March 31 marked the fifth anniversary of the Right to Education Act (RTE Act) in . This legislation was passed to implement section 21A of the Indian Constitution, which promises free and compulsory education to all children between the ages of 6 to 14.

The anniversary of RTE Act was an occasion for a copious amount of commentary. Nearly all of it was filled with quantitative details such as the total amount of children out of school, the number of dropouts and the paucity of teachers, lack of buildings, toilets and drinking water. But few paid attention to qualitative aspects of the RTE Act.

India’s population is of continental dimensions. Its 1.25 billion people exceed the total population of and North America. The divergences, differences and disparities among Indians are too well-known to bear repetition. In this complex population, the RTE Act pertains to the education of approximately 250 million children. This is a stupendous task that requires considerable expenditure. But the RTE Act is rather vague on where the money will come from.

Furthermore, the objectives of the RTE Act are unclear and often unspecified. India is a young nation and a key objective of education should be the inculcation of a national identity. Making children feel they are Indian instead of members of a caste, tribe or religion would be a worthy goal.

The RTE Act must also aim to increase a child’s confidence in their own culture. During rule, the education system inculcated a sense of inferiority in Indians. This persists today. Indians crave the recognition and approbation of the white man. Very few know their own history and many are ashamed to speak their own language.

India has a rich history and culture that goes back many millennia. It has much to be proud of and even more to pass on to future generations. India is a plural nation that is home to all of the major world religions. The virtues of tolerance that have been a hallmark of Indian civilization should be part of the country’s education.

Indian women still do not have equality. Selective abortion, discrimination and rape are dark spots on society. Therefore, it is imperative that India’s education system pushes for equality between men and women.

© Shutterstock

There are two other goals the RTE Act should set for the nation. First, education must be compulsory till the age of 18. In today’s world, education cannot stop at the age of 14. Second, literacy in India must be of the standard defined by the , which sees literacy as “the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential and to participate fully in their community and wider society.”

Wait Before Beginning Vocational Training

Many Indians want to introduce vocational training as part of compulsory education till the age of 14. This has two problems. First, children under the age of 14 are too young to be trained as carpenters, plumbers or electricians. Second, this is no time to curb their ambitions and aspirations. These days, we do not expect children to start working at 14 years old. This is a time when they need to learn and explore. Assigning them professions too early would limit their exposure and potential.

It goes without saying that education should not be mere book learning. Extra-curricular activities such as learning music, painting and sport are highly important for developing the body and the mind. Furthermore, these might lead to children discovering their aptitude and pursuing relevant vocations or professions in the future.

If India adopts the above objectives and implements the RTE Act vigorously and sincerely, then in about 20 years, the country will have a much better educated population below the age of 35. It will be capable of thinking and acting constructively, making governance easier. In addition, people will depend less on the government because they will have better skills and abilities.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:  / ��/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your  is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post India Must Focus on Education appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Apart from the unsuitability of the present Indian constitution in providing a transparent, fully democratic governing system, there is another serious defect with the present system of government. At the time of independence, it was decided that the laws already in vogue prior to independence would continue to be in force until they were replaced by new laws.

British Colonialism’s Footprint

These included such basic laws as the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Police Act, Indian Railways Act, Indian Posts and Telegraphs Act, Land Acquisition Act etc. These were all devised by the British Parliament to perpetuate colonial rule in India and to exploit natural and human resources of India for the benefit of the British people. Neither in letter, nor in spirit were these laws compatible with a free and democratic nation.

Unfortunately, many of these laws with minor amendments are still in force. All political parties, when in power, have used these laws selectively to harass their political opponents and exploit the resources of the country for the private benefit of the supporters of the party in power. The Land Acquisition Act has been misused in almost all states to grab land to benefit private entrepreneurs.

A recent instance of the misuse of the Indian Penal Code, which was widely criticized, was the arrest of a cartoonist for alleged sedition through his cartoons. Over the years, there have been many instances of police being used to harass people. All this has been possible only because of the existing laws, which as aforementioned, were intended to perpetuate colonial rule in India and to exploit all the resources of the country for the benefit of the rulers.

There is therefore an urgent need to completely rewrite all of India’s fundamental laws to be in consonance with a free, democratic, sovereign nation, where several freedoms are guaranteed to the people. India’s judicial system needs to be radically reorganized to deliver affordable and quick justice to the common man. The present system is protracted, expensive, and because of the language used in higher law courts, incomprehensible to the common man. If India reaches a transparent, responsible, responsive, fair and just governing system, people would be willing and happy to cooperate with the government in every way. The present environment of widespread agitations and protests would disappear, and a peaceful and stable society could be ensured.

A Flawed Electoral System

Even India’s election system is flawed because it does not ensure that the elected person has the backing of a majority of eligible voters in a constituency. Over the last sixty years, during which elections have been held under the Indian constitution (the first general election was held in 1952), on an average, hardly 60-65% of voters exercised their franchise. Depending on the constituency, as well as popularity of various candidates, the voting percentage could be as low as 45% or as high as 75-80% of eligible voters. The average for the nation as a whole has generally been, as mentioned above, 60-65% — while 35-40% do not participate in the voting because they mostly feel all candidates are equally bad, irrespective of the parties on whose behalf they are standing for election. There are usually no straight contests with just two candidates in any constituency.

Usually, there are five to six candidates per constituency — some of whom belong to National Parties like Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, and the two Communist Parties. In addition, in almost all states, there are now strong regional parties who also set up candidates. There are also some candidates who do not belong to any party and are known as independents. Thus, the 60-65%  votes that are polled are divided thinly among many contestants. In most constituencies, a person who wins 25-30% of the votes gets elected. In other words, a person getting 15-20 votes out of every hundred eligible voters gets elected and claims to represent the entire constituency. This surely is not a very desirable feature of a country claiming to be a democracy.

