Centre State Investment Agreement and Its Impression on Federalism in India

- Rakshith Ponnathpur.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, in this year’s Annual Budget, proposed for an agreement to be signed between the Union and the states to facilitate smooth implementation of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) that India is set to enter into with the nations of the world, replacing the existing Bilateral Investment Protection and Promotion Agreements (BIPPAs). While signing this agreement is not mandatory, the perception that states which sign the agreement are better investment destinations than states which do not, will serve as an incentive for the states to sign the agreement.

The primary objective of the Centre-State Investment Agreement (CSIA), as the agreement is called, is to ensure fulfillment of state governments’ obligations under these bilateral treaties. Many a time, investors feel cheated because of a state’s failure to fulfill the promises made by the Union while signing the agreements. But signing the CSIA will bind the states to fulfill their commitments, bringing in some accountability into the whole business. CSIA is the first such move to actually involve the states in an area which has been exclusively Union's realm so far.

However, critics rightly argue that CSIA will have very little legal significance should investors approach international courts for arbitration. Irrespective of any agreements signed between the Government of India and its states, only the former can be held liable and accountable externally. This is because only the Union Government has the power to enter into treaties on behalf of the Indian Republic and once it has acceded to its terms, the international obligations assumed thereunder bind the entire country and not any individual states. CSIA can only facilitate shifting of blame for the embarrassment from the Union to the states internally.

The introduction of this agreement will also impact federalism in India, an area which clearly does not feature among the strong points of Indian polity. The states will not particularly be impressed with yet another provision which will enable Delhi to shift the blame to their capitals. Creation of a negative perception about a state’s investment ecosystem should it excuse itself from signing the agreement and Union's plans to inform investors beforehand about states which have not signed the CSIA will further make the states feel that the agreement is unfair on them, which is understandable since the states have little say in the provisions of the bilateral treaties itself in the first place.

A solution for this would be to institutionalize the involvement of state governments in the treaty-making process. The states will not find the CSIA unfair if they themselves are involved in formulation of the provisions of these treaties. The Chief Ministers of states can be made members of a consultative commission on treaty making (like the Governing Council of Niti Aayog) and this need not just be restricted to investment treaties, but can also be extended to other international agreements like the WTO treaty, Free Trade Agreements and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. Many of these agreements involve domains like agriculture which fall under the State List and directly impact the states, and it would only be logical on the part of Union Government to include actual stakeholders.

CSIA featured in discussions held at the recent Inter-State Council Meeting, with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha welcoming the Union's move to include states in the treaty-making process and also raising some of her reservations about the draft CSIA agreement. There is a possibility that the Union might try to pass on some financial burdens it might suffer from penalties under already existing bilateral agreements, which she feels is unfair since states are neither party nor aware of the provisions of earlier treaties. She also expressed her concern that the Union deducting such dues from the amount it transfers to states, would impact the implementation of schemes of state governments, and called for the deletion of the provision which enables the Union Government to resort to this practice.

Centre State Investment Agreement will be a commendable and an affirmative step, which will help in bringing some much needed order, accountability and cooperation between the Union and the states in smooth implementation of bilateral treaties, provided it makes the Union and the states part of the holistic treatyformulation process. Otherwise, it may well go on to be yet another provision which makes states liable to the shortcomings of provisions they were not even aware of, in the first place.

This is a golden opportunity for the Union Government to show it means no nonsense when it talks of cooperative federalism, and include states as equally responsible stakeholders in foreign investment.

A NEET Blow to the Autonomy of Linguistic States

Ever since independence, the Union has always tried to accumulate more and more power for itself in all subjects of eminence – quietly and gradually cutting down the autonomy of the states. The subject of education is no exception. In fact, education is a key factor for development, growth and governance, and hence exercising control over the matter is key for any authority to hold on to power and accumulate more of it. The Union, time and again, meddles with the subject in such a fashion that it encroaches into the space of the states, one step at a time, seizing more powers with every single move.

Obtrusion through National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) is the Union Government’s latest fiasco. NEET is a common entrance test for admission to MBBS and BDS courses that starting from this year, will replace All India Pre Medical Test (AIPMT) and all entrance examinations to the above courses conducted by state boards and by private institutions. It will be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).

As we will see further in this article, in the long-term this will deteriorate into a situation, in which the Union holds complete sway over education, and controls and dictates all learning, and development opportunities of our children. Needless to say, this is quite anti-democratic in nature. The subject of education should be with the states, to ensure the jurisdiction of education remains much closer to people. It makes little sense to drive the all-important subject of education through a distant establishment completely disconnected from them.

