold. But surely all that glitters is not gold either. The Bharatiya Janata Party will no doubt acknowledge that their vision of “India Shining” blinded them to the realities and struggles for survival of a vast number of Indians. Our policymakers are, once again, distancing themselves from poverty and its causes. In their euphoria about gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates and sensex figures, they deliberately ignore the consequences of endemic hunger and deprivation on the people. What is even more depressing is the fact that those who watch the growth rate are not even true to the paradigm they espouse. They consciously ignore the alarming figures of infant mortality, literacy, unemployment, and the per capita income of the poorest 30%. Growing inequalities contribute to angst. The battle lines are being drawn.

The strength of India in the 21st century will not be measured by GDP alone. If a prosperous India has to be shaped, it will be defined by its capacity to deliver basic needs to its poorest. India is a complex web, inexplicable by mere figures and numbers. We need to look back as much as we need to look forward. The burden from the past will influence our future.

In the debate on tradition and modernity, arguments in India have been skewed and rationalized. If one looks back at the previous century and asks what has mattered, the answer would not depend on whether some act or idea is modern or traditional, but whether it has been just, equal, compassionate and, above all, rational.

The last hundred years have been undoubtedly the Age of the Atom. Pitched between “science without humanity ” and “religion without compassion”, India has swung from one extreme to the other. The same people often advocate either extreme!! What determines scientific temper is not whether the issue is related to science, but that the approach is rational—whether it is Roop Kanwar’s sati, the atrocities on Dalits and minorities, the burning of brides, the rape of innocent women, or the jingoism of dropping bombs on ‘enemies’.

But, most important of all, the last century has seen the beginnings of the liberation of people from caste, class and gender atrocities. It has been a long haul from the time when all these groups were voiceless and isolated. The mere fact that acts of atrocities are reported is an acknowledgement of inequalities. The first step towards remedial action is the acceptance of the truth. It remains to be seen whether the coming century will build on this foundation.

The opportunities for real well-being are linked to questions of public ethics. If we were to see that hunger and poverty, however remote, are logically and irrevocably linked to our own choices, levels of consumption and development paradigms (special economic zones, displacement, suicides of farmers and weavers, polluting the stratosphere), we will also make better choices, not merely on an objective profit and loss account. We will go beyond the tinsel of irrelevant and frivolous front page news about marriages and kisses to look at the graver issues.

There are two current myths that need serious examination. The first is that the economists have scientific answers and know best. The second is what the news and media now project—that people are largely mindless absorbers of glitter. Both these insult the intelligence of people.

Economics is not mathematics, it is more interpretative than absolute. Every economic argument has a counter argument. The power behind economic positions is determined by political ideology, the backing of power, money—sometimes ill-begotten—and a variety of motivations. The tragedy is that this group, which prides itself on its objectivity, has become the new God. Opinions are made by selective perception and, in their language, by data, sample size and schedules. The media helps reinforce the view that this is the whole truth.

Till two decades ago, it was accepted internationally that economic designs emanated from political priorities. But today we have conveniently elevated economics to a science, and we peddle it—consciously, hypocritically and ruthlessly for the well-being and reinforcement of a ruling elite, far more frightening than Big Brother ever was in Orwell’s 1984. We need to honestly question ourselves. As the Mahatma said, “There is enough for everyone’s need, not for everyone’s greed.”

The second paradigm is easier to fault. Most readers do not want to see semi-naked women and read mindless gossip. The new set of literate rural Rajasthanis, for instance, is far more interested in hard politics and in the economic policies that affect them. It is the money behind the advertisements, and the quite frightening paradigm of deliberate attempts to keep the people uninformed, that needs to be seriously questioned by us all.

Somewhere, despite all the collusions and greed, there is a necessity in democracies to listen to the voice of the people. The vote still remains a powerful weapon, especially when people transcend the narrow confines of caste and religion. Whether after the Emergency or during the India that did not shine, they had the final veto. This needs to be strengthened.

