Weird Language Policy in Namma Metro

- by Vallish Kumar

Pic source:indiarailonline.com

In the year 2011, Bengaluru got its first metro train, also called as 'Namma Metro'. From its inception, 'Namma Metro' has followed a weird language policy. It welcomes its passengers with sign boards and announcements in Kannada, English and Hindi. On close examination it becomes clear that the language policy of ‘Namma Metro’ is actually not driven with intentions to make navigation easy for the masses. Let us see how.

Flawed understanding of Cosmopolitanism
To justify the use of Hindi in Namma Metro, there are arguments that Bengaluru is a cosmopolitan city and hence, the use of Kannada and English is not sufficient. What such an argument fails to consider is that the cities like Dubai, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur which are much more cosmopolitan than Bengaluru, have only two languages used in their Metros. Language of the land and English, being the two languages used in metros there. The recently inaugurated Chennai metro has adopted two language policy, Tamil and English. Even the Delhi Metro operates only in two languages, Hindi and English. Does this fact make the city of Delhi any less cosmopolitan?

Language Policy Adopted in Namma Metro
When an RTI query was filed with Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, seeking details on the language policy adopted in Namma Metro, the reply received was shocking. As per the response to the RTI query, BMRCL has framed its own language policy and has decided to include Hindi. There is no directive either from GOK or GOI to compulsorily use Hindi in Bengaluru Metro. With that understanding, let us ponder over two other questions.

1. Is including Hindi language in 'Namma Metro' a people-friendly move, as a few claim it to be?
2. Even if this language policy was formed internally by BMRCL, why was Hindi included?

More deserving languages than Hindi
Going by the population census, after Kannadigas, the next most populous linguistic communities in Bengaluru are Telugu, Urdu and Tamil speakers in that order. None of their languages has been used in ‘Namma Metro’.

Indian Readership Survey data of 2011 reveals that Kannada dailies, with a readership of 16.2 lakhs and English dailies, with a readership of 9.5 lakhs, dominate the list of top ten 'most read' newspapers in Bengaluru. Kannada dailies Vijaya Karnataka and Prajavani were the most read newspapers in the year 2011, followed by the English daily The Times of India. In the list of top 10 newspapers of Bengaluru, apart from Kannada and English dailies, only the Tamil newspaper 'daily thanthi' has found the eighth slot with 88,000 readers. There is not a single Hindi daily in the Bengaluru's top 10 newspapers' list. 

This data is enough to say that Kannada and English reach the masses in Bengaluru. It is unfair and illogical to give prominence to a language like Hindi, which ranks probably sixth or seventh in terms of the number of speakers in Bengaluru. Especially when the third, fourth and the fifth largest linguistic communities are ignored, just to accommodate Hindi. This leads us to the question, why does Hindi get importance always ahead of other much deserving Indian languages?

Language Policy of the Union Government breeds inequality
Answer to this question is in the flawed language policy adopted by the Union Government of India, ever since the current political India was formed. The constitution of India has made it the job of the Union Government to work towards making Hindi more and more acceptable across the geography of the Indian Union. The prolonged special treatment to Hindi by the Union Government of India, is what has caused the perception that everything related to Union Government must have Hindi in it. Such a perception has ensured that Hindi made its way even to ‘Namma Metro’, while the more deserving languages were pushed aside.
The three language policy that was supposed to be adopted in schools, seems to have found its way into every establishment that is associated with the Union Government one way or the other. Even the Kannada Development Authority, in a recent letter to BMRCL, has asked the BMRCL to ensure that the three language policy is followed. While there is no constitutional obligation on BMRCL to follow the three-language policy, the Kannada Development Authority insisting on three-language policy’s usage shows the awareness levels regarding the three-language policy. This lack of awareness displayed by the Kannada Development Authority is a different debate altogether.

End to discrimination
This preference to Hindi is nothing but discrimination against the several other linguistic groups that are part of the Indian Union. The only solution to this glaring discrimination is, to bring in linguistic equality in the Union of India. Linguistic equality can be achieved by declaring all the 22 languages in the eighth schedule of the constitution of India as the official languages of the Union Government. Only then, Hindi will stop taking place of other 'more deserving' languages, under the guise of being people-friendly.