As with any Union Government undertaking, support for languages has been a concern with NEET. When it was introduced back in 2013, students could take it up in eight languages, i.e., Telugu, Tamil, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, Assamese, Hindi and English. But this year, when it is made mandatory across the Union, non-Hindi students do not have the option to take up the phase one of the examination in the language of their choice. They can only choose between Hindi and English.

But the phase two of the test is being considered to be conducted in the above mentioned languages. The choices are still limited. There are already concerns that question papers could leak if they are translated to these many languages. Denying the choice of a language not just shows insensitivity towards non-Hindi peoples but also clearly demonstrates operational inefficiencies that were unwarranted in the first place.

Why is it that the Union, in most of its undertaking, time and again comes up with operational and executional excuses to deny support to other languages but has enough resources and forethought to support Hindi, any time and at any place?

Take the Railways, for instance. The Railways has enough money and resources to use Hindi in announcements, tickets, boards, signage etc in all non-Hindi regions of the Union. But when asked for tickets to be printed in Kannada, it either comes with the excuse of lack of funds or operational inefficiencies. The pattern with NEET is similar.

It would not be a surprise if in the near future, the CBSE board puts its foot down and says no more support for ‘regional languages’ in NEET. We often come across the rubbish argument that Hindi and English being widely spoken languages are generally understood by a majority across the Union and that other languages are either not needed or may be left optional. This has been the devious stratagem of the Union in administration and general policy making. Education is no exception.

Of course, the Union Government has expressed concerns over phase I of the examination being only in two languages, English and Hindi, citing the reason that it will impact students from non-Hindi states and those from non-English medium background. But it appears that the far-term vision is to gradually converge towards Hindi and English, rather than invest in all the languages in building strong higher education systems in them. 

That the state governments will lose all authority or control over admission to MBBS and BDS courses in their respective states is crystal clear. Take for example, the Gadinaadu Kannadiga and the Horanaadu Kannadiga quota in Karnataka. Will the Government of Karnataka be able to conduct tests and fill-in admission for these quota? Will the CBSE board or the Union Government allow this? Or can the state government submit a plea if it is not permitted as per rules? We do not know for sure. But the state will no more be able to freely take decisions in the interest of its people.

Also, how will the state governments ensure justice to poor and rural students, who mostly do their schooling in the state syllabi? The syllabi of the states are vastly different from each other and from that of the CBSE board. These students are already disadvantaged owing to lack of coaching and guidance. The introduction of NEET will leave them further handicapped.

The states will also lose out the opportunity at restructuring or remodeling the system with novel methods. If a state, for instance, wants to adopt an advanced method of testing, or introduce a new subject it will not be possible any more.

In the long-run the states also stand to lose authority over primary education. With entrance exams coming under the CBSE board, parents would want their children to take up the CBSE syllabus right from early years of schooling. So, this will ensure that there will be very few takers left for the state boards. And the state boards, with decreasing enrollments, will be forced to align with the CBSE board to remain ‘relevant’ and ‘competitive’.

With more schools moving to CBSE, Hindi will be taught more widely in the non-Hindi states. But these schools will not be bound to teach the states’ languages. While the influence of Hindi will increase, the non-Hindi languages will take a beating as lesser and lesser of the young generation of the non-Hindi peoples will have good reading and writing proficiency in their mother tongues.

States like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh etc., did raise a few objections against NEET. But they have all mostly been related to operational issues. Very few, unfortunately, has been against what is fundamentally wrong with the initiative.

NEET definitely needs to be scrapped. But that is not enough. We should ensure that the Union leave education to the states and not get into running the affairs of the subject. That requires moving the subject, which is now on the Concurrent List back to the State List (education was in the State List, but was moved to the Concurrent List during the time of emergency).

This is what has given the Union powers to override the policies of the states on education. It is unsure if the current wave of protests will stop NEET. Regardless, the states and its peoples should identify this fundamental fallacy and work towards getting education back to the State List.

(Image: financialexpress.com)

GST: What it Means to Federalism in the Indian Union

The Goods and Services Tax is being sold as the best thing that could happen to the system of indirect taxes in the history of the Indian Union. Simplification and streamlining of taxes, uniform taxation across the union, one integrated market, multitude of opportunities to leverage economies of scale, boost to the GDP and significance to the Make in India initiative - the benefits, we are told, are astounding. But what does it mean to the states and their diverse peoples?

