Mission for NITI Aayog

NITI Aayog should make India a first-world nation in economic data, statistics, analysis and dissemination

Sajjid Chinoy of JP Morgan (India) wrote in The Indian Express that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), under D. Subbarao, was blindsided twice by inadequate and lack of timely data. The RBI began a gradual tightening cycle in 2010-11 but subsequent revisions showed that economic growth had begun to accelerate much faster than what initial estimates had suggested. Again, in Q1 2012, the rate of inflation was revised higher retrospectively. Had it been available on time, the RBI may not have cut interest rates by 50 basis points in April 2012.

Andy Mukherjee wrote a column on the day before the RBI met to decide on monetary policy in September 2015. He wanted to make a case for the RBI to make a sizeable interest rate cut. So, he had to cite some information on the extent of economic malaise. Usually, most commentators would look for weakness in job creation (employment) as a justification for aggressive interest rate cuts. The problem is that there is not much useful employment-unemployment data in India. He had to be content with citing the well-publicized news of highly educated youths applying for the job of a peon in government service in Uttar Pradesh and statistics on the number of youths attending colleges having doubled to 60 million from around 30 million in 2005.

Arguably, the most widely followed data release in the world is that of the monthly non-farm employment in the United States. Both private sector economists and academics find enough in it to write tomes. What kind of labour market data does India have?

The labour bureau of the ministry of labour and employment is located comfortably in Shimla—away from all the action in the country. It published the Indian Labour Year Book 2011 and 2012 together on 16 March 2015! The data on employment and unemployment is available only up to March 2011 and that too only for the organized sector, which employed about 29 million people out of an estimated total workforce of around 480 million. The population estimate then was 1.211 billion. The participation rate is too low. The very fact that organized-sector employment is about 6% of the total workforce is an indication of India’s inefficient production structure. Too many people are not in the labour force and about half of those in it declare themselves self-employed. Therefore, the unemployment rate in the country, unbelievably, was 3.8% based on the second employment-unemployment (E-U) survey that commenced in July 2011 and was completed in July 2012.

By January 2015, the labour bureau had issued a press note on the fourth annual E-U survey, while the survey report itself was released in October 2014. The survey was conducted between January and July 2014. The Yearbook 2011-12 released in March 2015 did not bother to include that number, even in the footnotes. The fourth E-U survey has five volumes. The unemployment rate as per the fourth E-U survey had gone up to 4.9% and that too because of the high unemployment rate among people aged 15-17 years and 18-29 years. The unemployment rates in these two categories were 17.5% and 12.9%, respectively. Incredibly, for people aged 30 and above, the unemployment rate was 1.4%!

In addition to this, the labour bureau conducts quarterly employment surveys. For some strange reason, they are labelled, Quarterly Report on Effect of Economic Slowdown on Employment in India. The 24th report was released in April 2015 and it pertained to the period October–December 2014. According to this 24th quarterly survey, the economy had created 421,000 jobs in 2014. Since there is no corresponding data on the growth in population—or the growth in the labour force— it is hard to make out if the economy was creating jobs in adequate numbers. In January this year, it was announced that the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (MOSPI) would conduct quarterly employment surveys to provide information in a more timely fashion. We have not heard much about it since then.

Keeping all this in mind, I have a new mission in mind for NITI Aayog. It should declare that its goal is to make India a first-world nation in economic data, statistics, analysis and dissemination in the next four years. It can set aside every other project it is working on. MOSPI can focus on programme implementation and the statistics wing can be folded into NITI Aayog. If NITI Aayog pursued this mission, it would discover gaps, redundancies, inter-ministerial and centre-states’ coordination and overlapping issues. It can document all of those and publish a separate report on the governance issues it discovered in the process. If it succeeds in doing so, the transformational impact will be considerable. Faith in government institutions would be restored too. It would enhance India’s credibility in the world. More importantly, policy will be made with timely data and facts rather than based on ideology and polemics.

On winning the 2015 Nobel Prize for economics, Angus Deaton said that democracies required good data. Nothing more needs to be said.

Who should get government welfare benefits?

A data interactive shows the state-level picture if govt makes the recently released numbers on economic wellbeing the basis of who it includes and excludes

For Angus Deaton, the winner of the Nobel Prize for economics this year, poverty and its measurement has been an area of interest and practice, especially in the Indian context. While being critical of poverty estimation frameworks adopted by India, he makes a case for delinking welfare benefits from poverty estimates.

Interestingly, after the poverty line, the Indian government is looking to move to a new framework to determine beneficiaries of welfare entitlements. This framework is grounded in the Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC), the numbers for which were released this July for rural India.

The data visualization below shows the impact this new framework, if adopted, will have at the state level in terms of inclusion and exclusion. SECC divides households into three brackets:

Automatic exclusion: SECC looks at 14 questions relating to attributes like income, asset ownership and living standards. If a household has answered ‘yes’ to any one of these 14 questions, it is automatically excluded from government welfare schemes. Across India, around 40% of households fall in this bucket.

Automatic inclusion: It also looks at five questions related to social position and standard of living. If a household answers ‘yes’ to even one, it is automatically eligible for welfare schemes. Across India, less than 1% of households were placed in this category.

Conditional inclusion: That leaves about 59% of households. To place them, the SECC looks at seven questions on deprivation to assess a household’s social and economic vulnerability.

Scores for each household will be calculated, depending on their responses to the seven deprivation criteria. Those scoring above a cutoff could be included in the beneficiaries’ list, others left out.

In this framework, the key question will be where the government sets the cutoff. The range is wide: while 18% of households across India answered ‘yes’ to any one of the seven deprivation criteria, only 1% did so for all seven. The differences are also stark across different types of households: for instance, 45% of general households will be excluded in this framework, but only 21% of tribal households. It could well come down to a number.

