Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is conspicuous by its absence in Indian industry. The trade and industry associations agitate for their rights and their dues; but rarely talk of their commitment and responsibility to society. Even when educational institutions or hospitals are established by large corporates, these themselves become profit-centres or are designed to meet their employees' welfare requirements. There are indeed a few large houses which quietly have contributed to society in the educational and other sectors liberally, without fanfare; however, the vast majority of industry has shown no degree of CSR. Also industry has been notoriously weak in self-regulating itself; but as we have seen, in this respect they are not unique as a class.
Private industry has played a major part in the national economy; its role has increased sharply in the past two decades, and is ever increasing. Many technological and managerial achievements can be legitimately claimed by Indian industry. Indeed, India is now looked up to as potentially a major international economy, significantly to the credit of Indian industry. However, its role in the governance of India has been of a limited nature. As the saying goes: the 'invisible hand' guides the free economy; Indian industry has functioned as the hidden hand in influencing policy!
The Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs) – self before service. . . .
The NGO sector in India, sadly, has not made a significant contribution to nation building, or to governance standards. There are as many as about twelve thousand NGOs 'registered' with the Central governmental machinery; one hardly sees their impact on the nation's economy or society. This is unfortunate because a large number of these are genuine, organised by dedicated motivated individuals who want to contribute to society; however, for every one such 'quality' NGO, one can locate ten others in the same sectors, with the unspoken objective of functioning as predators and to prey on society in the garb of social workers. This is much like the sadhu or holy-man syndrome – India is blessed with many enlightened 'self-realised' souls, who are scattered all over the country; however, the entire community is disgraced by a large number of fake sadhus and sanyasis, who prey on a gullible public. Sadly, the situation is similar.
We have seen elsewhere how governmental expenditure does not reach the intended beneficiary in the rural areas. Thus programmes relating to poultry, animal husbandry, seed distribution, rural housing, rural sanitation and the like have been implemented disastrously, with little benefit accruing to the rural areas despite astronomical expenditure. Judicious use of carefully selected high quality NGOs could have mitigated the problem considerably. It is a pity that the state governments, in general, have not used NGOs to channel development funds to beneficiaries in rural areas. Despite the full recognition that the official field channels are corrupt and ineffective, no serious efforts to develop alternate delivery channels, which the NGOs potentially provide, have been made.
Naturally, much care and supervision has to be exercised when one involves NGOs in such activity. However, this has not been seriously attempted. In the first place, NGOs with a performance record need to be carefully identified; their capabilities verified; they could be entrusted, initially in a limited manner, but gradually with increasing scope and scale for the delivery of specialised services. However, this has not been tried because of the potential and actual resistance of the existing block developmental machinery, who would see their role diminishing, and in due course eliminated, if the NGOs successfully take over the tasks performed by them. We have also seen elsewhere how the rural development machinery has been ineffective, corrupt and counter-productive due to inadequate and incompetent supervision, as well as the inroads of local political influence. These same influences have prevented the use of serious NGOs in delivery of services in the rural sector.
I need to refer to my personal experience of dealing with NGOs, while I was the agriculture production commissioner in Uttar Pradesh in the early '90s. An NGO called BAIF (Bharat Agro Industrial Foundation) was functioning in certain parts of UP, and was identified as a serious, dedicated and motivated agency. Its founder chairman was Manibhai Patel, who had once been a junior colleague of Mahatma Gandhi, and had created the agency which operated in many states. I identified four districts where in twenty-five percent of the development blocks, the work of artificial insemination, which was part of the animal husbandry programme, was handed over to BAIF, in competition with similar work done by other blocks in the same districts. I had calculated the annual expenditure on this programme block-wise, and for the selected blocks had given an equivalent amount to the agency for implementation. At the end of the year, on careful rigorous verification, it was not really a surprise to find that the work of BAIF was rated six times as effective as that of the official block agency! Indeed, this programme was a supplement to the 'milk development programme' in those districts; the concerned farmers were nearly lyrical in their praise for the quality of service rendered by BAIF. In the second year, I had expanded the activities of this agency to twelve districts, to cover fifty percent in each selected district. I then moved on as government servants are wont to; I do not know what happened thereafter. I noted, however, that in every area in which the agency operated, there was a concerted strident attack conducted insidiously against the agency, inspired by the lower level government officials; they were scared for their jobs. It is a pity that a serious effort has not been made in the state governments to involve high quality NGOs in implementation of rural programmes.
Many urban NGOs have been established for obtaining social recognition by ambitious social climbers, or generally as a pastime for families from rich backgrounds. Many of them are harmless, though their contribution to society may be negligible. There are also many others who are parasites and who seek to collude with local functionaries in defalcating or siphoning public funds. In all this sea of NGOs, there are some genuine pearls, which need to be identified and recognised, fostered, developed and supported to an extent that they can start making a significant contribution to society. Indeed, they could be developed to be treated as an extension arm for rural and urban development work.