The Indian people have now learned to use democracy and its institutions beyond just elections. The Right to Information Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act are Acts that people have crafted and got political support to push through Parliament. It is in the use of these Acts that a possible future lies for a saner and better India. The demand for debate and discussion of policies in the public domain, the right to make informed choices, the demand for transparency and accountability are the poor persons’ and the ordinary citizens’ gift to making India really independent. The astute common sense of the ordinary citizen has raised the most scientific, intelligent arguments without jargon or rationalization.

Despite the complexities and pluralities, people are not going to be manipulated and trod upon. This is a warning to some and a reason for hope for the majority in this country.

Aruna Roy is member, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI).

No woman, no cry | Taslima Nasreen

Taslima Nasreen — Fri, 04 May 2007 06:29:00 GMT

As a child, I had the intense desire to change myself into a boy. Being a boy, I knew, could get the love and attention of my parents. It could get me the most expensive toys, fashionable clothes and shoes and, even better, the best of the food available in the house. I could go any distance to play in the largest playgrounds in the city. No one would stop me from doing anything. There would be a hundred and one aides waiting to deliver all my desires, as I would be the king of the world—I would be the son.

As I grew older, my suffering increased. Because I was a girl, I was scolded and sworn at. Huddling in a corner of a room, I would shed tears and muse over why I could not become a boy. Men cast a lusty look at my breasts, and grabbed them whenever they got a chance. When I began menstruating, they told me I was polluted—I was not allowed to do, even touch, anything. I lived in the fear of being grabbed, raped or strangled to death. Someone, anyone, might throw acid on my face, or burn me after pouring kerosene all over my body.

I could never walk about alone, carefree, on the streets, in the parks, sit on the banks of a river or stand for a while taking in the sea.

It is a man’s world. No creature is as insecure as a woman. The state and its laws, society and its codes, are not adequate for the security of any girl.

Some people might reply there is little security for men, too.

I agree, the lack of security threatens men as well. Nevertheless, the inadequacy of security faced by women is a million times more than what men face, because they were born as girls. Nowhere else in the animal kingdom, does the female species face the ignominy that the human world inflicts on its women.

This society teaches both men and women right from childhood that the male is a little more human than the female. Women are physically and mentally weak. They are not fit for emancipation. They cannot be aggressive. Repeatedly indoctrinated with such teaching, the self-confidence of women gets crushed. They do not unite, protest, oppose. Women not only remain silent against this anti-female society, there are women who actually hold it in high esteem and celebrate it.

Those men who do recognize there is social disparity between men and women think it is the woman’s problem, not theirs, and therefore, it is the responsibility of women alone to launch movements against their subversion.

But men do have the responsibility to help end gender disparity, if they seek minimal social welfare. A society is not healthy—and the question of calling it decent doesn’t even arise—if the tradition of torturing one human being by another continues.

Why should the responsibility of making society healthy be vested with women only, and not with men as well? Society belongs to both men and women! Does this mean the men do not want equality and equal rights? If that is truly desired, why don’t the powerful men at the helm root out this disparity?

Contemptible crimes are committed inside families—families which Indian society brags about so much.

Sexual molestation of infant girls continues unabated. A small girl child is not safe in the family of her own father, uncles, elder brothers and grandfathers.

A recent report by the Central government has revealed that 53% of Indian children, somehow or the other, are victims of sexual abuse. One-fifth of children become victims of severe sexual abuse. In 83% of the cases, close members of the family commit the abuse and, therefore, the affair is hushed up and the children remain in helpless obscurity.

West Bengal is at the top of the crime list. However, we hear all the time from both men and women that this state is the most progressive; women might be harassed in other states, but never in West Bengal.

The word “progressive” is used very widely in the case of West Bengal. We do not know what their reaction will be now after going through the Centre’s scrutiny in this report. They might say with a sneer that any sexual harassment that takes place would be in the rural areas and not in the cities. If told of an instance at Bagbazar, they may say at least it is in the north and not in the south of Kolkata! If an instance in Tollygunge in the south is cited, they will say: Let it happen in Tollygunge but it will not happen in Ballygunge.

I have rarely seen such indifferent people. When the house of a neighbour is burning, they will remain quiet till the time their own tails catch fire.

