Vijay Kumar Gaba: constitution of India

Showing posts with label constitution of India. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2024

End the pretense – choose between Democracy and Monarchy

A new study by the World Inequality Lab highlighted one of the most obvious facts, i.e., the income and wealth inequalities in India have been rising and are now worse than the colonial period. The study highlights that “Inequality declined post-independence till the early 1980s, after which it began rising and has skyrocketed since the early 2000s. Trends of top income and wealth shares track each other over the entire period of the study. Between 2014-15 and 2022-23, the rise of top-end inequality has been particularly pronounced in terms of wealth concentration. By 2022-23, the top 1% income and wealth shares (22.6% and 40.1%) are at their highest historical levels and India’s top 1% income share is among the very highest in the world, higher than even South Africa, Brazil and the US.”

The study suggests that “A restructuring of the tax code to account for both income and wealth, and broad-based public investments in health, education and nutrition are needed to enable the average Indian, and not just the elites, to meaningfully benefit from the ongoing wave of globalization. Besides serving as a tool to fight inequality, a “super tax” of 2% on the net wealth of the 167 wealthiest families in 2022-23 would yield 0.5% of national income in revenues and create valuable fiscal space to facilitate such investments.”

This is probably not a good time to publish such reports which highlight any deficiencies in India's governance model. The opposition parties use these reports as a tool to attack the government. The ruling party rejects the finding as malicious propaganda to malign the image of the country and its government - everyone misses the point, i.e., there may be some serious flaws in the socio-economic development model used in the past five decades by various governments. These flaws, on the one hand, may have resulted in a widening of socioeconomic disparities, and on the other hand, might have constricted the growth and development of the country.

Bloomberg columnist Andy Mukherjee opined “‘Billionaire Raj’ Is Pushing India Toward Autocracy”. A known critic of the establishment, Mukherjee extorted the voters to ask questions. He wrote, “The super-rich have opened their wallets to Modi, and income inequality has soared over the past decade. With an election coming, ordinary voters need to ask, ‘What’s in it for us?’”

My view is that India never had democracy. We have always been a feudal society. In the post-independence era, democracy has mostly been a tool to capture feudal power. Since the late 1970s most parties have used the façade of socialism to become feudal (e.g., BSP, SP, RJD, and DMK, TDP, TMC, BRS, AAP, etc.) BJP also adopted Gandhian Socialism as its guiding philosophy briefly. The longest-ruling Congress party had turned feudal in the late 1960s. Parties like SAD, PDP, NC, NCP, YSRCP, etc., have been blatantly feudal ab initio.

We, the people of India, have always celebrated the feudal powers of our leaders. The poor and oppressed admired and vehemently defended, for example, the diamond jewelry of Mayawati, the Luxury cars of Mulayam and Lalu, the riches of the Badal, Jayalalitha & Karunanidhi clan, and the variety of designer attires of our prime minister.

The unemployed, ill, starving, and oppressed take pride in some Indians making a place in the Forbes list of global rich, spending billions on their children's weddings, and visiting temples to ask for more wealth from God.

They also feel empowered in queueing up for hours to shower rose petals on their leaders’ retinue of luxury cars in meaningless pretentious roadshows.

They celebrate when patriarchs of the parties they support, “nominate” their favorites to public offices. No one wonders that they have been given no right to elect their representatives or leaders. Feudal parties impose people of their choice as the parliament, assembly, and local body candidates on them. The set of people who would be PM, CM, Mayor, minister, governor, etc., is pre-determined by patriarchs irrespective of who is elected or defeated in the elections. Nobody is interested in discussing or following any ideologies.

The people who suffer the most do not seek accountability from their leaders. On the contrary, the random guys daring to ask questions are termed seditious by the same people. No one dares to challenge the feudal lords.

The debate should therefore be on the core issue – “Whether we should end the pretense and choose between a true representative democracy or a proper Monarchy?”

My vote is for a true democracy, where people choose their representatives (not merely vote for the candidates imposed on them by some random guys sitting in Delhi party office).

Thursday, August 3, 2023

Battle Ground 2024 – Political Reform

India shall complete the seventy-sixth year of its independence from British colonial rule in a couple of weeks. The nation has progressed materially on various fronts in these years. However, the direction of progress has not been on the most desirable path.

Of course, coming from much behind, India has joined the world’s leading economies in terms of the size of GDP. The development of physical infrastructure has been remarkable in the past couple of decades. India has attained strong positions in the areas like IT services, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, etc.

However, the development of social parameters has not gathered the desired momentum. The regional and household disparities have remained wide and deep. Income and wealth inequalities have continued to widen despite a strong affirmative action plan in terms of reservation in education and government jobs for the backward castes and communities. The constitutional guarantee of “Equal Rights” is far from fully implemented. There is a perceptible lack of equality in access to credit, information, professional opportunities, etc.

