An Elusive Facade of Cooperative Federalism

Raj Bhavan, Kolkata. Photo for representational purposes.

Flashpoints in Centre-State relations have become increasingly common in India’s politico-administrative setup. While the Indian Constitution envisages a federal setup with a strong Centre, the provisions that inherently guarantee and thereby secure the onus of nurturing federal relations have also become dilatory over time. This has led to an unprecedented rise in vested political interests preceding the interests of national administration and has thus, often been at the expense of deteriorating relations with a select set of states. The recent confrontation between the Union Government and the state of West Bengal on the role of the Governor necessitates a close review of such an executive mechanism that has stood out as a prickly point on the fabric of cooperative federalism. In this essay, we shall cardinally look into the worrisome points between the Centre and States on this contentious issue, with an eye on the Sarkaria Commission recommendations.

In the context of India, a gubernatorial position is rather redundant. In fact, the Constituent Assembly had witnessed several debates about the utility of the position. While the President is the Head of State for the entire Indian Republic, the Governor is merely a vestige of the Centre who acts as the constitutional head of the state he is meant to serve. He has no real authority or power, and is in many cases, having lesser powers than the position of the President vis-a-vis his influence on the state. Biswanath Das, who was the Prime Minister of Odisha Province of British India and subsequently became Governor of Uttar Pradesh, prognosticated a situation wherein a Centrally-nominated Governor is not acceptable to a State government, especially if it is ruled by an opposition party having differences with the Centre. “In such circumstances, ‘rub’ can never be avoided if the power to give administrative pin-pricks is vested in the Governor,” he said. He further cautioned the Constituent Assembly that under the provisions of the British-enacted Government of India Act, 1935, there was no restraints on the Office of the Governor once appointed. He remarked that the Governor “had in his hands the nose-strings of the bull so to say. But there is nothing in this Constitution to control the Governor once he is appointed…”.

After a brief hiatus, the role of Governors in the Indian context has once again become a hotly contested issue. Most notably, almost all bitterness with the Raj Bhavans have arose in states ruled by opposition parties. This points to a rather devious undercurrent at play.  The image of Governors as being agents of the Centre has been rather difficult to erase, and has only been reinforced with time, opines Rakhahari Chatterji of the Observer Research Foundation (ORF). Apart from a lone judicial intervention that has now become a landmark judgement (SR Bommai v/s Union of India), there generally has not been any censure of the Centre for flagrant violations of its powers when it comes to appointment of Governors. Perhaps out of their contemporaries, Maharashtra’s Bhagat Singh Koshyari and West Bengal’s Jagdeep Dhankhar stand out as being politically-motivated persons holding a Constitutional post supposed to be neutral, independent and a guiding force for the states. Interestingly, both these occupants are former members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, and both have been constant in their criticism and tirades against the governments that they head in a titular manner. Constitutional propriety has been thrown to the wind and the long held tradition of Governors not airing their differences with the elected regime has been junked as well. This was observed very recently, when the West Bengal governor chose to visit Sitalkuchi and express his sympathies with those who had lost their lives in the violence, all the while defaming and lambasting the Trinamool Congress. More often than not, there has been an unfortunate congruency between his actions and the interests of the BJP, whose electoral juggernaut could not match the resistance offered by the Bengali ideology. Such malicious activities do not augur well for the esteem of the Office they hold and paints a blot on ensuing Centre-State relations.

Various well-intentioned attempts to study the role of the Governor in a democratic federal setup and offer suggestions to strengthen his position so as to enhance Centre-state relations were made. The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968), the Rajamannar Committee (1969), Committee of Governors of 1971, Bangalore Seminar of Experts in 1983 are amongst some of the most notable. The Sarkaria Commission, constituted in 1988 to suggest ways of solidying and promoting the spirit of cooperative federalism, also made key recommendations on the question of the Office of the Governor. It was categorical in suggesting that Governors should only be elected from a pool of eminent people who belong to a non-political background. Furthermore, an analysis of profiles of Governors who held office between 1950-2015 reveals that almost one in every two governors belonged to a political background. A quarter of the posts were held by retired Civil Servants, while the remaining pie was split between former judges, defence officers, academicians and others.

A disturbing trend has been picking up of Governors from incumbent Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. This not only erodes trust of the state government in the Constitutional head but is also a major deterrent to the spirit of federalism. Perhaps the most glaring among them is the curious case of Sushil Kumar Shinde, who as the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was shunted out of the state as a Governor, and during his tenure as Governor he was again picked to the position of the Union Home Minister. Shivraj Patil, who served the UPA-I as the Union Home Minister, was also subsequently transferred to Raj Bhavan in Punjab. Sheila Dixit, the Congress stalwart who was a three-time Chief Minister of Delhi, lost to Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party in the 2013 polls. Immediately after, she was positioned as the Governor of Kerala.

...such a Governor will have no independence and my point is that the Centre might try to do some mischief through that man

- Prof. Shibban Lal Saxena, Member of Constituent Assembly

While the issue of political loyalties conflict regularly with the ideals of the position, yet another pertinent concern often goes unnoticed in the debate. The Governor of a State has no constitutional remedy against his removal. There is no fixed tenure of the Governor, and he is to ideally hold office for a period of five years in consonance with the “pleasure of the president”. A legal reading of the same would imply that a change in Central Government may imply a natural replacement of existing Governors of states with ones cherry-picked by the Central Government. The Union Government may also call for an immediate shunting out of a Governor, if it feels the institution does not serve its own agenda. The matter was up for an extensive debate in the Constituent Assembly as well. K.T Shah, a member of the Assembly, argued that “so long as a Governor acts in accordance with the advice of the Constitutional advisers of the province (Council of Ministers), he should. . . be irremovable during his term of office, that is, five years”. Professor Shibban Lal Saxena, another member of the CA, was apprehensive that the Central Government may deliberately try and influence the activities, wisdom and discretion of an appointed Governor harnessing the backdrop of an uncertainty in term. He said, “when once a Governor has been appointed, I do not see why he should not continue in office for his full five years and why you should make him removable by the President at his whims. . . Such a Governor will have no independence and my point is that the Centre might try to do some mischief through that man.”

Prof. Saxena’s anatomy and prognosis of the grave faultline has been proven many a times in the workings of the polity. Time and again, the government at the helm of the Centre has blatantly used this very uncertainty of tenure to their advantage, by morally compelling the Governors to go against the ground rules of ethics and constitutional propriety. Statistically, only about 20% of Governors have been able to complete their complete, ideal term of office of five years. Those who have displayed some spine or resistance to intimidatory tactics from the Centre have often been transferred to states considered mostly insignificant, often acting as a demoralising force so much so that many of them would have considered resignation as a viable choice. Post 1967, the average tenure of a Governor has drastically decreased, as analysed by the Sarkaria Commission. It finds that between 1947 and 31 March 1967, out of sixty-six gubernatorial tenures, only thirty-two, that is, about 50 per cent, lasted a full 5-year term. In between 1 April 1967 and 31 October 1986, only 18 out of 88 tenures lasted full 5 years- down to a miserable 20 percent.

The final straw in the tug of war between the Centre and the States has been the imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356). An imposition of President’s Rule means the overthrow of an elected state regime. Imposition of President’s Rule by the Central Government has belied the expectations of the Constituent Assembly, who had hoped that the use of the measure would be highly restrictive, prudent and only in cases of emergent and compelling compulsions for the Centre to take the reigns of states in the spotlight. Except IK Gujral, almost all other Prime Ministers have resorted to the use of this tool at least once in their tenures. Indira Gandhi, who had an infamous track record of sidelining democracy and having a preference for an authoritarian style of governance, used it at wanton will and without sparing a second thought about the ramifications of her actions. The Sarkaria Commission has examined the merits of the imposition of President’s rule in states between 1950 and 1987 and found that only 23 out of 75 instances of its use during the period were inevitable. However, it was during her son Rajiv Gandhi’s term as the Prime Minister that the dissolution of SR Bommai-led government of Karnataka created a massive stir in Indian politics.

Governor P. Venkatsubbiah’s report claiming the breakdown of Constitutional apparatus of the state was contested in the Supreme Court by SR Bommai. In 1994, the Supreme Court laid down strict conditions with regards to the exercise of the Governor’s discretionary power to frame a report against the State government calling for dissolution of the legislature. ‘Floor tests’ became a mandatory requirement post the judgement and the President’s final decision on the report by the Governor became subject to judicial review, which was earlier provided blanket immunity from judicial scrutiny.

A Way Forward

The implications of a biased Governor as the Constitutional head of the basic building block of any federation- a state- amounts to gross violation of the sanctity of his post and only provides impetus to unwarranted impediment of the normal functioning of a democratically-elected popular state legislature. In this regard, advisory committees set up in good faith by past governments have not cut much ice. In fact, the only check against such flagrant violations came in the form of judicial interventions from time to time. One of the more remarkable judgements which created a history was the reversal of the President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016. A group of rebel Congressmen and BJP leaders colluded together to overthrow the-then government. The Supreme Court swiftly took notice of the incident and after a thorough review of the means and backdrop concerning such an imposition, found the decision by the President as unmaintainable. For the first time, a newly formed government was dislodged only to restore the legitimate previous government that had been a victim of malicious intent of the Centre.

One of the foremost reforms required at this hour is an overhaul to the present system of pick-and-choose by the Central Government when it comes to the appointment of Governors. If Governors are supposed to be an independent Constitutional post, then there is absolutely no necessity for the Centre to have a final say in terms of such appointments. Rather, it should be the prerogative of the Inter-State councils to recommend the names of eminent people who have demonstrated their capability of administration or responsibility to take up such positions. Such a decision tendered by the Inter-State councils should be binding on the President, much like the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers is. This would eliminate clear-cut cases of partisanship during the period of appointment and thus may soothe relations between the Constitutional Head of the state and the presiding executive, i.e, the Chief Minister.