Little girls feel so insecure because of sexual abuse that 48.4% them are now asking why they were not born boys instead. Like me, they too wish to turn themselves into boys.

I dream of a day when all the women in the world have changed into men and no such thing as woman exists any more. May be, only then will there be no such thing as ‘masculine’.

Masculinity is only for grinding women. When there are no women in the world, whom are the men going to grind? They will fight among themselves and get killed. However, some among them will again ask for peace. They will start a movement for class struggle and equality. Men will be naturally lustful and pray to their god for the womb that at some auspicious moment bears a girl child.

Men will then dream how, after the birth of that girl, all the men in the world are raping her each moment for as long as she is alive. When that girl gives birth to another girl child, men will be raping her, too. But this masculine dream will never come true. Men will keep seeing this dream, till the time they die one after the other... and thus would end humanity.

After all, why should women have to survive tolerating the injustice done to them by men just to save humanity?

Let the history of humanity be the history of men’s scandal.

Taslima Nasreen is a writer from Bangladesh. She is based in Kolkata. This article was written in Bangla and translated by Ashoke Gupta.

Can India lead?

Kishore Mahbubani — Tue, 01 May 2007 15:40:00 GMT

Two speeches given by the Prime Ministers of India and UK in late 2006 vividly illustrate the problems we face in the current international order. The world needs a deeper understanding of the structural flaws of our current order as well as a concerted attempt to address these flaws. The big question here is: Can India provide the leadership to achieve this?

On 7 December 2006, Manmohan Singh gave a thoughtful speech describing some serious problems with the current international order. He added that the world needed to accommodate the rise of Asia. In his words: “Just as the world accommodated the rejuvenation of Europe in the post-War world, it must now accommodate the rise of new Asian economies in the years that lie ahead. What this means is that we need global institutions and new global ‘rules of the game’ that can facilitate the peaceful rise of new nations in Asia.” Sadly, this significant speech was ignored by the international media.

By contrast, when Blair spoke a few weeks earlier (on 13 November 2006) and called for a “whole Middle East” strategy, his speech was blared to all corners of the globe. In his words: “On the contrary, we should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core. We should then make progress on Lebanon. We should unite all moderate Arab and Muslim voices behind a push for peace in those countries but also in Iraq. We should be standing up for empowering, respecting those with a moderate and modern view of the faith of Islam everywhere.”

The western-dominated international media saw it as completely “natural” to ignore Manmohan Singh and publicize Blair. What they don’t “see” is the distorting lens that this western media uses in describing contemporary realities. By any rational calculation, the international reporting should have taken a completely opposite pattern.

Blair is a decent man. He has brought considerable charm, good looks and an acute intelligence to his job. But history will be unkind to him. His foreign policies have been close to disastrous. It is ironical that Blair should call for the “moderate Muslims” to stand up. His support for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as his failure to persuade Bush to solve the Israel-Palestine issue, has undercut the standing and effectiveness of moderate Muslims everywhere. His November 2006 speech said nothing new. Several months later, it is also clear that nothing came of it. The western-dominated international media could have safely ignored it. It made no difference to human history. It was only another sad reflection of the failed western policies in the Middle East—failed policies which have jeopardized both the West and the rest of the world.

Manmohan Singh is an even more decent man. Unlike Blair, history will be kind to him. Although modest and soft-spoken, he has played a pivotal role in engineering the re-emergence of India as a major power. Despite his close alliance with Bush, Blair has received no foreign policy dividends. By contrast, Manmohan Singh secured the legitimization of the Indian nuclear programme. Manmohan Singh has also bravely pushed forward the Indian economic reform programme, even though he has to fight hard to hold together a coalition government. Against the odds, he has kept India’s economy roaring. In the last quarter of 2006, the Indian economy grew by 9.2%. Hence, when Manmohan Singh called for a reform of the international order, the western media should have broadcast it to all corners, rather than ignore it.

To be fair, the “distorting lens” of the western-dominated international media is not the only reason why Indian speeches on international issues are often ignored.