A New System

Many political analysts have pointed out this defect with India’s electoral system and, as an alternative, have recommended a voting system called proportional representation by single transferable vote. This is a very cumbersome process that is not easily understood by most voters, and counting of votes may take a very long time.

Instead, a modified system of transferable vote is practiced in many European nations. A number of candidates stand for election and a preliminary vote is taken. Then the two candidates who have received the highest number of votes are asked to face the electorate about three weeks after the preliminary election in what is known as a runoff election. One of them must poll more than one-half of the votes cast. Otherwise, a re-election is held between the same two candidates until one of them receives one vote more than 50% votes cast. This way, those who voted for other candidates in the first election will transfer their allegiance to one of the two leading candidates. There is also a need to ensure that most of the electorate participates in the runoff election.

The elected candidate would then at least have the support of 50% of the participating voters instead of 15-20%. This will eliminate the present system of vote bank politics. Candidates would have to be chosen who have a very wide acceptance and not of a small group. The present election system has resulted in parties wooing the dominant sub caste or religious minority who may form about 15-20% of the voters.  Candidates are chosen by almost all parties from these groups, and appeals for votes are made on the basis of these group identities — rather than on the basis of manifestos. The present system has led to the perpetuation of the caste system and has resulted in further dividing the voters into sub castes.

For a country of 1.2 billion people to be a transparent, fully democratic republic where the voice of the people is heard, the present constitution, the fundamental laws and the election system,  all need to be completely recast. There is no parallel to India, and the country’s public have to invent and innovate a democratic system on their own. Transparency and participatory democracy are possible in India, only through large scale decentralization of power and responsibility down to the district and Panchayat level.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Governing India (Part 2/2) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

India is a country of continental proportions. Although it does not occupy a very large area, it is presently the second most populous nation in the world, next to China. If projections are to be believed, by 2050, it will be the most populated country on earth. The present population of India is around 1.2 billion, which is larger than the total population of Europe, the United States, and Canada put together. Moreover, the differences, divergences, and disparities among the people of various parts of India are comparable to the various European nations. Several major languages are spoken by millions of people. All the important religions of the world have followers by the million in India.  Climate, dressing patterns, and food habits widely vary. The Indian Constitution unfortunately does not take this situation into account.

Partitioning India

It might be recalled that, prior to the partition of India, there were vigorous discussions between the British Government and the Indian political leadership — starting with the Cripp’s mission in 1941 until April 1947. The last round of talks were held between Indian leaders and Lord Louis Mountbatten, the governor general, from January to April 1947. By then, the British Government had announced that they would quit India by the end of June 1948. They also announced that if there was a consensus, they would transfer power as per the agreement. Otherwise, power would be transferred to individual provinces with the Indian states being ruled by local rajas and nawabs.

By April 1947, the governor general came to the conclusion that there was no possibility of agreement between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. The congress was opposed to partitioning the country, and the Muslim League insisted on a separate independent state consisting of Muslim-majority provinces. Therefore, the governor general called off all further negotiations and went to London for consultations with the British Government. After several weeks there, he returned to India and announced at the beginning of June that the country would be partitioned: power would be transferred to the Indian National Congress in India and to the Muslim League in Pakistan, and the British would withdraw from India by August 15, 1947 — a mere ten weeks from the time of announcement.

In light of demands by the Muslim League for the division of India, and similar demands of independence for Sikhs in Punjab and some of the tribal groups in the north-east, as well as calls for autonomy by the provinces, negotiations were generally based on two assumptions:

1. The entire subcontinent, which was under British rule, would remain united as one nation.
2. To allay the fears of various minority groups, the country’s constitution would provide for a weak centre which would deal with only subjects of common interest: defense, external affairs, currency, communications, and the provinces would retain all other subjects concerning governance and administration.

However, once partition was announced, leaders of the truncated nation (which was designated as the successor to the earlier British colony and hence named India), including Nehru, Patel, Azad and others, opted in favor of a strong centre and weak provinces. They were afraid that too much autonomy for the provinces might lead to further vivisection of the country. It was for this very reason that the Indian National Congress, which was earlier in favor of creating provinces on the basis of language such as Andhra, went back on its promise, fearing that such division of the country into linguistic states may also lead to demands for independence.

Therefore, when the constitution was finally framed, it opted for a strong centre and weak states.  Some of the subjects, which were originally assigned to the states such as education, were later moved to the concurrent list which meant that the centre could also lay down education policy in the states. The centre retained control of most of the resources, both natural and financial, and reduced the states to a client status. More than 60 years of operating the Indian constitution has brought out several important defects to shine.

Centralized Administration

First and foremost, the administration is highly centralized with almost every important subject dealing with individual citizens being vested — either solely or jointly — with the centre. In a country of 1.2 billion people, such a concentration of power in the centre’s hands is not only undesirable, but it renders decision making quite opaque.

Transparency would be possible only if decision making is highly decentralized. In this context, it should be noted that even states have large populations comparable to, or in excess of, many nations of Europe.

It is necessary to decentralize administration down to the level of districts. With about 700 districts in the country, the average population of a district is approximately 1.8 million. In fact, there are districts with populations in excess of 3.5 to 4 million, which is comparable to the populations of whole nations in Europe and South America. Transparency in decision making will pave the way for the elimination of corruption. It will also ensure that the administration is responsive to local needs of the population.