Chart 1 shows where different states are, based on SECC questions. Slide the deprivation criteria filter to see the change and use the drop down to select different types of households.

Chart 2 visualizes all SECC data for all states for six kind of households. Click on smaller charts to view them in greater detail. Charts where all points are vertically aligned indicate lower inter-state variations.

Rating agency Standard and Poor’s (S&P’s) on Monday kept India’s sovereign rating unchanged

Rating agency Standard and Poor’s (S&P’s) on Monday kept India’s sovereign rating unchanged at the lowest investment grade with a stable outlook.

S&P said it does not expect to change India’s rating this year or next year based on its current set of forecasts, but warned that pressure on the rating could emerge again.

“Downward pressure on the ratings could re-emerge if growth disappoints (perhaps as a result of a stalling of reforms), if, contrary to our expectations, the new monetary council is not effective in achieving its targets, or if the external liquidity position of the nation deteriorates more than we currently expect,” it said.

On the contrary, ratings could improve if the government’s reforms markedly improve its general government fiscal situation and the level of net general government debt, so that it falls below 60% of gross domestic product (GDP).

Besides S&P, Fitch also has a “stable” outlook on India while Moody’s raised it to “positive” in April.

S&P projected the economy to grow at 7.4% in 2015 and at an average 8% over 2015-20. “While India experiences some volatility in its terms of trade, we expect it to record a modest current account deficit of 1.4% (of GDP) in 2015 and similar levels through 2018. We project that usable reserves will stand at $357 billion (or seven-and-a-half months of current account payments) at year-end 2015,” it added.

India’s economy grew 7% in the first quarter of 2015-16. The finance ministry expects it to pick up and grow in excess of 7.5%. S&P said while India’s growth is outperforming that of its peers and is picking up modestly, it believes that domestic supply-side factors will increasingly bind economic performance.

“We note that the government has little ability to undertake countercyclical fiscal policy given its current debt load,” it added.

The rating agency said India’s sound external position and inclusive policymaking traditions balance the vulnerabilities stemming from its low per capita income and weak public finances.

“Although we expect the new administration to pursue its stated fiscal consolidation programme, we foresee that planned revenues may not fully materialize and subsidy cuts may be delayed,” it added.

S&P said the current ratings of India reflect the country’s sound external profile and improved monetary credibility. “These factors, combined with strong democratic institutions and a free press, both of which yield policy stability and predictability, underpin the investment-grade rating on India. These strengths are balanced against vulnerabilities stemming from the country’s low per capita income and weak public finances,” it added.

The rating agency estimated India’s GDP per capita to grow 6% to $1,700 in 2015, terming it a “rating constraint”. Debt load and India’s weak public finances are another ratings constraint, S&P said. “India has a long history of high general government fiscal deficits (averaging 8.8% of GDP over the past 20 years and 7.4% in the past five years). Although we expect the new administration to pursue its stated fiscal consolidation program, we foresee that planned revenues may not fully materialize and subsidy cuts may be delayed. In the medium term, we expect improved fiscal performance primarily from revenue-side improvements, brought about by the planned introduction of the general sales tax and administrative efforts to expand the tax base,” it added.

The rating agency said given the weaker profitability of public-sector banks, it estimates capital infusion needs at $35 billion (1.6% of GDP) over 2016-2019 to meet Basel III capital norms. Of this, the government has already committed $11 billion (0.5% of GDP). “The government may have to increase the allocation if the banks are not able to secure capital from alternative sources, such as equity markets, additional tier-1 bonds and insurance companies,” it said.

After 100 years, Einstein’s theory stands test of time

Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, and his hypothesis has withstood the test of time, despite numerous expert attempts to find flaws

Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, and his revolutionary hypothesis has withstood the test of time, despite numerous expert attempts to find flaws.

“Einstein changed the way we think about the most basic things, which are space and time. And that opened our eyes to the universe, and how the most interesting things in it work, like black holes,” said David Kaiser, professor of the history of science, technology and society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Einstein, a celebrated German-born theoretical physicist who spent the final years of his life at Princeton University in the northeastern US, presented his theory on 25 November 1915 before the Prussian Academy of Science.

The document was published in March 1916 in a journal called Annalen der Physik.

The general theory of relativity was among the most revolutionary in history; it marked a major leap from the law of universal gravitation put forth by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687.

Einstein believed that “space and time are not fixed, which was what others had thought, but are flexible, dynamic phenomena like other processes of the universe,” said Michael Turner, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics.

“So space bends and time warps, and it was a whole new way at looking at gravity.”

Einstein had put forth a more restrained version of his theory in 1905, the special theory of relativity, which left out gravity but described the relationship between space and time. It held that the speed of light is the same in a vacuum, and the laws of physics do not change regarding inert objects.

He also came up with his famous equation, E=mc2, which says that energy equals mass times the speed of light in a vacuum, squared. In other words, mass and energy are the same but in different forms.

Ten years later, the general theory of relativity offered a larger and more explanatory vision, adding gravity’s role in the space-time continuum.

Therefore, time would move more slowly in proximity to a powerful gravitational field, such as that of a planet in the void of space.

This relationship has been verified by comparing two atomic clocks, one on Earth and the other in a high-altitude airplane where it shows a slight delay.

Global positioning systems (GPS) are an application of this phenomenon.

Satellites have clocks that are precisely adjusted to account for this time difference, otherwise GPS would not be able to function.

According to the theory of general relativity, light is also warped by powerful gravitational fields, which British astronomer Arthur Eddington confirmed with his observations on the deflections of starlight by the Sun in 1919.

Einstein also predicted that stars at the end of their lives would collapse under their own gravity.

Their external envelope would explode in a supernova while their heart would form a very dense object known as a neutron star, or a rapidly spinning pulsar.

They could also transform into a black hole, which such a huge gravitational field that space and time could not escape.