A brief history of GST in the Indian Union
 
To begin with, let us look at the history of GST. The proposal was first made in the Union Budget speech of 2006-07. None of the states had asked for it in the first place. The Union Government, nevertheless, wanted to roll out a national-level GST. Meaning, indirect taxes like excise duty, additional excise duty, service tax etc., that fall under the purview of the Union Government, and sales tax, purchase tax, entry tax, entertainment tax etc., that come under the state governments would be subsumed under one national-level tax structure, and that would have no state component. So, the States would get no revenue from goods and services; instead the Union would own and collect all taxes and redistribute among the States.

It was then handed off to the Empowered Committee of Finance Ministers to lay the road-map for its implementation across the Union. Since there was representation of the states in the committee, the idea of national-level GST was opposed. Which state would want to lose its revenues or even the control over its revenues? Finally, a compromise was reached with the dual-GST model, which included a state component too. But as we will see further, the compromise does not necessarily restore control back to the states.

GST - Thrust upon unwilling states

The idea of GST - whether a national level GST, as it was to start with, or a dual GST, as it is being proposed as a compromise now - has come top down from the Union to the States. The States have only agreed to it as a compromise and never wanted such a structure in place. When the States did not want what gave the Union the legitimacy to impose a new taxation structure on them? Note that by legitimacy I do not mean Constitutional legitimacy; I am rather questioning the invasive and imperious attitude of the Union Government in a federal setup comprising several diverse states, each with its unique history, culture, issues and state of socio-economic development.

The AIADMK rightly pointed out the effect the GST Bill will have on the autonomy of the states. In a dissent note the party observed:

..the GST Council, as a constitutional body, impinged on the legislative sovereignty of both Parliament and the State legislature and would jeopardise the autonomy of the States in fiscal matters.

The GST Council will be setup with the passage of the Goods and Services Tax Bill. It will be headed by the Union Finance Minister with the state Finance Ministers as its members. This council will be responsible for the categorization of goods and services, and will decide the tax rates on the same. In matters pertaining to taxes and revenues, all States in the Union should abide by its orders and decisions. What democratic legitimacy and credibility will an elected body retain, when its own matters are decided by a superseding external council that is nominated? The concerns of sovereignty and autonomy of the States, expressed by the AIADMK are absolutely relevant.

No doubt, there is representation of the states in the council. The council, as already stated, will have state Finance Ministers as members. But the weightage given to the states is something to be noted. The Union Government has decided to hold a weightage of one-third of the total votes for itself, and has given two-thirds' weightage to all the states put together. With this, the Union has ensured it has veto power of sorts for itself in the council. The States, needless to say will be dummies. Barring a few exceptional cases in which a majority of States may come to a common agreement, this setup ensures the Union has total control in all matters of indirect taxation in the country.

The GST Council is anti-Federal
 
States that are ruled by the so called 'national' parties, usually have to toe the line of their party high-command, whose agenda is primarily focused on holding the reins of power at Delhi. The interest of the people of the State comes next to this agenda. While this will tilt the balance of power more in favour of the Union Government, those States with less influence in the Union and those ruled by state-level parties will find it much harder to influence any decisions in their favour.

It is also being said that the States can appeal to the council. But a democratically elected government going to a council for matters such as its own taxes and revenues is fundamentally opposed to the idea of democracy and federalism. A legislature elected by the people should hold these powers, not a council or a committee. It also becomes much tougher for the states to come up with and roll out any new or innovative economic policies. They all will have to operate within the limits imposed by this one framework decided by the council.

Who will really benefit from economies of scale?

I also want to address the argument of integrated market and economies of scale. Who does this benefit? It certainly benefits businesses and enterprises that are well established and have large scale inter-state operations. But what if the states want to take a different approach to nurture local entrepreneurship, for example? What autonomy will they be left with to roll-out an economic policy favouring local entrepreneurship when a uniform framework is already decided by and rolled out from a committee sitting in a far-off Delhi?

 Do we really need an integrated market? Do we really need economies of scale? Can our people leverage the so-called economies of scale effectively? These are questions that each state and its people should discuss, debate and take decisions on. Rolling out from Delhi, a single policy for diverse peoples, makes little sense. In fact, it comes with the attitude of 'I know what you need better than you do' - violating the fundamentals of free choice, liberty and democracy.