Too Many Constituents

Even India’s representative institutions like the Lok Sabha and Legislation Assemblies are not able to effectively represent the large sized constituencies. On average, a member of Lok Sabha represents more than 2.2 million people, of whom about 1.4 million will be voters. If we compare this to an MP representing around 100,000 people in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the task for Indian MPs to represent such a large population is near impossible. Even at the state level there is one Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) for 500,000 in Uttar Pradesh. Thus, even India’s MLA’s are not able to really represent and address the problems of all the people in their constituency. Real democracy will not be possible unless, once again, we have a highly decentralized system of governance.

Uniformed Policy

Reference has already been made to the wide variations, divergences, and disparities among the different states of the union.  Even historically, the east, west, and south of India came under the influence of the western liberal ideas nearly a century before the rest of the country. This is reflected in the general attitude of people to various social issues.

In light of this, it is difficult, if not impossible, to enunciate and implement a uniformed policy effecting the people of different regions. Whether it is Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, the National Rural Health Mission, or any other such scheme, its applicability in different states of the union is not the same. There are not only regional disparities but also different regional priorities and sometimes conflicts of interest between neighboring states. All these problems once again point to the need for decentralization.

Regional interests and priorities being different have given rise to regional political parties all over the country. Even national parties like the Indian National Congress, the BJP, and communists have been reduced to regional parties with strong presences in certain states, while being completely wiped out in others. This has led to the fragmentation of Lok Sabha where nearly 40 regional and national parties are represented.

A coalition government has became inevitable under these circumstances; while such coalitions manage bare majorities in the Lok Sabha. This has led to small partners of a coalition holding the government to ransom and dictating to them whether a given policy should be adopted. The rise of regional parties and the formation of coalition governments was not envisaged by the architects of the Indian constitution. But given the size of the populations in the states, their diversity and divergences, it was inevitable that regional interests and priorities would be different and even conflicting. A highly centralized administration cannot cater to such differences. This is reflected in the way parliament is functioning or not functioning with regional interests in conflict with national policy.

It should be realized that Indian democracy is unique in the world. Trying to build a government of the people, by the people and for 1.2 billion people of diverse languages, cultures, religions, and so on has not been easy. There is no parallel to the Indian democracy from which we can draw lessons. It is left to Indians to invent and innovate a system of government at the centre, and states that reflect the desires and aspirations of people around the country. Strong states with a client centre that only deal with subjects of common interest is the best way to ensure democratic unity in diversity. Even within the states, power should devolve down to the district and panchayat level. An entirely new Indian constitution has to be devised. The current one is certainly not suited for a sovereign, independent, and democratic nation of 1.2 billion people.

*Read the final part of “” on June 3.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Governing India (Part 1/2) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There is a general impression doing the rounds and assiduously circulated by interested politicians and agitators, that Mahatma Gandhi undertook a number of fasts unto death to press his demand for the independence of India. There is nothing more distant from truth than this belief. Two things have to be made clear about Gandhiji’s fasts. Except for one fast in the early thirties before independence and another one undertaken at Calcutta immediately after independence, all his other fasts were for a limited period (mostly 21 days). They were more in the nature of self purification and meditation due to his failure to guide his followers in the true path of strict nonviolence. Secondly, they were for a limited period with the assurance given to the public as well as the government that it was definitely not his intention to die; and if ever a fast threatened to end his life he would give up the fast immediately. By sheer will power and moral force he survived every such fast successfully. One must also add that none of his fasts were carried out in a public place like the Ramlila Grounds with lots of crowds raising slogans. They were undertaken either in a prison where he might have been incarcerated at that point in time or in a friend’s house if he was a free man. There was never any demand attached to the fast or to make it a condition to give up the fast.

As an example of Gandhiji’s fasts, I would like to mention his very first fast undertaken in 1922. The “satyagraha” movement was at its peak all over the country. Thousands of Congress volunteers were in jail including leaders like Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad and others. At that time, in a small town called Chouri Chaura in United Provinces (the present U.P), a very peaceful procession of congress volunteers passing by a Police Station was brutally beaten up by the local police. The volunteers lost their temper, chased the policemen back into the police station, locked the doors and set fire to the station. About 25 policemen were burnt alive. When Gandhiji heard of this event, he became very saddened and immediately called off the entire movement. People were stunned and could not understand why one little event of violence in a whole country should be taken so seriously. Gandhiji replied that he did not want independence obtained by such violence, and declared that people were not yet fit for independence. He then undertook a fast for five days, spent the time in prayer and meditation to atone for his failure in leading the people properly to agitate in a totally nonviolent fashion.

All subsequent fasts were also for similar reasons. So far as the first fast unto death undertaken by the Mahatma, it was in the early thirties. Gandhiji was totally opposed to the proposal by the British Government of reserving a few seats in the assemblies for the depressed classes (as they were called then), and the candidates and voters to be confined to these classes. Gandhiji saw in it an attempt by the government to divide the Hindu Society. They had already made such an arrangement of separate electorates for Muslims and now they wanted to create further divisions among Indians and thereby perpetuate their rule in the country. The government, however, agreed to consider any other proposal for the reservation of seats for the depressed classes which might be agreed upon by the Hindu society including the depressed classes. Gandhiji was able to convince many of the depressed class leaders with his ideas but was unable to do so with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. That was when Gandhiji undertook his fast unto death.

Initially, Dr. Ambedkar refused to yield or have any discussion with Gandhiji on the matter. As Gandhiji’s health started deteriorating, intense pressure was exerted upon Dr. Ambedkar to negotiate with Gandhiji by members of the depressed classes themselves apart from the general public. Finally, an accord was arrived at whereby the depressed classes had seats reserved in the assemblies proportional to their population; candidates would be restricted to those classes but voting would be done by all eligible voters. Gandhiji gave up his fast after the accord was signed by all concerned parties and approved by the government.

