India Positive

by Chetan Bhagat

  We should welcome Free Basics as a concept, but we need to bring out the concerns as well. Given the huge social welfare implications of this project along with the business opportunity it presents, a great solution can and must be hammered out. Facebook should feel secure about opening up the internet because there is little doubt that, even with universal access, people will spend most of their time on FB. We netizens, on the other hand, need to accept that if Facebook is leading the initiative, they deserve to get some reasonable benefits out of it.

  Our government is certainly not able to provide internet services on the scale envisioned by such projects. Involving the private sector is thus necessary and inevitable in our country. From public transport apps to free internet providers, such initiatives should be welcomed, not painted as villains. We must also, however, iron out any legitimate concerns that may be raised about them. Free Basics is welcome, Mark, but only with a bit of free, basic common sense.

  It’s Time to Analyse OROP with Our Heads, Not Our Hearts

  The ‘one rank, one pension’ scheme for our defence forces needs to be objectively debated in the public domain

  Few government professions in India enjoy as much public goodwill as our defence forces. Mention the Indian Army (for the purpose of this article, army includes all forces—air force and navy as well) and our chests swell with pride. The army is an apolitical body that works well and quietly, and does a great job protecting our borders from some of our not-so-friendly neighbours. Even in times of domestic trouble, such as riots or floods, the army is called in and things begin to get better.

  In combat, or during encounters with terrorists, our soldiers often lay down their lives or suffer grievous injuries in the line of duty. With all this selfless sacrifice, it is not difficult to see why the army enjoys so much support from our civilian population. Our popular culture, especially films and songs, mostly shows the army in a positive light (unlike the police and politicians). Media coverage, too, focusses on their sacrifice and hard work.

  While this positive image is great, it can cloud an objective analysis of how we manage our defence resources in certain situations. One such issue is the OROP scheme. While OROP means ‘one rank, one pension’, it is a bit of a misnomer. It actually refers to one rank, the latest, and the highest pension for that rank, irrespective of when you retired. Army veterans essentially want an upward pension revision system for all veterans in the country or their surviving spouses, estimated to be around 3.2 million in number today.

  There are several reasons why their demand is justified. Pension discrepancy between an officer who retired in 1990 and an equal-ranked officer who retired in 2015 can be dramatic. A certain consistency is required, especially since the army intrinsically believes in the concept of rank, and allows its officers to retain their ranks even after retirement. Many political parties had also promised OROP in their election manifestos, so the government had to deliver at some point. Popular and social media largely sided with the veterans, with arguments ranging from ‘they guard our borders so we should give them what they want’ to ‘how can we disrespect our soldiers’.

  Somewhere in all this, things became too simplistic. The army was good and the veterans were always right. The political class and the government were stingy, greedy and insensitive. After all, those who protect our borders must be treated well. OROP was seen as a way to ensure that our soldiers are justly rewarded for their services. Hence, you better give OROP, and now!

  People who recommended an objective analysis had to scurry and hide in a corner. For nobody would hear a word against OROP, and with the veterans protesting in the nation’s capital, even the government was pushed to a corner. OROP was announced. The government estimated a liability of around ₹12,000 crore per year from its implementation. However, the veterans are still not happy, as they feel many of their demands are not met by the present scheme.

  What should we do? Should we maintain the ‘Army Good, Politician Bad’ argument? Should we still say ‘give them whatever they want because they guard our borders’ (by the way, paramilitary forces like the BSF are not eligible for OROP)? Or should we at least look into the various aspects of OROP and, dare we say, its pros and cons?

  We should. For, in a country of limited resources like India, an expense as big as OROP must be examined carefully and kept within limits. At present, our defence budget is ₹250,000 crore. In addition, we pay defence pensions amounting to ₹60,000 crore per year. OROP will add another ₹12,000 crore to this expenditure annually. Note that these pensions are, by definition, for services already rendered. Nothing is obtained in return for this outlay.

  While we all agree we should treat our army personnel well, what’s the best course of action in this situation? To pay the veterans more, or to pay new hires in the army more? To increase the salaries of the officers, or those of the jawans? To invest in recruiting better talent, or in creating more jobs? Should money be spent on pensions, or more hospitals for veterans? Should war-affected veteran families be paid different pensions from those who retired safe and sound? As a solution to increased pension expense, can veterans be re-hired in certain jobs that are useful to the economy? Also, if we have OROP for the army, why not for our paramilitary forces and police? Can we afford to pay them all?

  All these issues make OROP more complex than it seems, and it is high time we had a sane, objective debate about it, rather than an emotional, army-is-amazing-so-just-give-it-everything one. Forget OROP, many sectors don’t even have pensions. Sure, a certain form of rank and pay equalisation needs to happen so that things don’t fall too far apart. However, it has to be done in the context of what is possible and affordable, and after analysing what alternative welfare those funds can actually provide as well as the precedent it will set for similar schemes. Only then will we reach a sensible conclusion on OROP. We love our army with all our hearts, but it’s time we thought about issues related to it with our heads.