Secondly, it should be mandated by law that Governors are not to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the working of the State Legislature in public. Perhaps, the institution can take a lesson or two from that of the British Monarch, among whose duties come a non-display of any emotion on any matter of governance or administration or event, which either directly or indirectly concerns the State government. Of course, he can put forward his views and recommendations in private to the Chief Minister, or can lend an ear to the Opposition parties and take note of their grievances. By banning any such form of public display of sympathy or emotion, the Office of the Governor would be strengthened because in such a scenario, holders of such a post would not be preoccupied hunting for opportunities to score political brownie points. Thirdly, additional forums for speedy redressal of grievances by State governments against Governors need to be created to ensure harmonious performance of duties as enshrined in the Constitution. At present, the absence of any such dedicated channel compel states to resort to judicial interventions, which are often time consuming and complex. However, allowing for alternative modes of engagement, wherein any pain point highlighted by the State can be considered on its merit and subsequent actions taken, can help reduce a lot of extant friction.

Lastly, Governors need to be given a security of tenure. Even Civil Servants who have been selected into State cadres through the Union Public Service Commission enjoy some security with respect to their posting. However, the variable nature of a Governor’s position allows for greed and political biases to creep into the mind of an incumbent, which is dangerous and contrary to the spirit of federalism. Ensuring a fixed tenure, of course with provisions of dismissal in case of absolute incompetence, would help eliminate such insecurities and rather direct the work of the Governor towards constructive addition to that of the State government’s initiatives.

The Office of the Governor is that of high esteem and is designed to be a guiding force for the State government to take advice from and learn from the experience of the administrator. Instead, the position has been thrown open to slandering and diatribes, in part because of the lackadaisical attitude of those who have held the seat themselves, and the rest because of the misuse of the powers vested in the Governor. Cooperative federalism is a notion that does not come to existence overnight. The Governor’s position and sanctity, as originally envisioned by members of the Constituent Assembly under the leadership of Babasaheb Ambedkar, needs to be restored at the earliest to avoid further corrosion of credibility to the institution, which has already taken a major hit today.

India’s Farm Laws: Casting a Critical Eye

India’s agricultural sector has for long been the backbone of the national economy. As India emerged out of the cusps of independence, it realised the vitality of food security amidst a world battling with a heightened food crisis post the trials of the Second World War. Its leaders were doubling down on attempts to boost domestic agriculture in order to meet rising internal demand and make what was evidently the livelihood of the masses, more profitable. This sentiment is perhaps nowhere better captured than in Shastri’s iconic ‘Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan’ pitch- a phrase that still resonates today. Several institutions were established to look after the welfare of the farmer and secure the common interests of the agrarian community.

The onset of globalisation, aided by the liberalisation of the Indian economy to foreign investment and trade in 1991, permanently changed the fate of the socialist state policies that regulated Indian agriculture earlier. While new sectors such as services and manufacturing witnessed unprecedented booms, agriculture was generally perceived to be a low-return, lacklustre investment. The problem was further accentuated by the government’s unwillingness to increase public spending on promoting research to better productivity rates pan India, instead shifting a significant portion of the expectation on private bodies. In fact, the growing decline in the economic worth of agricultural products to GDP is a well-documented feature in recent times, contributing to an estimated 16% of the GDP at present, while still being the primary source of employment for over two-fifth of the country’s workforce.

Need for an overhaul

The stench of a stagnating agricultural sector was being felt with every passing year. Most of the farming in India is still done with minimal mechanisation and automation, as such capital-intensive farming is beyond the reach of many small farmers. Low productivity often meant that costs incurred during the harvest season were not recovered in totality and thus, gave rise to a vicious debt cycle that marginal farmers find very difficult to climb out of. The Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, conducted in 2013, pegged average family earnings at ₹6,426. The earnings worsen progressively from the ‘northern bowl’ to the eastern belt, with a corresponding slide in productivity. But all of these correlate to systemic deficiencies. What then, constituted the structural deficiencies?

One of the primary faults in the farm sector was a dysfunctional APMC setup. The APMC Act provided for the creation of mandis or common trade hubs, where traders and middlemen would congregate and compete to offer a better price for the farmer’s produce. These mandis were under State control and thus, provided a safe space for the farmers to sell their produce at market rates. However, cartelisation of APMCs and attempts to game the system by traders according to their own vested interests soon ensured that the farmer lost out against an increasingly manipulative system. It also shackled the farmer with several other constraints. Over the years, around 18 states have allowed private markets, 19 states have allowed direct purchase from farmers, and another dozen states have allowed farmers’ markets outside of APMC. There are less than 7,000 mandis in the country today, while various official estimates have put the required number between 10,000 and 40,000.

Another momentous challenge faced by the farming community was the decreasing size of landholdings. A rise in debt and poverty often constricted the farmer to a small patch of land. Former RBI Governor C. Rangarajan, in an editorial, expressed deep concern at the state of landholdings and noted that the average size of farmland declined from 2.3 hectares in 1970-71 to 1.08 hectares in 2015-16. At the same time, the percentage of small and marginal farmers shot up from 70% in 1980-81 to 86% in 2015-16. All of these only pointed to growing distress in the sector and resulted in tragic farmer suicides across the country over a number of years.

Past Committee Recommendations

A slew of committees has been set up since Independence to look into the issues of agrarian distress and suggest appropriate remedies. Perhaps the most eminent of these committees are the Swaminathan Committee and the Shanta Kumar Committee reports. The Swaminathan Committee report made several recommendations in five reports that it submitted to the Manmohan Singh-led government shortly after 2004. It identified the pain points of Indian agriculture, many of which surprisingly recur today.

It noted that the quantity and quality of water used in the farming process was a key factor that determined the volume and the quality of the end product. It recommended setting up facilities to ensure regular, and quality water supply to farms that require water-intensive cropping. It highlighted how low adoption of technology, used extensively in the developed world, was hampering progress. It also identified the lack of institutional credit support to small farmers that stopped them dead in their tracks onto the way of expansion and further consolidation. Some of the diagnoses done by the Swaminathan committee were looked into. Now, several credit incentive schemes for farmers, such as the Kisan Credit Card, are widely available. However, their takers are few; most shy away from the governmental support due to fear of further entrenchment in unpaid dues and the hounding that would follow soon after.

One of the principal recommendations under considerable contention today is the recommendation on the price structure of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) that the government offers the farmers whose produce is unsold at the open market. The committee recommended that the farmers should be paid a minimum support price at 50 per cent profit above the cost of production classified as C2 by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). C2 is the most comprehensive definition of production cost of crops as it also accounts for the rentals or interest loans, owned land and fixed capital assets over and above the actual paid-out expenses incurred by farmers.

While the Swaminathan Committee dealt with the core agrarian distress and dealt with finding solutions to those problems at hand, the Shanta Kumar Committee was tasked to improve the efficiency of the much lambasted Food Corporation of India’s policies and overall setup. As of 2020, the FCI has over 58.49 million tonnes (MT)- over a year’s worth of buffer stock- in its reserves. The FCI has been a warehouse of inefficiency for a significant amount of time. It procures millions of tonnes of annual harvest from farmers every single year across the country, but a sizeable chunk of it lay unused in its godowns and ultimately rot with passing time. The committee suggested that private players be allowed to establish a parallel storage buffer, so that food produced may not go waste- while still securing the food security interests of India. It also noted that the FCI should involve itself in full-fledged grains procurement only in those states which are poor in procurement. This would ensure that excess stock is not lodged with it, and simultaneously ensure that farmers whose produce go unsold are still offered the base prices.

Epicenter of Trouble: The Farm Laws

Back in September 2020, the Centre bulldozed through the parliament to enact three bills into permanent Acts that would radically overhaul the prevalent system of agricultural trade within the country. The three acts cardinally deal with the facilitation of inter-state agricultural trade, making contract farming more accessible to farmers, and removal of stockpile limits on certain commodities listed under the Essential Commodities Act. The triad of the three bills was passed in both Houses of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, with minimal debate and deliberation. The fact that the bills- labeled as a watershed moment for Indian agriculture- were brought into the forefront without consultation with major stakeholders stoked discontent at large.

The Farm Bills essentially attempt to set up a parallel market space for agricultural goods beyond the mandis, helping in theory fetch a farmer wider reach for his products and thereby, earn better prices for the produce. However, running a parallel market beyond the control of the APMCs has the inherent risk of pushing the MSP system into oblivion, and ultimately may lead to MSP being scrapped. Even if the government now gives an assurance of continuing the MSP system, it ultimately boils down to a matter of trust, as noted economist Kaushik Basu opines. Any dilution of the MSP setup, by exploiting the loopholes- such as offering prices much lesser than the market price and setting up of mandis at centers far apart from one another, ultimately erode the confidence in the system of guaranteed pricing.

Similarly, there is widespread fear permeating the air on the entry of corporates into the mostly untapped, orthodox agriculture sector. As aforementioned, the bulk of the farmers represent the small and marginal cultivators who are at the bottom of the economic strata. They hardly have any credible knowledge to understand the nuances of legal contracts drafted by corporate teams who obviously have an eye towards maximising profits at all costs. The laws peculiarly keep the entire dispute resolution process out of the ambit of the judiciary by appointing officers who have been vested with necessary powers. Small farmers, who barely make enough to ensure subsistence, certainly do not want to be entrapped by the hassle of babu-dom in their quest for justice.

The amended Essential Commodities Act (ECMA) toes the line of the Shanta Kumar Committee recommendations. The opposition to the amended Essential Commodities Act is that it allows for unlimited stocking of goods defined as ‘essential items’ earlier by any individual or corporation now, unless there is a situation of unchecked price rise. The Act goes on to state that stockpile limits will only come into force, only when there is “… (i) a 100% increase in the retail price of horticultural produce; and (ii) a 50% increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural food items.” This naturally raises eyebrows at possible hoarding and profiteering during crises. The Central government defends the amendment on the grounds that it allows a fair space to the traders and corporations that wish to purchase produce in bulk. Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh publicly castigated the Act, claiming that the amended ECMA would permit artificial price inflation and illegal profiteering from right under the State’s watch.

To assuage farmers’ hurt and to create a space for further dialogue, the Supreme Court on 12 January stepped in to stay the implementation of the laws until further orders. This also naturally meant that the earlier system of APMC trade, and MSP guarantee, would be applicable until further ruling. It also appointed a committee to suggest changes after extensive consultation with all affected parties. However, concerns have been raised after most of the panel members on the committee were found to subscribe to a certain orientation of thought, thereby violating a fundamental constituent of mediation: those who mediate must harbour neutral views on the issue of contention.