Indian Union Can Become Antifragile Only by Decentralizing

Pic source: www.canadianbusiness.com

Nassim Nicolas Taleb is a Lebanese-American essayist, scholar and statistician, who shot to fame by his book Fooled by Randomness. The book dealt with human fallibility and was ranked as one of the 75 smartest books of all time by Fortune. He is also well known to have publicly criticized the risk management methods used by finance industry; when financial crisis occured in late-2000, he is said to have profited from it.

Mr. Taleb has been making a career out of understanding and dealing with randomness – his keen area of interest. His business has been to safeguard investors against crises by reaping rewards from rare and less-understood events. In his latest book, titled Antifragile, Mr. Taleb explores the fragility of systems. As the world we live in is random, volatile and disorderly, any system that cannot withstand the random events, Mr. Taleb calls them as fragile. Any system that thrives on such randomness has been classified as antifragile. One thing that is highlighted in all the famous books of Mr. Taleb (Fooled by randomness, Black Swan and Antifragile) is, randomness that is faced by humans daily since their living in wilderness hasn’t changed much even in the current world. In other words, randomness is as natural as rain.

What kind of systems are fragile and what are antifragile?
Based on his observation and research, Mr. Taleb has classified couple of systems as fragile and few as antifragile. The banking system based in New York is classified as fragile, while fail fast startup businesses of silicon valley are classified as antifragile.
As nimble startups of silicon valley encourage mistakes and thrive on them, an idea that cannot continue is cornered sooner and gets scrapped. At the same time, any idea that can continue gets validated sooner and goes on to be a winner; Google or Facebook for instance.
The investment banking system in New York cannot afford many mistakes. Hence, the system grows fragile as days pass. Even the ideas that cannot continue are covered up, and are allowed to exist. Such fragile systems yield to unforeseen random events and collapse; Lehman brothers for example.

How has Mr. Taleb classified the political systems?
In his book Antifragile, Mr. Taleb has called the centralized political system as fragile. He has also called the decentralized political system as antifragile. If one looks to history for centralized political system, the Soviet union is the one to hit the eye first. USSR came into existence in 1922, and was considered one of the world-leaders till the eighties. The centralized system of functioning did provide many results and USSR’s military might was respected around the world. However, as with every centralized political system, Soviet Union was fragile too. The fragility took the better of USSR in 1991, resulting in disintegration.
The American union is much decentralized when compared to the USSR. Since the American civil war that ended in 1865, the united states of America has been a world-leader in many fronts. This observation of the USSR and the USA goes onto validate Mr. Taleb’s thesis that more centralized a political system is, more fragile it is.

Is the Indian union Fragile? 
A centralized political system is what Jawaharlal Nehru envisioned for the Indian union. It is said that Mr. Nehru was very much impressed with the USSR’s centralized planning  and governance. That explains why Mr. Nehru favored setting up planning commission and initiated five-year plans, much like the USSR. This centralized political system continues to exist in the Indian union even today. With only one-third of subjects under the state list in Schedule 7, rest being in the centre-list or the concurrent list, majority of power and say is concentrated at the centre. That makes the Indian union very fragile. Being fragile, the Indian union is vulnerable to random events that will continue to occur in future as well. To make the Indian union antifragile, so that it thrives under randomness and grows strong, decentralization is the right step.

Otherwise, sooner or later, we all will be fooled by randomness.

(This piece had originally appeared in thefedetalist.in)

Undemocratic Amendments to the Constitution during the Emergency

Pic source: indiatoday.intoday.in

On 25th of June this year, the 40th year of the Union Government imposed state of emergency was remembered. There have been many discussions around the misdoings of the Union Government during the 21 months' long period of emergency. Several web portals ran stories highlighting what the citizens of present day India can learn from the period of emergency. What went missing in much of these articles/discussions were the changes to the constitution of India that were made during the emergency, and how these changes undermined the fabric of the constitution of India. Not only were the fundamental rights of the people compromised, powers of the states of the union were also taken away by moving some important subjects from the state list to the concurrent/union list. Education was one such major subject that was moved from the state list to the concurrent list, quite understandably without any debate. At Karnatique, we have always argued that education must be a state list, and in this article too a special emphasis has been laid to highlight the movement of education from state list to concurrent list.

