Budget -21, Reform push and Time to Market!

There have been budgets in the past which have sort of quickly moved away from the headlines. And there have been budgets which remained in the headlines but for all wrong reasons. This year’s budget, incidentally the 8th one from the Modi Sarkar presented by Nirmala Sitharaman has managed to hog the limelight for all the “right” reasons. The pun here is well intended.

Talking of the reaction to this government’s previous budgets, it’s always been muted and for obvious reasons. Ever since Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister way back in 2014 that too with a clear majority, the expectation has been that he will bite the bullet on many of the much needed, long pending reforms. Honestly, the previous budgets of the Modi Sarkar were mostly incremental budgets with some increased allocations here, some improved programs there and so on. “What’s the Big Idea”? ‘Where are the Big bang reforms?” were some questions hurled by the commentariat post every budget. It has been my observation that under Modi, the budgets have just become an annual statement of allocations and outlays while Big Ideas whether it was the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan or the Ujjwala Yojana et al were launched outside of the budget. But in this year’s budget, there has been a welcome change to announcing some “Big Ideas”.

The positive vibes around this year’s budget can be attributed to the announcement of few big ideas which have been reformist in nature, while keeping the budget free of any “bad news”. One is the announcement of the setting up of an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) which is a euphemism for a “Bad Bank”. Second, is the statement of intent on “privatisation” of two Public Sector Undertaking Banks and one General Insurance company. So far, governments have been taking umbrage under the term – Disinvestment without putting out the word “Privatisation” so openly.

Not just the budget, but the announcement has been followed up by speeches in the parliament and other forums by those who matter in the government, on the seriousness of the intent. In fact, as per news reports, Niti Aayog has recommended to cut the number of state owned Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to just 24 from over 300 that exist today. If this programme takes off, it will make Modi a reformist of “Thatcherian” proportions. If you recall, Margaret Thatcher way back in 1979, on assuming power systematically embarked on a reform program to revive the British economy. She deregulated markets, cut tax rates, removed exchange controls and consigned militant trade unions to oblivion. But, it is the privatisation of State owned corporations like British Steel, British Petroleum, British Telecom and British Airways that stays as her enduring legacy till today. So, what Thatcher achieved in the early 80’s in the United Kingdom is what Modi is embarking to do in India after forty years. That brings to the next point of this post which is the important piece of “Time to Market”.

In business, Time to Market is nothing but the time taken by a company to launch a product or a service from the date of firming up on an idea.  For companies, this is an important issue in new product introductions.  In businesses that are highly competitive or for that matter any business, you cannot afford to have a long Time to Market.  That would run the risk of your competitor getting ahead or consumer preferences changing that makes the idea less relevant or even redundant.  I believe that even in the matter of reforms for a government, a short Time to Market is critical. And as a country, our track record on that front is unenviable so far.

In the context of reform push, I believe there are three stages namely – Idea, Intent and Implementation. First, the idea is just floated in a budget speech or on important occasion/forum. Then the Intent is demonstrated when the idea is given a proper shape, laws are formulated if there is a need and resources are allocated.  Implementation is when finally the reform becomes a reality and is rolled out. So, in India if you see the history of Time to Market on important reforms, it doesn’t pose a pretty picture.

For example, take the case of a reform like Aadhaar. The idea and need for a unique citizens identity card was floated way back in 2001 by an Empanelled Group Of Ministers (EGOM) chaired by the then Home Minister L.K. Advani during the Vajpayee led NDA regime. It was only in 2009, when the intent was demonstrated by the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh with the announcement in the budget and then following it up with the set up if UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) under the leadership of Nandan Nilekani. And finally, the first Aadhaar card was issued to a citizen in September 2010. So, from the idea to the launch it took a good 9 years. In the case of GST, from the time of the floating of the idea way back in 2000 to showing the intent in the budget in year 2005 to finally launching GST in India in 2017, it took seventeen years.

In the case of the policy of allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investment in retail however, from the stage of the Idea to Intent to Implementation, the landscape of retail has changed. India doesn’t still allow 100% FDI in multi brand retail. This was seen as an important reform in attracting FDI and employment generation a decade ago. But now with the advent of E-Commerce where 100% FDI is allowed in the marketplace model, 100% FDI in Multi-brand retail is no longer seen as a constraint. In other developing countries like Thailand foreign direct investment in retail gave a huge boost to the economy. But India missed that boom because of the dogma around FDI in multi brand retail which stretched the Time to Market on that reform.

Ergo my point is, if the reforms which have been announced in this budget have to make an impact, short Time to Market is critical. Having floated the Idea of a Bad Bank, it is important to follow up quickly with the formation of the ARC and eventually roll it out within this year itself so that the PSU banks can be freed of the stressed loans and they can get back to lending with more ease. Similarly, in the case of privatisation of PSU Banks, the idea has been floating for a while now. But this is the first time, the government has expressed its formal intent via the budget speech. The road to privatisation is not going to be easy at all with trade unions already gearing to pick up the gauntlet with the government. I though believe just as the mass VRS issue in PSUs like MTNL and BSNL etc. went through in spite of stiff resistance from trade unions, this time, the government may be able to pull it off with a few hiccups. Or so I hope.  Also, while the stock markets are on a high this year, the government can manage to get better valuations.

In the run up to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, Modi repeatedly talked of “Less Government, More Governance” and “Government has no business to be in business” – thoughts which signalled a clear Rightward tilt on the economic philosophy front. However, till this budget speech, we didn’t see much of action towards withdrawing the government from running many businesses. This budget from that sense is critical in signalling the government’s intent towards moving away from running inconsequential businesses, which is a good sign. And, if the intent is translated into action in a reasonably short Time to Market, then it will be Narendra Modi’s lasting legacy in changing the economic course of this country.

Post Script: If Aandolanjivis are those who make a living out of protests, what about taxing them? And what would be the Time to Market for this idea? 😁

The Mandi Vs Modi battle!

As a country, I believe that we are cursed to contend with one distraction after another, which keep our governments busy. If it was the Anti-CAA protests which were grabbing the headlines during winter last year, it is the farmers’ protests against the Modi Sarkar’s farm bills this winter. And in between, we have the Covid and its numbers to be pre-occupied with, still.

In the last few weeks, ever since the farmer’s agitation picked up steam, there have been many op-ed pieces from erudite authors which have by and large spoken in favour of the farm bills. And they have said that this is the 1991 moment for Indian agriculture. And yet, the farmers associations have stood their ground against these reforms. Irony dies when we see articles with pictures now of farmer protests in the past demanding the same reforms!

