A history lesson for Indian MPs

Rather than spend taxpayer money to reaffirm their faith in values of Constitution, MPs will do well to familiarize themselves with the history of the debates at the Constituent Assembly that led to the drafting of Constitution

It is something like this: we wanted the music of veena or sitar, but here we have the music of an English band,” K. Hanumanthaiah, Constituent Assembly member, said about the draft Indian Constitution on 17 November 1949.

In between snatching the latest updates from the exciting third cricket Test match between India and South Africa, much of India last week was riveted by a parliamentary debate on the Indian Constitution. It was meant to mark the day—26 November—in 1949, when the men and women preparing the tome (only around a dozen, or 5% were women) signed off the draft that was adopted two months later as India’s Constitution.

In the course of a 1.05 hour-long speech, Congress party leader in the Lok Sabha, Mallikarjun Kharge, a stalwart from Karnataka, warned that any attempt to review the Constitution would result in… Well, we can’t spell out the word because the Lok Sabha Speaker ordered it expunged from the records after an instant uproar from the treasury benches. “Consequences” is how Indian papers reported the word, which is incorrect.

But here’s a hint of the word in the form of a puzzle: what’s the phrase that’s common between the writings of the great Chilean poet Pablo Neruda and the American art-house rock band The Doors? Googling may not help. Found the answer? Now transliterate the entire phrase into a single word (Eureka!) and translate it into Hindi.

Many observers believe Indian politics today has reached a point where there seems to be a growing trust deficit between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition—the centrist Congress, the Left and a large group of parties bidding to build upon their regional influence to try and oust the federal government.

The trust deficit is what explains Kharge’s remarks—made no doubt in the heat of the moment. More calibrated were the remarks of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who described the Constitution Day as an attempt by the BJP to claim a bit of constitutional history when it had played no role at all in India’s freedom struggle. The BJP, of course, did not exist at the time of that struggle, but she clearly meant “it and its ilk”—that is, the Hindu rather than secular nationalists.

Much of this had to do with the way home minister Rajnath Singh had spelt out a slightly disparaging view of the inclusion of the word “secularism” in the preamble to the Indian Constitution. The word secularism, he said—making an inexplicable and largely incomprehensible distinction—meant “non-sectarian” rather than “non-religious” as it has been translated in the Hindi version of the Constitution. The logic of this argument could be any number of things, such as: 1. India is not a “non-religious” state; 2. It’s okay for the state to fund religious institutions and religious schools; 3. All religions are not equal before the eyes of the state.

It is difficult to make sense of this parliamentary debate in the context of political science or the evolution of a democracy. It springs to life, however, the moment you see it from the prism of politics, specifically electoral politics. At that moment, the Indian Parliament becomes an arena of political grandstanding, much like a rally venue.

Rather than spend taxpayer money reaffirming their faith in the values of the Indian Constitution, members of Parliament will do well to familiarize themselves—or reacquaint for those familiar—with the history of the debates at the Indian Constituent Assembly that led to the drafting of the Constitution.

They would then learn that the word “secular” in the preamble of the Constitution is symbiotically linked to the words “federal” and “democratic” (and even the welfarist interpretation of “socialist”, although that’s a tiny bit more complex a relationship). The entire architecture of the preamble collapses like nine pins if you take out a word here, insert another there and conjure up arcane interpretations.

The Indian Constitution is not an anti-Hindu document, nor even “non-religious” for that matter. It could not have been, for the overwhelming majority of those drafting the Constitution were Hindu. The Congress party, of course, reigned supreme in the assembly, as the party of independence. But even within the Congress, there were members who were known for their strong Hindu rather than secular leanings. More to the point, those who led the debates were all listeners. True, diversity in less aware times was not the hallmark of the membership of the Constituent Assembly. “Women members were very few… of these, some dropped out for various reasons and their places were filled by men,” India’s first prime minister regretted in 1950, while urging political leaders to “keep up and add to the number of women in Parliament”.

The socialist, Damodar Swarup Seth, described the Constituent Assembly as representing, “at best”, the 15% of Indians who had elected the assembly’s members in an indirect election. Seth also made a heroic bid to enshrine the separation of the church and state in the Indian Constitution, which is one of the many definitions of secularism. In 1948, he proposed the following, rather bluntly put, provision in the Indian Constitution: “The use of religious institutions for political purposes and the existence of political organizations on religious basis is forbidden.”