Education in state list, as the constituent assembly had wanted
The constituent assembly chaired by B. R. Ambedkar had kept education in the state list. In the meetings of the constituent assembly, a member by name Purnima Banerjee had moved an amendment seeking to move education to the Union list. This move was supported by another member of the constituent assembly Brajeshwar Prasad. But, the move was countered strongly by another member by name Rohini Kumar Chaudhury. The move was finally not accepted by B. R. Ambedkar, and hence education remained in the state list. Rohini Kumar Chaudhury made a strong speech in the constituent assembly insisting that education be maintained in the state list, and a part of the same speech has been quoted below.

Sir, it seems to me to be an age since I spoke last. It is not that my tongue does not reach so long, but I loathe to speak in this House lest I impede the progress of the work here, but today the heart-throbbing speech of my honourable Friend Shrimati Purnima Banerji has aroused me from my slumbers. I come here not to appreciate the speech of my honourable Friend Shrimati Purnima Banerji but to oppose it with all the might that I posses. Sir, we have come nearly to the end of these Lists, I, II and III and what do we find ? What we find is that the position of the States are no longer States or Provinces, but they have been reduced to the position of municipal and other local bodies. All the powers have been taken away either in List I or List No. 3. It reminds me of the words in the Upanishad:

Poornasya Poornamadaya

Poornamevavasishyate. 

     After having taken out everything the same fullness remains : it is as if it is a full Moon. We are taking slices of the full Moon and yet the full Moon still continues as before. That is the position to which we have arrived after going through all these lists.' No power is left to the Provinces and the full Moon remains a full Moon as before.

The 42nd amendment
The 42nd amendment to the constitution of India was brought about during the days of the emergency. It is regarded as the most controversial of the amendments to the constitution, in India's history. Apart from editing the preamble of the constitution and attempting to reduce the powers of the Supreme court and the high courts of India, the 42nd amendment brought such sweeping changes to the constitution that many described the amendment as a mini-constitution. As part of this amendment, education was moved to concurrent list from the state list. It is nothing but a mockery of democracy that such sweeping amendments, ones that curtailed the powers of the courts and reduced the powers of the states, were made during the emergency period without any debate whatsoever among the representatives of the people of India.

The run up to the 42nd amendment
The constitution of India, as drafted by the members of the constituent assembly, had not let so much of power reside at the hands of one person. If the same form of the constitution had continued till 1975, the sweeping changes introduced as part of the 42nd amendment would have been impossible to make. The 24th amendment is what tilted the constitution from the original form towards the current form. If not for the changes made to the constitution as part of the 24th amendment, the 42nd amendment wouldn't have been possible, As part of the 24th amendment, the parliament was enabled to dilute the fundamental rights, yes, the fundamental rights of the people of India. Also, the courts were prevented from doing any review of the future amendments to the constitution that impact the fundamental rights of the people.
When the 24th amendment was made, those members of the constituent assembly who were alive at that time, came out and opposed the amendment. Several of the legal experts had called the 24th amendment as slaughter of the constitution.

Interestingly, both the 24th and the 48th amendments were made when the union of India was in a state of emergency. The 24th amendment was made in the year 1971, at a time when the Bangla Liberation War was going on and the relations between India and Pakistan were tense. The 48th amendment was introduced during the period of imposed emergency, in 1976.

There seems to be larger agreement that the imposition of 21 month long emergency, starting in the year 1975, was detrimental. There is also widespread disapproval of the 42nd amendment to the constitution. The present Union Government of India has made special efforts to highlight the excesses of the emergency period.

To undo the damages done to the constitution during the emergency, what remedial actions is the current Union Government planning, is not very clear. Honest attempts to correct those excesses will have to start from moving education back to the state list from the concurrent list. With that, all the centralization efforts in the field of education will also have to stop. The power to meddle with the fundamental rights of the people, needs to be taken away from the parliament. All the talk about emergency is good, but the remedial actions need to speak too.

