6 April 2017

Naxalbari: India’s greatest war with itself

Naxalbari: India’s greatest war with itself

Several thousand have followed in India’s greatest war with itself: innocents, rebels, and those tasked to combat them. They die every other day, statistics over solutions
About Naxalbari, and the spark that set a subcontinent on fire.
Some fire: it still burns 50 years later, even as India seeks to sit on the high table of global affairs, as an overwhelming vote at home for inclusive progress turns out to have been interpreted by the victors as a mandate for exclusive persuasion.
It began as a farmers’ protest from a cluster of three villages near Naxalbari in the Dooars region of northern Bengal, west of the regional airport at Bagdogra. In one district, Darjeeling, of one state, West Bengal.
After five decades of undeniable socio-economic development, avatars of the rebellion—or “Naxalite” movement—that spread after leftwing radicals co-opted that farmers’ protest, continues to mark the failures of India as a nation. Last year, the ministry of home affairs (which tellingly has a Left Wing Extremism Division) recorded leftwing rebellion of various degrees of intensity in 106 districts across nine states. Seven years earlier, that count was nearly a third of India’s 600-plus districts, across 14 states.
The fount remains Naxalbari.
“Do you remember what happened that day?” I asked Punjab Rao when I visited him some years ago.
Rao knew what I meant, this former Indian Army soldier from the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra who settled down in these parts after being decommissioned, and became a farmer-revolutionary.
“Twenty-fourth of May, 1967. Just up the lane from this house,” he pointed behind him, ageing eyes alight, voice sharp. “Landless peasants had had enough.”
His rundown hut was a few yards off the road near Naxalbari, one that travels northwest to Nepal’s eastern borders; another sliver travels southwest towards Bihar, linking northern Bengal through forest, farmland and the region’s mainstay, tea gardens. A patchwork of farms are still worked by poor, mostly tenant farmers. The Naxalbari of revolutionary grammar was really a cluster of villages and hamlets with quirky names from nature and history: Hatighisa, after elephants; Phansidewa, literally, hanged; the railway hub of New Jalpaiguri—the place of olives.
Anger had been brewing over scarcity of food, issues of landlessness, share-cropping and bonded labour for about a year up to May 1967, Rao recalled. “There was talk of revolution, but they just wanted to assert their rights. They had taken over land. Then the police came, called by the jotedar.”
“As soon as we heard about it, we set off with whatever we had—swords, bows and arrows, spears, farming implements. The people with us, as soon as they saw the group of police and landlords, they let the arrows fly. One hit the landlord, another hit someone on the leg. The police ran away. That was the beginning.”
The police returned in large numbers the next day, and destroyed houses, broke what they could, mixed rice and lentils with dirt, destroyed all other food. By then the spark had spread to Bengaijote, just beyond Naxalbari. Eleven protestors died by police firing that day.
“Naxalbari had its first martyrs,” said Rao. “And the Naxalbari movement was born. Bas.”
There is a memorial to the eleven in Bengaijote, by the Tukruria forest, a once-dense tract that proved to be a good hiding place for rebels—from the nearby villages as well as Kolkata and elsewhere. Unlike their rural comrades who fought for their lands and livelihoods, the urban guerrillas were driven by idealism layered with the rhetoric of Mao Zedong. Or those of Charu Mazumdar, a parent of the extreme movement that broke ranks with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to formally establish the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)—the “Naxalite” party.
The hamlet of Bengaijote is mostly a scattering of huts, a handful of brick houses, and inhabitants a mix: some impoverished Rajbongshi tribals, indigenous to this area, some Santhal tribals, brought in generations earlier as labour for tea gardens. You may hear Nepali pop music.
In a small clearing is a makeshift flagstaff with a small red flag, and four pedestals painted blood red with busts on each. Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Mazumdar. To the right of the Naxalbari pantheon is a memorial to the 11 killed on “Historic 25th May 1967”. All unarmed protestors, women and men: Dhaneshwari Devi, Seemaswari Mallick, Nayaneswari Mallick, Surubala Burman, Sonamati Singh, Phoolmati Devi, Samsari Saibani, Gaudrau Saibani, Kharsingh Mallick. “And two children”.
Several thousand have followed in India’s greatest war with itself: innocents, rebels, and those tasked to combat them. They die every other day, statistics over solutions.