There is still a strong ambiguity about the actual direction of India’s foreign policies. India wants both to cling to non-alignment and to be accepted as an independent major power. It is hard to pursue both roles at the same time.

India is also reluctant to go the full distance in analysing the real difficulties that need to be overcome to reform the multilateral system.

Take the case of the reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC). The open-ended Working Group on UNSC Reform (which the wags now call the “never-ending Working Group”) has been meeting since 1993. Nothing has changed. India’s main proposal for reform is to add more permanent members (or more vetoes). Why should the rest of the world accept more vetoes? If it does not further their interests, why support it?

There is a way forward for UNSC reform. But it will take some courage to push it. The principle of “permanent” members is correct. The major powers should be anchored in the UN system, not kept out. However, for UNSC to remain relevant, it should reflect the power configuration of 2007, not 1945. A new comprehensive and flexible system allowing renewal and revitalization of UNSC membership is needed. But it also needs to include elements that would appeal to the rest of the world to support it. They would happily support a UNSC where the UNSC “permanent” members accepted responsibilities commensurate with their privileges. This is a cardinal principle found in any democratic system. Every powerful position comes with responsibility and accountability.

As the world’s largest democracy, India would have tremendous credibility in pushing forward this principle. And when it does, the answer to the question “Can India Lead?” will be a resounding “YES”!

Kishore Mahbubani is dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (National University of Singapore), author of “Can Asians Think?” and “Beyond the Age of Innocence: Rebuilding Trust Between America and the World”.

The population asset | Yoginder K. Alagh

Yoginder K. Alagh — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:35:00 GMT

The last two years have been of ferment on the understanding of Indian growth. That India has been growing from the 1980s has finally been accepted. But the fulcrum of that growth—the policy initiatives of the 1980s decade, is neither fully understood nor causally related with the economy’s growth upsurgence. Technology as the main factor, strategic economic reform at home (with the rest of the world as instruments), decentralized government and widespread agricultural growth in a decentralized agro-climatic scheme were the overarching paradigms underlying the policy initiatives that succeeded since.

We have had very talented NRI economists giving alternative explanations of “growth in the 1980s”. They miss the larger, and in some cases, essential aspects of the story. Arvind Panagariya says the 1980s covered an activist programme—for example, by 1990, around 20% of the tariff lines and 30% of imports had come under OGL and import licensing on many other products was eased. But growth during the 1980s, he argues, was “fragile and volatile”. However, there are two characteristics of growth in recent years—it is higher and it is more stable.

As regards the “causes”, Meghnad Desai sums up the dominant argument outside India: “Opening...the economy to foreign borrowing on official account in the 1980s was the beginning of an admission that self-reliance was not a successful strategy.” Therefore, “a lifetime of living off tariffs and subsidized interest rates has inured the big business classes against the virtues of competition.” Others say growth in the 1980s was on account of a regime dominated by business. But the argument that policy was designed to establish a cosy relationship between the capitalists and the establishment through tariffs and directed credit is factually incorrect. By the mid-1980s, around two-thirds of the Indian industry was free from domestic controls on prices and output and, to a large extent, investment. So, policy broke the back of the link between the bureaucrat and the capitalist and it was very clear that globalization-based reforms would follow.

What lies ahead? It’s argued that India will grow between 6% and 8% annually. The drivers of this growth will be investment, technology and productivity, trade and competition. (One-third of India’s GDP growth in 1997-2003 was technology driven.) An excellent analysis of productivity growth scenarios by ISI Kolkata (which I sponsored) indicates that to sustain growth at 8-9%, total factor productivity has to grow by 5% or more, as compared with around 4% in the past.

In its approach paper to the 11th Plan, the Planning Commission says savings, investment and factor productivity must go up, but spells out only the first two numbers. It is perhaps being realistic. For the Indian mindset, it may be easier to be more frugal than more efficient. I agree with the panel’s implicit understanding that the growth potential has only marginally improved and the real task lies ahead. But clearly, the jury is still out in terms of feasible growth paths. In 2003, the finance ministry’s economic survey had said that a 6% growth rate had become a habit. And habits are not easy to change.