  @chetan_bhagat

  Whatever the state of the economy, just happy that for a change the economy is the top issue on national news and not religion or caste.

  288 replies/ 1,075 retweets/ 5,769 likes

  The Three New I’s of Indian Politics

  Intention, initiative and ideas: Netas do not require anything more in a post-truth environment

  Every Indian newspaper and magazine, and several notable publications worldwide, have carried their own take on demonetisation. Most of those analyses did a cost-benefit analysis of the move. Many intellectuals and leading economists have called the move questionable, simply on the basis of cold facts.

  Most of the old cash has been declared and swapped in banks. This means that either (a) there wasn’t that much black money in cash to begin with; and/or (b) the black money hoarders managed to swap the old black cash efficiently for new black cash.

  Anecdotal reports suggest that the old cash was being swapped for new cash at rates as low as a mere 10 per cent commission. Bank officials around the country helped game the system (it really was like a video game, with the RBI adding new surprise rules on a daily basis).

  While some deposited money could be declared in the latest version of the ‘new’ voluntary disclosure scheme, it is now widely accepted among intellectuals and economists that gains from the crackdown on black money were limited.

  At the same time, many enumerate the costs of the demonetisation scheme as the following: a real slowdown in the economy that will reduce tax collections for the government and the earnings of many honest taxpayers; chances of a full blown recession along with loss of employment; millions of lost man hours that were spent in queues; and a loss of credibility for the Reserve Bank of India and the government as a whole because of the knee-jerk nature of the exercise as well as the ad hoc directives that they continue to churn out.

  Well, they are not wrong. The true economic benefits of this exercise will be limited. Unless followed up by real measures to limit the generation of bla
ck money (including fixing thorough clean-up of political funding, a hotbed of black money generation), black money will continue to flourish in India.

  However, none of this really matters in terms of the political impact the move has had on the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. For, politically, the move is a major hit. Sure, benefits are limited and the negative effects are many. However, interpreting demonetisation requires proper analysis, an understanding of the economy, and a rational perspective rather than an emotional approach.

  All that already sounds tiresome and boring, doesn’t it? The Indian voter has rarely cared about the economy while exercising his political preferences. What they loved about this move are the three I’s that seem to result in big political gains for any leader who can display them: Intention, Initiative and Ideas.

  Modi’s intention was good. That alone fetches him high marks. In a country where the average politician is expected to be a corrupt goon who loots the nation, a leader who has the right intentions with regard to black money transactions is a huge plus.

  No leader in his position had ever tried such a move. The fact that Modi showed initiative and that he didn’t have to be pushed to do this, helps his case somewhat.

  Finally, it was a relatively novel idea. Even though demonetisation has been tried before, nobody ever envisioned it or tried to execute it on this scale before.

  Indians have long believed that there are ‘lots’ of rich people with ‘lots’ of black money which they keep under their mattresses, and that this is the root of India’s problems. The exact amount of ‘lots’ is, of course, unknown. However, the demonetisation move resonated with that belief, and garnered near-unanimous support.

  Never mind that the black money found in cash wasn’t quite as much as people imagined. Or that in India there isn’t a specific set of ‘evil’ people who are corrupt, but rather many ordinary people who become corrupt when given the chance (as when bankers swapped cash illegally).

  What matters, emotionally speaking, to people is this: the PM tried something good, which he initiated on his own, and it was based on a fresh idea. That’s enough for them to continue supporting him, and the move.

  Something similar happened with the odd-even move to curb pollution in Delhi. Many experts argued that exhaust emissions from cars accounts for only a small fraction of the pollution in our cities, and that the exemptions would make the exercise futile. And they were right. Odd-even didn’t help curb pollution. However, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal enjoyed public support because the move displayed the three I’s.

  Another example is Amma’s canteens, and the entire gamut of freebie politics in Tamil Nadu. In practical terms, the scheme is unsustainable as the state would be burdened with massive debt due to such moves. However, people like it simply for the intention behind it.

  Perhaps one day, cold facts and details of implementation and execution will matter more to the Indian people. For now, battered by a political class that never cared, just good intentions, a bit of initiative and fresh ideas seem enough.

  Y OUNG I NDIA

  W hat out-of-control DU colleges can learn from uncool IITs’ talks about why DU students as well as the administration must pull their socks up to fight political violence on campus and refocus on academic excellence.

  ‘Indian Institutes of Politics’ looks at the tragedy of Rohith Vemula’s suicide and the role caste and politics played in this case. It also talks about an issue that confronts government universities—the level of autonomy the government gives to the university management—and this topic is also addressed in ‘Indian Institute of Autonomy: Don’t Kill a Model that Works’.