5 April 2017

Union HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar Releases ‘India Rankings 2017’

Union HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar Releases ‘India Rankings 2017’

India’s 2nd Ever Rankings Of Indian Institutions

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore Bags First Position in Overall Rankings

The Union Minister of Human Resource Development, Shri Prakash Javadekar , released the India Rankings 2017 for the Educational Institutions and dedicated it  to the nation in New Delhi today. Speaking on the  occasion  he said that this step is a sequel of our  Government’s commitment towards bringing landmark changes in the quality of education provided to students across the country for which we are working relentlessly. Shri Javadekar said this ranking is meant to have beginning of a fair competition among the institutions for achieving excellence in their efforts. This has recorded success beyond any doubt and is bound to march ahead.

The Minister said so far no one has raised fingers on the ranking charted out by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), working under his Ministry. And  this has proved  its worth on the stipulated Parameters. He said until now NAAC and NBA used to assess Educational Institutions but now in our government this is the unique modification for bringing transparency and credibility. He said besides institutions now parents and students will also have worth information’s about the ranking and quality of a particular university, college or  vocational institution. This has led to the global scaling up of our credentials.

The Minister on this occasion also announced that government will extend more help to quality education institutions. It’s a vital change of policy and will motivate all the institutions to perform and excel. Factors regarding number of research papers submitted, patents obtained and campus placement figures will also count for seeking government support. He said importance to public perception, employer perception and academic perception will also be accorded.

Dr. Mahendra Nath Pandey Minister of State (HRD)  in his address said this exercise has evoked a sense of transparency and accountability and the sole purpose is to march ahead for quality education. 

Secretary Higher,  Education Shri K.K.  Sharma elaborating  ‘INDIA RANKINGS 2017’ said that  in this second edition of India Rankings, a total of 2995 institutions have participated this time. This includes 232 Universities, 1024 Engineering Institutions, 546 Management Institutions, 318 Pharmacy Institutions and 637 General Degree Colleges, and others. Many of these have participated in multiple disciplines, adding to a total of 3319 participants across disciplines.
“India Rankings 2017” have ranked institutions in the disciplines/categories mentioned above, and have also provided a common overall rank across all disciplines for those institutes which either have more than 1000 enrolled students, or which are centrally funded.
The parameters used for India Rankings 2017 are broadly similar to those used last year. However, at the level of detail, some of the sub-parameters have been tweaked for a more robust system of rankings. In particular for evaluating Research Impact, parameters for quality of publications have been enhanced to include the number of highly cited papers, in addition to the usual parameters of publications per faculty and citations per paper. Innovations have also been made in improving the scoring metrics, where the “percentile” metric has been replaced by a more discriminating metric. All research related information, including publications, citations, highly cited papers and even patent information about institutes was collected from third party databases (from our industry partners) to obtain an objective and unbiased picture. For this year’s Perception inputs, a large data base of academic and industry peers and employers was deployed, in addition to getting inputs from members of general public. Finally, some provision has also been made for the scale of operations of an institute in terms of the size of its student population and graduated doctoral students, he added. 
Shri Sharma said that the data received from both institutional and third party sources were subject to extensive scrutiny for consistency and correctness by a team of experts. As per the declared time-schedule, the rankings are being announced on the first Monday of April. The Rankings List includes 100 institutions each in the Overall, University, Engineering and General College Categories, and 50 each in Management and Pharmacy Disciplines. Additional rankings in suitably bunched forms are also being provided.
Although the Central Government funded institutions, in general continue to do well, some of the state-funded universities also are prominent. Some private institutions and universities have also been quietly climbing up to take high positions, thus offering value for money to their students, going by their ranks. Some of these institutions have consistently maintained or improved their positions of last year, clearly indicating that it was not a one-time fluke event. This is clearly a satisfying development in Higher Education.
Finally, a very exciting feature of this year’s Rankings is the ranking of General Degree Colleges in Arts and Sciences from across the country. While many of the names appearing in the top-100 list are well known and famous, there are many others who may not be so well known but have fared well. Clearly these need to be watched out for in future. There are also a few notable absentees here as also in other categories, due to their non-participation. We hope that there will be more enthusiastic participation in the years to come, he added. 