At a broader level, while the Goldman Sachs BRICSAM study saw India in terms of its democracy, youth, market size and buying power, the Harvard Review has looked at the country’s enterprise, institutions and its planning focus. Within India, the policy focus now is more on governance issues as the key to faster, more broad-based and sustainable growth. The key concerns, emerging from extensive consultation, are: A regulatory framework for the functioning of the economic and social sectors and to take care of the victims of the processes of globalization and liberalization; the scarcity of water and energy; security, including energy security and food security; urban systems management; rights of individuals and groups and the rule of law; and Constitutional amendments that resulted in the devolution of powers to local bodies.

Goldman Sachs and CIA told the world that not only was India growing, but also that its population was an asset. We got billions of dollars of free publicity. They were right, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Growth doesn’t happen when you take a slide rule, multiply per capita income by consumption propensities and air conditioners and refrigerators come out of your ears. But this is a khatta-meetha business. When populations are hungry, feel unfairly treated, don’t have a job, or are sick, they are not an asset.

P.N. Mari Bhat has neat numbers where the labour force grows faster than the population, the dependency ratio goes down, savings rise, women work more as fertility rates go down and we gather bonuses right up till the middle of the century. But the numbers vary in alternate visions. Historically, population growth has been associated with economic growth. At Wharton, Richard Easterlin, taught us that North America was in an epoch of growth, and the people were its architects. Ester Boserup, working with Gunnar Myrdal at the same time, was showing this in parts of Africa and South India. These early lessons were forgotten. From the early 1980s, the message was that a falling population growth was at the heart of the East Asian story. Our economic survey said this in 2000. The point is, if we misuse land, water and energy and the number of persons who don’t have jobs and food rises, the population will not be a bonus. As Bhat shows, there is real demographic dividend in labour force growth rates that are higher than population growth, but it could be as low as 0.07%.

When India’s demographic transition nears completion, the age at first birth would be 21-22 years (less than 20 now) and the age at last birth would be around 28 years (38 now). Women could enter the labour force in large numbers and give an edge that’s additional to the change in age structure. But it won’t be easy in a patriarchal society. Dipak Mazumdar and Sandip Sarkar, in a World Bank sponsored study, estimated that in contrast to the 1980s, when employment had risen, “loss in subsidiary employment for females between 1993-94 and 2000 is 4.88 million just in cereal growing”. Messing up agriculture means a negative dividend of women withdrawing from the work force.

Fortune never came to the timid. But societies do respond to crises. And as the Harvard Business Review rightly points out, in large countries such as India, decentralized enterprise and planning—I suspect they mean strategic vision—are the sources of growth.

Y.K. Alagh is chairman, Irma, and has been member of the Planning Commission and a Union minister.

Be market savvy | Clyde Prestowitz

Clyde Prestowitz — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:46:00 GMT

India’s recent economic success inevitably raises the question of where the country might be heading. The answer is that with a little luck and good management it could well make the 21st century the Indian Century. Here’s how.

Some will object that China’s economy is already twice as large as India’s and growing faster. True, and there is, no doubt that China will be the big story for the next 15 years. Thereafter, however, things will change as China’s two major problems increasingly weigh on the economy. Pervasive corruption is increasingly expensive and virtually impossible to eradicate under China’s authoritarian political system. At the same time, rapid ageing and eventual population decline will manifest itself in about 15 years as a consequence of the one-child policy. China is now in a race to get rich before it becomes old. The outcome is very much in doubt, but even if it succeeds in getting rich in time, it will have difficulty in staying rich as the burden of caring for the old becomes crushing.

India also suffers from the ills of corruption, but its democratic system provides a self-cleansing mechanism. Of course, India will have to be careful to maintain and improve its democracy. But the incentive to do so will be less corruption and faster growth. Beyond this, India’s favourable demographics will provide a huge push in the later half of the century. By about 2035, India’s population will become larger than China’s and will go on to reach about 1.6 billion as the Chinese population contracts.

Moreover, India will remain a young country as the costs of caring for the elderly become crushing in China and other societies.