The opposition has joined ranks with the protestors in trying to push back the Modi government on the farm bills. And it has been pointed to us that many of the opposition parties including the Congress, which is now siding with the farmers in opposing the farm bills, have been votaries of the same proposals in the past. It is clear now that since the opposition cannot take on the government on the floor of the house, its strategy is to take on the government on the streets.

While there have been many pieces exposing the double speak of the parties, I would recommend all to read just this one authored by Gautam Chikermane for the ORF – “An intellectual biography of India’s new farm laws”. Read here:

This piece chronicles the various studies and reports tabled by expert committees under different governments’ right from the year 2000 and invariably the recommendations are similar to the very reforms the present farm bills have brought in. It thereby exposes the intellectual hypocrisy of not just the politicians, which to a large extent we have learnt to live with, but of the commentariat which is not coming out and expressing its views in favour of the farm bills strongly, though it was in favour of the same before.

As you can see in the said article, there has been a rare consensus among economists and domain experts on the issue of reforming the APMC Act and Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, it is a pity that we are seeing such virulent, stubborn opposition to the reforms from one section of the farmers’ universe.

In the past five years, I have consistently observed that the commentariat in India keeps shifting goal posts as per its whims and fancies.  In the beginning of the 1st term of Modi, the narrative was “Where are the big bang reforms?” When the Modi government started bringing in reforms it became, “Where is the consensus in bringing these reforms? Where is the consultation?” When reforms are brought in after consultation and building a consensus as in the case of GST, the narrative is, “Where is the execution?” So, clearly we are seeing a pattern of opposition for the heck of it irrespective of the merits of the case.

In the case of farm bills too, there are those who have been saying that there has been no consultation. It is clear as broad day light in the article that, there have been consultations with stake holders for 20 years now! I believe that the government must reach out to many of these experts who were in favour of these bills during UPA regime and enlist them to express their support for the reforms they were batting for in the past. This could include people like Montek Singh Ahluwalia, M.S. Swaminathan and the likes. Here, it could take a leaf out of UPA-1 rule when Sanjaya Baru, the then Press advisor to Manmohan Singh, reached out to Brijesh Mishra enlisting his support for the nuclear deal when BJP was opposing it tooth and nail. The Civil Nuclear deal discussions with the US started when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister during the NDA rule. So, having an Ex-National Security Advisor to talk in favour of the nuclear deal when BJP was opposing the same, sort of punctured the opposition narrative.

Again coming back to the point of introducing the reforms after extensive consultations across the board, our experience has not been very good. During UPA, the land acquisition bill was brought in after extensive consultations and after building a broad consensus. The result is there for all to see. The bill never took off. It is a classic case of the operation being called successful while the patient was dead. The Modi government in the very 1st year wanted to fix this and brought in amendments which never went through. Finally, in the absence of a consensus, the amendments were not made and the bill continues to languish without serving the purpose of its existence.

Much of the infrastructure projects announced by the Modi Government are behind schedule or languishing in spite of having a very enterprising and well-meaning Nitin Gadkari as the minister at the helm. The main reason has been the delay in land acquisition essentially because of the rigorous clauses built in the bill that was brought in with a broad consensus.  So, any bill just because it is brought in with a lot of consultations and a broad consensus need not be the ideal bill.

In the parliament, the idea of consultations and building consensus effectively means putting the draft of the bills or amendments through select committees or standing committees. To borrow the words of HDFC Chairman, Deepak Parekh, “In India, when the government cannot commit, it committees!” Which effectively means extended discussions and delays. At the peak of UPA rule, when most of India wanted a decisive government with a majority on its own, it was precisely for these reasons. So, when Modi Sarkar which has now won a decisive mandate on its own twice over, takes the route of avoiding these long winded committees and brings in changes in laws on issues like the farm bills where discussions have been going on for 20 years now, we shouldn’t complain.

Building a consensus is often overrated and I concur with the latest statement by Niti Aayog Chairman Amitabh Kant that in India, we suffer from “too much” democracy. I sincerely hope that the government sticks to the main proposals and not roll back on the essence of the farm bills. In the meantime, it should use its communication firepower led by more amenable ministers like Gadkari to get the message across to the farmers’ associations and get them to pull back.  The Mandi Vs Modi battle is clearly a distraction for us at this time when the government must be focussed on handling the economic mandi (slump) on a war footing to bring the growth back on track.

Post script: The title for this post is courtesy my good friend Gopal Kutty Sasthri who popped this up during one of our chats on the topic and so due thanks to him.

The “Singhamisation” of police!

If the alleged gang rape and subsequent murder of a young girl in Hathras, UP was not terrible enough, the post death handling of the situation by the UP Police was even more horrendous. It is still bewildering, that someone suggested or ordered a midnight funeral for a murdered victim by the police instead of handing over the body to the parents! 

If that was in Hathras, UP, can anyone forget what happened in Sathankulam in Tamil Nadu, few months ago? In a bizarre case, a father and son duo were beaten to death under custody in Sathankulam police station. For what? For apparently violating lockdown rules!

Last year, in Hyderabad, the police killed the suspects involved in rape and killing of a vet in an early morning encounter which seemed like a scene lifted straight out of a Rohit Shetty (Hindi) or a Hari (Tamil/Telugu) film!

Add to this, the Sushant Singh Rajput case which was hogging media headlines till recently where the police of one state has been in logger heads with another.

Welcome to Singhamisation of Indian police. What is common in all these and more is the crying need for police reforms in India, a long neglected issue by any government of the day.

In our country, the commentariat often talks of the demand for reforms of all types – Economic reforms, labour reforms, judicial reforms, education reforms and so on. But seldom do we get to see the demand of police reforms in the same intensity. And I have always wondered why. As per a data point, roughly 9% of GDP is lost every year on account of poor law and order!  And if you remember, GST as a tax reform was introduced because it was believed that it will improve the GDP by up to 3%! And here we are talking about three times that!

In India, maintenance of law and order hangs in between the clichés of “Law and Order is a State subject” and “Law will take its own course”!  Law and Order which is one of the deliverables of the police is a state subject. States are run not just by ruling party at the centre. Few states are under the main opposition party, few by smaller opposition parties and many are ruled by regional parties. This situation exists at any given point in time. So, every party worth its salt has a stake in maintaining law and order and therefore interest in keeping the police under its thumbs.