A Lens on Reality

To better understand the root cause behind the massive protests that even transcended the borders of India, it would be helpful to evaluate and derive inferences from surveys and data already available with us. In the last two years (2018-2019), approximately 45% of all the rice and wheat procured by government agencies came from just two States – Punjab (28.9%) and Haryana (15.9%). M.P. was a distant third at 10.4%.

Taking a close look at procurement figures from individual states, we again find a similar pattern of high government procurement from Punjab and Haryana- two states that have been the epicenter of protests- while other states have lagged behind significantly. The procurement figures, from FY2019, reveal that government agencies procured close to 75% of all wheat and rice produced in the two states.

Even beyond the farmer, the state governments of Punjab and Haryana stand to lose significantly on taxes levied on food procurement at government regulated mandis if the farmer opts to sell their produce outside the ambit of the state’s setup. Both Punjab and Haryana have high taxation rates on wheat, based as a percentage on the offered MSP- between 11 to 14%.

In a 2018 RBI survey, more than fifty percent of farmers who participated articulated their support for the MSP regime to continue. They were not very much bothered about the intermediates and middlemen that the present Farm Laws intend to eliminate.

The farmers also identified better access to storage facilities and reliable weather updates from the IMD as factors that help them towards realising better prices on their share of crops, over the concern of interference by middlemen.

Adopting a Three Dimensional Approach to Farming

India’s agrarian sector is intricately woven around the triumvirate of price, productivity and public policy. Take any one of the three constituents out, and the ramification can be a devastating blow on the stability of the farm sector.

Price has always been a key issue because it the singularly most important metric that determines the profit ratio of the farmers. If they are getting good prices from the market, there would not have been any support for the MSP regime. However, the volatility of the open market drives home the question that in case of non-procurement or poor prices offered, does the entire produce go waste? The MSP system acts as a cushion that protects farmers against such negative price shocks. Dismantling it would throw many small farmers into a tizzy. At the same time, the government cannot indefinitely continue to procure all unsold produce as MSP. Market Intervention Scheme and Price Support Scheme (MIS-PSS) and Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay Sanrakshan Yojna (PM-AASHA) – the two schemes that ensure the implementation of MSP – have seen a continuous reduction in the last two years. The allocation under MIS-PSS fell 25% and under PM-AASHA it came down to a mere ₹400 crores in the budget 2021-2022 from ₹1,500 crores earlier.

Consistently low productivity rates across most parts of the country, barring the more prosperous agrarian states of Punjab and Haryana, continue to act as a major deterrent towards expanding India’s potential in this field. Governmental support and spending towards adoption of latest technology need to be adopted at the earliest. The Indian Government has also entered into deals with Israeli firms to deploy advanced agricultural techniques onto Indian farms to observe the promises it holds for India’s future. However, for adoption of technology to be successful, the consolidation of small holdings is a must.

Public policy is the third pillar that needs to be geared in a direction that bolsters both the price and productivity prospects for the ordinary farmer. Several well-meaning laws have not been implemented due to populist whims. Now that India has a law dedicated to bringing in contract farming for the masses, we need more safeguards against the vagaries of the corporate honcho. Corporatisation of agriculture, despite its risks, can help improve productivity by a factor of two or more- because in such cases, the company shall reason in the input costs that employ better fertilisers and techniques for growing the crop as desired by the company. By drafting the right legislation and in the right tone, the government can inspire a lot of confidence even among ambitious, next-generation farmers who wish to step into modernised farming but are held back by distrust and suspicion.

A Road Ahead

India’s recently introduced farm laws are forward-thinking, visionary, and are the need of the hour. There can be no denial that the Keynesian concept of animal spirits has to be urgently imbibed into the fledgling agriculture sector on account of a host of troubles it faces today. Unless the floodgates of investment are opened to the sector at large, India’s agricultural output will continue to remain plagued by the issues that bother it at present.

The primary agenda of the farm protests, demanding the complete and unconditional repeal of the laws, is somewhat problematic. The emphasis of the protests should be rather directed at safeguarding the rights of the farmer through definitive, water-tight legislation that allows the farmer to freely interact with the new variables that shall come into play once the laws are deemed operational again. It is high time that the government looks to patch the grey areas of the laws- and thereby build a better farm sector- than engage in indirect favouritism of corporates and thereby test the sentiments of the farmers. India’s farm laws are a turning point for the farm sector- but the right message needs to be delivered to capitalise on the immense promises it offers.

A Quest to Quantitatively Understand Constitutions

The importance of a robust national constitution in contemporary times cannot be understated. Constitutions around the world have helped shaped the modern polity that we find ourselves in. They have been surprisingly resilient and firm throughout several tribulations spread across the spectrum of contemporary history. Yet many more are crumbling by the day, their original intent and spirit being actively usurped by power-hungry authoritarians. In India, the Constitution has been described as a “living, breathing” document that testifies our commitment to building a progressive and democratic state.

The Comparative Constitutions Project is one such initiative that has been set up with an explicit aim to quantify Constitutions across the world in terms of certain predefined and widely accepted parameters. These include the pillars of an ideal free state: judicial independence, number of rights assured, and the degree of legislative and executive powers that the Constitution permits. Does the length of a Constitution alone help predict how free a country is? Does increasing executive power hamper judicial independence? In an effort to understand and frame definitive responses to several questions like these, I decided to perform an exploratory analysis on data available with the CCP Project. The following is a quantitative, mathematical attempt to break down how Constitutions shape a country, and if tweaking a parameter or two can yield desired results.

1. Countries by their Constitutional Length

Most of the countries that happen to have the lengthiest of Constitutions are also incidentally third-world countries. Perhaps the fear of delving into a state of chaotic anarchy compelled those who framed the Constitution to fill as many gaps and loopholes as could have been practically possible. The top-ten lengthiest constitutions of the world, in descending order are:

A choropleth map depiction makes it evidently clear that India stands out from the rest in terms of the sheer length of its Constitution. It encompasses varied subjects, including concepts and ideas borrowed from foreign constitutions, and defines the rights, roles and responsibilities of both the government and the citizen. In fact, India’s Constitution is more than twice as voluminous as its next competitor, Nigeria. Even Latin America features prominently as a bunch of countries with extensively detailed Constitutions.

2. Constitutional Length and Rights Assured:

The Universal Declaration for Human Rights was a significant stride towards standardizing a globally accepted set of fundamental human rights that would enable an individual to lead a life of dignity. The Comparative Constitution Project (referred to as CCP henceforth) has analysed a set of 117 different rights found in national constitutions. The rights index indicates the number of these rights found in any particular constitution. In the following plot, we establish a relation between the length of a Constitution and the number of rights assured by it. We have excluded India from the analyses below because it is an outlier and does not otherwise disagree with the forecast trend.

P-value: 0.0001278
Equation: Number of Rights = 0.000344274*Length + 42.8475

Clearly, a linearly increasing trend exists for the number of rights against the length of the Constitution. The more encompassing a Constitution becomes, the greater the probability that it allows for the rights of its own citizenry. Those countries that fall below the trend line (marked in red) lag against other countries in terms of assuring a wider spectrum of rights.

3. Constitutional Length and Legislative Power

This captures the formal degree of power assigned to the legislature by the constitution. The indicator is drawn from Elkins, Ginsburg and Melton, The Endurance of National Constitutions (Cambridge University Press, 2009), in which a set of binary CCP variables was created to match the 32-item survey developed by M. Steven Fish and Mathew Kroenig in The Handbook of National Legislatures: A Global Survey (Cambridge University Press, 2009). The index score is simply the mean of the 32 binary elements, with higher numbers indicating more legislative power and lower numbers indicating less legislative power.

P-value:0.0131016
Equation:Legislative Power = -1.45739e-06*Length + 0.327069

We find a negatively sloped line as the Constitutional length varies against the Legislative Power of the country. This is indicative of greater checks and balances that have been introduced in such Constitutions that have an adverse effect on arbitrary legislation. While it is certainly a contentious issue in terms of bureaucratic red-tapism, greater oversight more often than not results in well-formulated legislation that goes on to have significantly more impact than their counterparts who do not have the benefit of consensus and elaborate discussion preceding it.

4. Constitutional Length and Executive Power

This is an additive index drawn from a working paper, Constitutional Constraints on Executive Lawmaking. The index ranges from 0-7 and captures the presence or absence of seven important aspects of executive lawmaking: (1) the power to initiate legislation; (2) the power to issue decrees; (3) the power to initiate constitutional amendments; (4) the power to declare states of emergency; (5) veto power; (6) the power to challenge the constitutionality of legislation; and (7) the power to dissolve the legislature. The index score indicates the total number of these powers given to any national executive (president, prime minister, or assigned to the government) as a whole.

P-value:< 0.0001
Equation:Executive Power = -3.46203e-05*Length + 5.13594

It does not defy our expectation that a lengthier constitution would naturally attempt to curb excesses on part of the executive. Here, the monotonically decreasing trend function has a higher R-squared value than the preceding trend function that evaluated the legislative powers against increasing Constitutional length. This means that the trend line is a better fit- and hence a better estimate- to prove the empirical relationship. With increasing Constitutional Length, Executive Power goes on declining. However, some exceptions still remain (marked in red), but they are found to have been significantly slumped in number post a certain threshold in the length parameter.

5. Constitutional Length and Judicial Independence

This index is drawn from a paper by Ginsburg and Melton, Does De Jure Judicial Independence Really Matter? A Reevaluation of Explanations for Judicial Independence. It is an additive index ranging from 0-6 that captures the constitutional presence or absence of six features thought to enhance judicial independence. The six features are: (1) whether the constitution contains an explicit statement of judicial independence; (2) whether the constitution provides that judges have lifetime appointments; (3) whether appointments to the highest court involve either a judicial council or two (or more) actors; (4) whether removal is prohibited or limited so that it requires the proposal of a supermajority vote in the legislature, or if only the public or judicial council can propose removal and another political actor is required to approve such a proposal; (5) whether removal explicitly limited to crimes and other issues of misconduct, treason, or violations of the constitution; and (6) whether judicial salaries are protected from reduction.

P-value:< 0.0001
Equation:Judicial Independence = 2.84882e-05*Length + 1.98147

It is heartening to note that judicial independence does tend to better itself if constitutions are more verbose. Judicial independence is considered as a cornerstone of a successful democracy. Thus, those countries lagging in terms of the aforementioned parameter must do more to ensure the protection of those in the hallowed institution of rendering justice; a corrupted justice mechanism only accentuates the decline of political power and foments resentment among all stakeholders involved.