In this regard, one key policy element must be to reverse the growing imbalance between male and female births in India. Secondly, of course, jobs with good and rising wages must be created for all the new people.

India should forge a partnership with Japan to become an alternative to China as a location for low-cost, high-quality manufacturing

So far, India’s success has been driven largely by information and communications technologies and service industries. They will have to continue their drive but, alone, they are not likely to create the jobs necessary to deepen and broaden the Indian success story. Getting to the next level will mean that India must become a manufacturing powerhouse comparable to China. That will require many things such as better infrastructure, more and better education, reduction of regulatory barriers, and improvement of labour relations.

But there are two key strategic factors. The Asian Tigers such as Singapore, Taiwan and now China have all made liberal use of tax holidays, capital grants, and other investment incentives to induce foreign companies to move factories to their shores. India must do the same while extending similar inducements to critical investment by domestic manufacturers. Some may object that such policies will distort markets. But since the markets are already very imperfect and subject to many kinds of intervention from both domestic and foreign agents, such positive investment measures will be necessary to overcome the pre-existing distortions. On this, the record of Ireland, Singapore, China and many others is clear. Investment incentives work.

Japan remains the world leader in manufacturing process technology and at the same time, has an uneasy relationship with China. Japanese manufacturers remain cautious about transferring production and technology to China, where the risk of copying and adverse administrative guidance is high. India should strive to forge a partnership with Japan and Japanese companies to become an alternative to China as a location for low-cost, high-quality manufacturing.

To become a manufacturing superpower, India must also insist on a halt to mercantilist currency management by Japan, Korea, China and others. Most export led economies such as these strive to maintain an undervalued currency as a way of promoting exports and of protecting domestic markets from imports. India cannot afford to allow its competitors to determine the value of its currency and hence the flow of its imports and exports—and thus the future of its manufacturing industries. On the one hand, India must object to, and use its influence in the World Trade Organization and elsewhere to bring a halt to, such practices. On the other hand, it must not allow its own currency to float freely until its competitors do so.

India should also seriously consider applying for membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). The gigantic US current account deficit is increasingly unsustainable and is generating protectionist pressure across a broad range of industries in the US. By joining Nafta, India could assure itself guaranteed free access to the North American market in a move that neither China nor Japan nor even Korea could, or would, be able to make. In effect, India would gain preferential access to the world’s most important market.

Development, of course, generates its own problems. For India as for China, the challenges of how to deal with pollution, growing water scarcity, greenhouse gas emissions, and adequate energy supplies will be daunting. Yet there is one simple solution to all these problems that India must adopt—nuclear power. It is clean with regard to air pollution, can drive desalinization plants efficiently, emits no greenhouse gases and replaces oil, coal and natural gas as power sources. India should adopt a policy like that of France, to generate the bulk of its electric power from nuclear plants.

With these policies and a little luck, India will become the world’s biggest economy and leading developer of technology, gradually replacing the US as the dominant country of the 21st century. That will inevitably create pressure for India to take on more of America’s present geopolitical burden. It should not do so. India has reasonably good relations with Russia and China and should maintain them while resisting American pressure for a partnership. Rather, India should lead an effort to reform the UN while associating with Asean, the EU and other multilateral bodies to create effective international institutions in place of great power hegemony.

Clyde Prestowitz is the author of Three Billion New Capitalists; Rogue Nation; and Trading Places. He is also president of the Economic Strategy Institute, Washington, DC. Formerly he was vice-chairman of the President’s Commission on Trade and Investment in Asia, a member of the Advisory Board of the ExImBank, and counsellor to the secretary of commerce (Reagan administration).

Life and curriculum | Azim H. Premji

Azim H. Premji — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:50:00 GMT

Significant attention is now being given to improving many skills and competencies in our graduates that were earlier not focused on. Communication skills, problem solving and creative thinking are some examples of these skills and competencies. The reason for this new focus seems to be that a significant majority of our young graduates either lack these basic skills or are unable to use them in their life. There is a growing awareness across the board that our education system is not very good at facilitating learning of these skills and competencies in the students. Let me just call these skills and competencies “life skills”.