It was shot down, which shows that the characterization of the Constituent Assembly as a homogenous unit dominated by Oxford-educated liberals, Fabian socialists and Congressmen is a mockery of history. Indeed, rather than dispute what kind of history should be taught to Indian schoolchildren, the prescribers of school textbooks can do no better than include a detailed exposition of the history of the Constituent Assembly and the wonderful debates surrounding the founding of the modern Indian state.

The state of the Indian economy

The GDP numbers point to a recovery, but given the number of caveats involved, it might make sense to wait for the third quarter’s numbers to see whether this is sustainable

Is the economy expanding?

Is manufacturing growing?

Is consumption-driven growth back?

Is investment demand back?

These are important questions. They should also be questions to which there can only be one correct answer.

Let’s then try to answer them:

1. Yes. According to the latest gross domestic product (GDP) data, the economy expanded by 7.4% in the second quarter of 2015-16. There is an ongoing debate on the representativeness of the new GDP series, but be that as it may, the 7.4% growth marks an improvement over the 7% growth rate seen in the previous quarter and is higher, albeit marginally, than what many expected it to be. It also comes on the back of the 8.4% growth in the second quarter of 2014-15.

2. Yes, but with caveats. The GDP data shows that manufacturing grew 9.3% in the second quarter of 2015-16. The Nikkei India Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index, released a day after the GDP data was released, has fallen to an over two-year low of 50.3, although it remains the highest among emerging economies in Asia. China’s is at 48.6. Any number over 50 indicates expansion.

3. Yes, but again, with caveats. The GDP data shows that both private and government consumption are growing at a healthy rate (the first by 6.8% and the second by over 5%). There is also anecdotal evidence of an urban-centric spike in demand for certain products and services. A recent revision in pay of government employees that kicks in early next year should power the sails of the consumption economy to some extent. The full impact of the ongoing agrarian crisis, though, is yet to be reflected in the rural economy.

4. Yes, surprisingly. The cold hard numbers show that gross fixed capital formation accounted for almost 30% of GDP growth in the second quarter of 2015-16. Much of this, as the Reserve Bank of India acknowledged in its policy on Tuesday, 1 December, is probably on account of public investment. The poor order book position of some large equipment makers and low capacity utilization across sectors seems to suggest that private investment may not follow immediately.

What does this mean for India? The numbers point to a recovery, but given the number of caveats involved, it might make sense to wait for the third quarter’s numbers to see whether this is sustainable.

If those numbers are similar to the second quarter’s, 2016-17 might well be a better year for the Indian economy.

Uniqueness of India’s smart cities

Uniqueness of India’s smart cities
Indian smart city efforts need to recognize the economic differences between its cities
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bold commitment to build 100 smart cities throughout India is a worthy centrepiece of his urban agenda. The promise of this tech-savvy approach is greater livability, sustainability and improved public accountability. Such an extensive modernization effort would also deliver jobs and attract new investment through several important global partnerships, including a new partnership with the US government and industry. The challenge facing the initiative is to make sure it responds to the unique challenges within India’s cities and not simply clone efforts going on worldwide.

For global firms providing smart city services, the Indian initiative offers a unique opportunity to invest in a rapidly growing market. By one estimate, the smart cities market worldwide is projected to hit $1.5 trillion by 2020. Partly because of its enormous potential, a multitude of experts, analysts, public and private firms are rushing into India with ideas ranging from the use of information and digital infrastructure to manage the energy and water use in buildings, to the creation of intelligent transport networks to minimize congestion.

But a technology-first approach to smart city development, without a clear understanding of local conditions, traditions and realities, will often fail to result in sustained, community-wide change. From the perspective of individual private firms, a smart city is often whatever that firm happens to be selling because local city governments do not have the capacity to be good business partners and navigators of the public interest. If the idea of a “smart” city is limited to the deployment of technology-driven solutions to urban challenges, then it will fail to meet private industry’s ambitions for effective uptake and public leaders’ desires for local impact. With this in mind, the India and the US can act—not top-down but bottom-up—to deliver the true promise of smart cities.

