It requires inveterate superciliousness for a person to make preposterous and insensitive comments on a regular basis. Rahul Gandhi is one such person. This gets confirmed, if confirmation was required, from his 99 per cent remark about the Bombay serial blasts on July 13.
The terror attack killed 17 and wounded many more, rattled the commercial capital of the country, and angered all Indians. A day after the outrage, as the city was trying to limp back to normal and the victims were groaning in hospitals, the crown prince said that total elimination of terror attacks was impossible. He went on to laud his own government for having largely succeeded in controlling terror assaults.
“It’s very difficult to stop every single terror attack. Terrorism is impossible to stop all the time. But 99 per cent of terror attacks have been stopped due to strong vigilance and intelligence efforts,” he said.
So, what should we do? Instead of castigating the Congress-led governments in New Delhi and Bombay for their gross incompetence and worse in checking the jihadis, should we hail Rahul, the lame duck Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and the super-Prime Minister, Sonia mama as divine creatures? Should we sing hosannas in praise of such gods and goddesses? By making such gauche remarks, Rahul has added salt to the injuries of the victims.
Then there is Home Minister P. Chidambaram who reacts by saying that all cities are vulnerable to attacks. He went on to say that terrorism is a global phenomenon. At a press conference, he listed the number of attacks in other countries. So, we have some consolation: it is not only the Indians but others as well who are dying because of terror! Thank God for small mercies.
Of late, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has begun peddling a perverse form of globalization. When questions are asked about soaring inflation, they say it’s happening all over the world. When it faces flak for its ineptitude in tackling jihad, it says terrorism is not restricted to India.
While it is true that global commodity prices have been hardening for some time, it is undeniable that mindless populism of the government has also augmented the aam aadmi’s torment. Similarly, developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan and regular terror funding from the Middle East are a big problem, but the sins of omission and commission by the UPA regime are too obvious to be ignored. But Rahul, who represents Amethi in the Lok Sabha, said, “We have improved by leaps and bounds.”
Evidently, what Rahul, Chidambaram, and other Congress leaders are saying is a lot of baloney. Yes, terror strikes have been happening all over the world, but no such thing has happened in the US since the September 11 attacks in 2001. Similarly, the UK was able to stop any incident after the London terror attack on July 7, 2005.
At the heart of the terror problem in our country is the propensity of the Congress, and other political parties, to mollycoddle Muslims fundamentalists and incorrigible fanatics. Congress leaders such as Digvijay Singh—who, by the way, is Rahul’s mentor—have always opposed policies and actions that can have a deterrent effect on jihadis. The aftermath of Batla House encounter is testimony to their brazen appeasement of Muslim hardliners.
Rahul’s superciliousness and insensitivity are the product and function of this appeasement.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Food security law wil spell doom
A short but extremely significant statement that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made during his interaction with newspaper editors went largely unnoticed. About the proposed Food Security Bill, he said, “Maximum that has been procured is 57 million [tones of food grain]; the average procurement for the last couple of years is 55 million tones. We have to work out a system within this.”
This is an unambiguous refutation of the obstinate position taken by the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC wants to give legal entitlement to highly subsidized food grain to 70 per cent of the population. This translates into about 80 million people getting with monthly ration of 7 kg for every member of families below the poverty line and 3 kg to each individual from “general households.”
As is its wont, the Leftist-infested NAC is trying to expand the role and scope of government in food grain distribution, while Singh is trying to limit the populism to whatever extent it can. Earlier, it looked like the Prime Minister was fighting a losing battle, for his own ministers are seem keener to follow the NAC chief’s diktats than to obey his commands. Food minister K.V. Thomas, for instance, told The Economic Times in an interview (May 30), “[The Food Security Bill] has been drafted under the direction of Madam Sonia Gandhi.”
The Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Committee (PMEAC), headed by former Reserve Bank governor C. Rangarajan, has serious differences with the NAC on a variety of issues. But it must be noted that the PMEAC’s resistance to the NAC’s big state measures is feeble and based on practical considerations. While the NAC wants is indulges in demagoguery to increase the number of beneficiaries of subsidized food-grain, the PMEAC meekly favors such subsidies for 46 per cent of rural population and 28 per cent of the urban people.
So, nobody is talking about, let along opposing, the moral hazard of Leviathan statism; there is no ideological or principled opposition to the giant strides being made in government spending. This is despite the fact that, in absolute numbers, the fiscal deficit stands at Rs 3.69 lakh crore, which is much higher than Rs 139,231 crore in 2004-05, when the Manmohan Singh government took charge.