We now see a deluge of courses to help one deal with these life skills. Engineering and graduation curricula are being revisited and being strengthened with additional subjects like communication and presentation skills, which are deemed essential to get a good job. But this deals with the specific manifestation of a deeper issue.

Is it only the ability to communicate and do a job that is lacking? Or is this something more fundamental? While we need to make attempts to rectify immediate issues, it is important for us to see beyond this. What is the root of the issue? Our education system currently does not actively encourage the development of life skills. What is learnt in school is considered academic and largely serves the purpose of clearing examinations. Our curriculum consists of discrete items or subjects that a student can pick and choose to increase his or her efficiency and performance in examinations.

This systematic attitude is obvious in the way our curriculum and its assessment are approached. The results of this perspective are so serious that even language and communication are seen as separate topics that need to be dealt with in an examination. The marks we get in these subjects are seen as separate and not necessarily influencing the ability to perform in the other subject areas. The lack of life skills is a manifestation of this view of our curriculum. We are implicitly discouraging the student from connecting ideas, from applying thoughts to different contexts, from questioning and from learning. This problem commences at the level of primary education itself.

We need to see the curriculum as a network of knowledge and not discrete compartments. Children should be encouraged to view the curriculum as a composite. We need to employ more flexibility and free ourselves from this need to have specific periods devoted to specific subjects with little or no overlap. We constantly need to be creative in helping the child develop linkages among various topics she learns and then with the real world. Clarifying thoughts, enquiring and communicating need to be inherent in the learning process. We need to provide opportunities for the child to employ the concepts she has learnt. This approach will provide the foundations for a child to learn the process of learning. The way we view curriculum influences the assessment process we adopt. Our current assessment system is focused more on ranking and comparison of children than on making a child aware of what she has learnt. By attributing marks to each subject, we are continuously showing the child which particular subject she is good at and which she isn’t. We reinforce the thought that learning happens in compartments that are called subjects.

Assessment should be a process of making a child aware of what she has learnt rather than an instrument to show what she hasn’t. Assessment should help teachers and parents understand what the child hasn’t learnt and how well she has learnt what she has. Based on this, we should be able to see how we can change classroom processes and achieve the curricular objectives we set for our children.

Our curriculum and the assessment should be looked at as means to help our children learn how this world functions, a means to help them understand themselves and to be better human beings. This is a paradigm shift and we have to make this shift. Within our policy framework, schools have the leeway to take this approach. It is important for them to realize this and take a step in this direction. There are quite a few experiments done by schools that have shown us the way and proven that this approach works. Continuous and comprehensive assessment gives us insights into the child’s learning and enables us to reach out to the child and facilitate her learning process. Why then do we hesitate to take this step? Why do we insist on oversimplifying the learning process? We need to realize that we are not making learning easier for our children by neatly classifying and separating topics, but that we are making it more complicated. They struggle through this mind-shift that the world of learning is discrete and in different boxes only to discover later that it is in fact a continuum and a network that they understand so little about.

Let us look at learning as a holistic and comprehensive process which gives children the capability to understand the world they live in as a whole. It builds the capability to engage with the world as they grow up. Let us introduce the world to children the way it is—as a complex yet singularly beautiful experience—and their ability to engage with the world will develop far better.

Azim H. Premji is chairman of Wipro Technologies.

Can India lead? | Kishore Mahbubani

Kishore Mahbubani — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:00:00 GMT

To be fair, the “distorting lens” of the western-dominated international media is not the only reason why Indian speeches on international issues are often ignored.

India is also reluctant to go the full distance in analysing the real difficulties that need to be overcome to reform the multilateral system.

India’s unique way | K.V. Kamath

K.V. Kamath — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:03:00 GMT

We have witnessed a dramatic transformation in the Indian economy in the past few years. India has, for the third year in succession, recorded a GDP growth rate of more than 8%. It is estimated that the growth rate is in fact in double digits, if one were to update the indices currently used to measure GDP growth.

This means that India is today the world’s second-fastest economy in terms of the growth rate.