CAPART is the registering agency for NGOs in the Government of India, located in the Ministry of Rural Development. The popular impression is that this agency has not harnessed the potential of NGOs to support the development process in India. Almost certainly this impression is correct. Whether sufficient imagination and drive to promote the NGOs was not undertaken by CAPART, or whether adequate support within government to this work was not forthcoming – whatever be the reason, CAPART has been a wasted effort till now. It should also be recognised that in much of Government of India, rural development is a 'lowly' activity and does not have any kind of priority. In addition, much of the responsibility of rural development vests with the state government, whose priorities frequently are irrational. Be that as it may, it is sad that the potential represented by CAPART has remained unfulfilled.
We have seen earlier that the farmers have not organised themselves or rather have not been allowed to, on the national scene as a major force. The Confederation of NGOs of Rural India (CNRI) represents a new experiment to organise NGOs from different states into a national confederation. This initiative, with the blessings of Mohan Dharia, and currently under the active guidance of L.V. Saptharishi, has the potential to generate a major new national implementation force, if the confederation carefully sticks to quality, probity, and dedication.
I also need to conclude with a comment on my association with the late Dr H.D. Shourie, whom I had known from the early '80s, when he was the director of the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade. My next series of contact with Shourie was much later, in the mid-'90s, when he, in his later years, was chairing an NGO, 'Common Cause', which he had founded. Common Cause took up vigorously various types of injustices, seeking redressal before the courts and in other fora – all of these were in the general interest of the public, and had nothing to do with Shourie's private affairs. Indeed, as cabinet secret
ary, I had asked Shourie to preside over a committee, which gave the first draft of the 'Right to Information' Bill, for enactment before the Parliament; I also associated him in the committee to suggest amendments to the 'Official Secrets Act', and many other such public causes. Common Cause those days played an important role in the public policy space, raising important concerns on issues affecting the public. Alas, Shourie is no more; nor have we heard much about the work of Common Cause now. However, India is blessed with a large number of Shouries in our urban and rural areas, who when given the chance will not hesitate to work for the public interest in their chosen fields, without consideration for themselves. Immediately after my retirement, when I went to pay a courtesy call on Dr Shourie, he asked me to take over the management of Common Cause, as he was getting on well in years; he told me, 'I want to leave this in safe and good hands' – one of the most cherished compliments I have received in my life. It is one of the regrets in my life that I did not have the presence of mind or the comprehension to accept the offer.
10
THE WAGES OF MISGOVERNMENT
e have seen in the previous chapters how the main overarching national institutions have performed sub-optimally in the first six decades after Independence. The Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary – the three pillars of our governance have been discussed. The conclusion has been that they have not discharged the onerous responsibilities cast on them by the Constitution to the full extent. Indeed, there have been large gaps and critical failures. The constitutional and other executive agencies, with rare exceptions, have performed well below their potential and have not met the aspirations of the people or delivered results expected of them. A micro analysis of where things went wrong has also been attempted. It is but natural that such large deficiencies in operation should have a punitive impact on the totality of our economy, polity and society. Much of what is revealed in newspapers, magazine articles, what we see on the television or experience in our drawing room conversations, do not portray the full reality of India. Urban influences, proximity of the media to urban centres and the predominance of the middle class patronising and influencing the media, have all conspired to circumscribe our vision and to give us a limited, edited picture of the reality that is India. India continues to be an agrarian country even after sixty years of Independence, with the bulk of the population scattered over a vast rural area, with a majority of the people not participating in main stream activities of the nation. It is necessary to note some of the basic facts and to get a total picture of the wages of 'misgovernance'.
Only about sixteen percent of Indians reach high school. Incidentally, universal education was listed as a national goal in the Directive Principles in our Constitution. It may be noted with interest that in the period immediately after Independence, prior to our Constitution coming into force, India had lobbied in the United Nations that education for all children should be made an inalienable right – it is ironical that this principle should be applied all over the world but not in India. Many of us talk of India's IT prowess and our pre-eminent position among the countries of the world as a powerhouse of knowledge. One wonders how many have considered that nearly every other developing country, especially in Asia, has almost reached the universal education status. Nearly every child in Korea or Malaysia or Vietnam or Thailand is at least a high school graduate. With current levels of about fifty percent basic education of our citizenry, have we pondered the implications for the future, especially in a knowledge-based world?
The Indian per capita public expenditure for public health is among the lowest amongst all countries, that too by a big margin. A recent World Bank study has revealed that the micro-nutrient levels, on an average in India, are one-half of those in Sub-Saharan Africa. At the present rate of economic growth, it will only be by 2030, that we will be able to reach the current average African levels! Another study of 2008 predicts that by the end of the decade, India will have half the total number of infectious disease cases and serious epidemics victims in the world.