The NAC jihadis, of course, have no regard for the concept of fiscal prudence. Like spoilt brats who, unbothered about the family income, always pester their parents with ever-rising demands, they incessantly work on schemes that would be ruinous for the exchequer.
Apart from the strain on public finance, there is the ethical issue of creating and nurturing an entitlement mindset among vast sections of society. They would be eternally looking for succor from the state.
And since pilferage and graft are the inevitable consequences of state expenditure, one can safely assume huge rise in the spread and scale of corruption in the public distribution system.
Instead of looking for novel ideas for improving food-grain distribution and increasing the role of private sector for efficiency, the government remains stuck with linear thinking. Among other things, it is trying to transform the inherently inefficient Food Corporation of India (FCI) into a modern, competent machine to address the gigantic task of grain distribution. As Thomas said, “Compared to earlier periods, the recruitment in Food Corporation of India has risen by 10 per cent. We have modernized FCI go-downs through computerization. Sitting in my office, I know the quantity, quality and distribution of grain from each go-down. We have put CCTV cameras to watch operations. We have also enabled e-transactions; every payment above 1 lakh will be e-transacted. To complement all this, PDS will be improved through Aadhar.”
In short, the idea is cure socialism with more socialism. The endeavor is doomed, for the capabilities of FCI are grossly inadequate. A recent study conducted by, among others, chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) Ashok Gulati said that FCI’s efficiency was half that of private traders.
Further, the proposed food security legislation can be pervasive enough to drive out private companies. The study also recommended that the government, instead of embarking on a massive exercise in food-grain distribution, should explore the options of cash transfers and food coupons.
“Strangulating the private sector could impact other key areas in agriculture, including seed and storage where its role would become even more crucial now,” the study said. Ad hoc government policies have already adversely affected the private sector in a few states.
The Left-leaning activists of the NAC are not satisfied by higher government expenditure and the attack on the private sector; they want more; the council reportedly wants complete ban on food grain exports.
More radical Leftists are dissatisfied by even the NAC’s recommendations. Jean Dreze, who is credited with conceiving the rural employment guarantee scheme, is not comfortable with the existing NAC proposals. Appeasement of the Left is a Sisyphean task.
This is an unambiguous refutation of the obstinate position taken by the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC). The NAC wants to give legal entitlement to highly subsidized food grain to 70 per cent of the population. This translates into about 80 million people getting with monthly ration of 7 kg for every member of families below the poverty line and 3 kg to each individual from “general households.”
As is its wont, the Leftist-infested NAC is trying to expand the role and scope of government in food grain distribution, while Singh is trying to limit the populism to whatever extent it can. Earlier, it looked like the Prime Minister was fighting a losing battle, for his own ministers are seem keener to follow the NAC chief’s diktats than to obey his commands. Food minister K.V. Thomas, for instance, told The Economic Times in an interview (May 30), “[The Food Security Bill] has been drafted under the direction of Madam Sonia Gandhi.”
The Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Committee (PMEAC), headed by former Reserve Bank governor C. Rangarajan, has serious differences with the NAC on a variety of issues. But it must be noted that the PMEAC’s resistance to the NAC’s big state measures is feeble and based on practical considerations. While the NAC wants is indulges in demagoguery to increase the number of beneficiaries of subsidized food-grain, the PMEAC meekly favors such subsidies for 46 per cent of rural population and 28 per cent of the urban people.
So, nobody is talking about, let along opposing, the moral hazard of Leviathan statism; there is no ideological or principled opposition to the giant strides being made in government spending. This is despite the fact that, in absolute numbers, the fiscal deficit stands at Rs 3.69 lakh crore, which is much higher than Rs 139,231 crore in 2004-05, when the Manmohan Singh government took charge.
The NAC jihadis, of course, have no regard for the concept of fiscal prudence. Like spoilt brats who, unbothered about the family income, always pester their parents with ever-rising demands, they incessantly work on schemes that would be ruinous for the exchequer.
Apart from the strain on public finance, there is the ethical issue of creating and nurturing an entitlement mindset among vast sections of society. They would be eternally looking for succor from the state.
And since pilferage and graft are the inevitable consequences of state expenditure, one can safely assume huge rise in the spread and scale of corruption in the public distribution system.