The experience of some other major Asian economies shows that this high growth rate is indeed sustainable over very long periods of time. Japan grew at 8.5% for 20 years after World War II. The result was a five-fold increase in its GDP. China has grown at a compounded annual rate of 9.5% for over 25 years since it began reforms, with its GDP growing by 10 times.

The Indian economy today has the same characteristics as the economies of Japan and China had in the early years of their growth—favourable demographics, human capital, rising competitiveness of industry and an increasing savings rate. India is at the beginning of the curve in terms of what could happen.

We can reasonably expect these growth rates to sustain for the next 15-20 years.

While there are striking similarities between India currently and the early growth periods of China and Japan, India has seen a completely different growth paradigm. While China and Japan started out as manufacturing destinations, India’s growth process has been powered by knowledge sectors. This can be seen in the fact that the services sector has grown at an average rate of 9% since the economy was opened up in 1991. This is now extending from technology services to medical research, health care, biotechnology, design and other knowledge-based sectors.

The knowledge sector does not require large capital investments. It is important to understand that this is a new economic reality, which draws its sustenance from the power and momentum that our people provide. Growth in these sectors has resulted in rising household incomes and stimulated growth in consumer demand, which has in turn provided the impetus to industrial production.

With the knowledge economy demonstrating sustained growth and the real sector doing equally well, we are not just competing globally, but are also going out and acquiring companies abroad. Today, the mantra is “seek beyond your borders” in areas where one has competitive advantage. A parallel trend is the growing number of international companies choosing India as a global manufacturing and sourcing hub. They have clearly seen India’s advantages as a manufacturing base.

While these growth engines that we talked about—the consumer cycle, the momentum in the services sector, and the resurgence of the Indian industry—are still revving up, these are not the only sectors that will provide the growth momentum in the coming years. I believe we have another area where we have huge opportunities: Rural India.

This region has a population of approximately 700 million spread across 600,000 villages where the opportunity exists. The ability to do business in rural India is improving dramatically. Villages that were hitherto unconnected are getting connected through the shifts in technology.

This paradigm shift in technology will cause the next transformation and give us the next engine of growth. Increased access to financial services is a key requirement for uplifting the economic status of rural households.

Farmers need credit not only to cultivate crops, but also for buying equipment and financing the holding period of output post-harvest. They also need insurance to guard against climatic vagaries. Traders and entrepreneurs need not only credit, but also efficient-transaction banking services. And even the poorest of the poor need not only micro loans to enable productive activity, but also savings accounts to manage the small surpluses arising out of such activity and insurance to protect households against economic shocks like accidents that lead to loss of earning capacity.

The opportunity in rural India now also includes connecting rural India to better markets with better prices. We at ICICI Bank have committed ourselves to these growth opportunities and are offering a full spectrum of products to meet the needs of various segments of the rural population through a combination of innovative channels. We are seeking to use technology to address the challenges associated with delivery of financial services in rural areas.

While the growth momentum is without question, there is a need to continuously plan ahead for the resources needed to support this growth. For example, growth in the services sector has brought with it the demand for skilled and qualified manpower. According to Nasscom, the IT and ITES industry itself will face a shortage of half-a-million trained people by 2010. The issue is no longer about finding jobs for people, but of ensuring that there are enough people with relevant skills for the jobs at hand.

The other key challenge we face is the lack of infrastructure. Power, airports and ports, urban rejuvenation and rural infrastructure are all areas where the current facilities are inadequate to support the growth targets that we have set for ourselves.

We must be ready with solutions to these challenges. These include public- private partnerships to build up infrastructure, expanded access to primary, secondary and higher education and reorientation of curricula to meet the needs of the knowledge economy. While we may not have transformational one-shot reform in these areas, initiatives must be undertaken to address these issues in a calibrated fashion. We must also encourage each region of the country to map its strengths and opportunities and leverage these for growth and increase in regional per-capita income.

This will ensure that India sustains high growth rates over a long period, with the benefits of growth spreading across a greater proportion of our people.

K.V. Kamath is managing director and chief executive officer of ICICI Bank.