The problem well highlighted

In fact, the regional socio-economic disparities and cultural differences are well highlighted. These are popular ingredients of any political and cultural marketing campaign in India. However, the awareness of the differences that exist at the state level is relatively poor.

To a person sitting in Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, or Hyderabad, the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) may not mean much more than – the Taj Mahal, Varanasi, Lucknow, Kebab, taxi drivers, and construction labor. Very few residents of the western and southern states appreciate that UP is as diverse as India itself. Various regions of the state, i.e., Awadh, Brij, Rohillkhand, Bundelkhand, Purvanchal, and Doab, have distinctly identifiable histories, food, dialect, customs, deities, and problems.

People from Bundelkhand and Doab regions in particular have been agitating for a different political identity for themselves for a long time. The regions also differ in terms of caste, community, and religious dynamics. Differences in terms of weather, water and electricity availability, crop patterns, flood-draught cycle, political influence, urbanization, physical infrastructure, income disparities, and other social indicators are also rather stark. The same holds true for many other states also.

Unjustifiable socio-economic disparities amongst various states and regions within states, materially different socio-economic status of various castes and communities in different states, have frequently led to demands and agitations for new administrative units (states and districts).

The legislatures have been mostly unsuccessful in developing and adopting a consensus framework for a federal structure of the country (Though some attempts like Sarkaria Commission have been made). Certainly, there has been a marked improvement in state-center relationships in the past 25 years, but this could be more due to political compulsions rather than any structural change. This has been the period when regional parties have played a critical role in government formation at the center. The strains in center-state relations reemerged as soon as a single-party government got installed at the center in 2014.

It would therefore not be unreasonable to say that the post-independence political organization of the country designed primarily on a lingual basis may no longer be relevant in the current context.

Moreover, the tradition to appoint by nomination rather than purely on the basis of election has killed meritocracy in politics and promoted inequality. Despite all claims of a robust, vibrant, and functional democracy, the political system in India appears to be working in a quasi-feudal style

The political problem, therefore, is to develop a political organization that fully assimilates the aspirations of the people, addresses specific local problems, promotes mutual trust & harmony, bars incompetence and knavery from public office, and ensures that the best is selected and prepared to rule for the common good.

A utopian solution

I may now present the broader contours of my utopian socio-political structure. Some may want to draw prima facie similarities with the Communist State. But trust me it has nothing to do with a Leninist, Maoist or even Marxist state. My utopian structure does allow equal opportunity to all, but through "democratic election" and not by "arbitrary nomination". Moreover, commitment to community (communism), culture (religion & traditions), and reverence for Mother Nature (sustainability) are the core and non-negotiable elements for me, whereas in a communist state, these are mostly redundant.

It is pertinent to mention that I am only proposing a broad concept based on the principle of equal opportunity, and full devolution of power to the local administration to address regional peculiarities and aspirations. A larger debate may be needed to bring out a workable detailed constitutional framework from this broader framework.

The primary governance unit — Local Council

(a) The primary unit of the country should be a democratic assembly of people in a town or village (Town or village council).

(b) Each town or village should directly elect a suitable number of representatives on a periodic basis. The winning candidate must win at least 51% of the eligible votes (not just the votes cast).

(c) Every adult citizen domiciled in that town/village for at least 10 years, should have an equal opportunity to get elected for a term of 3 years. No person shall be elected for more than 3 terms.

(d) Election expense of all candidates who could show support of at least 10% of eligible voters should be funded by the state. Other candidates may be required to fund their own expenses. The spending limit may be fixed, say Rs10, per eligible voter in the constituency. All expenses should be paid through the designated State office only.

(e) The performance of each Local Council member should be evaluated on an annual basis by an independent agency. A member failing to score the passing grade should be barred from politics for a period of 6yrs.

(f) The Chairperson of the Local Council should be elected by the members elected by the public, through a secret ballot. The winning candidate must have a minimum of 51% of elected Council members supporting him/her. Each such Chairperson should constitute an advisory board of local experts to advise him on governance matters. Members of the advisory board should not be paid any remuneration or be accorded any privileges or entitlements.

(g) Primary health, education, civil infrastructure, scientific research, art, culture, law & order, affirmative action (reservations etc.) may be governed exclusively by the Local Council.

(h) All citizens are accorded a right to uniform education and primary health services, to be implemented by the Local Councils. Private, for-profit, investment is allowed only in technical education, and specialized health services.