Smart States Are Needed, before the Cities Turn Smart

- By Rohith Batni Rao

Pic source: indiantollways.com

The current NDA government in India has been making quite a lot of noise about the hundred smart cities that it wants to build. All this noise is uncalled for in a federal democracy. In fact it appears to be signaling the formation of an ecosystem of governance where the States are conveniently expelled from their place between the Centre and the people!

Smart Cities Council, a portal where global companies and city stakeholders discuss smart city ideas, hosts this infographic that explains the nitty-gritties of smart cities. According to it, a smart city is that which is nearly self-sustenant and whose public policy and data are transparently available to people for scrutiny and other uses.

The idea of smart city also strives to make legislation and policing minimal by letting advanced technology assist, if not replace them. More importantly, at the heart of these smart cities, is the idea of governance by least hops and the idea of self-rule. For cities in India, the closest tier of an elected government is either a municipality, corporation or the panchayat. The central government is far-fetched and impractical. Attempts like these being made by the Urban Development ministry in GoI, therefore, are designed to fail.

If self-sustenance and local governance are the mantras for smart and efficient living in the modern world, then Smart States, not cities are what India needs primarily and urgently. These smart States would have to be more self-sustenant, self-reliant and self-driven than they are allowed to be in India today.

Having some cities under the direct regulation of the central government burdens it with additional fiscal responsibility but brings in revenues that the States need and deserve more, thus denying those cities and States the attention and resources they need and deserve. Given the nature of horizontal fiscal devolution prevalent in India, such centrist ideas of building cities could siphon funds away from well performing cities into the non-performing, yet enumerated cities. This corrupts fiscal performance equation of States and also creates an unfair and uncompetitive environment in the nation.

Amidst all the diversity in India a State is the real unit of governance that needs to turn smarter, not the city. It is a smart decision to respect the diversity and embrace the challenges it offers, for a solution agnostic of diversity is not smartness, it is brutal rudeness. That is the real federal way of imbibing smartness, for smartness of a democratic and diverse nation like India really lay in its Federalism.

Governors' Post in the States of India, a Colonial Legacy

Warren Hastings, the first Governor General of Bengal.
Pic source: www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au

Ever since the BJP led NDA government took control at Delhi last year, there were words doing rounds that UPA appointed governors will be asked to go. As things evolved, a few of the governors voluntarily stepped down while a few others locked horns with the union government over their transfers. Looking at these events one can’t resist thinking whether such an anti-federal post as the Governor is really necessary.

History of the post of Governor
A Governor’s post has a colonial history. British used a post called resident to boss over the princely states as well as the presidencies of India. The resident post was not unique to India, but was present across geographies ruled by British (as well as other European colonialists). This wiki excerpt elaborates on the role of residents and how they were chosen in the yesteryears:

Some official representatives of European colonial powers, while in theory diplomats, in practice exercised a degree of indirect rule. Some such Residents were former military officers, rather than career diplomats, who resided in smaller self-governing protectorates and tributary states and acted as political advisors to the rulers. A trusted Resident could even become the de facto prime minister to a native ruler. In other respects they acted as an ambassador of their own government, but at a lower level, since even large and rich native states were usually seen as inferior to Western nations. Instead of being a representative to a single ruler, a Resident could be posted to more than one native state, or to a grouping of states which the European power decided for its convenience. This could create an artificial geographical unit, as in Residency X in some parts of the British Indian Empire.

Power held by the Governors in the Indian Union

Pic source: wikipedia.org

Let us have a look at the recent Governor appointees to the state of Karnataka – Mr. Hansraj Bharadwaj, a former congress party member, appointed during the UPA regime; Mr. Vajubhai Vala, a former member of the BJP, appointed as the governor within 100 days of the NDA government taking over at Delhi. Looking at this pattern, it becomes clear that the methods of choosing governors hasn’t changed much since the British time. Originally claimed to be a post that ensures continuance of government at State level, this institution of governor defined in our constitution appears to be mostly used by central governments to meet their political ends.

The political leverage aside, the Constitution of India has given certain arbitrary powers to governor, though a governor is not directly elected by the people of the respective State. Article 163(2) from the Constitution :

If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.

The key takeaway from this article is, a Governor’s action shall not be questioned. This exposes a fundamental flaw, for there must be no person in a democracy who is immune to judicial scrutiny.