According to Einstein, these celestial bodies, given their masses, should provoke waves in space time much like a thrown stone causes ripples in water.

These are the gravitational waves that astronomers hope to observe first-hand.

This would “confirm one of the last great but as yet untested predictions from Einstein, equation that space and time are not really dynamical but they can ripple, like the surface of a pond,” said Kaiser.

Instruments have been designed to capture this phenomenon, including the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the US and VIRGO, a gravitational wave detector in Italy in Europe.

An enormous challenge remains—to reconcile the general theory of relativity with quantum physics, the two big pillars of modern physics.

Quantum physics, contrary to relativity, perfectly describes phenomena on an atomic level and has numerous applications, from transistors to computers.

Turner said the most popular theory for reconciling the two is string theory, which holds that particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter but are elastic strings that vibrate at different frequencies.

“String theory might answer that deep question of what space and time are,” Turner told AFP.

“It suggests it could be extra dimensions and that the number of dimensions of space and time could change,” he added.

“And if you take the most extravagant view of that, maybe space and time did not exist and they emerged from something else.”

Turner described string theory as an “empty vessel,” and added: “the great thing about an empty vessel is that we can put our hopes and dreams in it.”

“We are now ready for the next Einstein to open our eyes a little more.”

Constitution’s will upheld

Instead of seeing the NJAC verdict as one that leads to a confrontation between the Parliament and the judiciary, the executive must use this as an opportunity to help the Supreme Court in preparing an institutional design so that appointments are fair and transparent.

Two days after the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), declaring them to be ultra vires the Constitution, the Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, said in his blog, “Indian democracy cannot be a tyranny of the unelected and if elected are undermined, democracy itself would be in danger.”

Law Minister Sadanand Gowda, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Constitution Bench, said that he was surprised by the verdict. He went on to say, “the NJAC was completely supported by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha; It had 100 per cent support of the people.” Telecommunications Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad — earlier the Law Minister who vigorously worked for the NJAC Bill — remarked that parliamentary sovereignty has received a setback. Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi echoed similar sentiments when he said, “It is a flawed judgment ignoring the unanimous will of the Parliament, half the State Legislatures and the will of the people for transparency in judicial appointments.”

Questions on judicial review

The reaction of the executive to the NJAC verdict raises the fundamental question: Should the exercise of power of judicial review depend upon the will of the Parliament?

Indian Constitution, unlike the Constitutions of United States of America and Australia, does not have an express provision of separation of powers but its sweep, operation and visibility are not unclear. While it is the Parliament’s prerogative to amend the Constitution and make laws, the duty to decide whether the basic elements of the constitutional structure have been transgressed has been placed on the judiciary.

Once the legislature has done a ‘legislative’ act, the constitutionality of such an act can only be decided through the process of judicial review and there can be no rule of law without such a provision. In other words, the power to strike down offending amendments to the Constitution on the touchstone of basic structure can be exercised by the superior judiciary alone, uninfluenced by the will of the Parliament. The rule of law would cease to have any meaning if the discharge of judicial functions is seen as thwarting the will of the people represented by the elected legislatures. Any attempt to reconcile judicial review with the will of representatives of people is sure recipe for destruction of the rule of law.

Our Constitution has given the power of judicial review to the unelected superior judiciary to declare ‘unconstitutional’ a legislative act, once it is found to be violative of the basic structure. It would be a sad day for our democracy if the exercise of judicial function is made dependent on the will of the representatives of people. What remains of democracy if there is no rule of law? The institutional arrangement at the heart of our democracy provides that the will of the people, as reflected in the decisions their elected representatives, is subject to the will of the Constitution, as reflected in the decisions of an independent judiciary.

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, one of the framers of American Constitution, “where the will of the legislature declared in the statutes is in opposition to the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than former.” This means that demands of the Constitution can override the wishes of the people expressed through elected governments. These are at the very core of a democratic commitment to judicial independence and constitutional supremacy.

Parliamentary supremacy refers to the power of Parliament to make laws within the limits imposed by the Constitution. It also denotes the supremacy of Parliament over the executive, primarily through the accountability of the Council of Ministers to Parliament. Judicial review of the constitutional validity of laws is also an integral part of a parliamentary democracy.

All the three organs of the state derive the power and jurisdiction from our Constitution. Each must operate within the sphere allotted to it. Judicial function is also a very important sovereign function of the state and provides the foundation for rule of law. When a verdict such as that striking down the NJAC comes, the ebb and flow, the critical scrutiny and the inherent relational tensions are not surprising. They must be handled deftly and with maturity.

Judicial independence is a central goal of most legal systems, and the mode of appointment of judges is seen as a crucial mechanism to achieve this goal. While in all democracies of the world, there is near-universal consensus on the importance of judicial independence, legal systems utilise a wide range of selection mechanisms — the split model, the collaborative model, the parliamentary model, the judicial self selection model and the judicial appointments commission model — in practice. Often, they reflect different conceptions of independence of judiciary.

The diversity of constitutional ethos in different countries suggests that it may not be a good idea to borrow other systems for the selection of judges. It is not wholly correct to say that judges appoint judges in India as consultative participation of the executive is present in the institutionalised procedure prescribed after the Third Judges case, but assuming it to be so, ours is perhaps the only country where the government is the biggest litigant before the courts.

We are one of the very few countries where actions of the political executive in diverse fields — ranging from violation of human rights to wrongful distribution of natural resources and wide range of issues which have huge political ramifications — are brought before the superior judiciary in the public interest litigation. Can judges who are appointed with the direct say of the government be relied upon to deliver neutral and high-quality decisions in such matters? It is no exaggeration to say that appointment processes shape the ability of courts to hold political institutions to account.