The second fast unto death was undertaken by Gandhiji at Calcutta immediately after independence. This was intended to ensure that not even a single Muslim in Calcutta would be harmed in any way in retaliation for atrocities committed on the Hindus in East Pakistan. It was only when the Muslims assured Gandhiji that they did not feel threatened that he gave up the fast.

Therefore, to say that undertaking fasts in public places in support of all sorts of demands is the Gandhian way is totally unjustified. The Gandhian way is to persuade and convince, and not coerce the other party.

The post Gandhiji’s Fasts appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There is a general impression doing the rounds and assiduously circulated by interested politicians and agitators, that Mahatma Gandhi undertook a number of fasts unto death to press his demand for the independence of India. There is nothing more distant from truth than this belief. Two things have to be made clear about Gandhiji’s fasts. Except for one fast in the early thirties before independence and another one undertaken at Calcutta immediately after independence, all his other fasts were for a limited period (mostly 21 days). They were more in the nature of self purification and meditation due to his failure to guide his followers in the true path of strict nonviolence. Secondly, they were for a limited period with the assurance given to the public as well as the government that it was definitely not his intention to die; and if ever a fast threatened to end his life he would give up the fast immediately. By sheer will power and moral force he survived every such fast successfully. One must also add that none of his fasts were carried out in a public place like the Ramlila Grounds with lots of crowds raising slogans. They were undertaken either in a prison where he might have been incarcerated at that point in time or in a friend’s house if he was a free man. There was never any demand attached to the fast or to make it a condition to give up the fast.

As an example of Gandhiji’s fasts, I would like to mention his very first fast undertaken in 1922. The “satyagraha” movement was at its peak all over the country. Thousands of Congress volunteers were in jail including leaders like Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad and others. At that time, in a small town called Chouri Chaura in United Provinces (the present U.P), a very peaceful procession of congress volunteers passing by a Police Station was brutally beaten up by the local police. The volunteers lost their temper, chased the policemen back into the police station, locked the doors and set fire to the station. About 25 policemen were burnt alive. When Gandhiji heard of this event, he became very saddened and immediately called off the entire movement. People were stunned and could not understand why one little event of violence in a whole country should be taken so seriously. Gandhiji replied that he did not want independence obtained by such violence, and declared that people were not yet fit for independence. He then undertook a fast for five days, spent the time in prayer and meditation to atone for his failure in leading the people properly to agitate in a totally nonviolent fashion. 

All subsequent fasts were also for similar reasons. So far as the first fast unto death undertaken by the Mahatma, it was in the early thirties. Gandhiji was totally opposed to the proposal by the British Government of reserving a few seats in the assemblies for the depressed classes (as they were called then), and the candidates and voters to be confined to these classes. Gandhiji saw in it an attempt by the government to divide the Hindu Society. They had already made such an arrangement of separate electorates for Muslims and now they wanted to create further divisions among Indians and thereby perpetuate their rule in the country. The government, however, agreed to consider any other proposal for the reservation of seats for the depressed classes which might be agreed upon by the Hindu society including the depressed classes. Gandhiji was able to convince many of the depressed class leaders with his ideas but was unable to do so with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. That was when Gandhiji undertook his fast unto death. 

Initially, Dr. Ambedkar refused to yield or have any discussion with Gandhiji on the matter. As Gandhiji’s health started deteriorating, intense pressure was exerted upon Dr. Ambedkar to negotiate with Gandhiji by members of the depressed classes themselves apart from the general public. Finally, an accord was arrived at whereby the depressed classes had seats reserved in the assemblies proportional to their population; candidates would be restricted to those classes but voting would be done by all eligible voters. Gandhiji gave up his fast after the accord was signed by all concerned parties and approved by the government.

The second fast unto death was undertaken by Gandhiji at Calcutta immediately after independence. This was intended to ensure that not even a single Muslim in Calcutta would be harmed in any way in retaliation for atrocities committed on the Hindus in East Pakistan. It was only when the Muslims assured Gandhiji that they did not feel threatened that he gave up the fast.

Therefore, to say that undertaking fasts in public places in support of all sorts of demands is the Gandhian way is totally unjustified. The Gandhian way is to persuade and convince, and not coerce the other party.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved. 

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Gandhiji’s Fasts appeared first on 51�Թ�.

More than sixty percent of the Indian population depends upon agriculture and agriculture-related activities for their livelihood and live in rural areas. When they followed traditional practices, all agricultural inputs were locally available such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. But, after the green revolution, while crop yields increased very significantly, all inputs became commercial commodities to be purchased seasonally from the market. Seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides – all specific to each crop separately – have to be purchased by farmers. Supply of these commodities is totally inadequate to meet the requirements of farmers. People have to wait for days anxiously in queues away from home to buy their requirements. All this involves a lot of money to be available with the farmer. The returns on agricultural produce to the grower are never enough to meet all his expenses plus feeding his family for the entire year, and he is forced to borrow. Banks are supposed to extend loans liberally to the farmers. However, this is also scarce, forcing the farmer to borrow from private money lenders who charge heavy interest. Thus, there is scarcity of agricultural inputs and scarcity of finances. Lately, thanks to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA) agricultural labour has also become scarce as many workers are taken away by the scheme, causing a scarcity of manpower.