By this I do not want to sound like a conservative opposed to economic progress. In fact, in today's world, free and democratic countries have attained much stable and viable economic progress in comparison to autocratic, dictatorial or less democratic ones. The USA, termed as the epitome of free- market economy does not have a unified, integrated market. The sales taxes vary across states. In states like Alabama, Oregon, New Hampshire etc., there is no sales tax at all. In contrast, California has the highest rate of sales tax. These rates are decided by the States themselves, the Federal Government has little say in it. To add to it, the cities, the counties and other local bodies may levy additional taxes.  It is not just sales taxes, the States have their share of income tax as well, which is totally a Union subject in India. The USA has shown that a free market does not necessarily have to compromise on liberty of its people or the autonomy of its states.

Another argument in favour of GST is the ease of doing business in India, as businesses do not have to deal with different tax structures in different states. This argument too does not hold any water, when you look at countries like the United States. Despite different laws and taxation structure across different states, USA is way ahead of the Indian Union in this parameter.

Lot is being said about federalism, particularly co-operative federalism, of late. But the GST in its current form will be disastrous to the autonomy of states and the overall federal setup of the Indian Union. Here is a video recording of a talk on the same subject that I gave at Total Kannada, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, on the 13th of March. In this talk, which is in Kannada, I make the same arguments of democracy, federalism and liberty in purview of the GST bill. Comments / feedback/ discussion welcome.

Why Should Delhi Decide on Jallikattu?

The last couple of weeks has seen some passionate debate on Jallikattu and other forms of traditional animal sport in India, including the Kambala practiced in Karnataka. The row began with the announcement by the Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar that such traditional practices may be allowed to continue from the beginning of the year, at the same time making certain that animals are not subjected to any form of cruelty. After close to two weeks of swithering to make a decision, the Union Government has finally given a go-ahead, even as the Tamil Nadu Government has approached the Supreme Court for a review of the ban. 

Many animal rights activists and their supporters have lashed out at the Union Government for its decision to lift the ban, despite the Supreme Court order prohibiting bull fights and other forms of animal sport. But there has also been strong support to lift the ban from many other quarters, especially those in support of continuing the traditions

Earlier in 2014, the Supreme Court, in what was termed as a landmark judgement, had ruled that animals such as bulls could not be used for bull fights, races, and other such performances. This meant that Kambala of Karnataka, Jallikattu of Tamila Nadu, bull races held in Maharashtra and elsewhere had to be stopped. What is interesting is that the Supreme Court order also quashed the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, a state act that permitted Jallikattu.

Are these sports really cruel on the animals? Do they violate animal rights? We will not get into these questions here. These questions pertain to the subject of ethics, which are not always universal. Different cultures and societies have different standards and interpretation of the subject, and what entails ethical behaviour varies. Laws, framed based on the foundation of ethics, as a result, also vary across societies, cultures, and nations. 

So, the question we want to address here, is not if Jallikattu is morally right or wrong. The question is - who should make the pertinent laws and who should take these decisions?

The Supreme Court order was based on the provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which applies to the whole of India, excepting the state of Jammu and Kashmir. With so many diverse ethnicities and societies across the Union of India, it is hard to understand as to why a matter such as animal rights that can be so subjective and at the same time vehemently contentious is governed by a single overbearing law. 

It is impossible to assimilate all the various and often conflicting interpretation of ethical treatment of animals into a single homogeneous act or legislation, and an overbearing law such as this will inevitably impose one cultural interpretation of the subject, on the rest of the states and its peoples. With respect to people, the states being the more proximate government entities are more competent and better placed to legislate and take decisions on such matter. The entities that make a law, interpret it or take decisions based on a law, should be as close to the people or the society in question, as possible.

In the case of Jallikattu, the Union Government that enacted the legislation, and the courts that interpreted it, ordering the sport to be banned and quashing an act passed by the Tamil Nadu government, are much far removed from the Tamil people. Hence the decision to hold such events and festivities should be left to the state governments and the communities involved, rather than laws and orders coming down all the way up from the Delhi establishment.

The media, as usual, has made it a ‘national’ debate. With mounting pressure on the Union Government to permit Jallikattu before the beginning of Pongal festivities, it has now come up with an alteration to the 2011 notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forests by granting exemption to such sport. As per reports, the Animal Welfare Board of India may challenge the order in the Supreme Court. Whether the ultimate outcome will favour the animal rights activists or those in support of the tradition is a different matter, but it still leaves us to the mercy of the Union Government’s laws and its interpreters.