Instead of looking for novel ideas for improving food-grain distribution and increasing the role of private sector for efficiency, the government remains stuck with linear thinking. Among other things, it is trying to transform the inherently inefficient Food Corporation of India (FCI) into a modern, competent machine to address the gigantic task of grain distribution. As Thomas said, “Compared to earlier periods, the recruitment in Food Corporation of India has risen by 10 per cent. We have modernized FCI go-downs through computerization. Sitting in my office, I know the quantity, quality and distribution of grain from each go-down. We have put CCTV cameras to watch operations. We have also enabled e-transactions; every payment above 1 lakh will be e-transacted. To complement all this, PDS will be improved through Aadhar.”
In short, the idea is cure socialism with more socialism. The endeavor is doomed, for the capabilities of FCI are grossly inadequate. A recent study conducted by, among others, chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) Ashok Gulati said that FCI’s efficiency was half that of private traders.
Further, the proposed food security legislation can be pervasive enough to drive out private companies. The study also recommended that the government, instead of embarking on a massive exercise in food-grain distribution, should explore the options of cash transfers and food coupons.
“Strangulating the private sector could impact other key areas in agriculture, including seed and storage where its role would become even more crucial now,” the study said. Ad hoc government policies have already adversely affected the private sector in a few states.
The Left-leaning activists of the NAC are not satisfied by higher government expenditure and the attack on the private sector; they want more; the council reportedly wants complete ban on food grain exports.
More radical Leftists are dissatisfied by even the NAC’s recommendations. Jean Dreze, who is credited with conceiving the rural employment guarantee scheme, is not comfortable with the existing NAC proposals. Appeasement of the Left is a Sisyphean task.
From Cyberia to Siberia
The recent government effort to police blogs is yet another assault on the freedom of expression. It emanates from the belief among our political masters that the lesser mortals need to be constantly monitored and, if need arises, reprimanded for infractions. And, of course, only our betters can define what constitutes an infraction.
The draft rules, derived from the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, describe the due diligence an intermediary is expected to carry out. An “intermediary” is an entity that?on behalf of another?receives, stores, or transmits any electronic record. So, intermediaries include telecom networks, web-hosting and Internet service providers, search engines, online payment and auction sites, cyber cafes, and even bloggers.
The proposed rules stipulate that hosts or owners of websites must take action against “objectionable content” that is considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous,” or “hateful.” They are ordered to act against anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign countries, or public order.”
Such verbosity, however, does not fool everybody about the nefarious designs of our political masters. As Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of the news and analysis website, MediaNama, was quoted in The Hindu (May 11, 2011): “These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked, who took the decision to block it, and, just as importantly, providing adequate recourse to blogs, sites and online and mobile businesses, for getting the block removed.”
Three points need to be made in this regard. First, there is absolutely no need to bring in any rules to monitor or regulate blogs and other modes of communication on the Net. Such communications, unfettered by governmental or other controls, offer a platform to common citizens to express their views about anything under the sun.
It is true that often the postings by Indian bloggers and others are not the best examples of elegant prose, poise, and sobriety; apart from bad English, there are vituperation, racial abuse, etc. But even the most abusive of Internet communications have not caused any law and order problem. Nor has there been any demand from any section—not even from any tetchy group. So, why is there an attempt to impose censorship in the first place?
Second, if the government decides to regulate cyberia, it will call for a huge drain on the public exchequer. For the task would truly gargantuan—countless blogs, the sites of all newspapers, magazines, news channels, innumerable portals, etc. Then there are websites of foreign media houses and organizations. Who would regulate them? The proposed rules would be practically unimplementable.
When laws are unimplementable, they weaken the individual, strengthen the state, and promote discretion in the affairs of state. The most likely consequence: officers of the state would use the ban on breathing at will—for rent-seeking or repression.
And, finally, there is the issue of burden on our law-enforcement apparatus. Have our cops solved all cases? Have our courts disposed of the millions of cases that have been waiting for years?
The proposed rules are a gauche attempt by meddlesome mandarins to control the Net. It is perhaps the first time that the Indian government has embarked on such a venture in India, though Internet censorship is rampant in repressive regimes like China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Unfortunately, freedom of expression is facing relentless assaults not just from the state. An assortment of forces—the Left and the Right, the pre-modern mullahs and postmodern intellectuals, publicity hungry outfits and rabid busybodies—is busy in activities that end up shrinking the sphere of individual liberty (and, concomitantly, augmenting the scope and role of Indian state). It is a veritable Inquisition. Unlike the original Inquisition—which was an ecclesiastical tribunal or institution of the Roman Catholic Church for combating or suppressing heresy—the contemporary enemies of individual liberty and open society are a multifarious lot who want to proscribe anything and everything that can “hurt the sentiments” of any community, creed, or group. It is like a rainbow coalition against individual liberty. They inveigh against books, movies, songs, etc; often the protest becomes violent.