Today, most of the leading global best practices around smart cities are found in developed cities. Places such as Barcelona, Helsinki, Toronto, Singapore and San Francisco are often at the top of most lists of “smart cities” because they have the resources and expertise to be good business partners and navigators of the public interest. But the challenges and opportunities for smart cities in developing countries like India—that are urbanizing at a dizzying pace—need to focus more on the basics: clean and reliable energy, safe and secure streets, transparency and citizen engagement. A better example to watch may be Nairobi because of its focus on broadband, mobile apps and government efficiency.

Governance of cities is critical to the sustained prosperity of their citizens and economy. In this regard, it is important to contrast and recognize the different role of each level of government within India compared to other countries. While globally, most smart cities are governed at the city level, this is not the case in India. Smart cities in India are part of a national effort driven by New Delhi, but it is the states that still wield great authority. At a recent event with Indian members of Parliament in Washington D.C., Kalvakuntla Kavitha, one of the MPs, remarked that nearly 70% of government decisions are made at the state level. State governments are at liberty to engage directly with other countries to attract foreign investment and are largely responsible for all infrastructure development. This is a welcome development that has been driven by the recent devolution of power by the federal government to the states. Further devolution of authority to the cities and local municipalities, however difficult, is critical for the success of the smart cities initiative. Significant and urgent political reforms are required for this to happen in the country.

Nevertheless, the Indian smart city efforts need to recognize the economic differences between its cities because off-the-shelf technology solutions are not viable and will vary in each market. Take the three cities that are part of the US-India smart city partnership, Ajmer, Visakhapatnam (Vizag) and Allahabad. Vizag has, by far, the largest economy (more than twice as large as Allahabad and four times that of Ajmer) of which trade and transport are the largest component. Allahabad has a clear specialization in so-called “unregistered manufacturing” which is driven by small-scale enterprises. Agriculture was the largest industry in Ajmer in 2000 and has remained a relatively stable and core strength of the local economy over the past decade.

These specializations are important because smart cites in India should not be about starting the places over in detached nodes, physically separated from the rest of the city, like in Nairobi and Masdar City. Rather, smart cities require sharp self-awareness: each Indian smart city should develop or update a strategic plan for growth, one that has clear goals towards basic service improvement, job growth and productivity, economic inclusion, and sustainability and resilience. The technological deployments under the smart city rubric should then aim to deliver on those goals.

Make no mistake, India has an opportunity to make the three cities the model for smart city development. But that model means leveraging private resources and working with partners at all levels of government to help the cities define for themselves what their technology-driven future looks like.

IISc Bangalore ranked 16th in emerging nations’ varsity list

IISc Bangalore ranked 16th in emerging nations’ varsity list
IISc and IIT-Bombay are the two scientific research and higher education institutions from India that are among the top 30 in the rankings
The Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore has climbed nine places to 16th spot in a list of the top 200 universities from 35 emerging nations, including the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries.

IISc and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay are the two scientific research and higher education institutions from India that are among the top 30 in the latest Times Higher Education (THE) BRICS and Emerging Economies Ranking 2016. THE is a London-based university ranking agency.

Overall, 16 Indian universities have found place in the top 200 list. “India takes 16 places in this year’s ranking with the IISc making its debut in the top 20 (16th) and IIT Bombay, the top 30 (29th),” THE said in its study released on Wednesday.

IIT Madras (rank 36) has climbed eight places in the ranking compared to last year; its peer IIT-Delhi remained at rank 37. IIT Kharagpur (rank 45) rounds off the list of the top five Indian universities/schools.

“Top institutions including IITs have realized that despite the existing flaws in global rankings, they do influence positioning. So, they are now giving more attention to rankings,” said R. Nagarajan, a professor at IIT Madras and adviser to the institute’s alumni affairs office.

“IITs are now more focused and doing all that is needed to improve themselves in terms of education, research, consulatncy and efforts are on for internationalization. So, eventually, it will show up in international rankings,” Nagarajan added.

With 39 institutions in the top 200 list, China, however, was the clear leader. Chinese institutions occupied the top 2 spots, and captured five positions in the top 10. Taiwan was a distant second with 24 universities in the top 200 and India is the third best represented country, THE said.