Eventually, the law, whether in its nature favours the present case for Jallikattu or otherwise, should be discussed and enacted by the Tamil Nadu legislature. Similaly, a law on Kambala, irrespective of whether it approves the practice favouring tradition or bans it considering arguments of fair treatment of animals, should be tabled, debated and then approved or rejected in the houses of the Karnataka legislature. A single law for the entire Union is not only unfair and insensitive to various peoples and their accepted standards and societal norms, it is also quite impractical.

(Image source: wikimedia.org)

What India Needs Today Is Linguistic Equality, Not Another Link Language

A news report published recently in The Hindustan Times, reports that the Samskrita Bharati, a non-profit organization associated with the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, will launch an outreach drive to propagate the use of Sanskrit throughout India.

Does a nation require a common link language?

The report states that the organization’s one-day campaign called 'Graham Graham Samskritam' (Sanskrit in every home) is aimed at establishing Sanskrit as the 'rajbhasha', a pan-India medium of spoken and written language. While the idea of having a single common language as a means of communication still has many takers in India it is so old-school that many advanced nations have abandoned such policies in favour of providing equal rights and privileges to all linguistic communities. So, how long are we going to continue to fool ourselves that the Indian Union needs a 'link language' that will serve as some kind of a unifying factor?

It seems natural that nations, which are linguistically diverse should promote a link language to help facilitate communication across all its regions and also to serve as a national unifying factor. But as we have learnt from history, in the instances of Bangladesh, USSR etc., such attempts have mostly been counter-productive leading to frictions between linguistic groups and ethnicities, and have often resulted in disintegration of nations. On the other hand promoting different languages can enhance mutual trust between language groups and help achieve unity that national governments strive for. This can be seen in several countries in Europe like Belgium and Finland, where all languages are treated on par and the rights of its speakers are protected as a state policy. The European Union actively encourages fostering of linguistic and cultural diversities, as a way to promote integration between its member states.

How pragmatic is the promotion of Sanskrit in this age?

Questions of pragmatism and practical sense also arise. Sanskrit may have been used as a liturgical language by the learned few for more than two millennia in India but as linguists and historians attest, it (proto Sanskrit) evolved into various Prakrits more than two thousand years ago. These Prakrits evolved into the various languages and dialects spoken across the northern part of India today. What is the point in bringing back to speech (to whatever possible extent) a language that has already evolved into various languages and dialects? As we know it, speech is constantly under flux. So, even if one succeeded in bringing Sanskrit back to speech in a few groups and regions, it will inevitably change and evolve into different dialects in decades and centuries to come. Should one take up the Sanskrit campaign again then? This is not only so unnecessary and inefficient but also counter-productive. 

Instead, it makes a lot more sense to promote various languages spoken across the country in education, administration and in all other possible spheres of life. It will not only help literacy and education, but also help people obtain citizen services and official government communication in the language they are most comfortable with. Often, some people argue that promotion of Sanskrit will enrich the other Indian languages too, but linguistically speaking this is a false argument. Also, why is Sanskrit being taken to every home? Don’t these homes already speak their mother tongues? What is the need to oblige them to speak Sanskrit in place of their respective mother tongues?

How good is Sanskrit as the medium of instruction?

The organization has also submitted a proposal to the Union government, says the report, to continue to use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction between class 1 and 8 and move to the Sanskrit medium from class 9 onwards. It is scientifically proven that for a child there is no better medium of instruction than his/ her mother tongue. In this respect the organization's proposal to use the mother tongue in the primary education is right. But its suggestion to switch to Sanskrit medium from class 9 is not justified. The decision to use a particular language or languages of instruction in schools should, at the most, be left to respective linguistic communities. Linguistic communities may work with their respective state governments towards an acceptable resolution on the medium of instruction if needed. Recommending Sanskrit medium to the children of several hundreds of different linguistic communities across a vast landmass of a billion plus population, without the consultation of the communities themselves is not correct.

In Karnatique, we have always supported the mother tongue as the medium of instruction, for scientific reasons. Not just primary education, even offering higher education in the mother tongue will benefit the respective linguistic communities. For their own benefit, linguistic communities should work towards that goal. But trying to promote a different language, be it English, Hindi or even Sanskrit as medium of instruction will be counter-productive. It should be noted that no country has ever progressed by using a language other than people’s language in education.