With a frightening frequency, demands are made for ban of this or that book, movie, song, etc, because it “hurt the sentiments” of some persons, groups, or communities. This is despite the fact that ‘sentiments’ are arbitrary and subjective. Some Hindus’s sentiments may get hurt by M.F. Husain’s Saraswati painting, while others are not offended. Similarly, Taslima Nasreen’s novels may or may not hurt the sentiments of the Muslims. The predominantly Christian West was not offended by The Da Vinci Code movie, while many Indian Christians were.
The social and cultural backdrop adds an alarming dimension to the government effort to control the Net. A draconian fiat may see the light of the day without much protest.
The draft rules, derived from the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, describe the due diligence an intermediary is expected to carry out. An “intermediary” is an entity that?on behalf of another?receives, stores, or transmits any electronic record. So, intermediaries include telecom networks, web-hosting and Internet service providers, search engines, online payment and auction sites, cyber cafes, and even bloggers.
The proposed rules stipulate that hosts or owners of websites must take action against “objectionable content” that is considered “disparaging,” “harassing,” “blasphemous,” or “hateful.” They are ordered to act against anything that “threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign countries, or public order.”
Such verbosity, however, does not fool everybody about the nefarious designs of our political masters. As Nikhil Pahwa, editor and publisher of the news and analysis website, MediaNama, was quoted in The Hindu (May 11, 2011): “These rules give the Indian government the ability to gag free speech, and block any website it deems fit, without publicly disclosing why sites have been blocked, who took the decision to block it, and, just as importantly, providing adequate recourse to blogs, sites and online and mobile businesses, for getting the block removed.”
Three points need to be made in this regard. First, there is absolutely no need to bring in any rules to monitor or regulate blogs and other modes of communication on the Net. Such communications, unfettered by governmental or other controls, offer a platform to common citizens to express their views about anything under the sun.
It is true that often the postings by Indian bloggers and others are not the best examples of elegant prose, poise, and sobriety; apart from bad English, there are vituperation, racial abuse, etc. But even the most abusive of Internet communications have not caused any law and order problem. Nor has there been any demand from any section—not even from any tetchy group. So, why is there an attempt to impose censorship in the first place?
Second, if the government decides to regulate cyberia, it will call for a huge drain on the public exchequer. For the task would truly gargantuan—countless blogs, the sites of all newspapers, magazines, news channels, innumerable portals, etc. Then there are websites of foreign media houses and organizations. Who would regulate them? The proposed rules would be practically unimplementable.
When laws are unimplementable, they weaken the individual, strengthen the state, and promote discretion in the affairs of state. The most likely consequence: officers of the state would use the ban on breathing at will—for rent-seeking or repression.
And, finally, there is the issue of burden on our law-enforcement apparatus. Have our cops solved all cases? Have our courts disposed of the millions of cases that have been waiting for years?
The proposed rules are a gauche attempt by meddlesome mandarins to control the Net. It is perhaps the first time that the Indian government has embarked on such a venture in India, though Internet censorship is rampant in repressive regimes like China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Unfortunately, freedom of expression is facing relentless assaults not just from the state. An assortment of forces—the Left and the Right, the pre-modern mullahs and postmodern intellectuals, publicity hungry outfits and rabid busybodies—is busy in activities that end up shrinking the sphere of individual liberty (and, concomitantly, augmenting the scope and role of Indian state). It is a veritable Inquisition. Unlike the original Inquisition—which was an ecclesiastical tribunal or institution of the Roman Catholic Church for combating or suppressing heresy—the contemporary enemies of individual liberty and open society are a multifarious lot who want to proscribe anything and everything that can “hurt the sentiments” of any community, creed, or group. It is like a rainbow coalition against individual liberty. They inveigh against books, movies, songs, etc; often the protest becomes violent.
With a frightening frequency, demands are made for ban of this or that book, movie, song, etc, because it “hurt the sentiments” of some persons, groups, or communities. This is despite the fact that ‘sentiments’ are arbitrary and subjective. Some Hindus’s sentiments may get hurt by M.F. Husain’s Saraswati painting, while others are not offended. Similarly, Taslima Nasreen’s novels may or may not hurt the sentiments of the Muslims. The predominantly Christian West was not offended by The Da Vinci Code movie, while many Indian Christians were.
The social and cultural backdrop adds an alarming dimension to the government effort to control the Net. A draconian fiat may see the light of the day without much protest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)