Turning to the food front, the central and state governments are committed to providing essential food items at subsidized rates through the public distribution system (PDS). PDS operates through certified ration shops. In a city like Hyderabad, a ration shop is expected to cater to the needs of about 1000 ration card holders every month and supply them such essential food items as food grains, pulses, cooking oil, and also kerosene oil as fuel. The quantities per capita and subsidized rates are fixed by the government. Actually, it is understood that rations for about five to six hundred card holders are provided by the government every month and that too in several installments. Thus, there is scarcity of food items to the low income groups. The result is forty percent of all children below the age of five are either undernourished or malnourished and even pregnant mothers do not get enough nutritious food during pregnancy. No wonder, then, that the maternal and infantile mortality rates continue to be high and mortality of children up to age five also is quite high. It is only those children who somehow survive up to the age of five that grow up to adulthood. Scarcity of food occurs despite the fact that enough food is being produced in the country for all and government warehouses have stocks of food which either rot or are eaten by rodents. Another scarcity is safe drinking water.

The net result of the scarcity of food and drinking water is that people are prone to sickness, infections, and disabilities. This leads us to examine the availability of medical facilities and access to them for the low income groups. The best hospitals are in the private sector and their number is continuously increasing. They are essentially intended to make money for the owners. Therefore, they are very expensive and beyond the means of most people. On the other hand, multi-specialty hospitals of the government are very few. They provide medical aid either free or at very modest charges. But, they are overcrowded; hospitals are forced to entertain two or three times more patients than the hospitals are designed for. For lack of funds many posts of doctors and paramedical and non-medical staff are kept vacant and much of the sophisticated medical equipment is rendered useless due to lack of maintenance. In a state like Andhra Pradesh with nearly nine crore population there are less than ten multi-specialty government hospitals. Thus, medical aid at affordable rates is very scarce for the poor and low income group families. In fact, one of the two factors identified as the cause of converting an average family into a poor family is serious illness of a family member. Having survived the first five years of their precarious life, children need to get educated. Educational facilities at every level i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary are woefully inadequate and substandard. Much has been written about the condition of our schools, colleges, and universities and it is not necessary for this writer to elaborate on it.  Let it be said that both quantity and quality of education is utterly poor. A recent survey of education at the highest levels globally hasn’t found a single institution in India worth including in the top five hundred institutions of the world. There is acute scarcity in the educational sphere both by way of quantity and quality.

Another essential item for a decent life of an average family is availability of public transport. Inside a city the common man depends on public buses or local trains. These are not adequate for the fast growing cities. Even for long distance travel, the railway system in the country has not spread wide enough after independence. Large parts of India have no railway lines even though they are the cheapest mode of travel for an average family. In the absence of adequate provision of railways, people are forced to travel by bus or stay put at home.

One can write about many other scarcities, such as housing in urban areas or electric power. Suffice it to say that there is not a single item required for a decent life of an average Indian, which is available in sufficient quantity at affordable cost. In most cases, to give an analogy, where a loaf of bread (twenty slices) is required, we have hardly one or two slices. Pieces of these slices are distributed to different sections of the society in a discriminatory manner. The unfortunate fact is politicians seem to have a vested interest in maintaining these scarcities rather than eliminating them one by one. Between elections they use their influence to help individuals in need and hopefully get their votes at the time of election. In the election manifestos they use the various scarcities to make tall promises that if they come to power they will provide everything needed in plenty for the underprivileged sections of society such as scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, and minorities. The election system is such that one gets elected even with hardly 20 percent of the voters supporting the candidate and the politicians hope to get elected with the support of certain targeted sections of the voters. Once they get elected, they have no clue as to how they are going to fulfill any of their tall promises. Politicians may come to power and politicians may go out of power but scarcities of essentials will probably continue forever.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Politics of Scarcity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The country went through the decennial census operations during 2010-11 culminating in the final count of population on 1^st March 2011. On that day India’s population was just above 1210 million or 121 crores. Of these people 883 million live in rural areas and 377 million live in urban areas. In other words, as of 2011, 68.8 percent live in rural areas and 31.2 percent live in urban areas. Incidentally an urban area is defined as one where more than 5000 people live and at least 75% of them depend on non-agricultural activities for their livelihood. Compared to the census of 2001, the rural population increased by 90.06 million and urban population by 91 million. Percentage wise rural population was 71.2 percent in 2001 and the corresponding figure for urban population percentage was 28.8 percent. Thus it is seen that the proportion of people living in urban areas and depending on non-agricultural activities is increasing rather rapidly. This trend was noted even between 1991 and 2001. This trend is mainly because agriculture and related activities were the sole occupation available for people in rural areas and land being a limited resource, as the population grew by mid 1990s land could not support any further addition to the labour force in rural areas. Thus employment seekers started migrating to urban areas in general and in particular to the major cities like Bombay, Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad etc. The spurt in urban population has put tremendous pressure on available public utilities and facilities in the cities. The problems have become so serious that a few years ago a separate Ministry of Urban Development with a cabinet rank minister in charge was created by the Government of India. It is the purpose of this article to highlight some of these problems which seem to afflict almost every big city in the country.

Housing

The most important problem in all cities has been housing the sudden and large scale influx of migrants from rural areas to urban areas especially the metropolises and state capitals. Due to lack of housing, in every city almost fifty percent population live in slums. Slums are actually illegally created colonies of housing on open spaces in the cities. The structures are temporary they are very crowded and rows of such houses are separated by very narrow lanes through which household drainage is allowed to flow. As these are illegal colonies, they do not have any civic amenities like drinking water, sewage, electricity etc. As the slums start growing a local mafia gang takes over the control of the area through muscle power and both old residents and new entrants have to keep the mafia gang happy by paying regular doles. In return the gang assures the inhabitants security.