6. Rights Assured against Legislative Power

P-value:< 0.0001
Equation:Legislative Power = 0.00269629*Number of Rights + 0.159655

Now that we are done understanding the effect of a verbose Constitution on key parameters, it is also important to study the inter-relationships between these parameters themselves. Visual evidence from the plot suggests that if a country wishes to increase the number of rights it grants to its people, it must also make an effort to increase the legislative power. How is this consequential, then? Often, bolstering legislative power leads to overriding of the minority voice. A possible explanation for this observation is that legislatures all around the world tend to be on the conservative side, they mostly resist dramatic change wherever possible. Including legislation defining new rights often are results of landmark judicial interventions or extraordinary consensus to include a particular right as one guaranteed by the Constitution. Hence, only an emboldened legislature can make way for a broad range of new generation rights. For example, although experts have cautioned of increasing privacy woes and a landmark Supreme Court judgement that mandated the right to privacy (KS Puttaswamy v/s Union of India), the right to digital privacy has been languishing all along. It has managed to garner some attention now that corporations have begun consolidating their user bases, but it goes a long way to demonstrate how legislatures are normally not very welcoming of expanding the set of rights issued to its citizens.

7. Rights Assured versus Executive Power

P-value:0.0107787
Equation:Executive Power = 0.0173729*Number of Rights + 3.50851

As defined earlier, executive power alludes to the ability of those discharging Constitutional duties to enact sweeping changes without immediate clearances or review by oversight bodies. The trend is rather a surprising one, as an ideally free country should not require strong executive action to guarantee its rights. However, this is not the case. To have a greater degree of individual liberty and rights granted, it takes a strong executive. Multiple factors can be responsible for such a deviation from intuition, foremost among which can be a governmental determination to boost national standards and rankings in terms of freedom(s) granted and rights assured.

Concluding Thoughts

Much of our knowledge about the effectiveness of a constitution comes from our experience with the country implementing it. Can a constitution ever be truly quantified in terms of set parameters, and more importantly, can a model Constitution be defined by computing all past experiences and empirical relationships observed together as a gift for posterity? At present, it is difficult to say. The vagaries of ever-changing data in social sciences put researchers in a very uncomfortable position to entrust complete, unquestioned belief in one model alone. Thus, our understanding of the functioning of Constitutions can be bettered not only by objectively studying and assessing the documents alone but also by noting how well it is implemented and the laws it prescribes, followed.

NEP 2020: A Roadmap for Naya Bharat

National Education Policy 2020
Representational Image

The annals of post-modernisation history have shown us that very few parameters can go on to substantially alter the course of a national landscape than definitive education. Right from the tenets of preschool education to contemporary higher education and beyond, the twenty-first-century world is governed by the barometer of knowledge. Hence the establishment of world-class infrastructure, coupled with an enabling environment conducive to holistic education, has always been the desirous way ahead. The Draft Education Policy (2019), despite its fair share of controversies, had harped on several promising suggestions to better the disjointed education system, and parallelly tried to iron out irregularities as far as practicable. Its successor, the New Education Policy 2020, seems to have hit the right note. 

The NEP 2020 comes jam-packed with a lavish spread of many sought-after reforms, with a particularly strong emphasis on the universalisation, quality, and a skill-based approach for the all-round development of a child’s cognitive and vocational abilities. It would indeed be safe to say that amidst times of uncertainty and many an adversity, the roll-out of NEP is a harbinger of positivity, and at the least, reassuring on several fronts. This article shall attempt to dissect certain aspects of the NEP under the microscopic lens, evaluate the policy measures taken, and ultimately discern a roadmap for India to glide onto the shore of success.

High On Intent

The cardinal thrust of the New Education Policy, rekindled after thirty-four years, appears to be on the universality of education. The policy includes within its ambit not only those left bereft of free state-sponsored education beyond the age of fourteen, but also promotes societal inclusiveness by making a special note of the needs of the differently-abled. Earlier, the Right To Education Act made it mandatory for children falling within the age gap of six to fourteen years to have primary school education for free. While the intent was good, not many beneficiaries were interested in continuing their studies beyond the requisite period. The present proposition to extend free schooling until the age of eighteen will certainly incentivise the continuance of education for those who are bound by financial constraints. Data from the DISE portal also corroborate the necessity of the move, as is illustrated by the chart attached below. 

In light of the said objective, a vision to achieve the target of 50% Gross Enrollment Rate in higher education has been set for 2035. As per statistics unveiled by AISHE, India recorded a 26.3% GER in 2018-19. Parallelly evaluating the year-wise GER rates makes it evident that the task ahead is akin to that of scaling a mountain, and any laxity or complacency may disrupt the sanctity of the efforts. Furthermore, alongside infrastructural support, sharing of school premises for other enriching activities has also been suggested to make the maximum utilisation of available resources. To further the cause of inclusive education, a gender inclusion fund has been set up, and Special Education Zones have been demarcated. Attempts are underway to make the process more equitable, as GER shows significant deviation when contrasted to the General-class population versus those in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category (21.8% and 15.9% respectively).

Gross Enrollment Rates- Year Wise (AISHE)

Another aspect of the revamp that the NEP brings with it is the approach towards multidisciplinary education. India’s attempt to introduce such dynamism and flexibility of choice in choosing subjects earlier had mostly been met with distrust and scorn at the highest levels, leading to such an approach being shunned for long. One of the prime reasons for India’s top universities failing to compete with the best in the world is a lack of voluminous interdisciplinary research work. The new policy focuses on the preference of the individual rather than mass tendencies, aiming to offer the student complete freedom on the choice of subjects. This shall take shape right from the present Grades 11 and 12- where the rigidities of the three domains of Science, Commerce and Humanities shall cease to exist, and the student will have a choice to study an amalgamation comprised of the best of each stream. The government also talks about the establishment of MERUs- Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities- which will be accorded the same status as that of IITs and IIMs throughout India. 

In sync with the pedagogical updates, the policy also effectively narrows down on honing the skillsets of the teachers. It formulates mandatory standardisation by requiring a minimum of four-year integrated B.Ed course to be eligible as a teacher. Direct recruitment, as well as private practise, will only be permitted after clearance of the centrally-conducted TET (Teacher’s Eligibility Test). It is a sensible move as it addresses the concerns of woeful teaching standards at the grassroots level head-on. By providing opportunities to the better-abled, the teaching profession will witness a natural shift from disinterested, underpaid faculty to well-qualified, motivated and well-paid staff. Hence, this will also have a recuperative effect on the learners, whose learning rates are expected to shoot with better teachers and an improved pedagogy in place.

Economics Speak: A Statistical Purview

Past studies on the importance of formal education have often indicated strong correlation between the average level of education and the national growth rates. These ideas were consequently explored by several economists in detail. One among them was Nobel awardee Robert Solow, who was the first to note that a country’s production function was dependent not only on capital inputs and labour, but also on pre-existing Human Capital (Total Factor Productivity). It was later expanded on heavily by Paul Romer, the 2018 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, who said that it is technological advancement alone that is responsible for the “endogenous growth” of a nation. This endogenous growth was critical to securing a long-run sustainable growth pattern, he endorsed. Today, most of the world’s developed economies are knowledge economies, and the rest serve as ‘assembler economies’. India, unfortunately, falls in the later bracket, being plagued by low literacy rates and poor development of human capital. In the inaugural report on ‘Human Capital Index’ launched by the World Bank in October 2018, India was ranked at the 115th position out of a total of 159 countries that were evaluated. The NEP capitalises on this distinct void and seeks to fill the vacuum at the earliest. 

India’s spending on R&D, a key determinant of scientific advancement, has remained historically low at 0.6-0.7% of the GDP. The New Education Policy promises a renewed thrust in public spending on education by the government, to the tune of 6% of the GDP. This figure was originally quoted by the Kothari Commission constituted in 1966 to look into the issues concerning education in India’s nascent stage. Yet, due to political negligence and bureaucratic red-tape, its implementation had never been prioritised and thus, was rescinded to the alleys of yore. Solow’s and Romer’s ideas on growth being a function of the human capital- and thereby indirectly- public investment on education can be crisply represented on a logarithmic scale. I also went ahead and compiled HDI data and their corresponding public spending on education for nine countries at random, and found a linear correlation that grows more exact with more number of input samples.

Estimating the bi-variate relationship between expenditure on education and logarithmic GDP growth, with data sourced from the World Bank’s WDI Database

 An increase in public spending on education also has an inverse relationship with Maternal Mortality Rates (number of deaths of mothers per 100,000 live births), as would be ordinarily desirable. By employing a power regression pattern onto available data from a finite set of countries demographically spread out, the trend is evident:

Ambiguities Remain: Problem Spots

However, not all is merry and blue. The NEP policy framework has multiple occurrences of ambiguities and is laden with contradictions at times. For example, despite the running refrain of autonomy and freedom of the choice of subjects towards the end of primary education, the vocational subjects will be defined and limited by ‘states and local communities and as mapped by local skilling needs‘ (NEP 4.8)- and not left to the choice of the students. Secondly, the NEP emphasises on the enhancement of vibrant campus life for a better teaching-learning process. Yet, legal safeguards for promoting open thought and permitting a greater degree of freedom of speech within the campus walls have not been secured. Thirdly, one of the most widely-picked up takeaway from the announcement has been the proposed ramp in public investment to 6% of the GDP annually. Yet, statistics tell us otherwise; our spend to GDP ratio has actually been falling. During FY2012-13, education expenditure was 3.8% of the GDP. It fell in 2014-15 to 2.8% and registered a further drop to 2.4% in 2015-16. Thus, while the world average mostly remained constant, India’s public funding reduced drastically in the same period. While the vision to improve the spend to 6% is commendable, it is to be seen how far this can be executed- especially at a time the Government of India is suffering from a budgetary crunch.