Veto to non-judicial members

In the Second Judges case, the nine-judge Bench exposited that appointment of judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court forms an integral part of the basic structure of our Constitution, and therefore, the executive cannot interfere with the primacy of judiciary in the matter of appointments. The NJAC’s flawed composition consisted of the fact that it merged certain components, reflected in the inclusion of Law Minister and two eminent persons and giving any two members the power to veto the decision of the other four. This directly affected the independence of judiciary in the judicial appointments process. Had the Parliament maintained the primacy of the judiciary while providing for the entire scheme of working of the NJAC, the decision may have been different.

It is true that while legislatures respond to the urgings of the people, the judges serve only for justice — for them justice is the only mandate. I see the NJAC verdict as a demonstration of constitutional compliance and not of the judiciary flexing its muscles to knock out the people’s will. For me, democracy is enhanced when judiciary effectively fulfils its constitutional mandate. Democratic values are strengthened not only by a strong legislature but also by a strong judiciary so that together a mutually respectful and independent partnership on the public’s right to justice is maintained.

While I admire the well crafted article “Usurping Parliament’s Power,” written by Abhishek Manu Singhvi , I find myself unable to agree with his reasoning. However, I agree with him that judicial appointments need fresh air and an innovative and objective set of inputs. That is what I felt as the Chief Justice of India. I wanted to institutionalise the best practices that would bring fairness and transparency in the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary. I had a long meeting with Chris Stephens and Lord Toulson, Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively, of Judicial Appointments Commission, England and Wales to understand their working in the judicial appointments.

The judges who delivered the judgment in the NJAC case also hold the view that an improvement in the working of the collegium system is the need of the hour. They have proposed a hearing on this aspect on November 3.

Instead of seeing the NJAC verdict as one that leads to a confrontation between the Parliament and the judiciary in the matter of the appointment and transfer of judges of the superior judiciary, the executive must use this as an opportunity to help the Supreme Court in preparing an institutional design so that all appointments by the collegium meet the tests of fairness and transparency and all selections are made solely on merit with an encouragement provided to the diversity in the persons available for selection. Appoint good judges; the rest will follow.

Text of PM’s address at the launch of IDFC Bank

Text of PM’s address at the launch of IDFC Bank

उपस्थित सभी वरिष्‍ठ महानुभाव,

मैं आईडीएफसी बैंक को बधाई देता हूं कि 18 साल की यात्रा कोई बहुत बड़ी नहीं होती, लेकिन 18 साल की इस छोटी सी यात्रा में भी भारत के नक्‍श्‍ो पर अपनी एक जगह बनाई है। लेकिन अब तक जो उन्‍होंने जगह बनाई थी वो ईंट, चूना, माटी, पत्‍थर, तार इसी के द्वारा बनाई थी। कभी रोड बनाएं कभी बिल्डिंग बनाएं, कभी port बनाए लेकिन अब वो जीवन निर्माण की दिशा में कदम रख रहे हैं। और मैं मानता हूं कि 18 साल में जो चुनौतियां आपको मिली हैं, अब शायद ज्‍यादा चुनौतियां आपके सामने हैं। क्‍योंकि वो एक limited clientele होता है और आपको अपनी गाड़ी को आगे बढ़ाना होता है। और कुछ चीजें उसमें assured होती हैं, पहले से पता होता है कि भई इस Project का क्‍या होगा, क्‍या refund होगा, क्‍या revenue होगा, बैंक की क्‍या स्थिति रहेगी। ये वो क्षेत्र नहीं है। और इसलिए एक इंजीनियर का काम सरल होता है, लेकिन एक शिक्षक का काम बड़ा भारी होता है क्‍योंकि शिक्षक को जीवन तैयार करना होता है, इंजीनियर को इमारत बनानी होती है। IDFC अब तक जो काम करती थी अब उसको शिक्षक का रोल भी अदा करना होगा और इसलिए मुझे लगता है कि आने वाले दिनों में ये चुनौतियों के बावजूद भी, एक सही दिशा में कदम होगा।

ये बैंक का मूल उद्देश्‍य तो गांव में जाना है और मैं मानता हूं ये देश का दुर्भाग्‍य है कि देश को नियम बनाना पड़ा कि 25% जब तक आप बैंक में गांव नहीं खोलते हैं आपको permission नहीं मिलेगी। मैं मानता हूं ये नियम बनाने की जरूरत नहीं पड़नी चाहिए थी, लेकिन पड़ी। क्‍योंकि हम लोगों ने कभी भी हमारे ग्रामीण जीवन के potential को समझा नहीं और urban life, governments, government machinery, वहां पर इन कारोबार को चलाने के लिए बहुत अवसर होता है और इसलिए एक प्रकार से बैंक को चलाना, बैंक का growth continue करना ये ज्‍यादा challenging work नहीं है और इस तरफ ध्‍यान नहीं गया। लेकिन पिछले कुछ वर्षों में ये ध्‍यान में आया है और हर किसी की नजर गई है कि भारत में ग्रामीण जीवन भी एक बहुत बड़ा growth centre बना है। आपको मालूम होगा जब telecom industry आई और उनको जब भी spectrum दिया जाता था और गांव की बात कहते थे तो आगे-पीछे, आगे-पीछे होते थे। या तो किसी को sub-contract दे देते थे और अपनी गाड़ी चला लेते थे। लेकिन जब गांव में गए तो उनके लिए surprise था कि telecom के growth का शहरी percentage से ग्रामीण percentage ज्‍यादा ऊंचा था। Spread भी ज्‍यादा था, गति भी तेज थी। और इस अर्थ में उनके लिए वो.. अच्‍छा! गांव के व्‍यक्ति का communication ज्‍यादातर अन्‍य शहरों से होता है, इसलिए Income का level भी ज्‍यादा था। शहर का गांव, शहर में ही शहर में करता था, लेकिन उनका Income level….लेकिन ये बातें उनको ध्‍यान आईं, बाद में जाने के बाद। मैं समझता हूं बैंकिग sector के लिए भी अब ये अनुभव आने वाला है। बहुत तेजी से ग्रामीण अर्थव्‍यवस्‍था भारत के जीवन को एक ताकत दे रही है। बड़ा बदलाव आ रहा है।