In Karnataka as well as other states of India, no matter who the people vote to power, the top most decision making powers reside with the one loyal to the establishment at Delhi. Positions occupied by appointment having greater powers than the elected representatives is something that doesn't gel well with the democracy.

The Governors, sometimes so disconnected from ground level realities, tend to look at all States uniformly. This approach stands out especially in linguistic matters, given the linguistic grounds for State formation in India. Within days of his appointment as governor of the state of Karnataka, Mr. Vajubhai Vala made a statement that he could manage his work in Karnataka through Hindi. This statement of his is a display of his disconnect from the people of Karnataka.

(This piece had originally appeared in thefederalist.in)

Larger Linguistic States Are Important for Democracy in India

source: blogs.lse.ac.uk

Over the past few months, there has been increased talk of dividing the state of Karnataka into two separate states. The division being talked about might result in two entities, the northern part of Karnataka and the southern part of Karnataka. Interestingly, all this talk is emanating from the sitting MLAs belonging to the two political parties that call themselves as 'national parties', the 'Indian national Congress' and the 'Bharatiya Janata Party'. Mr. Umesh Katti, sitting MLA from the BJP, and Mr. AS Patil Nadahalli, sitting MLA from the INC, are the two gentlemen who are at the forefront demanding separate statehood for the northern part of Karnataka.

Shift in the balance of power
While there is a lot of noise about smaller states being good for development, one has to be careful and consider the shift in the balance of power such division of the states is going to result in. The citizens of India will inevitably have to grapple with such an imbalance, if the larger states were to be further divided.

Why is balance of power important?
This is a question of democracy itself. One of the main reason why democratic practice has been successful across the world is, because of the development of a system of checks and balances to ensure that the political power is dispersed and decentralized. Democracy is a system built on the deeply held belief that government is best when its power to abuse is curbed and when it is held as close to the people as possible.

Let us now understand the current distribution of political power in the Indian Union, and the problems that are inherent under such a distribution.

Degree of centralization in the Indian Union
The power of the states and the Centre are defined by the constitution and the legislative powers are divided into three lists

• The union list - consists of 100 items on which the Union Government can legislate. 
• The concurrent list - consists of 47 items on which the state governments can legislate but the Union Government vests the power to override the state laws.
• The state list - consists of 61 items, on which the state governments can legislate. 

While the distribution of power is heavily tilted towards the Union Government in the ratio of 147 to 61, the articles 352 to 360 of the constitution contain provisions that tilt the balance of power all the more towards the Union Government. According to the Article 356 of the constitution of India, states must exercise their executive power in compliance with the laws made by the Union Government. Article 357 calls upon every state not to impede on the executive power of the Union within the states.

What problem can over-centralisation create for India?
With political power centralised at Delhi, the linguistic groups that carry clout at Delhi always have a larger say in policy matters. As was evident in the recent decision by the Union Government to reduce the import duty on raw-silk, the silk weavers from the state of Uttar Pradesh were benefited, while the silk farmers from the state of Karnataka were negatively impacted. The Union Government of India had to give in to the lobby from Uttar Pradesh, at the expense of well-being of the farmers from Karnataka.
Such policy-making inevitably brews resentment among the negatively impacted groups of people. Resentment among the citizens is a problem that no state can ignore.

With states reduced in size, the capability of the states to resist (or even reverse) the policies that impact their people will also reduce. By moving to split the larger states into smaller ones, and by continuing to run the administration in a centralized fashion, India does not seem to acknowledge the importance of balance of power. Larger linguistic states provide the much needed counter-weight to create the balance of power, and for the democracy to thrive. If you take out the counter-weight, all you have is imbalance, which can only lead to instability.

International Silk Route for India Is via the States

Source: www.thehindu.com

The farmers in Karnataka who rear silk worms are feeling the heat of cheap silk imports from China. The reason for this sudden surge in imports from China is, reduction in import duty on silk from 15% to 10%. This change in import duty was a decision of the Union Government of India.