I really don’t know when the last time a government seriously intended to initiate police reforms in the country. Even the Supreme Court directive of implementing the Prakash Singh recommendations in Prakash Singh Vs Union of India case in 2006 I believe has not been heeded to. The fact is no Indian state has fully complied with the recommendations. In irony we can say that police reforms is one subject in which all political parties are on the same page!

I believe that the cornerstone of any police reform needs to be “Independence” and “no Interference”. Unfortunately, the institution of police has been used by the ruling class as an instrument of exercising power and control. So much so that in any government the Home Minister, under whom law and order and therefore the police comes, becomes the De facto No. 2. Not the finance minister or the minister holding any other economic portfolio.  The big question is, will any party coming to power would ever give up on keeping the police under their thumb? If our armed forces can be reasonably independent though reporting to a civilian government, why not the police?

The next key focus in police reforms I believe, must be around recruitment, training and compensation. We must not forget that people in the police force have not been dropped from heaven. They are all from the same society as we are. And they read the same WhatsApp forwards as we do. So their world view is shaped and influenced in the same manner as ordinary people. And hence they have their own biases. We saw how this kind of biases come in the way of effective policing even in a developed and mature society like America.  I am talking about the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis when a police man was kneeling on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes even when Floyd was pleading for his life. The key is proper recruitment and training where one’s personal biases do not come in the way while discharging public duty.

Though policing is a highly stressful and high pressure job in India, the police are inadequately compensated. And that’s a major reason for not being able to attract bright people to join the force.  Adequate and attractive compensation will also reduce the menace of corruption that exists even at low levels. So, the combination of reformed recruitment, proper training and attractive remuneration will go a long way in the police discharging their duties in a more professional way.

Coming back to Singhamisation of police, whether films depict life or life follows films is an unending debate. The reality could be a mix of both. If you see Indian films, there was a time long ago, when they usually featured bumbling cops who will reach the scene at the end when everything was over. Then there was a phase where cops were usually of the corrupt variety who will be siding the villains.  Presently it is the Singham era, where cops are this macho super heroes and “Naan Police illa, porukki” types. They deliver justice in their own way and if that means taking law in their own hands, so be it.

And this is what we see in real life as well which is what I call the Singhamisation of the police. Incidentally, the common man in the street who is just interested in timely delivery of justice and not necessarily in the method, loves this. But the point is, if we have to prevent another Hathras or a Sathankulam, police reforms is the need of the hour and not Singhamisation.

Incidentally, Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing a bunch of IPS probationers recently, told them not to be influenced by films like Singham. After having initiated bold reforms in agriculture and labour, the time has come for Modi to take up police reforms as well. Then he doesn’t have to worry about Singhamisation of police!

NEP 2020 – Not a T20 in the making!

Two weeks ago, when I wrote a post that “Marks do matter”, I didn’t realise that a New Educational Policy (NEP) was soon going to be unveiled. The post was purely for the season.  If you haven’t read it, please read here. There was an overwhelming response to the blog with many readers agreeing to my proposition that, in the present scheme of things in India at least, marks do matter. I also understood that it is rather a grudging acknowledgement under the circumstances and not a wholehearted endorsement with glee. Most of us, having been on the rough end of the mark stick some time or the other in our lives, have been yearning for a different system of evaluation for the longest time.

Ergo, when the NEP was announced by the government last week, my primary interest was to see how it handles the “marks” conundrum. NEP has been in the works for a long while. I am aware that even among the sympathisers of BJP and Narendra Modi, there was a tinge of regret and disappointment about the government not making any progress on the education front during its first term. Frankly, I haven’t read the full policy document and have just read the highlights few times over. It is quite technical and without the domain knowledge, I haven’t managed to fully comprehend the implications of some of the proposals in the long term. But from what I read, see and hear, seems it is a well-intentioned policy framework and if followed through with meticulous execution, our country may be a different place in the next two to three decades.

Having said that, I would like to focus on few issues which bother me as far as education system in India is concerned and how this NEP tackles them. First, the issue of many education boards.

“Your daughter is in which class?

6th Std.

Which board?

CBSE. What about your son?”

This conversation must be very familiar to many. The latest class divide in urban/semi urban middle class society these days is manifested in the board of the schools in which children study. In the 70’s and 80’s, when I was growing up, this was not a talking point at all. Most of us were going to schools affiliated to State board with some going to CBSE board schools. However, post liberalisation and rise of aspirations and income levels in general, there is a clamour to put children in schools which are not State board schools. So, while CBSE and ICSE board schools are the ones which are sought after, the newest craze in town are the IB (International Board) schools. I am aware of the scorn State board students are subjected to, when they go for higher studies. The question is “Do we need different boards” that sow the seeds of a divide and discrimination in the society. Is there a case for a country wide uniform system of education whereby all students go through the same system without differentiation?

This is a tricky question to answer. At the outset, it may seem that the answer is obvious i.e. to have a uniform system that doesn’t differentiate and doesn’t end up discriminating students. In Japan, the Japanese rue the very standardised and uniform education system they have in their country. One of my Japanese friends use to say that their schools and colleges were like assembly lines. The output in terms of specifications are exactly similar because of which there is no diversity of thinking or ideas in Japan. So, the answer I believe is not in just one common board which has a standardised syllabus across the country. But continuing the existing system of different boards with a wide gap in standards and levels may not be the answer as well.

I looked at the NEP for its take on the boards. Education being in the concurrent list, first of all there cannot be a single National umbrella structure that can be implemented across the country. So, the NEP talks about the need for each board to ensure equivalence of academic standards and text books with a common core material and supplementing with local flavour and context and so on. I believe it is a via media solution to retain diversity with some commonality. In addition to this, one key point according to me, is the compensation of teachers and staff in State board schools. In order to ensure there is no discrimination in output (quality of students), there should not be discrimination in input (salary levels of staff).

The second issue is regarding the medium of instruction in schools. The NEP proposes that the medium of instruction until 5th standard and preferably till 8th standard and beyond will be preferably home language/Mother tongue/local language. It was later clarified that it is not a mandate but is left to the states to imbibe this guideline. English medium Vs regional language in today’s aspirational India is again a symbol of class divide in the society. In one of my earlier posts (Read here) I had argued that it is time to make English the common medium of language across the country. English may be a foreign language but it is the unifying language in India today. Like it or not, English has become the door opener for opportunities. While I agree that it is good to ensure a child’s proficiency with her mother tongue, making it the medium of instruction may be counterproductive.