The secondary governance unit — District Council

(a) Towns and villages with largely homogeneous demographic characteristics should be grouped in various Districts. Each District should have an independent governing council. All such District Councils should be empowered to impose & collect direct taxes and indirect taxes on intra-district trade; frame rules for engagement with other District Councils in the country, including exploitation & sharing of natural resources; movement of labor & capital etc.

(b) Local Councils falling within a District should elect from amongst their present and past members, who have served at least 2 complete terms to such local council, to the District Council.

(c) The number of members representing each Local Council should be in proportion to the population, area, and social indicators of each such Local Council. Areas with stronger social indicators get to elect a few extra members. This should promote healthy competition amongst Local Councils to improve the social indicators.

(d) The district council should have a fixed term of 6 years, with half the members retiring by rotation every 3 years. No member should be elected to the District Council more than once.

(e) The performance of each district council member should be evaluated on an annual basis by an independent agency. A member failing to score the passing grade should be barred from politics for a minimum period of 10yrs.

(f) The Chairperson of the District Council should be elected by the representatives elected by Local Councils, through a transparent secret ballot. The winning candidate must secure a minimum of 51% of elected representative members supporting him/her.

(g) Each such Chairperson should constitute an advisory board of experts to advise him on governance matters. Members of the advisory board should not be paid any remuneration or be accorded any privileges or entitlements.

(h) District council should fund the affairs of each local council falling within its jurisdiction.

The third tier — National Council

(a) Each District Council should elect members to the National Council, in proportion to population, area, and social indicators.

(b) Districts Councils should elect from their best-performing past and present members who have served at least one complete term on the District Council.

(c) The Chairperson of the National Council should be elected through a secret ballot. The winning candidate must secure a minimum of 51% of elected representative members supporting him/her.

(d) Each such Chairperson should constitute an advisory board of experts to advise him on governance matters. Members of the advisory board should not be paid any remuneration or be accorded any privileges or entitlements.

(e) The National Council shall deal only with common matters of national interests, such as foreign relations & trade, national defense, rivers, highways, national power grid, taxes on inter-district trade, space missions, natural disaster relief, etc.

…to continue next week

Tuesday, July 12, 2022

Challenge of being an Indian FM

Being the finance minister of India is arguably one of the most challenging jobs in the world. The incumbent has to deal with 28 Federal States and 8 Union territories, each having a distinct socio-economic and fiscal profile. Unlike some developed countries like the USA, the Federal States in India are not autonomous and/or self-reliant in fiscal matters. These states rely on the Union Government for financial resources. Besides, the finance minister of India is limited by the constitutional mandate of being “socialist”. To make things more complicated, implementation of GST; acceptance of the recommendations of 15^th Finance Commission; and abolition of the planning commission have materially curtailed the powers of the union finance minister.

Technically speaking, all the policies formulated and proposed to be implemented by the union finance ministry must pass the test of “socialism”, since the Constitution of India overrides all the legal provisions and policy directives. This makes it very hard for the finance minister to pursue the goal of faster growth through promoting capital investments in the private sector that are likely to eventually result in more socio-economic inequalities.

Even when the finance minister tries to extend fiscal and other support to large businesses to stimulate economic growth, these efforts are invariably met with strong opposition from the politicians belonging to the ruling party & opposition; civil society and common people.

To mitigate the political damage that may be caused by such criticism, the finance ministers have often supported the larger public sector; contrary to the stated policy of minimizing the role of the government in business. Also, the finance ministers in India have often taken the path of ‘crony socialism”.

They often pursue fiscal policies targeted to benefit a specific set of voters and/or specific regions; inviting criticism from the businesses and capital market participants. The finance minister is often criticized for inaction in terms of economic policy and reforms; fiscal imprudence in pursuing profligate social policies and programs; incoherent foreign policy; failure of monetary policy in controlling consumer prices; impeding critical infrastructure projects; incongruent taxation policies; and corruption in financial institutions etc.

The socio-economic condition (especially the fast waning demographic dividend) of the country warrants that the governments vigorously pursue the course of faster and sustainable growth over the next couple of decades. However, the pursuit of this goal would inevitably result in widening and deepening inequalities of income and wealth.

The experience of western developed economies indicates that faster growth ultimately results in 10:90 division of the society – 10% people owning most of the wealth and accounting for most of the savings; while the rest 90% just survive. Of course, the standard of life for the underprivileged 90% in developed countries is much better than the corresponding 90% population in India.

The issue that requires deeper research is whether our government has also accepted the 10:90 rule? If yes, then the job of finance minister of India would soon become the most “undesirable” one; because for couple of decades the onus of supporting the sustanance of 90% population will largely fall upon the union finance minister; till the 10% who are afforded all fiscal and other policy support are in position to take the mantle on themselves, i.e., engage more workers and pay more taxes.