As per this newspaper report, a delegation consisting of a few of the ministers from the Karnataka state government and all the MPs from Karnataka met several ministers of the union government recently, urging them to restore the import duty to earlier levels. As per the report, over 11 lakh farmers in the state of Karnataka have been impacted by this decision. Whether the Union Government decides to increase the import duty on silk to earlier levels or not, remains to be seen.  However, this episode in which the largest silk producing state in India felt the heat of cheaper Chinese imports and which made the representatives from the state to rush to Delhi seeking an intervention, tells a thing or two about the federalism being practised in the Indian union.

Should Delhi be taking a decision in this regard?
There are several farm produces that are mostly produced in only one state of the Indian union. Any decision impacting such a farm produce must be taken by the government that is closer to the people who toil to make the produce happen. For instance, any decision impacting coffee or silk in any way, must come from the government of Karnataka. The decisions which do not originate from the government that is closer to the people, will only lead to problems that call for fire-fighting measures later. Decisions by the Union Government sitting at Delhi without even building consensus among impacted states, will lead to such a goof up.

Any reversal in the import duty impacts India's image among the international trading community. India will come across as a nation which is inconsistent with its policies. Non-reversal will bleed the farmers inside India. Why has the union government gotten itself into such a fix? Centralized decision making process which is far removed from the people is the reason. It is time India takes federalism seriously, and implements it in true spirit.

Absence of Higher Education in People's Language Stifles Innovation

Pic source: www.cppr.in

The Wall Street Journal, an English language international newspaper, recently published a blog post titled "Do strong religious beliefs stifle innovation?"

The post is based on a research paper published by "National bureau of economic research, US", authors of which are Roland Bénabou, Davide Ticchi and Andrea Vindigni. The blog can be read here, and the research paper can be read here.

The research paper is of interest to us because, the authors have collected 'patents per capita' data from many nations across the globe. The data has been captured for the years 1980, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005. Data spanning over a 25 year period makes it robust for any analysis. Those nations with highest number of 'patents per capita' are considered leaders in innovation. The ones with comparatively lesser number of 'patents per capita' can be considered laggards in innovation. In this article, we shall not be exploring the possibilities of religiosity influencing innovation. Our main focus will be on the nations that have featured in the research paper, and the education system that those nations have built.

If we are to list the nations that have visibly higher number of 'patents per capita', as per data captured by authors of above mentioned research paper, the list would go like:

1.    Japan

2.    South Korea

3.    Germany

4.    United States

5.    Sweden

6.    Finland

7.    Great Britain

Other nations such as Denmark and France trail closely. All the nations listed above have built an education system where not just the primary schooling, even the higher education are provided in people's languages. To elaborate, in Japan one could even study engineering or medicine in Japanese medium. The Japanese or the Germans need not rely on English to obtain a degree (or masters) in engineering or medicine.

Let us also take a look at the nations that are much below the scale (at the bottom) in terms of 'patents per capita'. 

1.    Pakistan

2.    Bangladesh

3.    Indonesia

4.    Algeria

India is much closer to Algeria in terms of 'patents per capita', and India can be classified as a nation where innovation is rare. While Pakistan and Bangladesh rely on English as the language of instruction in higher education, Algeria relies on French.

Case of Indonesia is unique. Indonesia is home to 700 languages, and the official language of Indonesia is called 'Bahasa Indonesia', an artificially created language. As per this wikipedia entry, though 'Bahasa Indonesia' is extensively used in commerce, education, administration and media, most Indonesians speak other languages, such as Javanese, as their first language.

Though Indonesia has built higher education system that provides education in 'Bahasa Indonesia', the language used is still not people's language. It is analogous to making official Hindi as the language of education for whole of India.

While the leaders in innovation have built higher education systems in their people's languages, the laggards are either relying on languages of their erstwhile colonizers, or have built a higher education system which imparts education in an artificially constructed language. The educationists and linguists of the world have long argued, that education is very effective when imparted in mother-tongue. The data in the above mentioned research paper vindicates the fact that people's language is key to improving innovation and scientific progress of a society. Of course, there are other factors also that influence innovation and scientific spirit of a nation.

If India wishes to be a global leader in innovation, it is time India took its' people's languages seriously in education. The message is clear, provide higher education in people's language or remain a low-performer in terms of innovation,