एक बात और भी है, जैसे अरुण जी ने बड़ा विस्‍तार से बताया कि अब, अब banking जीवन बदल चुका है, अब वो mobile banking ही चलने वाला है। premises-less, paper-less, ये ही बैंक की पहचान होने वाली है। न जिसमें कोई premises होगा और न ही कोई paper होगा। और उसके बाद भी बैंक चलेगी, लोगों को पैसे मिलेंगे, लोगों का कारेाबार चलेगा। और धीरे-धीरे हमारे देश में ये स्थिति आने वाली है कि currency भी, शायद आज जो currency print करने का खर्चा होता है, वो भी धीरे-धीरे-धीरे-धीरे कम होता जाएगा क्‍योंकि ये कारोबार इस प्रकार से बढ़ने वाला है। और हमने भी देश को उस दिशा में ले जाना है। और जैसे-जैसे हम technology के सहारे banking करेंगे, जब हम paper-less bank की व्‍यवस्‍था करेंगे, currency-less कारोबार चलाएंगे तो काले धन की संभावनाएं धीरे-धीरे-धीरे जीरो की तरफ चली जाएंगी। और इसलिए इस सारी व्‍यवस्‍था का उपयोग एक उस दायरे में होने वाला है जो देश की मूलभूत कुछ बाते हैं जिसको address करने वाला है। IDFC उसकी beginning कर रहा है। मध्‍यप्रदेश से उनका प्रारंभ हो रहा है, वो भी उस इलाके, जो एक प्रकार से आदिवासी क्षेत्र से जुड़े हुए हैं, नर्मदा के तट के साथ जुड़े हुए हैं, वहां से इस काम का आंरभ हो रहा है। ये भी आवश्‍यक है।

आज सारा विश्‍व आर्थिक दृष्टि से भारत के प्रति एक बड़े संतोष की नजर से देख रहा है, सिर्फ आशा की नजर से नहीं, एक संतोष की नजर से। और उसको लगता है कि पूरे विश्‍व में इतना turmoil आ रहा है लेकिन एक भारत है जो स्थिर खड़ा रह पाया है और global economy में भी किसी राष्‍ट्र का स्थिर economy को handle करना ये भी अपने-आप में विश्‍व में संतुलन बनाने के लिए बहुत बड़ी भूमिका अदा करता है। और वो भूमिका भारत ने इस पूरे वैश्विक संकट के समय अदा की है। इतने बड़े तूफान के बीच भारत अपने आप को बना पाया है। और बना पाया है तो आगे बढ़ने की संभावना भी उसमें बहुत ज्‍यादा है।

विश्‍व भारत के संबंध में ये अनुमान लगाता है कि भारत का potential इतना अपरम्‍पार है अभी तक आप tap नहीं कर पाए। लोग ये नहीं करते हैं कि भई आप कैसे आगे बढ़ोगे, आप कुछ टिक पाओगे के नहीं पाओगे, बचोगे कि नहीं बचोगे, ये चर्चा नहीं। चर्चा ये है, अरे भाई इतना मौका है, आप, आप ठंडे क्‍यों ? ये सवाल पूछा जा रहा है। यानी सारे विश्‍व को लग रहा है कि आज विश्‍व के आर्थिक जीवन में सबसे अगर कोई potential area है जहां growth story है तो वो हिंदुस्‍तान में है। और हमने भी देखा है World Bank हो, IMF हो, बाकी जितनी Rating Agencies हों, सबने कहा है कि भारत आज दुनिया की, बड़े देशों की सबसे तेज गति से आगे बढ़ने वाली कम्‍पनी है। अगर ये ताकत हमारे पास है, तो हमारा काम है कि हम foundation को भी मजबूत करें और vertical भी जाएं। Horizontal and vertical, दोनों तरफ हमें आगे बढ़ना पड़ेगा और Horizontal जाने के लिए ये ग्रामीण जीवन में हम कैसे प्रवेश ? हमारा व्‍याप कैसे बढ़ाएं? उसी प्रकार से हम नए-नए क्षेत्रों को कैसे चुनें? अगर हम priority sector देखें, priority sector को पैसे देना, ये सरकार के कुछ नियम हैं, जाते हैं लेकिन मान लीजिए कहा गया कि भाई agriculture sector को पैसा देना है, लेकिन एक fertilizer कारखाने को दे दिया, माना जाएगा agriculture sector और हिसाब ठीक हो जाएगा तो agriculture sector को दे दिया। इससे हमें बाहर आना है। हम एक सामान्‍य agriculturist को या गांव को ध्‍यान में रख करके या दो, चार, दस गांव के बीच में cold storage कैसे बनें? Warehousing की व्‍यवस्‍था कैसे हो? उसमें banking कैसे? हम value addition में कैसे मदद कर सकते? हम सिर्फ agriculture sector को पकड़ें, आज मैं समझता हूं कि इतनी संभावनाएं पड़ी हुई हैं, हिन्‍दुस्‍तान का किसान आज दुनिया के साथ अपने-आप में तालमेल करने की कोशिश कर रहा है। आपने देखा होगा, कि एक महिला अपना नम्‍बर अंग्रेजी में बता रही थी, Mobile Number अंग्रेजी में बता रही थी। अब ये कोई जरूरी नहीं है कि उन्‍होंने किसी स्‍कूल में जा करके पढ़ा होगा। लेकिन अब धीरे-धीरे करके सब चीजें समाज, जीवन में सहज हिस्‍सा बन रही हैं। ये इस ताकत को पहचानना, यही तो सबसे बड़ी खूबी है। हम इसको अगर ताकत मानते हुए, हां ये बदलाव है क्‍योंकि मेरा तो ये अनुभव है।