  Finally, ‘Letter to Kashmiri Youth’ is an open letter to the Kashmiri youth, explaining why—if they care for their own futures, and for Kashmir—their best bet is to integrate their state to India.

  What Out-of-control DU Colleges Can Learn from Uncool IITs

  DU students as well as administration must pull their socks up to fight political violence on campus and refocus on academic excellence

  Several decades ago, when we were students of IIT Delhi, my friends and I used to be insanely jealous of Delhi University colleges. Not only did they have a better female-to-male ratio than us, they were far more relaxed when it came to discipline.

  The IITs kept us in the grind. We had over forty class tests, quizzes and mid-term tests every semester, all of which were factored into our grade point average. Class attendance was strictly monitored, and sometimes even contributed to our final score.

  Meanwhile, our friends at DU couldn’t party enough. They rarely attended classes. College for them meant addas on the campus lawns. Barring a handful of elite colleges (say, Stephen’s or SRCC), academics was second priority.

  Apart from rigour, IITs were also at a different level when it came to enforcing discipline. Any significant act of student indiscipline—skipping too many classes, breaking into a professor’s office to steal a paper (yes, it has happened), vandalism, or inappropriate behaviour with women—met with one fate, the infamous DisCo or Disciplinary Committee. The DisCo never spares, used to be the adage. DisCo punishment could even mean expulsion from IIT, which meant a dark future.

  Hence, IIT students had a reputation for being disciplined. We did have fun, including doing some barely legal stuff. However, we also paid attention to academics. And we never crossed a certain line even when it came to mischievous fun.

  DU students, of course, showed no such restraint. They even had time for politics, and took campus elections seriously. Youth wings of national political parties dominated DU elections. There was something cool about those student leaders, bands around their foreheads, screaming about change. Joining busloads of students to roam from college to college, campaigning, seemed so much more fun than preparing for the next Applied Mechanics quiz.

  IIT had student body elections too, but it was a low-key affair. Even posters weren’t allowed on campus. Our politics was limited to cute horse-trading between hostels, a far cry from the highly charged atmosphere at DU.

  We IITians weren’t as cool as DU in some ways. However, we can safely say this—our students did really well in academics and got great jobs. And this is what they came to campus for. We also did not have the ugly violence that occurs in DU from time to time, as it did in Ramjas College in 2017.

  We endlessly discuss the Ramjas incident, although we focus on the wrong issues when we do. We make it about tolerance vs intolerance, ABVP vs AISA, right vs left, BJP vs Congress, and ultimately, what every political debate in India gets reduced to these days—pro-Modi vs anti-Modi.

  It’s stupid. For the key issue is this: DU is out of control. The current management, including the vice-chancellor, the dean and the various college principals, simply cannot keep DU in check. This is a university that enrols the best students, yet seems to have little regard for academic rigour or discipline.

  More than 95 per cent of the students who come to DU just want to study and build a good future. The failure to control the remaining 5 per cent, the goons, is harming the university’s reputation, the atmosphere on campus and risking the future of all who study there. This can be fixed if there is a will to do so.

  Why does DU have a system where it is okay to not attend classes and simply mug up for the exams at the end of the year? Why are the disciplinary committees so lax? How many students have been expelled from DU for engaging in violence in the past few years? Why do people who don’t study in a particular college hang around in the college canteen? Is it a college or an adda? Why does all this happen at DU, but not at the IITs, IIMs, NDA or AIIMS?

  There is nothing inherently wrong in students having political views or even an interest in politics. The line is crossed when they indulge in violent threats or actual violence. It is then that immediate, hard action must be taken so that nobody tries such a stunt again. Students must be kept busy through the duration of their course. And outsiders have no business hanging around the
campuses.

  It is about time the people who claim to be running DU actually took charge and prevented this great university from going out of control. As for the students, the best advice would be to focus on your studies and your future. It is good to have views on national issues. However, don’t do it at the expense of deviating from your own life goals. Never allow yourself to be used by the media or politicians, and mess up your career in the process. Make the most of college life, by using it to make your future.

  @chetan_bhagat

  Tips to stay motivated: 1. Stay healthy. Exercise. 2. Have goals. make them focus of life 3. Only positive people in your life. 4. Celebrate achievements of others. Get inspired, not jealous 5. Spread smiles, not hate or snarkiness on the Internet. 6. Love. Pray. Laugh.

  152 replies/ 1,432 retweets/ 6,710 likes

  Indian Institutes of Politics: Lack of Autonomy for Universities Is a Killer, Literally so in Rohith Vemula’s Case

  We must learn the right lessons from Rohith’s suicide and change the way we run our universities

  One of the saddest things that can happen in the world is when a young person takes his or her own life. It becomes particularly heartbreaking when the young person is educated, intelligent, sensitive and shows potential, yet feels he or she has no other option left.