Peking University of China is the top university in this year’s ranking among BRICS and emerging economies, followed by Tsinghua University. Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia), University of Cape Town (South Africa) and National Taiwan University (Taiwan) round off the top five.

“It is good news for India that 16 of its institutions feature in this year’s list of the best universities in the BRICS nations and emerging economies. However, India will have to work harder to compete with other developing nations, such as Russia, which have a higher proportion of institutions in the upper echelons of the table. India is the only BRICS nation without a university in the top 10,” said Phil Baty, editor of THE World University Rankings.

Anil Sahasrabudhe, chairman of the All India Council for Technical Education, said India has already started working on a national ranking system, which will help its institutions do better in global rankings.

Karthick Sridhar, vice-chairman of Indian Centre for Academic Rankings and Excellence, said developing world-class universities requires commitment of money backed by a strong determination from the government.

“To create world-class capacity in research, resources must not only be abundant, they must also be allocated on the basis of scholarly merit, rather than on the basis of seniority or political influence,” Sridhar added.

Unshackling the states from central schemes

Unshackling the states from central schemes
A large number of central schemes end up curbing the autonomy of states
n some ways, the thunder of finance minister Arun Jaitley’s first full-year budget was stolen by the Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) report. Released just a few days before the budget speech was made, the FFC brought in significant changes in state-centre finances by increasing the devolution to states from 32% to 42% of the net Union tax receipts. With fewer funds to disburse, the Union budget delinked as many as eight centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) from the support of the Union government. Many others were now to be implemented with altered financing patterns.
A recent report of a sub-group of chief ministers offers the Union government an institutional framework to further consolidate the salutary trends in fiscal devolution under the new emblem of cooperative federalism. Over the years, proliferation of CSS has greatly curbed the autonomy of the state governments. The greater the devolution through these one-size-fits-all CSS, the lesser is the untied fund available to the state governments. The budget of 2014-15 made provisions for 66 CSS out of which 17 were declared ‘flagship schemes’. The non-flagship schemes received low budgetary provisions spread thin among sectors and between states. The states had to still implement these schemes in order to avail of the matching grant from the centre.
The sub-group constituted under the aegis of NITI Aayog “to examine the current CSS and recommend their suitable rationalization” has suggested a better and lighter framework. The sub-group has recommended pruning the number of CSS down to 30 from 50 in 2015-16 and 66 the year before. This step, if implemented, will be a welcome part of the next budget.
The sub-group has further asked the CSS to be divided into core schemes and optional schemes. The core schemes will require mandatory implementation by the states, and the centre will fund 100% share for the Union territories, 90% for the eight north-eastern (NE) and three Himalayan states, and 60% for the rest of the states. The corresponding figures for the optional schemes are 100%, 80% and 50%, respectively.
In the proposed structure, the states will have the flexibility of choosing the optional schemes they want to implement. The fund meant for the scheme opted out by any state can be used in other schemes. The states will be free to deselect some components of a scheme they are implementing. The sub-group also recommends increasing the flexi-funds—meant to provide greater flexibility to spend on diverse requirements under the overall objective of the scheme—from 10% to 25%. In short, the mantra is to unshackle the states from the firm grip of central schemes.
Interestingly, the use of the phrase “8 NE and 3 Himalayan states” instead of “special category states” has important implications if this report is accepted. One, it means the generous terms of funding from the Union government for central schemes in these states is likely to be retained. Two, the discontinuation of block grants undertaken in 2015-16 seems irreversible. The special category states were disproportionate beneficiaries of the block grants—including Normal Central Assistance, one-time Additional Central Assistance, Special Central Assistance and Special Plan Assistance—which have now been subsumed into the increased FFC devolutions.
Three, the phrase “special category” may eventually be phased out. The formulation of these states as “8 NE and 3 Himalayan states” is an inkling in that direction. Four, this will bring a much-needed end to the practice of states queuing up for special category status. Some sops extended to special category states do not do away with the need for these states to improve their state capacities and public finances. On 29 October, at a press conference in Patna in response to a question on Bihar’s demand for special category status, Jaitley remarked that the era of special category status to states is over. Unsurprisingly, the chief ministers of the special category states—both part of the sub-group and otherwise—are not very pleased.
The constitution of the sub-group was an excellent example of involving the states in the decision-making process. The next budget provides the central government to further empower the states by pruning the number of CSS. The eventual elimination of special category status will also do good to the very states which are the current beneficiaries.
Should the next Union budget further reduce the number of centrally sponsored schemes?