List of top 10 India Rankings 2017 is as follows:

Overall:
  1. Indian Institute of Science, Banglore, Karnataka
  2. Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (Chennai), Tamil Nadu
  3. Indian Institute of Technology,  Bombay (Mumbai), Maharashtra
  4. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal
  5. Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, Delhi
  6. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi, Delhi
  7. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
  8. Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam
  9. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand
  10. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
Engineering
1.      Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Tamil Nadu
2.      Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (Mumbai), Maharashtra
3.      Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal
4.      Indian Institute of Tchnology, New Delhi, Delhi
5.      Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
6.      Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand
7.      Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam
8.      Anna University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
9.      Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal
10.  Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana
Management
1.Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
2. Indian Institute of Management, Banglore, Karnataka
3.Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, West Bengal
4. Indian Instituut of Management, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
5.Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode, Kerala
6. Indian Institute of Technology,New  Delhi, Delhi
7. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal
8. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand
9. Xavior Labour Relations Institute (XLRI), Jamshedpur, Jharkhand
10. Indian Institute of Management, Indore, Madhya Pradesh
University
1.Indian Institute of Science, Banglore, Karnataka
2. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Delhi
3. Banaras Hindu University
4. Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Banglore, Karnataka
5.Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal
6. Anna University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
7. University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana
8. University of Delhi, Delhi
9. Amrita Vishwa Peetham, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu
10. Savitribai Phule  PuneUniversity, Pune, Maharshtra
Colleges
1.      Miranda House, Delhi, Delhi
2.      Loyola College, District Chennai, Tamil Nadu
3.      Shri Ram College of Commerce, New Delhi, Delhi
4.      Bishop Heber College, District Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu
5.      Atma Ram Sanatan Dharma College,New Delhi, Delhi
6.      St. Xavier’s College, Kolkata, West Bengal
7.      Lady Shri Ram College for Women,New Delhi, Delhi
8.      Dyal Singh College, Delhi, Delhi
9.      Deen Dayal Upadhyay College, New Delhi, Delhi
10.   The Women’s Christian College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