Such proposals to the Union Government too are inappropriate as the Union represents all linguistic communities and not just one or two. Private organizations are free to promote any language but they should not go to the extent of violating linguistic rights of other linguistic communities. Encouraging people to learn Sanskrit and teaching the language through private institutes and classes are all fine, but promoting it with the intent of making it a pan-India language, especially by using one’s influence in the Union Government, in order to serve as a language of official use throughout the country or introducing it as a medium of instruction in education on various other unsuspecting linguistic groups is a mistake.

All Indian Languages Ought to Be Promoted in Fields of Science

Pic source: indiandiasporaclub.com

As per this report that appeared in the Economic Times dated 25th of August, world Hindi conference will be organized at the city of Bhopal in the month of September. The whole event is being sponsored and organized by the Government of India.Apart from its focus on literary activities in Hindi, strategies to promote the Hindi language in the fields of science and technology, foreign affairs, Information Technology and etc., will be debated in the event, says the report.

Promoting the usage of Hindi in the several fields of science is certainly good for Hindi, and its speakers. However, shouldn't the Union Government of India, which is a representative of all the linguistic communities of India, be equally concerned about other Indian languages? Why does the Union Government fund and organize events related to Hindi language alone? Shouldn't all Indian languages be used in science and technology? Why are non-Hindi languages of India not treated at par with Hindi?

These are the questions we all need to ponder!

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.

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.

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.

Devolution to States Should Be Bharatiya Approach to Development

 "Perhaps most importantly, the institution must adhere to the tenet that while incorporating positive influences from the world, no single model can be transplanted  from outside into the Indian scenario. We need to find our own strategy for growth.  The new institution has to zero in on what will work in and for India.   It will be a Bharatiya approach to development".

The above is an excerpt from the press note of NITI Aayog, the institution that replaces the Planning Commission. It is true that successful approaches to development and progressive economic policies cannot be replicated across the globe. A model that works for one county may not fit another. The social challenges, the economic challenges and priorities are vastly different. Policies should also consider various sociocultural traits, and should be designed such that they not only help achieve development in the given cultural setting but also minimize any conflicts between development models and the cultural complexion.

Given this, it is obvious that India is different in itself and development models and policies that work in, let us say, Italy, or Germany, surely cannot be replicated here. Countries can learn from the accumulated experience of others and frame models and policies that suit their own characteristics. But will a county-wide policy work for India?

India has always tried to hold power at its Centre and has devolved very less to the states. The number of subjects that the states have jurisdiction over have been going down and the number that have moved to the Concurrent and the Union lists have increased. Whether it is finance and banking, railways, insurance, or aviation, policies are defined by the Union. This, needless to say, has resulted in approaches, often misaligned with local needs and priorities. It is being said that the NITI Aayog is setup with the objective of involving states in economic-policy making, in the name of ‘Co-operative Federalism’, but unless the states have enough autonomy to plan and device their own policies and schemes, the result will be the delivery of progress (from the Union) lacking any synchronization with local development needs.

Just the way Italy and Germany are different, Kerala and Haryana, for example, are quite different. Beti Bachao Abhiyan may be very relevant to Haryana, while it makes very little sense to Kerala. The Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, remarked that both Beti Bachao Abhiyan and Jan Dhan Yojana are irrelevant to Kerala as the state had already achieved high standards in the areas that these two schemes are devised to address.

Kerala, historically, has had a healthy sex ratio. In fact, its sex ratio went up from 1058 females to 1000 males in 2001 to 1084 females to 1000 males in 2011. Though Haryana bettered from 861 in 2001 to 877 in 2011 the state’s numbers are definitely worrying. The state Government of Haryana would be best placed to understand the true nature and the intensity of the issue, and address it accordingly. The design of the program, the kind of campaigns required to popularize and implement it, the challenges and hurdles, and the required funds are all better known to the state than to the Union. So, it is far better to leave the design and implementation of such programs to the states than have the Union roll out projects of such scale uniformly across the country that are often irrelevant to many regions and states.

Hence, in different aspects of development like education, health care and other human development indices, infrastructure, industries and entrepreneurship, agriculture, sociocultural issues and various other parameters, each state is unique in itself. A top-down approach to policy-making can be regressive, and may often work against the objectives of organized development. There can be no single ‘Bharatiya’ approach to development much like there can be no one model for the whole world. The Union should play the role of a facilitator to the states, rather than getting further into the centralizing business in an already centralized scheme of things if India should aspire for a healthy, sustainable, and all-round development.




(Image source: thehindubusinessline)