And lastly, coming back to the “Marks system”, the NEP doesn’t seem to provide any alternatives but for changing the grading system so that the final board exam is not a make or break effort for the student. It says, “Board exams will be made easier, as they will test primarily core capacities, competencies rather than months of coaching or memorization.” It also talks about a more comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to student assessments.  This is very good in intent and I think all parents and children would be keen to see how this works in real life.

Based on what I have comprehended so far, the New Education Policy signals a clear intent to bring in a paradigm shift in education in India.  It aims for a long term directional shift and so is a test match and not a T20 in the making!  Now, the devil is in the execution.

Pic credits: The Hindu

Packaging of the Package!

In India, in the past few days, most Indians or at least the urban folks have been hooked on to the television by 4.00 p.m. every day. Ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a grand announcement of ushering in an Atmanirbhar Bharat with an economic package of Rs. 20 Lac Crore, not just the devil, hope was also in the detail. So, it was left to the finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman to announce the details that would not belie the hopes of millions of Indians.

In India today and probably the world over, if one has to depend on the media commentary to make up one’s mind on an issue, it is virtually impossible. On any topic, the tone of the commentary and its conclusion can be guessed without even reading the piece or watching the full clip, by just looking at the author’s name or the medium carrying it. These days, very rarely you get to read a piece that gives a balanced opinion on a topic, the two or more sides of it, the pros and cons and possibly the positive and negative impact.  So, even to the slew of announcements the finance minister has been making, the reactions have been on predictable lines. The pro-government media/authors have been only praising the initiatives while those opposing have only picked up holes in the announcements. Balanced commentary is increasingly becoming as oxymoron.

It is under these circumstances that I feel, any government today needs to be super-efficient in its communication, so that it has the intended impact on people.  The usually communication savvy Modi Sarkar, has been found wanting particularly in these dire times, when it is utmost critical to bring in comfort and then confidence to the public at large. I will explain why and will try my best to provide a balanced view.

  • First up, the intention of the government not to get bogged down by Covid, but use it as an opportunity to re-define strategic priorities for the country is welcome. To that extent, Modi’s speech on the 12th May, was pretty much on point. There was a vision and though delayed, a financial economic package to the tune of Rs. 20 lac crore,  which are both commendable.
  • The details of the package were to be released in the next few days which is what happened in the last few days, beginning 13th Feb and ending today.
  • The announcements do reveal that the government has done a lot of homework and that probably explains the delay in the unveiling of the package. Having said that, there has been issues with the content and form.
  • First the content.
    • The government in its wisdom chose to use this opportunity not to just announce the economic stimulus package but also address long pending reforms and amendments in laws which is appreciable.
    • Globally, there is an Anti-China mood and having a strategic game plan to take advantage of the changing winds is important. So, some of the measures announced I believe, are in that direction which augurs well for the country.
    • While few may understand that some measures are meant for short term remedy and others are meant for long term transformation, most of us cannot make the distinction.
    • It would have been better if the Government had broken down the announcement into two parts.
      • The first one, to just focus on the immediate short term stimulus/support measures that will “comfort” the ailing strata of the society. This announcement was the one which was widely and eagerly expected. So, what is in it for the MSMEs whose businesses have suffered badly, the urban and poor workers who are left without work and wages, and the farmers who have lost their income?  In this regard, some of the initiatives like the expanded MSME credit facility even without collaterals, free ration to the poor including those without ration cards and the Additional MGNREGA allocation are greatly appreciable.
      • There has been all around pressing calls for cash transfer to the poor as the panacea for the migrant crisis that has unfolded. The government’s view is that, it believed in empowerment rather than entitlement as a route to support poor at this stage. Also, there is a view that money transfer may lead to longer lines in front of liquor shops. There are no doubt, merits in these arguments. But, considering the current acute distress situation, it would have been good if, the government opted for cash transfer to Jan Dhan accounts of women for the next six months.  That would have addressed the lack of money and the alcohol problem in one bullet.
      • The second part could have been reforms and parliamentary actions that are more strategic that will give “confidence” to investors – domestic and foreign.  Muddling all these and choosing to announce major and a lot of minor initiatives together, has resulted in a problem of comprehension.
      • On each of the days of announcement, Twitter and WhatsApp groups were buzzing with more questions than answers, as to what all these actually meant the Aam admi. If the urban elite couldn’t make out that, how do we expect the poor who are expecting some immediate succour desperately from the government to comprehend what is in it for them?
      • If restricting the announcement to the top four or five big “new” initiatives would have reduced the stimulus to Rs.15 lac crore or something, so be it. That is better than creating a Shock and Awe with a huge amount and eventually leaving the public to just count the zeroes in it for the rest of the year.
  • Second the form.
    • In India, most of us suffer from what I call as the “More Points in Power point” syndrome. We feel that if there are more points in the slide, it is always better. In the corporate world, this syndrome translates itself into “More strategies”, More Key Actions”, “More priorities”, More slides, More everything!
    • In this case, the government too being a victim of this syndrome, ended up re-hashing many old initiatives, repeating stuff which have already been announced in the last budget. For example, the “One Nation One Ration Card” initiative was first announced if I am right in 2016. Stuff like reforming the Essential Commodities Act etc. have been touched upon in the past budget speeches.

The result is that, the Finance Minister ended up making her third budget speech for this year, the only difference being, it was in tranches. From the government’s point of view, this would have helped in deflecting the headlines for a week from the migrant crisis and other related bad news. But, I am not sure if the budget speech type announcements have helped in either “Comforting” the needy or building “Confidence” among the business community!

When marketing Guru Philip Kotler first talked of the P’s of marketing, he just referred to 4 P’s – Product, Price, Place and Promotion.  As marketing evolved, more P’s like Positioning, People and Packaging got added over a period of time. In the modern retail world, packaging got a lot of prominence due its influencing role at the point of sale. In today’s era of political communication too, I believe, even an economic or a stimulus package needs to be “Packaged” properly to reach its desired outcome.

Lest we forget, Narendra Modi has been the maiden recipient of the Philip Kotler Presidential Award.

Cartoon credit: Satish Acharya

Coming of age of the Indian voter and a Wake-up call for the States!