Fourth, the establishment of anganwadis in the hinterlands was set up with an explicit purpose to look after the health and nutrition of children and newfangled mothers. To depute the task of education, and to seek deliverable outcomes from them at periodic intervals puts an additional burden on the already stretched anganwadi centres. Personnel in anganwadi centres are primarily healthcare workers and not trained teachers. Unless the concern is immediately addressed, it may result in a shift of focus from nutrition to early education alone, which may have devastating consequences in the long run. Fifth, in an attempt to solve the language controversy that erupted last year, the NEP advocates the medium of instruction as the state language or the mother tongue up to the fifth grade. What after grade five? How would the students cope with an intermediate standard of English- which is what they will be exposed to mostly in higher education? Education remains put in the concurrent list- meaning both the State and the Centre, can legislate. Although Constitutional provisions allow for Central laws to ride roughshod over state laws when they conflict, would it be right to bypass state laws that cater to regional requirements? And lastly, it must be ensured that in an attempt to ease the burden on students, academic integrity is not diluted: in other words, fundamentals and concepts required in higher classes must be dealt with as seriously as was done in earlier years. Students must not land in a muddle because of the availability of plentiful options.

Concluding Thoughts

The National Education Policy 2020 is big on promises and goals. To re-imagine the entire construct of the present educational system and work on suggestions collected over five years preceding its announcement is a feat in itself. Clearly, herculean efforts have been put into the making of this document. If the NEP works well, it will have the spellbinding effect of revitalising India’s distraught- and disbanded- education system into the cusp of academic heights again. The opening of gateways for foreign universities to enter the Indian landscape should not be a source of worry. My personal take is that they would serve to be excellent sources of competition for domestic universities and privately run colleges, thereby ensuring welcome healthy competition.

However much be the strong intent, the true success and impact of the NEP can only be gauged when the policy delivers on its core vision. For that to happen, the ambiguities pointed out must be immediately sorted out; and execution should only begin when the document is crystal-clear. Ravish Kumar, while accepting the Ramon Magsaysay award last year, had spoken of India’s growing knowledge inequality as a deterrent to the growth potential for India. He called for an overhaul that would rest on the pillars of universality, inclusiveness and skills-based education. The NEP is in sync with his, and many other educationists’ point of view.

The National Education Policy 2020 has hogged all the lights and is ready for a perfect reception. The audience is already prepared. We only await the action.

Aatmanirbhar Economics: A Critical Evaluation

As India emerged out of the cusps of the third lockdown, which lasted for around two weeks, the Centre said that it was in favour of opening up the economy. It had no real alternative to this quandary- almost replicating the likes of a catch-22 situation- after all, domestic industries and firms have been battered by the dip in production and consequent revenue loss due to a total disruption in supply chains. The pandemic, which has harboured an economic impasse of monumental proportions, also dumped with it a tide of unbearable suffering and a string of humanitarian challenges amongst the less privileged. A full-blown migrant crisis today threatens the very societal strand that fuels India’s growth and has been exacerbated multifold by a complete lack of empathy and concern for their case. Amidst such harrowing times and with widening mass-scale distress evident in the economy post the lockdown, direct fiscal intervention by the government was the need of the hour. 

The ‘Aatmanirbhar Package’, a relief and stimulus package announced by PM Modi as worth ₹20 lakh crores, or nearly 10% of India’s GDP, was quick to raise hopes. Would the ruling dispensation opt for cash benefits and tax holidays, and relieve stressed sectors of their humongous debt burdens? With the net worth of the package split into five tranches, it necessitated a patient wait to find out whether the government was sincere in its attempt to provide an escape route. The bane of the pandemic’s impact soon blossomed into an opportunity for the government to drive home much-needed reforms, particularly in agriculture, defence, DISCOMS and the MSME sectors. Perhaps the most significant changes that came to fruition were the re-categorisation and easy capital access for the MSME industries, amendment of the Essential Commodities Act for agro-allied activities, automatic FDI approval of up to 74% in the Defence sector, and increased support for privatisation of strategic sectors. On closer introspection, however, much of the package is merely liquidity support from the RBI’s earlier market measures and credit guarantees by the government, and the direct fiscal impact and cash outgo for the government stands pegged at less than 1% of the GDP. A break-up of the same will further illustrate matters.

Looking beyond the obvious

It is evidently clear that the net cost of the Aatmanirbhar financial stimulus package to the government is much less than the projected 10%, realistically hovering somewhere around 5.29% of the GDP (Edelweiss estimates). However, direct fiscal support, which was most anticipated, was a huge let-down- totalling to a plaintive figure of 0.49% of the GDP. It does not come as a surprise, as the package involves RBI’s liquidity-boosting measures which were made earlier as a part of the scheme. Although the government controls the fiscal policy, the RBI is an autonomous body and decides the monetary policy through its bi-monthly MPC meetings. It is crucial to understand that the government’s expenditures and the RBI’s measures are not equivalent and hence, are not additive prima facie. Nowhere in the world has such a fiscal package been declared, which involves the support of the apex bank. An excellent case-in-point would be that of the United States’ $3 trillion (approximately ₹225 lakh crores) package, which was completely governmental expenditure and did not hold into account the effects of the Federal Reserve’s decisions. All in all, the deal is primarily aimed at supply-side measures, and there exists no provision for cranking up demand-side figures through a resort to deficit financing. The Aatmanirbhar Package is effectively medium to long-term in vision and does very little to alleviate the concerns of the economy in the immediate vicinity.

Let us take the case of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector. A substantial chunk (nearly 94%) of these are labelled as micro industries, which were earlier handicapped by rigid investment parameters. The recategorisation now permits a more fluidic definition of the industries, basing the division on a turnover-based criterion to allow for higher investment limits. The differential grading for manufacturing and services MSMEs have also been eliminated. Under the new norms, micro industries should have an annual turnover fewer than ₹5 crores and an investment of less than ₹1 crore. This is a remarkable hike from the earlier investment criteria of a maximum of ₹25 lakhs for manufacturing industries and ₹10 lakhs for service-based firms. However, apart from the contextual change in definition, there is not much to cheer for. Instead of directly infusing money into the MSME sector, the government has chosen to tread the path of credit guarantees, by facilitating cheaper and easier loans to the tune of ₹300,000 crores. A provision for subordinate debt has also been included for “stressed” MSME firms and is worth ₹20,000 crores, out of which the government will partially guarantee ₹4000 crores. Thus, even in the event of a failure, the government will back up the lender with a part of the recovery amount.

However, credit guarantees often take time to materialise in totality. Loans are not instant; and even if the floodgates are opened, it is unlikely that the banking sector would like to get itself submerged in a torrential volume of small-sized loans. Rather, it may give rise to cronyism, where more prominent players are accorded the sizeable portion of the pie, while the comparatively insignificant firms are left in the lurch to fend for themselves. Even in the best-case scenario, availing of the credit facilities extended by the government may not do much good. The Chamber of Indian MSMEs (CIMSME) noted with displeasure that while they were hopeful of direct measures such as the waiver of electricity charges, salary payments and the like which would have helped them to stay afloat amidst the turbulent times, availing of new loans was simply put, an unviable option. Product marketing, sales and realisation of revenue is not possible in the pandemic situation owing to several curbs and restrictions. With no new contracts in sight and demand for the goods at an all-time low, industry scions are of the view that marginal utility for fresh capital would be negligible at best. Additional loans without sufficient production would also drive up the Incremental Cost Output Ratio (ICOR), thereby hampering growth.

The stimulus package also failed to bring about solid relief for the two worst-affected sectors post the lockdown: hospitality and aviation. A report prepared by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) with Hotelivate estimates a whopping loss of ₹30,000 crores in the hospitality sector due to high room vacancies and decreased takers for their F&B services. Even high-worth chains as Hilton and Hyatt have tied up with food delivery services to salvage whatever income is possible. Similarly, the cash-drought aviation sector- which has seen no commercial business for nearly two months now- had very little to look up to. Several requests for bringing the ATF under the ambit of GST and suspension of airport charges were ignored. A report by CRISIL, a rating agency, prognosticated a downturn of around ₹25,000 crores. However, most of the announcements made were retrospective in nature and were cardinally minor amendments to earlier introduced laws.

Final Thoughts

The post-COVID era may nourish fables of de-globalisation around the world, stoking alluring chimaeras of self-sufficiency and protectionist tendencies in an increasingly nationalistic global order. Under the garb of improving self-reliance, the government has now mandated procurement of local products and supplies for tenders below ₹200 crores. The move is regressive, fosters inefficiency and promotes pricier alternatives. India being an assembler economy, does not have the necessary technical know-how to immediately embark on manufacturing high-quality goods at a fraction of the current cost. In strategic sectors as defence, atomic energy and space research, opting for inferior products to re-energise local supply chains is an absolute no-no. Instead, financial support using Direct Bank Transfers (DBTs), skilling ventures, and clearing bureaucratic red-tape for MSMEs should be the preferred way out. A trading system with an unstable network of national embargos need not be necessarily safer. Protectionism will only aggravate the widening inequality divide between the poor and the rich. An inward-looking policy, after all, enfeebles the recovery and leaves the economy vulnerable in the long run. Perhaps India could take lessons to make its supply chains resilient not by domesticating them, but by diversifying them- thereby deconcentrating risk and benefitting from the economies of scale.

The foremost woe with the Aatmanirbhar India package is that despite having a robust focus on intent and execution, it falls trap to the idea of credit guarantees to resuscitate the economy from the vices of a two-month lockdown. There is not an iota of doubt that by going for supply-side measures instead of cash infusion and tax discounts to revive demand, the government has taken an enormous gamble. A successful recovery will be nothing short of a historic accomplishment; if not, the government risks going down the slippery slope of economic volatility for years to come. Both the BSE Sensex and Nifty tanked after the final tranche was announced, signalling disappointment for the regular investor. At this critical juncture, we have nothing concrete to comfort ourselves with, but to keep our hopes transcendentally pinned on Robert Frost’s philosophy: “Two roads diverged in a wood … I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference”.

Much like a wager, indeed, only with the stakes raised incredibly high this time.

Combating India’s Population Problem

UP To Bring Back Migrant Workers From Other States In Phases: Top 10

A national lockdown has brought to the forefront the immense neglect and sorrow lives that those at the bottom of the societal strata have to live. With several horrific tales of hunger, accidental deaths and a near partition-era exodus doing the rounds, it is natural to feel upset by the overwhelming stench of unimaginable hardships on countless men and women. On closer introspection, I realised that the root of the immediate crisis lies not only on the draconian lockdown alone but also on years of an exponential expansion of the population. The virus of population growth is as potent a threat as the present pandemic that has afflicted the world; if left unattended, this seemingly benign sore will metamorphose into a malignant one.