India stands in the lowest tiers in international ranking of 'Human Development Index'. This is not an abstract concept – it is a measure of the physical state of the average Indian compared to his counterparts in other parts of the world. This is a significant indication that for most Indians, India is not 'Shining'.
Thousands of Indian farmers commit suicides every year. The official line is that the numbers were exaggerated, that most of them were 'malnutrition' deaths. Indeed, one estimate counts over 1,50,000 farmer suicides between 1995-2005. Another field study report published in a popular journal, reports malnutrition deaths in some non-tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh. The report adds, with telling photographs, that basic food is not available in many parts, and people actually starve. So, a shining country, sixty years after Independence, does not mind thousands of 'malnutrition' deaths in its states! Indeed, Indira Gandhi 'abolished poverty' in the seventies; but apparently it returned soon thereafter, since there are new equally half-hearted campaigns of late to 'abolish poverty'. The very fact that in absolute terms we have more than double the number of people 'below-poverty-line' than at the time of Independence, speaks volumes – no further evidence is required to demonstrate whether India is shining or not. The other day, I was listening to a Central Government minister on the issue of providing finance to poor farmers. Suddenly I realised that he repeated verbatim what I had heard in a speech from a state minister of UP, thirty-five years earlier. Montek Ahluwalia of the Planning Commission and even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have recently 'discovered' that there is 'distress' in our rural areas (translation: most of the population of the country) and that this is a problem that needs to be 'addressed'. One recalls that the diagnoses were made in the 1950s and '60s. Indeed wrong medicines were administered; and the patient is in a much worse condition after sixty years of Independence.
The myth of 'India shining' has been created by a few beneficiaries, who stand to gain by the present dispensation. It is the ruling classes—the Indian 'creamy layer' – the politicians, the bureaucracy, the business community, the professionals and indeed the media. They are the sole beneficiaries of the system, whose exclusive benefits would depend on the continuation of the myth. This five percent of the population make the news, read the news, forms the opinion, and has proclaimed that 'India is Shining' – indeed it does for them. Most of India doesn't exist for them. The myth also suits the West for whom, India is a staggeringly large potential market, now that their own economies have started stumbling.
The Central Government's main mantra was 'growth'. Great pride was taken in the increase in the growth rate from six or seven percent rate to eight or nine percent levels. Till very recently, there was glib talk from our economic mentors that a period of sustained double-digit growth was just round the corner and that all necessary preconditions had been met. Suddenly, we find that the 2008-09 growth projections are being sharply lowered; what was in double-digits was really our inflation rate! As is well known, inflation is the biggest punishment to the poor person. Whereas it does not affect the rich, and the middle class may grumble but manage with it, the hardest hit is the poor class. The poorer the family, the harder it is hit. Even if the inflation rates have abated by the time this goes to press, the price levels are much higher than at the beginning of the year.
The absolutely primary consideration in a predominantly poor country should be the health of the poorest man, not indeed the stock market. The present economic conditions have brought into sharp focus the policies which have been followed in the past years and indeed since Independence. Some time in 2008, when inflation rates were climbing, at a meeting of significance the prime minister was asked about his policies on growth. His answer was that there should be 'inclusive' growth – the implication being that the poor shall not be neglected in our quest for growth. Growth shall continue to remain our primary mantra! However, there would be some 'trickle down' effect on the poorest – this is the o
fficial view to solve the poverty problem. Whenever any question is raised, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is referred to as the panacea for all evils affecting the poorer segments of our society.
Indeed, it is true that in the past few years, the allocations made to the rural sector are significantly higher than before. The NREGS surely will transfer some resources to the rural areas. However, the basic problem of establishing proper delivery mechanisms and ensuring that the assistance flows to the target groups has not been addressed, the centre continues to take the position that rural development is a 'state subject' – their only solution is to throw money at problems, without worrying who picks it up. Again, the NREGS is at best, even when it works perfectly, a second-best solution. The real solution is to bring dynamism and new life to the rural agriculture sector, to enable it to generate new jobs in a natural manner. Indeed, this is the only approach that would give long-term results. One could also be excused in speculating that it is perhaps the left forces, which were in alliance with the ruling party at the centre (whose only mantra was 'growth'), that would have been the mainspring behind this programme to assist the rural areas.
In this context, I came across a recent article in the Time magazine, dealing with issues relating to health in India. I quote, 'millions of people still suffer from diseases and ailments that simply no longer exist almost anywhere else on planet. Four out of five children are anaemic. What makes the picture even bleaker is the fact that India's economic boom has had little impact . . . on the poor.' Government figures say that the World Health Organization estimates that one million Indians die every year from drinking bad water and breathing bad air. 'In rural India where two-thirds of the population lives, health services are poor to non-existent.' The article concludes: 'One of the first myths that need to go is the idea that economic growth alone will lead to better health.' The picture relating to primary and secondary education is probably even bleaker. It is a mockery of democracy that two-thirds of the country's citizens are treated with such callousness and disdain.
Goverment In India Page 25