This article has been written for the news website Newslaundry and was published on the 4th of Oct, 2019. You may read the same here:

https://www.newslaundry.com/2019/11/04/a-wake-up-call-to-states-its-time-to-invest-in-good-governance-to-win-assembly-polls

The latest season in the continuous cycle of elections in India ended last week, this time the Assembly polls in Maharashtra and Haryana. The dust hasn’t quite settled since Maharashtra still hasn’t seen its next government, even after what seemed like a clear verdict in favour of a pre-poll alliance. It can’t get stranger than this!

However, a detailed look at the results of the state elections before and after the Lok Sabha polls reveals a pattern. It discloses the coming-of-age of the Indian voter. Here’s how, and why.

May 2018: Karnataka state election 

The Congress, which governed the state in the last term, received a clear verdict against the party in Karnataka. At the same time, the Bharatiya Janata Party, while emerging as the single largest party, fell short of majority. However, in the 2019 Lok Sabha poll almost a year later, the BJP got an overwhelming mandate winning 25 of the 28 seats on offer.

November 2018: Madhya Pradesh state election 

The BJP, which had helmed the state for three terms, was unseated by an anti-incumbency vote. The party was pipped by the Congress. Yet, in the May 2019 parliamentary poll just six months later, the BJP swept the state, winning 27 of the 28 seats!

November 2018: Chhattisgarh state election

Here also, the BJP was voted out by a strong “against” vote and the Congress captured the state with a decisive mandate. It’s vote share was just 33 per cent. In the May 2019 Lok Sabha election, the story was different. The BJP won nine of 11 seats with a vote share of 50.9 per cent.

November 2018: Rajasthan state election

Again, the state went against the incumbent party, the BJP, and voted the Congress to power. But in the Lok Sabha poll, the BJP swept the state with a decisive vote share of 58.47 per cent, winning 24 out of 25 seats. Even the final seat went to an ally of the BJP.

December 2018: Telangana state election

The Telangana Rashtra Samithi managed to beat anti-incumbency in the state and retained power with an overwhelming mandate. It got a three-fourth majority and won 88 of 119 seats. The Lok Sabha poll flipped this win: TRS secured only nine out of 17 seats.

May 2019: Odisha state election

The governing Biju Janata Dal returned to power with a decisive mandate, winning 111 of a total of 147 seats in the Assembly. There was no trace of anti-incumbency. In the Lok Sabha poll held simultaneously, the BJD managed to win only 12 of 21 seats. Its vote share also fell by 1.9 per cent.

October 2019: Maharashtra state election

The BJP and its ally, the Shiv Sena, secured 161 seats with a combined vote share of 42.16 per cent. As a pre-poll alliance, they managed to get a majority. This result comes six months after the Lok Sabha poll, where the same coalition had bagged 41 of the 48 seats with a comfortable vote share of 51.34 per cent. What this means is the alliance lost a vote share of 9.18 per cent in just six months!

October 2019: Haryana state election

Though the BJP emerged as the single largest party, it fell short of a majority. Only with the support of the Jannayak Janata Party could the BJP eventually form the government. Compare this with the Lok Sabha election where the BJP won all 10 seats in the state, implying it lost a vote share of almost 21.71 per cent in the Assembly election.

Only in the northeastern states of Tripura and Nagaland, where the state elections happened in February 2018, the electorate voted for the BJP alliance in both the Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.

What are voters looking for?

Voters know what they’re doing. There are different combinations: voting for the same party in state and central polls; different parties being given the mandate in the state and central polls; or the extent of mandate differing if the same party wins in both elections.

If this trend holds — which I believe it will — this augurs well for Indian democracy. The voter is sending a clear signal that she understands the issues for which she is voting in a particular election. This is different from the general commentariat opinion that voters do not know what they are voting for.

This brings us to the next section of this piece: understanding the different issues voters vote for in the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. Glancing at the results of the 2014 and 2019 general elections, here’s a quick breakdown of what, perhaps, voters are voting for in the Lok Sabha poll.

– For a face. The Lok Sabha polls are increasingly becoming presidential. Voters like to know the face of the prime minister they’re voting for. If parties do not project a clear prime ministerial face, they start with a handicap.

– For a party whose leader is seen to be strong, decisive and communicative.

– For a party’s stance on nationalistic issues related to India’s defence policies, the way we deal with our neighbours, the way we conduct our foreign policy, and so on.

– For a party’s overarching welfare programmes related to health, education and other issues.

– For an overall image of an honest, non-corrupt and functional government.

On the flipside, a voter clearly expects their state government to deliver on day-to-day issues like living conditions, infrastructure and delivery of the Centre’s welfare programmes.

Hence my hypothesis that the emerging voting pattern must serve as a wakeup call to the states to double down on governance issues. Even if a party receives an overwhelming mandate in the Lok Sabha polls, it does not translate to a resounding mandate in an Assembly poll unless it gets its act together on delivery of governance. States can no longer ride on the charisma of a central leader if they haven’t done their bit on the governance front.

It’s also time the commentariat shifts its focus and scrutinises the governance levels of states. This means analysing state budgets and not just the Union budget, and regularly evaluating a state’s financial health. It implies comparing the appetite for reforms within states, not just at a central level.

I firmly believe next generation reforms, which can make a difference to the economy, lie at the doorsteps of our states. Labour reforms, DISCOM reforms, land acquisition reforms, PDS reforms, agricultural reforms — multiple issues related to the daily livelihood of the poor are in the hands of states. It’s time chief ministers wake up to this and invest in running key ministries at a state level that deliver governance. If the results of the last few Assembly elections haven’t served as a wake-up call to the states — nothing will.

Howdy Economy?

“Howdy” is in the air in India these days! With Prime Minister Narendra Modi set to address the global Indian audience from the NRI platform at Houston, which has been branded as “Howdy Modi”, this American slang has got into the Indian vocabulary!  But, in India, ever since the 1st Quarter poor GDP results were out, the commentariat has been asking just one question “Howdy Economy?” Because, Indian economy is believed to be in ICU where the Chief Doctor was not giving much attention!

In India, the time tested tradition has been to undertake reforms when there is a crisis. Economist and Author Shankkar Aiyyar explains this beautifully in his book – “Accidental India” with back stories behind every single historic economic initiative of post independent India. The bottom line being, we take such drastic steps only when push comes to shove!

It looks like the latest decision of the government to slash corporate taxes drastically in one go from 30% to 22% is one such initiative which will have a lasting positive impact on the economy but which was taken when the answer to Howdy Economy question was very, very feeble. Naysayers notwithstanding, simplifying the tax structure, eliminating the myriad exemptions and having a reasonable low rate is a welcome move. It will make the industry competitive, make it more profitable, attract both foreign and domestic investments thereby have a trickle-down effect on the economy.