India’s unchecked population surge has come to be a source of concern for many. With a landholding of only 2.41% and home to nearly 18% of humankind, India is beginning to reel from the severe stress its population exerts on it. While a youthful population is generally looked upon favourably, an excess of such a feature also carries with itself an array of perils. With increasing unemployment, inequality, starvation and a faltering economy amidst a host of other depressing issues, it is evident that India cannot afford to expand in terms of its demographic size any further. It is time to undo the vices of the past and implement family planning norms on a war footing, thereby paving the way for sustainable national development and growth in the decades to come.

While the rest of the world is ageing, India has managed to retain its youth bulge. A youth bulge essentially points out that the young disproportionately outnumber the elderly in our country. The higher the figure, the better the productivity and national output rates. Much of the developed world order is progressively poised to morph into ticking time-bombs, with their workforce shrinking at a greater pace than those entering it. Europe is a classic case-in-point, with North America tailing behind. India, which has nascently entered a stage where it can reap the benefits of such demographic dividend, is hardly in a state today to encash on the bonus. The reasons are aplenty.

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.upp-prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F25fc51fc-33a2-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de?fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=700

Our woes are on many fronts. Widening inequality has condemned the poor to remain fixated in poverty, while the rich have become more affluent. Joseph Stiglitz, in his book ‘People, Power and Profits’ wrote that those born in poverty, often find it difficult to escape the vicious debt trap in their life span. Add to that a growing rural-urban gap, with massive influxes of migrant workers towards metropolitan and tier-one cities every year. Such trends have consequentially led to the establishment of migrant colonies clustered in unsanitary living conditions called slums. Mumbai’s Dharavi is one such example. A combination of unfortunate factors has also pushed the average day-worker on the brink of starvation. The 2019 Global Hunger Index ranked India 102 out of 117 countries, which were evaluated on a three-indicator basis. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that malnutrition is equally rampant among the deprived. 37.9% of children below five suffered from stunted growth, while 14.5% of the population was undernourished, the report concluded. 

Education and healthcare are like the two wheels of the chariot of sustainable growth. A humongous population count relegates education and skill-building onto secondary positions, as most are compelled to lend a helping hand to their family incomes at early ages due to ensuing poverty. In 2015, the school dropout rate was nearly 17%. In the age of Industry 4.0, only a handful are skilled enough to make careers out of their capabilities. The world’s most prosperous countries have made a successful transition towards being knowledge economies, rather than being content with the tag of an assembler nation. The 2016 ASER report publicised much of the glaring loopholes of primary education across India. Hence, apart from bolstering investments made in the field of education in the short run, the long term idea should be to stabilise population growth and build intensively on the human capital we have then. This notion can also be extended onto healthcare; modern medical care is beyond reach for the deprived in India. Equitability in healthcare can only be brought about when population growth is considerably low and benefits of advancement can reach those who require it the most. It has been observed that the trickle-down economic theory- the idea which professes that a rising tide (read, development) shall lift all boats- does not hold good in populous countries.

On the policy front, the importance of family planning was realised even before independence was attained. In fact, in 1951, India became the first developing country to implement a state-sponsored family planning programme. The Radha Kamal Mukherjee Committee (1940) was one such pioneering venture, which was commissioned by the Indian National Congress to evaluate the chapter of population control. It was followed by the Bhore Committee (1943) and post-independence, was looked into by the Five-Year Plans prepared by the now-defunct Planning Commission. Yet, all of these committees and plans emphasised on self-control to curb further growth. As governments became increasingly concerned about the outcomes of such rapid spurts, in 1976, the National Population Policy was constituted. The NPP (1976) was radically distinctive from its precursors and advised incentivisation as the way forward to control the population. It noted, “… to wait for education and economic development to bring out a drop in fertility is not a practical solution. The time factor is so pressing, and the population growth so formidable, that we have to get out of the vicious circle through a direct assault upon this problem as a national commitment.” Such a radical measure also led to experimental legislation on compulsory sterilisation, enforced during the emergency era, which ultimately ended in a fiasco and was rolled back. However, the viciousness with which the Union government combated the issue brought with it a fair share of the limelight.

A Statistical Overview

The above plot, sourced from Census estimates in 2011, clearly shows a negative relationship between population (independent test variable) and literacy (dependent variable). As population increases, a degradation in literacy rates is observed. Most of India’s northeastern states have fared excellently well on literacy counts, and have significantly controlled their population growths. We can further expand upon this idea, if we take a look at Human Development Index (HDI) figures for Indian states (2018 UNDP data).

A polynomial-order decreasing trend line relationship was observed between Population and HDI. Theoretically, an HDI score of 1 indicates all-round development. HDI scores are based on the standard of living, literacy, and healthcare access. It is no surprise, again, to observe states with high HDI scores having a comparatively lesser population than those who fare poorly on their HDI scores. It is evident from the graphical visualisation that Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal are clear laggards when it comes to development and population control. Kerala and Goa serve as model states, with high HDI indices as well as a low population count. The final chart would attempt to illustrate the Total Fertility Rate (TFR)’s relationship with the Crude Birth Rate (CBR, per 1000 people) over the decades.

The above plot brings out the positive side of our efforts against combating the population menace. Over the decades, we have been successful in continually curbing the TFR and consequentially bringing down the CBR at the same time. It is in alignment with the vision of the National Population Policy (2000), which aimed to bring down the fertility rate to 2.1 by 2045.

A Way Forward

Clearly, not all is lost. The battle to reign in our population count has begun to be taken seriously at all levels in recent times. It was heartening to see Prime Minister Modi bring to spotlight the grave threat, labelling ‘population explosion’ as a challenge for the upcoming generations. He equated efficient family planning with patriotism, and openly called for state governments and the central government to act together over a long-term solution. However, it is not only an urge for chauvinism that should drive forward the momentum to bring in immediate reforms, but also economic profits. Ashoka Mody and Shekhar Aiyar’s work at the IMF estimated the demographic dividend for India (the additional growth in per capita income due to demographic factors alone) for the next few decades, assuming optimal conditions to reap the benefits:

A two-child policy is also the need of the hour, apart from usual awareness drives initiated by the government. Assam was the first state to implement coercive disincentive tactic to solve the pestering problem, by denying government jobs to those with more than two children. The Union government may also adopt such a policy, but any such order should not be retrospective in nature. Simply put, any such disincentive should be applicable only for future applicants after a minimum period of nine months, so that prospective employees should make a concerted effort towards the governmental objective. Family planning measures are also heavily impacted by the standard of living. As more migration takes place from rural hinterlands onto urban metropolises, people will automatically regulate themselves to having a bare minimum number of children so as to meet the rising costs. Monetary incentivisation, in the form of tax benefits and other compensatory reliefs, shall go a long way to combat this vice in India.

We have no control over the world we inherit, but we have complete control over the world we leave behind. However, credits where due: the present dispensation does seem to actively view this as an immediate concern to be worked upon. Effective family planning measures, especially in a country as diverse and broad as India, shall offer our progeny a fair chance at living a life of dignity and bridge the inequality. Humankind will be on the slippery slope to hell unless we take stock of the birth rate on an urgent basis.

Machiavelli’s words ring true today, exactly as he had prognosticated:

“When every province of the world so teems with inhabitants that they can neither subsist where they are nor remove themselves elsewhere… the world will purge itself in one or another of these three ways (floods, plague and famine).”

Niccolo Machiavelli

Lessons from a Pandemic, and beyond

They say that it is a heyday for conspiracy theorists when they perceive the world order to be in an anarchical state. COVID-19, primarily originating from the industrial town of Wuhan in China, has now captured the attention of the world’s best minds as much as the multitude alike. With a staggering count of over three million infected and over two hundred thousand fatalities, the act of discounting the threat from this invisible virus would be nothing short of imbecilic. Nature’s most social animal now needs to confine himself within the four walls of the home. 

At this hour of adversity, outrageous claims have flooded the public domain, with opinions ranging from anything as grave as biowarfare to toned-down claims of divine punishment for humanity’s sins. Further complicating the matter are calls for cutting down on the WHO’s budget- thereby derailing efforts to provide aid where ever it is most necessary. Every single worker, corporation and institution has to bear the wrath of the rampage trail that the virus will leave behind. In the next few years, we may have to radically alter our lifestyle to stay off the radar of the disease. COVID-19’s impacts are anything beyond that of a petty trade war or an experiment gone astray; it holds immense sway and influence over the geopolitics of the land that is soon to follow once the situation subsides. This essay is an attempt to debunk such claims and examine each such observation on its merit.

Debunking Myths

The United States and the People’s Republic of China are engaged in a bitter trade battle ever since mid-2018. The American President grew increasingly distraught by the States’ growing trade imbalance with China, and accused Chinese officials of complicity in unfair trade practices and violation of intellectual property rights. In June 2018, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Chinese imports worth $34 billion and proclaimed a slew of cesses on other imports worth $16 billion. Till date, the US has slapped hefty import fees on Chinese goods totalling a sizeable $360 billion. In China, anti-US sentiments were quick to grow; they realised the move as an attempt to throttle the Chinese ambition for economic ascendancy. In retaliation, China imposed higher import duties on American goods worth $110 billion. As China delivers many key raw materials, a rise in import costs disrupts supply chains, thereby making products dearer. The US also hurt Chinese interests indirectly by blacklisting telecom major Huawei on flimsy grounds of national security and bullied allies into doing the same by threatening them with duties. 

With China’s interests and fortunes swiftly heading south, many observers have remarked that the emergence of a novel coronavirus- that results in severe respiratory difficulties and in some cases, even death- is a ploy by China to halt the pressure tactics employed by the US. They remark that it is a diversionary tactic used by the Chinese administration to shift attention to domestic affairs, thereby providing China the necessary time to work upon its strategic interests. The fact that China has tamed the pandemic significantly quicker (critics being fully aware of the notoriety of Chinese data repression), and the US taking the hardest hit, have aroused the suspicion of foul play by many. The obvious futility of the claim stands out. The novel coronavirus has not discriminated its victims by race or nationality, or between the class divide of privileged and the poor; it has brought misery to the integrated world in unimaginable proportions equitably. If indeed the coronavirus was devised by the Chinese state, it would have been an economically suicidal move. Roughly five million people, by official estimates, lost their jobs in the first two months of the crisis. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit predicts that by the end of the year, livelihoods of around nine million people would be hanging by the dagger due to the financial implication on corporations. The outbreak has also renewed considerable interest in de-centralising manufacturing units from China into other parts of the world. So far, fifty-six global manufacturing behemoths have applied to shift their bases out of China into nearby East Asian economies. A country that wishes to have economic command over the global order cannot afford to drive out the very corporations that finance its growth. 