Infosys Prize- 2015

Infosys Prize- 2015
Infosys Science Foundation on 16 November 2015 announced the names of the winners of Infosys Prize for the year 2015.
The Infosys Prize 2015 was announced for six categories, namely, Engineering and Computer Science, Humanities, Life Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences.
The winners of the Infosys Prize 2015 were evaluated by a panel of jurors comprising of esteemed scientists and professors from around the world.
The jury chairs of the six categories are: Prof. Pradeep K. Khosla (University of California San Diego) for Engineering and Computer Science; Prof. Amartya Sen (Harvard University) for Humanities; Dr. Inder Verma (Salk Institute of Biological Sciences) for Life Sciences; Prof. Srinivasa S. R. Varadhan (New York University) for Mathematical Sciences; Prof. Shrinivas Kulkarni (California Institute of Technology) for Physical Sciences; and Prof. Kaushik Basu (The World Bank) for Social Sciences.
The prize for each category consists of money prize of Rs. 65 Lakhs, a 22 karat gold medallion and a citation certificate.
The winners will be awarded on 13 February 2016 in a ceremony at New Delhi by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee.
List of Winners:
Engineering and Computer Science:Won by Prof. Umesh Waghmare of Theoretical Sciences Unit, of Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR), Bangalore.
He was awarded for his innovative use of first-principles theories and modeling in insightful investigations of microscopic mechanisms responsible for specific properties of certain materials such as topological insulators, ferroelectrics, multiferroics and graphene.
Humanities:Won by Prof. Jonardon Ganeri, Global Network Professor of Philosophy, New York University and Recurrent Visiting Professor, Department of Philosophy, King’s College London, UK.
He was awarded for his originality in interpreting and scrutinizing analytical Indian Philosophy and shedding light on dichotomy between Indian and Greek traditions of philosophical reasoning.
Life Sciences:Won by Dr. Amit Sharma, Group Leader, Structural and Computational Biology Group, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), New Delhi.
He was awarded for his pioneering contributions towards deciphering the molecular structure, at the atomic level, of key proteins involved in the biology of pathogenesis of the deadly malaria parasite.
Mathematical Sciences: Won by Prof. Mahan Mj, Professor of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.
He was awarded for establishing a central conjecture in the Thurston program to study hyperbolic 3-manifolds and introduced important new tools to study fundamental groups of complex manifolds.
Physical Sciences: Won by Prof. G Ravindra Kumar, Professor in the Department of Nuclear and Atomic Physics (DNAP), Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Mumbai.
He was awarded for his contributions to the physics of high intensity laser matter interactions.
These results have significance to testing stellar and astrophysical scenarios.
Social Sciences: Won by Dr. Srinath Raghavan, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.
He was awarded for outstanding research that synthesizes military history, international politics, and strategic analysis into powerful and imaginative perspectives on India in global context.
The Infosys Prize is awarded under the aegis of the Infosys Science Foundation, a not-for-profit trust instituted in February 2009.
The Infosys Science Foundation is funded by a corpus which today stands at over INR 130 Crore (USD 20 million)
The first time in 2008 only Infosys Prize of mathematics was awarded.
After the establishment of Infosys Science Foundation four more categories were included.
The Prize was originally given across five categories: Engineering and Computer Science, Life Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences but a sixth category – the Humanities – was added in 2012.

India Lags in Net Access, Ranks 131 in ICT Index

India Lags in Net Access, Ranks 131 in ICT Index





India has been ranked 131 out of 167 countries by the ICT Development Index of the International Telecommunication Union, which measures countries according to their level of ICT (information, communication and technology) access, use and skills. Although India has made tremendous progress in raising its telecom density, the country remains far behind when it comes to providing internet access. The ITU report, Measuring the Information Society, said that 3.2 billion people are now online, or 43.4% of the global population. In contrast, only 18% Indians have access to the internet. Worldwide, 7.1 billion people are covered by a mobile-cellular signal. By the end of this year, 46% of households globally will have internet access at home, up from 44% last year and just 30% in 2010. In India, 15.3% of households have internet access. Here's a look...