I saw some commentary that, this is more of a long term treatment and not an answer to the short term woes. Indeed yes. There is no silver bullet that can get the economy growing at 8% and more. It needs a combination of measures that are short term and long term. My belief is that, irrespective of the condition of the economy, a simple and low corporate tax structure was anyway required to grow the economy from the 8% levels we were couple of years ago, to 10%. With the economy struggling at 5% levels, the crisis like situation galvanised the government into action. Finally, the progressive reduction in corporate tax from 30% to 25% which was promised by the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the 2015 budget has been executed by his protégé Nirmala Sitharaman. She has done it in one stroke and has gone a step further reducing the rate to 22%.

While the reduction in corporate taxes is a supply side reform, steps are required in the demand side as well. With the transition to the GST regime, the government has less flexibility to announce stimulus like in the past where excise duty or Sales tax cuts used to be announced to boost demand and consumption. In the present GST regime, the GST council has to take a call on the same and make those adjustments. Some of the announcements on GST rate reduction on hotel tariffs are in this direction.

With the reduction of corporate taxes, there is a loud clamour for reduction on the personal taxes front. Experts keep saying that this will put more money in the pockets of the salaried class which will make them spend more. I am not too sure of this. In the past, whenever there has been some personal income tax slab changes and effective rate reduction, we hardly came to know of the savings or reduction. And I don’t think anyone then consciously went to spend the money saved! Of course, it is more of a mood lifter and gives a feel good effect to the salaried class. Beyond that, I am not sure if a personal income tax rate reduction will boost the consumption in the short run which is what experts claim!  Nevertheless, as I have opined in the past, simplification and reduction of tax rates is essential.  This will also remove the peeve that there is now too much gap between the corporate and personal income tax rates!

One positive signal from the last few weeks is that the Government is listening.  In today’s world, any government of the day can choose to ignore the mainstream media. However, it cannot afford to ignore popular opinion which manifests in social media. As someone said, in India, we have as many economists as we have cricket experts! But the good part is, thanks to social media, apart from the secluded voice of the commentariat, there is an opening for “People like us” to give our opinions.

Ever since the tax cut announcements, there has been much discussion and debate as to whether it is right, whether it is sufficient, whether it is too little – too late, if it is pandering to corporates and so on. And if things can turn around quickly? With the festive season coming up in India, it is all about signalling and lifting the spirits and mood. When there is bad news which usually reaches us through the media, even if we are not directly connected to it, we all start talking about it, isn’t it? I refer to this as the economy suffering from “Headlines syndrome”! So similarly, when there is positive cheer emanating from even a single but important decision like this, it has a ripple effect. So, I hope this corporate tax cut move leads to such positive ripple effect in the coming days! And the answer to “Howdy Economy?” becomes loud and cheerful in the coming days!

Postscript:  In my earlier posts, I had said,

As a purely short term stimulus, any capacity building in manufacturing industry by way of new factories, expansion of plants,.. should be provided with tax relief”

And

With respect to taxation, “In simple terms, the mantra should be lower tax rates with no or very few genuine exemptions

Glad both these found resonance with the government and have been implemented!

Resorts as the 1st resort!!!

How many still remember Jaspal Bhatti? If you are from the Doordarshan generation just like I am, you will not have any problem in recalling him. Jaspal Singh Bhatti was the 1st known political satirist on Indian Television. Through his shows Ulta Pulta and Flop show in the 80’s and 90’s, Bhatti took pot shots on what was happening around us in the political scene and we eagerly looked forward to his shows. A clip from one of those shows where Bhatti dons the role of a “Buyer and Seller of MLAs” for political parties who lose MLAs to defection, landed as a WhatsApp forward few days ago. Someone recalled that episode and circulated it to remind us of Bhatti’s foresight looking at what is happening in Karnataka and Goa in the last few days! If Bhatti were to be living amidst us today, I am not sure if he would be proud or feel ironical of his prescience!

In India, what’s happening these days make a mockery of the famed “Anti Defection Bill” which was introduced in the late 80’s by Rajiv Gandhi to put an end to the Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram routine that was common in those times! For some time, one felt that we found an anti-dote to defections once for all. But then, we Indians are reputed to find innovative solutions to any problem. So soon, a loop hole in the Anti Defection law was found and exploited. Which is – the bill only prevented individuals from defecting but did not mind splits and mergers of parties with 1/3rd of members! So Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram has now given way to “Aaya Toli, Gaya Toli”! Or like what is happening in Karnataka, legislators just resign as MLAs bringing down the strength of the house and thereby of the party/front in majority!

What is common among Goa and Karnataka? These are states where the polls threw up a fractured verdict.  No single party got an absolute majority. Even a pre-poll arrangement could not garner majority. A government could be formed only by cobbling up a post-poll alliance! In a democracy, there are inherent problems with such post-poll alliances. The parties don’t face the electorate with such a premise. And when voters cast their votes, they for sure do not expect those who fought bitterly against each other during the campaign to come together as allies and conjure up a government! This is exactly what happened in both Goa and Karnataka!

The tamasha doesn’t end there after the Government is formed, as we have been seeing in Karnataka! Every other day we find the Government on the throes of a crisis of survival. Governance be damned because it is a question of “Return on Investment” (ROI) for many! One group is not complaining though! The resort owners! They don’t have to worry about their ROI! Every now and then a political party suffering from a threat of group defections hordes their MLAs to resorts in other states, usually the friendly ones, to firewall them from offers and counter offers. Horse trading is the term used for this in popular lexicon. Frankly I feel that it is an insult to horses! Another rhyming word though a bit unparliamentary would make a better fit as we are talking about seats and chairs here!

“Resort politics” which was invented originally by Devi Lal of Haryana in the 80’s has now been internalised perfectly by most of the parties. Hotel Viceroy in Hyderabad became a sort of a tourist attraction after Chandrababu Naidu used it to house his MLAs during the infamous coup he staged against N.T.Rama Rao. What does it speak of the MLAs who are supposed to be people’s representatives who allow themselves to be hoarded from one city to another and lodged in resorts?

