In The Media ⁽⁴⁰⁰⁾

Only in India does redistribution, which keeps the poor and marginalised out of the mainstream of the economy, pass for inclusive growth. Read full article Only in India does redistribution, which keeps the poor and marginalised out of the mainstream of the economy, pass for inclusive growth. In much of the rest of the world, inclusive growth would mean giving the poor and marginalised a direct stake in the economy with fast-growing industries and services absorbing them into gainful employment and, thus, making them true participants and partners in the growth process. But in India, we go by an altogether different paradigm: we tell the marginalised to stay where they are. Indeed, we do everything to bolt them down to their rural location offering employment and free health and education if they would stay where they are. "Why bother moving," we tell them, "when we are bringing the fruits of rapid growth elsewhere right to your doorstep."

Read full article Abstract: In the early 2000s, when the 55th (1999-2000) round of the expenditure survey showed a surprisingly sharp decline in poverty over its predecessor survey, the reform critics descended on the finding like a ton of bricks. Their critique eventually led to a healthy debate, important new research and eventual downward revision in poverty reduction numbers by the reform advocates themselves. In total contrast, almost no objections have been raised to the absurdly high estimates of malnutrition in India trumpeted by journalists, NGOs, politicians and international institutions within and outside India. Not a day goes by without some TV channel or newspaper running the headline that the world's fastest growing economy suffers worse malnutrition than sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

To be sure, mere presence of members who may turn out to be criminals once the judiciary rules on cases pending against them is a blot.Read full article If you think the presence in Parliament of a sizable number of members with pending criminal charges against them has something to do with the recent high-profile corruptions scandals, think again. None of the members recently charged with bribery and corruption - A Raja, Suresh Kalmadi and Kanimozhi - had a single pre-existing criminal charge against them. Nor do some well-known perpetrators of corruption in the Cabinet have such charges pending against them. Several candidates facing serious criminal charges, including Mohammad Shahabuddin, currently serving a life sentence for kidnapping with intent to murder and awaiting trial for eight murders and 20 attempted murders, have managed to enter Parliament. But unlike at the level of the state, such members have rarely headed the ministries at the Centre. Thus, other than a minister of state, no minister belonging to the current Lok Sabha has pending criminal charges that the Association for Democratic Reform (ADR) classifies…

Read full article Abstract: Left critics are fond of blaming the post-1991 reforms for the corruption afflicting India today. Astonishingly, two Supreme Court judges recently joined this chorus. But the young among the critics are blissfully ignorant of history while the old suffer from amnesia. Corruption existed aplenty prior to 1991. If you wanted a phone, car or scooter, you had to choose between a many-years-long queue or bribe. If you were among the lucky few to have a phone, a bribe was still necessary to receive the dial tone. If you wanted an airline ticket or a reserved railway seat, your choice was to take a chance and stand in a long queue or resort to baksheesh. Ditto for a bag of cement. God forbid, if you should have to travel abroad, many-hours-long queue and unfriendly customs officials would be awaiting you upon return. As an entrepreneur, if you wanted an investment or import licence or to stop your competitor from getting one, bribing a senior official in the relevant ministry would do.

Read full article Abstract: Judging by even our modest standards, governance at the top has taken a nosedive during the United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) rule. Some of this can perhaps be blamed on the specific actors involved. But there is a deeper structural explanation for it: the vesting of true power to govern outside the government, in the Congress high command. UPA rule has been the longest in our history that this phenomenon has played out. In all previous such episodes, either the executive successfully wrested power back from the external authority or it fell. Thus, the first time the organisational wing of the Congress seized effective power was immediately following the death of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Known as the Syndicate, the organisational wing successfully kept the heavyweight Morarji Desai at bay and installed the more amicable Lal Bahadur Shastri as prime minister. But once the victory in the 1965 India-Pakistan war had turned him into a natio-nal hero, Shastri began to assert his independence. The battle between him and the Syndicate was already brewing when he unexpectedly died in January 1966.