At Stake: Credibility of Global Institutions

Of course, a few nations, mostly East Asian, combated the coronavirus in its early stages with proactive response to blunt the effectiveness. Others were not so lucky and thereby got caught in the crossfire of economic haemorrhage and rising deaths. India’s lockdown, although draconian and resulting in unending hardships to the populace at large, has somewhat managed to stem the surge of cases that was expected in a country as diverse and dynamic as itself. The United States has lost the battle not because the virus was explicitly ‘programmed’ to infect them, but because of widespread ignorance, foolhardiness on the part of the national administration, and most importantly, a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the natives themselves. A few days back, the mayor of Las Vegas- the supposed ‘entertainment capital of the world’- advocated the complete reopening of the casinos to pump the economy, utterly oblivious to the perils it carried. 

The outbreak of the pandemic has also put the credibility of global institutions like the World Health Organisation (WHO) at stake. The WHO was accused of complacency and pliability to Chinese claims when concentrated pneumonic clusters were discovered initially in the Hubei province. The organisation indeed failed to independently test the veracity of cases, and thereby did not live up to its founding principles. It continued to vet until late January that the novel coronavirus was not a potent threat to humankind before strong evidence suggested the obverse. The United States, responsible for providing 15% of the WHO’s budget, has now stopped funding over claims of delayed action and misleading advisories. UN Secretary-General António Guterres was swift to condemn Trump’s move, saying the WHO “… must be supported, as it is absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against Covid-19.” Almost parallelly, economic and political institutions are also under severe duress during the lockdown period across the world. Rating agency Morgan Stanley expects a global recession in the first half of the fiscal year 2020-21. Fitch Ratings has slashed India’s GDP growth rate prediction to 0.8% after two stints of lockdown that have battered the economy. The political machinery is also under fire in several parts of the world, battling not just the crisis, but also negative publicity coverage detailing mishandling and inept administration. Brazilian President Jose Bolsenaro has also been heavily criticised for his reluctant stand on an emergency intervention to aid the crumbling economy, forcing provincial governors to act on their own accord. India has had considerably better instances of cooperative federalism as has always been seen in times of crises.

The Way Forward

There is not an iota of doubt that an international commission should be established to probe the outbreak of this virus. If Chinese officials are found guilty of misappropriation, they should be taken to task. However, there is no benefit to the mass hysteria surrounding such conspiracy theories at this moment. They hold no gravity unless verified and cardinally serve to promote hatred and racism towards people of Chinese genealogy. If we have integrated the world to a scale famously christened the ‘global village’, it should also be equally convenient to derive benefits of this connectivity at the lowest levels of the village. Several prominent Data and IT industry firms have already made their products open-access for a limited time to enrich and benefit whatever conclusive outcome can be derived via the use of appropriate technology. Stimulus packages need to be doled by governments across the world to kickstart their economies. As the famous American economist Paul Krugman said, it is best to “… maintain profligacy in depression, and austerity in good times“.

If the pandemic has provided us with a lesson at all, it is this- that the world is brutally unprepared to deal with catastrophes of such magnitudes. Leaders across the globe should pledge allegiance to nurture and spend on medical science and healthcare, cutting across party lines. In the twenty-first century, even an outbreak in the remotest corner of a deserted African village has the potential to bring chaos and wreak havoc on establishments across the world. The primed catchphrase of ‘Vasudeva Kutumbakam’ is what we need to recall now, allowing ourselves to heal the world and committing resources to fight the battle together- if nothing, almost as a requiem for Li Wienliang- who braved dreaded State institutions to blow the whistle on the horror that the world was soon to witness.

Healthcare 2.0: Road to Revamping India’s Health Sector

pediatric ward in a hospital in India

The COVID-19 pandemic has proved yet again why healthcare remains an integral ingredient for national advancement. With healthcare systems around the world having been pushed to their edge, often running with over-worked staff themselves, the fallout is discernible. In India, we are all set to hit the grim milestone of ten thousand cases of infections, a figure that has come by unimaginably quick. Could we have done better in our efforts against the pandemic raging the world? There is no denying that.

That, however, does not indicate that there remain no positives; the testing net is now being widened daily, and the treatise of ‘treat-test-track’ has been taken up on a war footing in most of the states where the virus has ravaged lives. Better preparedness is always a strategic advantage and never a burden. Our infrastructure today is woefully incompetent when juxtaposed against those in the West. In a nation of a billion people, effective implementation and planning are the two most essential components for any policy to meet its goal and find success. As the coronavirus threat surges over days, it is necessary to take stock of the challenges that lay ahead and imbibe amendments to the healthcare policy and planning in India. At this hour, our health sector presents itself as unsavoury conjunction of fledgeling infrastructure, negligence and a noticeable shortage of qualified doctors for medical practice. The government’s top-most reform agenda must now be to restructure the medical institutions in India and make it more resilient towards ghastly outbreaks as the present one.

While seeking to better our healthcare planning, it would be a beneficial exercise to take a peek into the two famed global models- that of the US (insurance-based) and the UK (NHS model). The United States spends around 18% of its GDP, a figure on the higher end when compared to global averages, on healthcare. A reputed journal calls the US system of healthcare a poorly framed “patchwork of fragmented systems and policies”. It is not universal by design, and medical treatment is often expensive. Hence, the merits of a highly educated workforce and scientific progress do not trickle down to those who require it the most. Several attempts were made to reconcile the system, but have often been overturned or disfigured beyond recognition- a classic case-in-point was that of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, popularly christened ‘Obamacare’. The UK, on the contrary, has a state-sponsored model for providing primary healthcare to all its citizens. The National Health Service, institutionalised in 1948, was a prescient attempt at making healthcare accessible to all, irrespective of the social strata of those incoming. The NHS is allocated roughly around 8% of the UK’s GDP resources, but it has proven itself far beyond its Atlantic counterpart. The services of the NHS come to the aid of several people who can ill-afford otherwise expensive treatment costs. The funding comes entirely from tax collections paid for by the population. Several developmental economists agree in principle that the NHS model is superior to that of the United States’, wherein even by implanting a lesser burden on the exchequer, more people have access to quality healthcare. 

A volley of committees has been established to analyse the state of health planning in India and suggest recommendations to improve upon the same. The earliest amongst these was the Bhore Committee report (1946). It was by far the most comprehensive report on streamlining the health sector, with multi-stage suggestions to act upon. The report suggested a complete integration of the preventive and curative segments of medical care at all administrative levels. It also laid its emphasis on the necessity to build a robust health infrastructure, with a particular focus on primary healthcare. The report also batted for accessible healthcare, and observed that “… no individual should fail to secure adequate medical care, because of inability to pay for it”- tiptoeing the line of the yet to be founded NHS. The Committee also displayed a remarkable sense of openness to innovative ideas, noting that sufficient provisions should be ensured to facilitate representatives from the medical, and other auxiliary fields, to contribute to the discourse and shape the public policy. It also looked at the possibility of revamping medical education and allied vocational training, to produce what it called “social physicians”. 

In the era of early post-Independence, the government under Nehru fixated itself onto the cause for eradicating epidemics. Nationwide campaigns to exterminate such diseases as polio, tuberculosis, smallpox, et cetera were launched, emblematic of the colonial percept that the most effective way to combat diseases was to exterminate the germs themselves. Yet, the founding cause of all the diseases- cardinally social- was ignored. Such a singular and narrow vision concerning health policy also derailed the enactment of the recommendations made by the Bhore Committee. Recommendations made by several other committees as the Mudaliar Committee (1962), Chadha Committee (1963), Mukherjee Committee (1965, 66) and others- which echoed the sentiments of the Bhore Committee- were also neglected. The cost of such problematic prioritisation and disregard in the foundational years has reared its ugly head now. Presently, the Government of India spends a pitiable 1.29% towards healthcare, including investments on centrally-sponsored schemes. An OECD report pegged the total health spending (both out of pocket, and public expenditure) at 3.86% in India, also unabashedly low when contrasted with the OECD mean of 8.8% of the GDP. 

There can remain no hitch in the mind that in a country as teeming and dynamic as India, the NHS model seems the way to look forward to. The present NDA government had framed the National Healthcare Policy (2017), which envisaged public spending worth 2.5% of the GDP. Of course, the first compulsion for the government must be to significantly prop up public health spending from the present measly allocation of 1.3%. The Kothari Commission (1966) also recommended spending 6% on education. World-class educational institutions, with a scientific bent of thought and with an innate knack for research-oriented studies, need to be cultivated. We are surely not short on merit. Public healthcare policy will triumph only when it successfully marries such talent with state-of-the-art infrastructure. This idea also resonates in complete sync with noted economist Robert Solow’s concept of ‘Total Factor Productivity’ – that human capital accumulation has a direct empirical relation with national growth. Paul Romer, with his theory of endogenous technological growth, also advocates the same- stressing on the need for self-reliance in medical science to contribute favourably to the economy in the long run.

Beset by logistical challenges and grappling with the outbreak of a pandemic, India’s healthcare system is in the midst of a reality check. Joseph Stiglitz wrote in his book, ‘People, Power and Profits’ that those stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty often fail to make it out of the trap in their lifetimes. This provides us, and the civil society at large, to become crusaders of the cause for responsible healthcare on the part of the government- a system wherein even the poorest and the most downtrodden have access to quality healthcare. While the results of increased attention on healthcare may not bear fruit immediately in the short term, it will bless the society with its bountiful harvests over the years- and ultimately add to India’s economic ascendancy by reaping the benefits of our yet untapped, rich demographic dividend.