It is not very difficult to imagine the trade-offs in these situations. In Goa, 3 of those who defected from the Congress have been made ministers with one – Chandrakant Kavlekar, even being made the Deputy CM of the state! Not to forget that he was accused of running shady businesses and land deals not so long ago by BJP! Similarly, the MLAs who have resigned in Karnataka would not have done so without Quid pro quo deals! What does all this say of Democracy? We cannot claim to be one of the world’s largest and best performing democracy by just routinely conducting free and fair elections! Elections are of course important through which, people get to elect their own representatives. However, Democracy I believe, is not just about this aspect. It should also be about deriving desired outcomes from the electoral process! From this point of view I feel our current democratic process is flawed and need serious reforms!

First up, the Anti – Defection law needs a re-look. If a candidate has gone to the voter and obtained votes as “A” party’s candidate he should not be allowed to defect to party “B” after becoming a legislator. Period. Similarly an “Independent” candidate should clearly indicate his allegiance to a front or his true non-allegiance to any front before the elections based on which he should seek votes from people. Once the candidate does that and becomes a legislator he should not be allowed to switch allegiance post the elections. In short, there can be Zero defections once an election is over.

Second, which I have written before as well (Read the post here) is on the veracity of “Post poll alliances” in a democracy. I sincerely feel that the concept of Post poll alliances is actually a fraud being inflicted on the voting public. More often than not, even the so called liberal commentators are fine with governments being formed through post-poll deals under the premise of “Politics is the art of the possible”! I really don’t know in which context Otto Von Bismarck, the German statesman made this statement! But it has been imbibed very well in Indian politics. Under the current circumstances, I would like to make a small change to that philosophy to read as “Politics is the art of the plausible”! Plausibility adds that credibility bit.

If the above are implemented, it will put an end to this tamasha of “Resort politics”! It was George Bernard Shaw who famously said, “Politics is the last resort of the scoundrels!” If he was alive, Jaspal Bhatti in his own inimitable style would have made it sound like – “Resorts are the first resort of politicians”!

Postscript: The term “Horse trading” owes its origin apparently to the notorious shrewdness of Horse traders who are involved in long drawn mostly dis-honest negotiations while buying and selling horses! (Courtesy: TOI)

Image courtesy: Asianetnews

Agenda for Modi 2.0!

Dear Mrs. Sitharaman,

First things first. Congratulations on becoming the finance minister of the country. Ever since you have taken over, there has been a flurry of unabated, unsolicited advice on what you should do and should not, in the upcoming budget. I was extremely reluctant to add to that already long list. But then your extremely gracious and earnest tweet the other day, welcoming all suggestions and inputs changed my mind.  Being from Trichy as well, I could see the “Trichy Tehzeeb” in that request!  Hence this piece, with my wish list not just from the budget but overall from the Modi Sarkar 2.0 from an economic agenda point of view.

I am not an Economist. I am just a keen and informed observer of Indian politics and a well-wisher of our country. So, my points may or may not stand the scrutiny of economists but hopefully will pass muster with the readers of this post.   I promise that I am not going to repeat a lot of stuff which has already been suggested by the erudite in their pieces.  So, here we go:

  • First up, the positive effects of implementation of GST and the kicking off of several infrastructural projects from the 1st term will start bearing fruits in the coming 2/3 years. So, I suggest that the 5 year term till May 2024 be divided into 2 parts – First 3 years till 2022 and the second 2 years till 2024. Take all the tough decisions in the 1st part and use the 2nd to stabilise things.
  • Second, in Modi 1.0, there have been quite a few hits but some misses too. In the 2nd term, on the back of a solid mandate, Team Modi should play on the front foot with confidence, while at the same time leaving alone deliveries outside the stumps and negotiating short pitched deliveries and bouncers with alacrity. In governance parlance, this means implementing even the not so populist decisions with confidence and not getting muddled in unwanted distractions.
  • Third, please request the economic ministries to come up with a list of things to be done to rev up the economy which is stuttering. Divide this list into 3.
    • 1 – Low hanging fruits which don’t need legislative backing
    • 2 – Which need bills to be amended, passed in the parliament
    • 3 – which need the states to take action

Get going on this list systematically. Have a target of 60 days to accomplish everything in the 1st list. This will give a clear message to all stake holders that this government is not the one to rest in its electoral success laurels!