मैंने एक बार कहीं वर्णन भी किया था, में गुजरात में जब मुख्‍यमंत्री था तो एक बहुत ही पिछड़ा तहसील है हमारे यहां, धर्मपुर के पास, बलसाड़ जिले में, tribal belt है। अब मेरा मुख्‍यमंत्री रहते हुए वहां कभी कार्यक्रम नहीं हुआ था तो मैंने आग्रह किया, मैंने कहा मुझे वहां जाना है। न एक दिन कोई कार्यक्रम नहीं होगा तो ऐसे ही जा करके एक पेड़ लगा करके वहां से वापिस आऊंगा। तो फिर एक chilling centre के उद्घाटन के लिए कार्यक्रम बन गया। अब chilling centre क्‍या 50 लाख का होता है, छोटा सा क्‍या होता है, जो दूध लोग देने आते हैं, उसको, ट्रक आने तक उसको संभालते हैं। इतना ही होता है। मैंने कहा मैं उसके लिए जाऊंगा। फिर वहां करनी थी तो जगह नहीं थी, क्‍योंकि जंगल है तो कोई जगह नहीं थी, तो एक स्‍कूल थी दूर, दो-ढाई किलोमीटर, स्‍कूल में function था। लेकिन इस कार्यक्रम के लिए उन्‍होंने 50 करीब आदिवासी महिलाओं को बुलाया था। दूध भरने वाली जो महिलाएं होती हैं, 50 को बुलाया था। जहां chilling centre था, वहां। सब वहां तो अलग था माहौल। मैं हैरान था जब chilling center में उद्घाटन वगैरह हुआ, ये महिलाएं सारी मोबाइल से फोटो निकालती थी। आदिवासी महिलाएं फोन से फोटो निकालती थी। मुझे जरा surprise हुआ। मैं उनके पास गया। मैंने कहा ये फोटो निकाल कर क्‍या करोगे? उन्‍होंने जो जवाब दिया वो और आश्‍चर्यजनक था। उन्‍होंने कहा, हम इसको download करवा देंगे। अब ये download शब्‍द उनको मालूम था। download कैसे होता है, कहां होता है, ये पता था। इसका मतलब ये हुआ कि हम कहां तक पहुंचे। इसको हम किस प्रकार से आने वाले दिनों में हमारी growth story का हिस्‍सा कैसे बनाए और उस दिशा में हम कैसे काम करे?

उसी प्रकार से हमारे नौजवान। उनको पढ़ाई के लिए सरलता से Bank loan की व्‍यवस्‍था क्‍यों न हो? मेरा मत है ये women self-help groups....Women self-help group को पैसा मिलता है, अगर उनको बुधवार को पैसा जमा करवाना है 100 रुपए तो मंगल को आकर के दे जाते हैं कि लीजिए साहब मेरा पैसा कल पता नहीं कहीं और खर्च हो जाएगा। ये sensitivity है हमारे यहां, ग्रामीण जीवन में। इसका जितना लाभ लेना चाहिए हमने लिया नहीं और साहूकारों ने इस पर अपनी पकड़ा जमा दी और उसने हमारी economy को भी बहुत बड़ा नुकसान किया है। तो हमने एक विश्‍वास पैदा करना है, एक गारंटी पैदा करनी है। मैं समझता हूं ये जो प्रयास है, वो प्रयास उस परिणामों को जरूर अवश्‍य फल देगा।

Banking sector में हमारी ये कोशिश रही है कि bank nationalize हुई। तब तो बताया गया था कि भई गरीबों के लिए हुआ, लेकिन हमने जो देखा कि वो बहुत सीमित रहा। जैसे मध्‍यम वर्ग के परिवारों तक family doctor होता है, वैसे उच्‍च परिवारों का एक Banker होता है। बड़े ऊंचे घरानों का और बीमार भी होंगे लेकिन अगर Banker ने कहीं lunch-dinner रखा है तो जरूर जाएंगे क्‍योंकि उनको पता है कि भई इसका उनका कारोबार कितना महत्‍वपूर्ण है। ये अच्‍छा है, बुरा है लेकिन है। मैं समझता हूं कि अब हमारे यहां Neo-Middle Class कहो या मध्‍यम वर्ग कहो, ये एक बहुत बड़ी ताकत होती है। हम उनकी तरफ ध्‍यान केन्‍द्रित करके, ऐसी व्‍यवस्‍थाओं को कैसे विकसित करें। मान लीजिए आप, आपके सामने दो proposal है। एक है कि कोई भवन बनाना है, सरकारी दफ्तर बनाना है और दूसरी proposal है कि इसने प्राइवेट में कहा है कि मैं यहां एक कॉलेज खड़ा करना चाहता हूं, एक Higher-Secondary School चालू करना चाहता हूं, मुझे बैंक से पैसा चाहिए। अगर मैं बैंक में हूं तो मैं पहली priority उस स्‍कूल वाले को दूंगा। क्‍योंकि मुझे मालूम है कि वहां स्‍कूल बनता है तो फिर ऐसे 50 दफ्तर बनाने की ताकत उनसे अपने आप आ जाने वाली है। इसलिए हमारे investment की priority क्‍या बने? पैसे देने की priority क्‍या बने? ये अगर हमने chain शुरू की जिसके multiple हमें benefit हो। अगर ये होगा तो मैं मानता हूं कि बहुत ही लाभ होगा।