Many slums in big cities have been there for two or three generations. Families residing there develop their own inter linkages, mutual help, service providers of all sorts, retail shops and so on. Usually when a new slum comes up, it is first outside the city at that time but very soon, as the city grows the slums become a part of the city itself. Very often real estate dealers eye such slums for clearance so that they can build luxury apartments and make huge profits both on land value and on the apartments. The slum dwellers are uprooted and resettled in the outskirts of the city far away from their place of work. In addition the slum dwellers are broken up into groups and resettled in different locations thus causing much misery as the old linkages and mutual dependence are disrupted. On the eve of elections some of the unauthorized slums are “regularized” by the party in power to garner votes of the residents. Certain civic amenities like public taps, public toilets are provided. These facilities do not make much difference to the slum dweller because after elections, the facilities are neglected by the authorities. The slums however gain permanency.

At the other end, colonies of old houses of well to do families are demolished and multi-storeyed apartments are built to accommodate the richer immigrants to the cities. The old owners are usually compensated by allotting a few flats in the new building or partly through cash and partly through flats. Thus in these colonies where a few hundred families were living the number of inhabitants suddenly increases many fold putting tremendous strain on the civic amenities in the area like water supply, sewage, roads etc. Very often the municipal water supply is supplemented with a bore well. As more and more apartments get built, the ground water table sinks deeper and bore wells have to be drilled deeper. In many cases, the quantity of ground water taken out is much more than the replenishing rate and hence in due course existing bore wells go dry and new ones have to be drilled to greater depth. The strain on sewage disposal system is a different story. Individual apartments can do nothing in the matter. It requires the local administration to intervene and lay new drainage lines with larger diameter pipes. This involves major work and also damages the existing roads. For lack of funds, this work is not undertaken easily and the residents find existing sewage lines completely clogged and the sewage overflowing on to the roads.

Ideally, slums should be cleared and modest housing apartment buildings constructed by the government to accommodate all the slum dwellers. Preferably the flats should be leased out at affordable rents to the occupants. This way the slum dwellers remain in the area where they used to live and the linkages among the residents retained.

Waste Disposal

Another big problem that has arisen due to the large increase in population has been the enormous amount of solid waste generated. In a city like Bengaluru the solid waste generated daily is estimated to be around 5000 tons. The collection, transportation and disposal of this huge quantity of solid waste is posing serious problems to the municipality. Finding dumping grounds for this waste has become difficult. Dumping this sort of waste has created serious problems of pollution, ill-health and stink to inhabitants even a kilometer away. Recycling the solid waste material and converting much of it into usable products seems to be the only solution.

A new type of hazardous waste has come up in recent years, namely electronic waste. Unserviceable cell phones, their accessories, other electronic goods, are being thrown away indiscriminately. Many of them contain toxic chemicals like mercury and other heavy metals and compounds. Their disposal is going to become a very serious problem in due course.

Much research needs to be done on the disposal of various types of solid waste without causing any harm to the environment or the people. Incidentally, it has been suggested that even in the case of human excreta, it would greatly revolutionize the civic amenities provision if a method can be invented to dispose of this waste at the site where it is generated.

Public Transport

After housing and waste disposal, another major problem faced by people in urban areas is the lack of adequate public transport. As the cities are growing, distances to be travelled for work and other reasons are increasing. With more than half the population being poor or belonging to low income groups, public transport is a very important facility to be provided in urban areas. Unfortunately while the richer classes are buying more and more two wheeler and four wheeler automobiles, the average and below average citizen does not have access to adequate and affordable transport facility. As the number of motor vehicles increases, roads get cluttered, pollution increases and it takes longer to reach one’s destination. Pedestrians and slow moving vehicles do not get sympathetic treatment either by the authorities or the other road users. Only recently local and state governments have woken up to this problem and metro rail systems are being set up at great cost for mass rapid transportation. Calcutta and more recently Delhi have very well managed metro rail systems but they are still not adequate. Mumbai and Chennai have had a long history of local train services but even they are proving inadequate with populations in these cities growing rapidly. Cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad have just initiated action to provide elevated metro rail on a limited scale. Presently people rely mostly on bus transport but their number is not enough nor the roads able to accommodate all the vehicles now in use. There are frequent traffic jams further delaying people from reaching their destinations. The way forward is to restrict severely individual transport and increase manifold public transport both by road and rail. Public transport must be made much more efficient, regular, punctual, attractive and adequate. Then the need for individual transports will go down and the state would be able to put severe restrictions on use of individual transport as is being done in Singapore.

Shortage of Electric Power

A very serious problem facing the entire country is the acute shortage of electric power both in urban and rural areas. This can be solved only by generating much more electricity than at present.  However, this solution has met with almost a wall-like obstruction. Conventional methods of generation like coal based thermal power, nuclear power and hydro electric power are being opposed by people for reasons of environmental pollution, displacement of people submergence of land and forests etc. There are some gas based power stations which are less polluting but due to lack of sufficient quantity of natural gas they are working at less than half their load capacity. Non-conventional sources of power like solar power and wind power are not that economically viable or affordable by the consumers. The power generation is also intermittent requiring large storage capacity for energy. One does not know what new problems will arise in storing energy on such large scale.

Security

Finally a very recent problem in large cities where all sorts of people have settled down has been the security situation. Well to do citizens are being forced to organize their own security. This is the reason for the coming up of gated communities with private security arrangements. Entry to these communities is strictly controlled and monitored by the security staff. This is a sad reflection on the capacity of the authorities to provide security to their citizens.