  • Fourth, you are now in Japan and there is a lot we could learn from the Japanese in terms of going about things. One of the things I learnt from working in a Japanese company is “Prioritisation”! As Indians, we tend to focus on 100 things at the same time and spreading ourselves extremely thin. This was one grudge I had on Modi 1.0 which embarked upon so many projects simultaneously like Make in India, Skill India, Stand up India, Digital India, Smart City project, Ujwala programme and so on. If you closely measure the success, it is only the programmes which had focus like Ujwala, Rural electrification, Rural housing that met with success. In Modi 2.0, I would suggest that the Government takes up a maximum of 2 or 3 projects at a time, focus on the delivery with finite timelines and then move on to the next set of 2/3 ideas. This is what Japanese do.
  • Fifth, in India we have been talking of linking outcomes to outlays. But seldom has the same been acted upon. So, in the coming budget presentation on the 5th of July, please do not announce plain outlays but outlays that can be linked to quantifiable  outcomes.
  • Sixth, we usually see that in the budget, there are many outlays which are just carried forward year after year with a % increment or a % cut. For example, since 2013, money from Central Budget has been allocated to Nirbhaya fund to support initiatives towards ensuring women safety. One really doesn’t know how this fund is being utilised and after 5 years what this fund has achieved. This is just one example. In every budget, there are many sundry allocations like this. Please review item-wise outlays in the last 3 budgets,  respective outcomes achieved and allocate outlays in the coming budgets only if they make sense.
  • Seventh, considering the state of the economy, there is a need to mobilise resources to generate income and keep fiscal deficit under check. As Prime Minister Modi has been talking of “Minimum Government and Maximum Governance” one way of mobilising resources is by Government exiting many businesses that are no longer strategic in nature and monetising those assets. In Modi 1.0, in every budget, we had an item called “Proceeds from disinvestment” and this was achieved by making some PSUs like LIC pick up shares from the disinvested PSUs. During NDA-1 under Vajpayee, there was a clear focus on “Real” Disinvestment with a full-fledged ministry and a determined minister like Arun Shourie doggedly pursuing it. UPA did away with this and since then Modi 1.0 included, there has been no serious disinvestment in the country. I suggest that Modi 2.0 take this up seriously. A functional ministry named as “Monetisation of PSU Assets” (since disinvestment is seen as a bad word) should be formed. I also add that the proceeds from this monetisation be parked in a separate account and used for welfare schemes. By this, any criticism of the move can be countered by demonstrating that the proceeds of the same are being used for social welfare. A creative way needs to be found for accounting like this.
  • Eighth, in Modi 1.0, there was a big push towards infrastructure projects like highways and roads which was really commendable. The same should be continued with additional vigour. However, as admitted by Nitin Gadkari the pace of the projects could have been faster but for complex land acquisition issues. This is a big issue even today. In the 1st term, after initial belligerence, the government chickened out of the much needed amendments on the Land Acquisition bill. I remember Modi taking this up with rigour in 2014 basically because all the states identified certain provisions in the existing Land Acquisition bill as impediments for timely closure of infra projects.  Since the states are equal stake holders in this issue, please have discussions with a fresh outlook, strike a consensus and pass the amendments to the bill smoothly in both houses of the parliament. Renaming this as “Land Partnership bill” or something like that instead of the negative sounding Land Acquisition bill will help too to remove the negative connotation around this!
  • Ninth, taxation in India is still complex. GST implementation was a landmark Tax reform. I am sure there is a road map towards further simplifying the same with reduced tax slabs and simplifying procedures. Now, in this term please focus on Direct taxes. I hope that the panel working on overhaul of this will submit their recommendations quickly and your government should adopt the same ASAP. In simple terms, the mantra should be lower tax rates with no or very few genuine exemptions. Some of the exemption clauses we have are weird and defy all logic. For example the current clauses we have for LTA exemptions for salaried. Applicable for 2 years in a block of 4 that being calculated from the year 1986 and so on!!! Someone needs to do a Zero based hard look at all the existing exemptions for personal and corporate taxation and do away with most of them which don’t make sense in this day and age!
  • Tenth and the last one. On the 5th July when you leave your office for the parliament to present the budget, your team will hand over a brand new brown brief case which will have the budget speech. You and your team will pose with that brief case for the cameras and then you will read out the budget speech from the bunch of documents. And here’s what I suggest. Please, please do away with this brief case and the papers. Instead, amble along in style, pose for cameras with your hands “free” and as you rise to present the budget in the parliament hall, download the speech from the ministry’s secure server and project it in a large screen. Doing away with the rambling, long speech that would be just uber cool, while at the same time giving a push towards Prime Minister’s “Digital India” dream!

Pic Courtesy: Livemint

From Quota politics to a “Quota for politics”!

In India, they say the wheels of the Government usually move very slowly. Not always. When there is a political will, the same wheels can attain humongous velocity just like how it happened few weeks ago. The Cabinet approved a proposal for introducing a 10% quota for economically weaker section of the society on the 7th Jan. And by 9th Jan, the bill to amend the constitution for the same was passed by both the houses of the parliament! The quota bill was done and dusted in flat 3 days!

During the debate over the quota bill, almost all parties mouthed the usual platitudes – not on the proposal per se but on the timing. The coming together of the ruling and opposition for this cause demonstrated another aspect of “Unity in Diversity” in India. That is, on the issue of reservations which has high impact on electoral fortunes, almost all parties think alike. Herein lies the irony.

 “A quota for the economically deprived sections of the society” sounds logical and seems a significant forward step in our country which for a long time has been having quotas based on caste. As a step which doesn’t differentiate based on religion… it is high on optics.  But then, as they say the deadly devil lies in the details. This 10% is over and above the existing 50% as mandated by the Supreme Court for caste based reservations (with the exception of Tamil Nadu which has 69% reservations).

Before venturing into another quota based on economic class, I think that there was a need for an assessment of how the caste based reservations have performed in India in the so many decades since they were introduced, against the desired objectives. Based on what I have seen in Tamil Nadu in very close quarters, I have no doubt in my mind that the caste based reservations have helped in emancipation of a generation of people. Thanks to the quotas, many of the deprived sections could get access to decent higher education and then jobs. Which in turn have helped a generation of families to be part of mainstream India. This could not have been possible by another poverty alleviation programme, I believe. Having said that, the important issue to define now is how we will close the tap on this affirmative action.

We all understand that the originally envisaged time frame of 10 years for caste based reservations in India is impractical. Now that we crossed 68 years with reservations which typically means it has benefited two generations, where are we in terms of social equality and equity? Do we know? Do we measure? Who will bell the cat in terms of suggesting the sunset clause?  Do the offspring of those first two generations of people who could get access to higher education and government jobs need the same level of quotas as their parents and grandparents? In addition to quotas, what else is required for bringing down the class divide which still exist in the society? These are few important questions which arise.

The second issue is, the definition of the economically weak for the purpose of this bill. The provisions like a household income of under Rs. 8 lacs or owning less than 5 hectares of land seems to be extremely liberal when you look at all angles possible and government’s own definitions in other contexts.  In one stroke, above 95% of the populace has been covered under this ambit!  So, I join the naysayers who question the effectiveness of such a quota. From the total population, if you remove those who are already beneficiaries under the earlier quota regime (roughly 70% of the population), this new 10% quota is applicable for the economically needy among the balance 30% population.

The third issue is, there are different points of view if this will finally stand judicial scrutiny. As per the Government, the 50% cap was only meant for “Caste based reservation quota” while there are others who say that the cap applies to all reservations!

Finally, Affirmative action by definition means policy intervention for favouring individuals who are known to have been discriminated for various reasons in the past. Will economically deprived but not marginalised by caste, come under the category of those who were discriminated in the past? While the concept of helping those economically deprived is indeed noble, why not provide scholarships for higher education and assistance for business ventures instead of quotas?

You can question our netas on their intellect but we cannot under-estimate their political instincts at all. Not surprising that almost all the parties voted for this quota bill in both the houses of the parliament.

In the upcoming election season, the ruling NDA will certainly go to town for ushering this new direction on quota politics in India. However, even in the Hindi belt, I feel it will have minimum resonance. The opposition by playing ball on this, has in a sense blunted the political rewards what the BJP/NDA can reap. Imagine the situation had the Congress/UPA and others had opposed this move. So, all have played their moves smartly.

The bottom line is, a quota for economically deprived is as I said, provides for excellent optics and is sound politics. I do feel, like how the Supreme Court has put a cap on the quotas on reservation, we should have a cap on the quota for playing politics for every political party when in power. We cannot expect them to stop playing politics completely but, what about a Quota for politics?

Cartoon courtesy; Times Of India