हमने जो financial inclusion का जो मिशन उठाया है। अब जैसे अरुण जी बता रहे थे कि प्रधानमंत्री की जो हमने योजना बनाई जिसमें हमने मध्‍यम वर्ग, गरीब, धोबी हो, नाई हो, दूध बेचने वाला हो, अखबार बेचने वाला हो उसको मुद्रा योजना के तहत finance कैसे हो। इस देश में करीब 6 करोड़ लोग ऐसे हैं, इस प्रकार के काम में और उनका average कर्ज 17 हजार रुपए है। कोई ज्‍यादा नहीं है, लेकिन वे ये पैसे साहूकार से लेते हैं, बहुत ब्‍याज देते हैं और वो अपना विकास-विस्‍तार नहीं कर पाते हैं। मुद्रा योजना के तहत हमारी कोशिश है कि ऐसे लोगों को इस ब्‍याज के चक्‍कर से मुक्‍ति दिलाना और उनको financial help liberally करना। हमने 50 हजार, 5 लाख, 10 लाख तक की, उसकी व्‍यवस्‍थाएं की, 50 लाख तक की की। अभी तो मैं समझता हूं मुश्‍किल से 100 दिन हुए होंगे इस योजना को launch किए। अब तक 61 लाख clients and करीब 35 thousand crore rupees, ये वहां गया है। 35 हजार करोड़ रुपया बाजार के अंदर नीचे जाना मतलब economy को कितनी बड़ी ताकत देता है वो। 35 हजार करोड़ किसी एक शहर में डालने से उतना change नहीं आता है जितना कि हजारों गांवों के अंदर 35 हजार करोड़ रुपया जाता है, तो economy में एक vibrancy आना शुरू हो जाता है, नीचे से शुरू हो जाता है और ये आने वाले दिनों में देखेंगे और हमारी कोशिश यही है कि हम उसको आगे बढ़ाना चाहते हैं।

हमारे देश में Banking sector के संबंध में पचासों प्रकार के सवालिया निशान उठे हैं। Appointment से लेकर के, governance से लेकर के, पैसे देने के संबंध में पचासों प्रकार के सवालिया निशान लगे हैं। हमने आने के बाद एक दिन round-table conference किया, चिंतन शिविर की, सभी बैंक के लोगों के साथ detail में चर्चा की। उनकी समस्‍याएं क्‍या हैं, सरकार से अपेक्षाएं क्‍या हैं, कानूनी मुसीबतें क्‍या हैं। सारी चीजों की विस्‍तार से चर्चा की। RBI भी मौजूद था, मैं भी था, अरुण जी भी थे, काफी विस्‍तार से चर्चा की और उसमें से जो बातें आईं उस बातों को हमने लागू करने का प्रयास किया है। हमने एक सप्‍तसूत्री योजना बनाई है, जिस योजना का मैं समझता हूं कि हमारे देश में ऐसी चीजों की चर्चा बहुत कम होती है। लेकिन इसका बहुत बड़ा निर्णय है और A B C D E F G, ये सप्‍तसूत्री मेरा कार्यक्रम है। ये सप्‍तसूत्री कार्यक्रम बैंकों के जीवन में बहुत बड़ा बदलाव लाने वाला है।

एक है हमारा A – Appointments. बैंकों में उच्‍च पदों पर नियुक्‍तियों में सुधार लाने का हमने फैसला किया है और इसलिए हमने 1969 के बाद nationalised bank में private sector के लोगों को भी लिया है, वरना nationalised bank से लोग private में चले जाते थे। पहली बार ये reverse trend शुरू हुआ है, जिसमें efficiency को हमने महत्‍व दिया है।

B – B for Bank, Board, Bureau. ये B3 पहली बार हम इस देश में लाए हैं कि बैंकों में जो भी नियुक्‍तियां हुईं उसका selection top rank के लिए, ये board करेगा। Politically मुझे ये पसंद आया, उसको मैं एक director बना दू और वो वहां बैठ जाए और फिर बाद में जब loan देनी हो तो वाया उसी से आ जाए proposal और फिर पता चले भई ये तो PM का आदमी बोल रहा है, देना ही पड़ेगा। ये डूबने के पीछे कारण यही है और इसलिए हमने कहा है कि ये कतई हम नहीं करेंगे, सारे professional लोगों को हम इस काम में लगाएंगे।

C – Capitalization. पिछले कुछ वर्षों में दिए गए loans में bad loans हैं। उसके कारण संकट आया है। अब रोते-बैठने का कोई अर्थ नहीं है इसलिए हमने करीब आने वाले कुछ वर्षों में 70 हजार करोड़ रुपया बैंक के अंदर डालकर के ये bad loans के कारण जो संकट है, उसमें से हम बाहर लाने का कार्यक्रम कर रहे हैं।

D – De-stress of assets. कुछ क्षेत्रों में जहां ये समस्‍या गंभीर है, हमने import duties बढ़ाने का domestic producer को सहारा दिया है। आपने देखा होगा हमने Steel में अभी किया। ताकि जिसके कारण Steel जो बैंक के साथ Steel उद्योग पैसा लेता था, उसको एक ताकत मिले। तो हमने De-stress के लिए कई कदम उठाने की दिशा में काम किया है।

6 है -नए debt recovery tribunal. जिसमें हम bad loans recovery इन सारे कामों को मैंने कहा है जैसे Power sector. हम बहुत तेज गति से निर्णय पर जा रहे हैं। Power sector जो NPA की समस्‍या से जुड़ा हुआ है उसको कैसे handle करना है।

E – Empower. Empower का मेरा सीधा-सीधा मतलब था, जब मैं पुणे में गया था इस मीटिंग में तब मैंने कहा था, Zero interferes. आपको political leadership और establishment से कभी फोन नहीं आएगा कि इसके loan का क्‍या करना है लेना, देना और आज तक इतने महीने हो गए, एक भी जगह से खबर नहीं आई है कि ऐसा कोई pressure है। purely, professionally चलाइए और बाहर लाइए। तो इस प्रकार से बैंकों को Empower करने की दिशा में हमने काम किया है।