Thus almost all major cities in India are facing serious problems of slum clearance, housing, inadequate civic amenities for a fast growing population, absence of efficient public transport system, the growing insecurity in the cities and so on. Problems will become more acute and may go beyond repair if immediate steps are not taken to solve at least some of these problems. Meanwhile the forecast is that half the country’s population will be living in urban areas in another two to three decades. This trend needs to be reversed urgently by providing urban facilities in rural areas and locating several industries and providing employment opportunities in rural areas.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Problems of Urban India appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Abraham Lincoln famously declared that democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The definition is elegant and easy to remember. But to interpret the meaning and implement it in the political life of a nation is quite another matter.

Taking the easiest of the prepositions first: democracy is a government for the people. It means that the government should endeavour and work for the good and betterment of the condition of all sections of the populace and not merely some targeted sections. Let us see how far we, in India, have succeeded in doing this in the 60 years since independence. It will be noticed that about 20% of the population, distributed all over the country, enjoys every facility needed for a comfortable life. For them, India is a well performing democracy. If we convert the percentage into numbers, nearly 250mn Indians fall into this privileged category. This is a huge number by any standards. Only the United States has a population larger than this that enjoys similar privileges. Even China probably cannot boast of such numbers.

There are another 1000mn people in India for whom life is a daily grind and a bitter struggle. They do not have access to the basics such as safe drinking water, proper housing, sanitation, education, or medical aid. The disparity between the very rich and the very poor is increasing. Suffice it to say that for the poor, the government is not for the people. In this connection, one should observe that though almost every national party or regional party worth its name has been a part of both the central government and one or more of the state governments for at least sometime during the past 60 years, all of them seem to work for the privileged 20% while promising ameliorative measures to improve the lives of the vast majority just before elections. In sum, we may say that the government works for a small section and not for the whole population.

A government of the people indicates a government representative of the people. Fair and free elections periodically in which all voters could participate without fear or hindrance is a prerequisite of a representative government. In this regard, India can boast of having given the right to vote to all adults without any distinction regarding sex, income, education, caste, creed, or language, and of having conducted fairly free elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies several times. The Election Commission has been refining procedures and regulations to make the elections absolutely free and fair. I have argued elsewhere that despite this, the elected members do not really represent the people because of the type of elections we have adopted. An elected member rarely gets more than 20 votes out of 100 eligible voters of whom on an average 60 to 70 exercise their franchise. Moreover, candidates are chosen by the various parties. No political party in this country is truly democratic internally. The constituencies do not have active offices with duly enrolled members meeting regularly to discuss matters of importance to the constituency. All that we have is a leader or leaders of each party with a personal following that is considered as belonging to the party their leader is a member in at the given moment. If he changes his allegiance to another party his followers automatically change their allegiance too. The parties do not cultivate the voters between elections, find out their problems and try to intercede on their behalf and get these problems solved by the local or state officials. The only time one hears of a party during non-election periods is when it organizes an agitation that may or may not really concern the constituency.

The so-called members of the party in the constituency have no say in the matter of the candidate’s selection for any election be it local, state, or central. The party high command select from among names suggested by the state parties but this may not be so always. Importance is given to the “winnability” of the candidate. That is, the individual is more important than the party in winning an election. Winnability usually indicates the ability to command money and muscle power. This contrasts with the time when we used to say that even a bamboo pole would get elected if it stands in the name of the Indian National Congress (INC). Political parties no longer serve the cause of the people as the INC did under Gandhi’s leadership. Because of the manner in which candidates are selected, there is no rapport between the people of a constituency and their elected member, nor does the member feel obliged to the constituents. I have deliberately avoided using the epithet “representative” because I do not feel the member really represents the constituency. Thus “Government of the people” does not exist in the country because of both the flawed election and candidate selection processes.

The third preposition is government by the people. It is very difficult to interpret. I presume that the elected member keeps in touch with his constituency and seeks their views on various matters that come before parliament or legislative assemblies, and reflects the majority view in the house or in the parliamentary party. Unfortunately, once elected, most members do not really keep in touch with the people in the constituency, especially these who do not belong to his or her party. Rarely does a member realize that once elected, he or she represents the entire constituency and not merely his or her supporters.

Thus, while we have elected governments in place, we really do not seem to have governments of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is India a Democracy? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Indian Constitution came into force on 26th January 1950 and completed 60 years in 2010. It is time to take a look at whether the Constitution has given India an efficient and effective government. This essay will look at two aspects of the constitution: centre-state relations, and the election process.

The history

From 1941 to April 1947, there were vigorous negotiations between various Indian political parties and the British Government regarding the transfer of power to Indians and the granting of independence. These included the Cripp’s Mission, the cabinet missions, and negotiations in between and after the missions with the Governor General. The discussions had two basic premises. First was that the entire sub-continent would remain as one political entity. Second, it was generally assumed that the central government would deal with only a few subjects of common interest, such as defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications; the provinces would be autonomous with regard to all other subjects. This was considered necessary and desirable not only by the Muslim and Sikh minorities but also by leaders and thinkers in the various provinces. This also took heed of the wide divergences and disparities among the provinces, with regard to history, culture, and language. All political negotiations were based on these givens until almost April 1947, but no agreement could be reached, especially between the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Muslim League, with the latter insisting on the division of the country into two independent states.

Lord Mountbatten succeeded Field Marshal Wavell as Governor General and Viceroy of India in January 1947 and continued the negotiations started by Wavell, till the end of March 1947. He came to the conclusion that no agreement was possible between the INC and the Muslim League and that the British Government had to impose a solution and quit India as quickly as possible, as law and order were becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. When he first came to India, Mountbatten announced that the British would quit India no later than June 1948. But after March 1947, he received permission to announce an imposed solution from the British Cabinet. This announcement was made in the first week of June 1947 and involved the partition of the Indian subcontinent into two independent states—India and Pakistan. This was to take effect from 15th August 1947, hardly ten weeks from the date of announcement.