Bloodbath on the Baishakhi

Jallianwala Bagh memorial
The Jallianwala Bagh Memorial

As we step onto the 101st year of commemorating the horror that was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, it is worthwhile to discuss and debate the multitude of layers that surround the butchery by the bloodthirsty fighters under General Reginald Dyer, on that fateful day of 13th April 1919. The popular and widely accepted notion that the act was perpetrated in response to the murder and rampage trail left by the natives is only superficial at best. The Jallianwala Bagh lives on today as a grim reminder of the discord that prevailed during the British Raj and has been hailed by many as the single-most definitive moment in India’s quest for freedom. Notable historian A.J.P Taylor recalled the incident as “the decisive moment when Indians were alienated from the British Rule”. By standing up to an act as violative and wrongful as the Jallianwala Bagh, the British had lost the moral authority to reign India- and united millions in India with a strong fervent of patriotic passion. The brute display of might may as well be thought of a planned act of genocide; an act intended to impress terror upon the minds of defiant rebels who dared to question the authority of the Crown.

India’s immense contribution to the British war efforts in the First World War had inspired hope among certain sections of the society that their benefaction would not go unnoticed; many aspired for the remuneration to be some form of local self-governance. Such hopes were quickly dashed by the Montague-Chelmsford ‘Reforms’ and the punitive Rowlatt Act- which designated competent authority with impunity, and upon their whims, to search, arrest, harass or even kill civilians suspected of crimes against the empire- all without the necessity of a trial. On 6th April, Gandhi had called for a nation-wide hartal to condemn the malicious design of the Britishers. In Amritsar, too, the call for strike was religiously obeyed- and there were no reported incidents of violence. Yet, in an unprecedented act of undue aggression, the Provincial Government of Punjab arrested Dr Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal on 9 April- both of whom held sway and considerable influence over the masses. This triggered protests all over Amritsar, and in the ensuing anarchy, ten demonstrators were fired upon. The crowd, maddened by a taste of vengeance, reacted by killing five Englishmen and assaulting a woman missionary (who was later rescued and carried to safety by Indians themselves).

The British wasted no time and sent troops to cordon the holy city of Amritsar. By 11 April, over 600 fully armed troops had been stationed under the command of General Reginald Dyer. He made several arrests to stamp his mark of authority, and on the 13th, issued prohibitory orders that forbade people to leave the city, engage in demonstrations, or even meet in groups larger than three. Oblivious to such orders, some ten to fifteen thousand people from outlying districts gathered in the city to celebrate the auspicious occasion of Baisakhi- ushering in the new year. They had assembled at the confines of the Jallianwala Bagh, an enclosed walled garden that lay at the heart of the city. The spot was accessible only through five narrow passageways. When Dyer learnt of this development, without caring to know whether the attendees were indeed in defiance of his orders, he did not hesitate to park vehicles mounted with artillery outside the complex. He ordered his troops to open fire, and in a span of a mere ten minutes, the vivacious crowd was silenced by the stench of death and sorrow. 1650 rounds of bullet fire had been unleashed on those present, and by official reports, 379 were killed in the heinous act of cold-blooded mass murder!

Salman Rushdie suggests that the immediate trigger to the genocide was the assault of a lady missionary. He wrote, “the calumny… that frail English roses were in constant sexual danger from lust-crazed wogs” may also have played a part in Dyer’s mind. In retrospect, it was much more than that. No other punishment meted out by the Empire was as barbarous as the Jallianwala Bagh. The Peterloo massacre had claimed only eleven lives. Across the Atlantic, British soldiers who had fired upon the Boston Commons had killed five men- and had been accused of deliberate massacre. In contrast, figures established by an independent fact-finding committee appointed by the Congress for the Jallianwala Bagh pegged the dead at nearly a thousand, with countless many bruised beyond recovery. This was no ordinary act of retribution, but also an unabashed display of egoistic assertiveness. The establishment was up in arms to suppress the news of Dyer’s notorious act and effectively contained it for six months before all hell broke loose and the news spread like wildfire. 

The British, who advocated themselves as crusaders of human rights and democracy, were now in a desperate bid to cleanse themselves of the unholy taint. An official commission was established to enquire into the misdeeds of General Dyer, popularly called the Hunter Commission. While deposing before the commission, Dyer had not the slightest of remorse or guilt for his actions. He claimed that the congregation was a ‘rebel meeting’, a direct challenge to his authority which had to be responded to in kind. He noted with satisfaction that it was him that had ordered the troops to fire towards the exits, where the crowd was swelled in an attempt to escape. He described with absolute iniquity, ‘… the targets [innocent civilians], were good’. When they had exhausted their ammunition and innumerable people lay writhing in pain on that harrowed compound, Dyer forbade his soldiers to provide aid to any of the injured. He consequently ordered all natives to stay off the roads for twenty-four hours, thereby denying help to even those who watched their life chipping away under the obstinacy of the General’s whims. It was perhaps not a surprise that the commission only found him guilty of ‘grave error’, and refused to accept the outrageous violation of life that had been carefully orchestrated under Dyer’s sadistic watch. This made it quite discernible that the commission was set up as an eyewash- and that homicide of the hapless was at best inconsequential to those placed comfortably away in the High Command.

When public distrust and anger against the Hunter Commission unfolded, Jawaharlal Nehru was deputed to ascertain the facts. He found several more ignominies hurled at Indians, all of which he meticulously noted. He described with a sense of utter repugnance, that Indians using the street where the missionary was assaulted were condemned to crawl on their bellies, in ‘the manner of snakes and worms’. Perhaps the greatest surprise of all lay not in the ruthless killing itself, but the reaction of the British public to such a despicable act. While being dismissed from service later, he continued to enjoy stately privileges and lapped up a handsome pension granted to him. Rudyard Kipling- who is a favourite among bibliophiles- hailed Dyer as ‘The Man who Saved India’. The Britons, in full complicity, ran a crowdfunding campaign for Dyer, and presented to him a princely sum of £26,317 – equivalent to almost a quarter of a million pounds today! In stark contrast, the kith and kin of the deceased in the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy were compensated a poorly £37. Nehru later penned, “… the cold-blooded approval of that deed shocked me greatly. I realised then, more vividly than I had ever before, how immoral imperialism had eaten into the souls of the British upper classes.”

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre hit the last nail in the coffin which reinforced the construct that the British Raj did not value Indian lives. It was not a mere exercise in saving the honour of British women or responding to defiance of authority. Rather, it was an exhibition of brute power by bloodthirsty hoodlums who donned the garb of mannered diplomats. In 1928, Sir William Hicks- Home Minister under the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Baldwin- made it amply clear: “We went with a yardstick in one hand and a sword in the other, and with the latter we continue to hold them helpless while we force the former down their throats.” The tragedy was nothing but a clear-cut case of egregious racism solidified by the British intractability and authoritative obstinance, and shoved upon helpless civilians who would go on to be framed forever in the annals of contemporary Indian history.

An Anti-Climax to Socialistic Justice

Representative image of the Supreme Court

The recent interim ruling of the apex court to make COVID-19 testing free of cost in private labs across India, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before it, is strongly disconcerting. In an almost unprecedented, unabashed display of judicial socialism, the judges in their best of merits felt that the private labs should extend “philanthropic” cooperation in the “hour of national crisis”- by doling out expensive tests at no cost. In all, it is deplorable that the judgement failed to harp beyond the obvious lines of thought; what now remains is a poignant amalgamation of regulatory confusion, a certainty of reduced testing, and economic haemorrhage for the already stressed private medical facilities.

On the surface, this moral grandstanding presents itself as a necessary measure to protect those who can ill-afford any diagnostic tests. However, when put under the scanner, it becomes incredulously convenient to point out how irrational and impractical this order is. Medical facilities, both government and private, are already grappling with a shortage of raw materials and equipment. Consequently, testing kits and requisite raw materials come at enhanced, premium rates now. Unlike the government, which has an almost unlimited amount of money to diagnose and detect COVID-19 patients, the private labs have been perenially dependent on regular cash flow to keep their services up and running. With near-zero cash reserves, quickly emptying buffer stocks, and skyrocketing prices of available kits, conducting tests without any remuneration is the equivalent of a financial suicide for such firms. Where the court could have put the onus of compensation upon the government, it lousily pushed away the responsibility of fixing such a package under the garb of a well-knitted line- “… the question as to whether the private laboratories carrying free of cost COVID-19 tests are entitled for any reimbursement of expenses incurred, shall be considered later on.”

The unintended ramification of this order would be a drastic fall in testing rates at a time we need it the most. It is not difficult to prognosticate why. If there are no incentives for a firm running such expensive tests (earlier capped at ₹4,500 a test), it does not make sense to continue with such a monetary bleed. Hence, private institutions may outrightly reject patients from getting tested, or may directly go under, as they will then be left with no options. This will severely handicap the current efforts underway to prop up testing rates, and secure public-private partnership in dealing with the pandemic situation. Left fending for itself, the government will not be able to ensure widespread testing, having only a minuscule number of facilities for a population as humongous as 1.3 billion.

A Way Forward

Not all is lost, however, in this quagmire of confusion. A few potential solutions are worth visiting. Firstly, the obvious way is to seek governmental compensation for every test conducted. This option seems highly improbable as the government would be least interested to shoulder the additional financial burden on the exchequer. A much better and viable alternative for the government is to fix a testing rate for each individual private lab, depending on their revenue generation and accounting figures- to make the labs operational at break-even. This would ensure that while the facilities do not drown under debt and chart negative territories, they also do not engage in profiteering from a humanitarian challenge. Lastly, a long term objective for the government should be to incorporate a ‘Right to Health’ under the existing charter of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has of late considered the provision de facto, it has had no constitutional backing. Furthermore, sectoral reallocation decided as per priority, should be immediately worked upon to ensure higher funding to healthcare and allied medical services. It would certainly not hurt the Defence Establishment to have a proportionate cut to re-align spending and meet with immediate objectives. Likewise, subsidies on fertilisers and other products should also be reconsidered for the time being, which would free up a lot of monetary resources. The money saved should be immediately spun into developing world-class infrastructure to deal with pandemoniums that only a pandemic of this scale can bring with it.

Unless the government acts decisively to intervene and shed clarity on the order, crucial time would be lost in the war against SARS-CoV-2. It is important to understand that both the private facilities and the government institutions hold equal stake in their concerted effort; derailing one under the guise of the common good would be nothing more than an anti-climax to socialistic justice, an apathy of the highest order, and an act of the imbecile.