F – Framework for accountability. बैंकों का performance monitor करने के लिए key performance indicator हमने set किए हैं ताकि हमें regularly पता चले कि भई कहां जा रहे हैं, किस दिशा में जा रहे हैं। कितना जा रहे हैं, वो नहीं। कितना तो संतोष कभी-कभी दे देता है, लेकिन कहां और कैसे और कितने समय में। उस दिशा में indicators को हमने बल दिया है।

और last है G – Governance. हमारे banking sectorमें governance को बल देना है। हमने technology पर जाना है, transparency को लाना है। cyber crime की सबसे ज्‍यादा संभावनाएं banking sector, financial world में हैं या तो data चोरी करने की। ये दो ही सबसे बड़े क्षेत्र हैं और इसलिए हमको assure करना होगा हमारे governance को।

तो ऐसी सप्‍तसूत्री हमारी योजना के द्वारा इन seven pillars पर पूरा banking sector को ताकत कैसे मिले। सरकार ने इतने महत्‍वपूर्ण initiative लिए हैं। मुझे विश्‍वास है कि आने वाले दिनों में भारत जिस तेज गति से आगे बढ़ रहा है बैंक कंधे से कंधा मिलाकर के उसके साथ चलेगा। कुछ क्षेत्रों में बैंक दो कदम आगे होगा और मैं समझता हूं कि ये ताकत ultimately भारत के जो निर्धारित लक्ष्‍य हैं और जिन माध्‍यमों से हैं, उन सबको मिलकर के हम पूरा कर सकते हैं। 

Nobel lessons for India Chest-thumping by politicians when infected children are denied hospital admission is an alarmingly inept response

The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded earlier this month. In a shared award, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won for the discovery of avermectin and Tu Youyou won for the discovery of artemisinin: drugs used to treat parasitic infections caused by roundworm and the malarial parasite, respectively. Remarkably, both drugs are derived from natural substances.

Omura is a scholar in bioorganic chemistry and an avid golfer. His scientific philosophy has been to study microorganisms and use them to seek cures for common diseases. Five years ago, Omura wrote an article for the Tetrahedron Prize in Biochemistry entitled “Microbial Metabolites: 45 years of wandering, wondering and discovering”. Four decades ago, Omura picked up a soil sample with a promising microorganism near his golf course and sent it to the Merck, Sharpe and Dohme Laboratories to be tested for potency against animal parasites. In particular, the hydrogenated product of avermectin is used in veterinary medicine and in the control of onchocerciasis (river blindness in Africa), lymphatic filariasis (in combination with Albendazole), strongyloidiasis and scabies. Campbell collaborated with Omura but also worked independently on avermectin as head of the Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research. Campbell was instrumental in arranging to distribute ivermectin for free in Africa to cure river blindness. Some have likened the importance and impact of ivermectin to the discovery and impact of penicillin.

If you think Omura’s wandering golfer story is unusual, Tu’s is even more strange. At the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, Mao Tse Tung received a request to help the North Vietnamese soldiers who were dying (in greater number than by bullets) because the local malaria had become resistant to known drugs. Because most scientists had been sent to the villages, Mao ordered a group of scientists from the army to seek a cure. The teams were organized into two streams. One sought the cure in 40,000 known chemicals. The other, lead by Tu, began to look for it in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) including by asking herbal healers for their secret fever cures. A Chinese herb called qinghao, identified today as sweet wormwood, was written about nearly 2,000 years ago as a fever cure. The herb qinghao generates the active ingredient artemisinin that proved to be nearly 100% effective against malaria in mice. The human body eliminates artemisinin very fast and so it had to be combined with other drugs to retain its impact. Novartis developed this combination by putting together artemether, a derivative, with lumefantrine, another Chinese drug: the company also filed Western patents. In 2001, Novartis agreed to provide this drug at cost to developing countries.

As India goes about tackling big public health problems such as dengue and chikungunya, these case studies can provide valuable lessons. Both stories have an east/west angle, a serendipity angle, a natural source angle and a collaboration angle. The scientific method to develop cures has relied on two techniques: 1) infected cell assays and 2) knowledge-based methods. The assay method tests millions of compounds against infected cells using high throughput screening techniques. It is essentially a trial-and-error procedure akin to what was followed for the Nobel Prizes. The knowledge-based test uses previously identified knowledge and directly targets the molecular or atomic level.

One (controversial) way to limit the spread of dengue is to introduce genetically modified (GM) male Aedes aegyptimosquitoes (engineered by a company called Oxitec) into the environment. These self-limiting transgenic males produce offspring with dengue-carrying females that have a very limited lifespan. In pilot tests in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil, Aedes aegypti populations have shrunk by 80% or more, resulting in a dramatic reduction in the probability of dengue transmission. In the meantime, several different approaches to a vaccine are being attempted. Sanofi Pasteur is furthest ahead with a vaccine in Phase III human trials: four others are in various stages of development. The first vaccine may be available as early as 2016.

India’s scientific presence in vector-borne disease prevention and cure is muted. While India is a member of the dengue vaccine initiative, it has not signed up to be an early adopter country. The National Centre for Disease Control and the National Vector-Borne Disease Control Programme appear to be asleep at the switch with their plan to tackle dengue and chikungunya dating back to more than five years ago. Serendipity, natural source/semi-synthetic cures and collaboration take hard work and perseverance. Tu might recommend mission mode and Omura might suggest wandering, but persistence is a basic requirement to both. Chest-thumping by politicians when infected children are denied hospital admission is an alarmingly inept response.

Millions of people attempting to dodge billions of (disease-carrying) mosquitoes does not make for a statistically winnable proposition. This year’s Nobel Prize suggests a more active and persistent attempt.

P.S. “I wonder if I deserve this prize. I have learnt so much from microorganisms, I would much rather give the prize to them”, said Satoshi Omura.