The provincial legislative assemblies and the central legislative assembly elected a Constituent Assembly for the entire country in 1946, with reservations for Muslims, and scheduled castes and tribes. The first meeting of this Assembly was held in late 1946 and was boycotted by most Muslim members. After electing a President, the Assembly adjourned to meet again in 1947. It was hoped by then, some agreement would be reached that would enable the Muslim members to participate in the proceedings.

However, no agreement was reached. The country was to be divided into two separate entities. The Constituent Assembly also split along the lines of the proposed division. The moment it became clear that partition was to be imposed, the attitude of political leaders towards the nature of the to-be-drafted constitution, changed entirely. Now that Muslim majority provinces would not be a part of India, Indian leaders did not feel obliged to have a weak centre and strong, autonomous provinces. Instead they opted for a fairly strong centre, paying lip sympathy to the concept of federalism. They ignored the wide disparities and differences among states.

Division of lists

The Indian Constitution has three lists of subjects. One enumerates the subjects which are solely in the purview of the central government, the second, all the subjects which are the responsibility of state governments, and the third, known as the concurrent list, contains subjects on which state and center can jointly legislate. Any subject not included in the state list or concurrent list becomes the responsibility of the centre. This division of responsibility has made the centre very strong while the states have been reduced to the level of the centre’s clients. The centre usually passes laws that are uniformly applicable to all states irrespective of their social, economic, and cultural contexts.

It should be remembered that the populations of some Indian states are larger than that of entire countries, and that there exist regional disparities due to both geography and history, even within the states themselves. Central schemes are naturally unable to accommodate all the disparities and therefore become difficult to properly implement.

This has been a serious defect of the constitution’s division of legislative rights and has led to conflicts between regional interests and central policies. Because of this, regional parties have come up in almost every state. The all-India parties (such as the INC, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Communist Parties) have gradually been reduced to the level of regional parties with strongholds in a few states each. Because of the proliferation of regional parties, the 543-seat Lok Sabha (lower house of the national parliament), now has representatives from more than 30 parties, and no single party is able to form a government on its own strength.

The Indian Constitution did not envisage such a situation. As in Britain, the framers of our Constitution assumed that there would be no more than two or three parties in parliament, with one party having an absolute majority. The present situation sees a coalition government where the INC (with about 210 MPs) is supported by an assortment of other parties that give it the majority required to form and keep the government in power. The smaller supporting parties are able to get their way with the INC government by threatening to withdraw support if their demands are not accommodated.

The representatives of the Communist parties that hail mostly from Bengal and Kerala, effectively used this strategy between 2004 and 2009. The present Lok Sabha is suffering the same blackmail, but this time at the hands of the Trinamool Congress led by Mamata Banerjee from West Bengal. If she finds that a national policy doesnot suit West Bengal, she opposes it and threatens to withdraw support from the government if the latter insists on implementing the policy. The government has to reluctantly hold up or abandon the proposed policy. A party with barely 20 members in a parliamentof 543 members is thus able to paralyse the government.

This situation has been in existence since 1989 and is likely to continue forever under the present constitution that is not suited to the coalition politics and regional demands in the country. The only remedy is to limit the subjects to be dealt with by the centre to those that are of common interest to all states and to keep all other subjects on the state lists. This requires a major change in the basic structure of the constitution.

Elections

The second aspect of the Indian Constitution that one would like to examine is the electoral system. Fourteen elections to the Lok Sabha have been held since Independence, and it is generally agreed that they have been fair and free. However, one glaring defect in the system is that most electedcandidateshardly receivethe support of 25% of the voters in their constituencies. Whether they really represent the constituencies and whether we can call ourselves a truly democratic polity are moot points. We must devise a system whereby the elected person has at least the support of 50% of the voters in his constituency. In the present system, which stems from the British model, a number of regional and national parties contest every seat, whether for the Lok Sabha or the state legislative assemblies. An average of seven candidates are known to contest every seat and in some cases the number may be as high as 30 or 40. Naturally, all-India parties like theINC, BJP, and the Communistparties, place candidates in every constituency. In addition, every state has regional parties that are mostly interested in defending local rights and also send candidates.

The last 14 elections to the Lok Sabha show that the national average of voters exercising their franchise has been around 65%. Generally, the partythatwins a majority or largest number of seatsreceives35-40% of the votes polled. In almost every constituency, a particular community or caste accounts forat least20% of voters. Parties are aware of this and try to get elected by pandering to sectoral interests. This strategy has been used nationwide by the INC. Similarly, regional parties in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, have targeted vote banks based on caste and religion to win state elections. This strategy allows a candidate to get elected with a relatively small percentage of total votes, and has led to the perpetuation of the caste system and the proliferation of sub-castes.

An alternate system of elections has to be devised. First, it must ensure that citizens exercise their right vote. Second, a system of runoff election should be introduced where the top two contestants of the first round of polling, stand against each other in a second round. One of them must receive more than 50% of the votes cast in the second round in order to win the election. If this system is adopted, appealing to sectoral interests and minority groups will not be sufficient to guarantee victory for candidates. Parties must have broad based programs that serve people from all castes and communities. This system would also help diminish the importance of caste.

If the above two amendments are made to the Constitution, the country will be a truly democratic, federal polity.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Indian Constitution’s 60 years: An Assessment appeared first on 51�Թ�.