The wheel of social justice

The wheel of social justice
New national commission for backward classes must address the gaps and lags in the Mandal project
The government’s decision to set up a National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (NCSEdBC) in place of the existing National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) meets long-standing demands. The Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEdBCs), and the Forum of BC MPs have asked for its constitution and the NCBC and the Parliamentary Committee on SEdBCs have recommended it. The usefulness and effectiveness of the commission depends on the functions entrusted to it and its composition.
The only function of the NCBC under the NCBC Act is to examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in SEdBC lists and hear complaints of over-inclusion or under-inclusion of any class in such lists and to tender advice to the Central government, which shall ordinarily be binding upon the government. It is presumed that civil court powers given to the NCBC, provided to all commissions, will continue.
Another role of the NCBC is that it should be consulted by the Central government while undertaking the periodic revision of SEdBC lists “with a view to excluding from such lists those classes who have ceased to be backward classes or for including new backward classes”. The NCBC’s main function and its periodic role are laid out in the the Supreme Court’s directions in the judgment of November 16, 1992, which upheld the constitutional validity of the V.P. Singh government’s decision to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations, taken on the basis of my note as Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, in 1990.
If the NCSEdBC’s function and role are the same as that of NCBC, its usefulness for SEdBCs will be neither more nor less than the NCBC’s. Reportedly, the NCSEdBC will be entrusted with the additional function of grievance redress of SEdBCs. This is an improvement. Further, according to Union minister Venkaiah Naidu, a new Article 342(A) will make it mandatory to take the concurrence of Parliament for adding or deleting any community in the SEdBC list. This will introduce greater transparency. It is more difficult to get a wrong decision through Parliament, which is under constant public gaze and scrutiny, than through executive orders issued from within the four walls of executive office.
SEdBCs require not only list-inclusion and reservation, but also comprehensive and holistic development and advancement of each community towards equality with Socially Advanced Castes (SACs) in all parameters of development and welfare. The blueprint for this is contained in the Report of the Working Group on Empowerment of SEdBCs in the XII Plan prepared under my chairmanship, which stands even though the terminology of “plan” has been replaced by “vision”, “agenda”.
In view of this, the Commission should be entrusted with the work of advising and guiding the Centre and the states regarding measures undertaken and required to be undertaken; monitoring their effectiveness and the progress of SEdBCs and each Backward Class, and all other related tasks. This was recommended by the NCBC in its annual report of February 2000.
The existing statutory composition of a judge as chairperson, a central secretary-level officer as member-secretary, a social scientist and two persons possessing special knowledge of matters relating to SEdBCs should continue. All five members should be selected on the basis of objectivity, repute earned through long and sincere service for backward classes and knowledge and experience of society, social backwardness and developmental processes relevant to advancement of SEdBCs. They should not be attached to any political party.
To infuse confidence in the SEdBC public, the practice of ensuring majority of membership from SEdBCs should continue. Due representation should be ensured for most and extremely backward classes, who form a good majority of SEdBCs, among them castes of artisans, service-providers, fisher-folk, indigent castes etc. The past two chairpersons belonged to most backward classes — this is a precedent worth continuing. One of the five members may be from a religious minority — the bulk of India’s Muslims and Christians belong to most and extremely backward SEdBCs.
Anxiety has been expressed that the proposed move is intended to delete certain communities from SEdBC lists. Exclusion of castes which ceased to be backward was recommended by certain past commissions and specifically directed by the Supreme Court. Castes can be excluded only on the basis of objective data, not on anybody’s whims and fancies. Parliamentary scrutiny can further reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions.
The real danger that leaders have to protect SEdBCs from is inclusion of any socially advanced castes (SAC) in SEdBC lists. Certain SACs are making muscular efforts for this, knowing that they cannot succeed under the Constitution which provides for reservation and other social justice measures only for social classes who are victims of “untouchability” (SCs), victims of remoteness under vulnerable conditions (STs), victims of social inferiority or lowliness under the caste system (SEdBCs) and not for the poor or the unemployed. The poor and the unemployed who do not belong to these three social classes, should be helped through means such as scholarships and educational loans, but not through reservation. Parties should resist the temptation of using muscular agitations of powerful SACs for transient electoral advantage. There should be a common moral code based on constitutional norms and morality emphasised by B.R. Ambedkar, which should be binding on all parties. Issues relating to SEdBCs, SCs and STs are too serious and important for the vast majority of India’s population and for national progress to be made a football in electoral competition.
Another important task calling for the attention of leaders, the Commission and the government is the categorisation of SEdBCs into “backward”, “more backward”, “most backward” and “extremely backward” castes with sub-quotas, so as to spread the benefits of reservation and other social justice measures equitably. The Opposition should desist from knee-jerk and contradictory reactions. The government should improve its credibility by instituting, in article or rules, the process of members’ selection through a bipartisan collegium.
The name of “National Commission for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes” is correctly chosen in line with constitutional terminology. In 1951, Jawaharlal Nehru insisted on this name in a new clause (4) of Article 15. The acronym should be “NCSEdBC” and not “NCSEBC” because “E” can be misunderstood and misinterpreted as “economically” and misused for SAC caste entry into SEdBC list.

Seven IITs among India’s best 10 educational institutions, IISc tops list

Seven IITs among India’s best 10 educational institutions, IISc tops list
IISc topped the ‘overall’ and ‘universities’ categories in HRD Ministry’s ranking of India’s top educational institutions even as IIM-A was ranked the best management institute
The Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, the first Indian institution to make it to the top 10 in a global ranking, has been ranked at the top in the annual national rankings released by the HRD ministry.
Seven Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) have also made it to the list of the top 10 educational institutions released under the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), the other two being Banaras Hindu University (BHU) and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

The results of the second edition of the domestic ranking were announced by HRD minister Prakash Javadekar in New Delhi on Monday. Unlike last year, this time the ranking was released under five categories—overall, colleges, universities, management and engineering.
IISc figured at the top in ‘overall’ and ‘universities’ categories. JNU, which was at third position in the last ranking, has been ranked second this year in ‘universities’ category. In the ‘overall’ ranking, the university, which has been at the centre of controversies for over a year, has been placed at the sixth position.
IIM-Ahmedabad and IIM-Bangalore have switched positions in the top management institute list. Last year the Bangalore institution was placed at the top and IIM-Ahmedabad was second. IIT-Madras continued to be at the top in the engineering institutions category.
Last month, IISc was ranked eighth in the Times Higher Education (THE) Rankings, 2017 in the “best small universities” category, joining the elite list that includes California Institute of Technology (Caltech) from the US, Ecole Normale Superieure from France and Pohang University of Science and Technology, South Korea.
The NIRF outlines a methodology to rank institutions across the country. The methodology draws from the overall recommendations and broad understanding arrived at by a core committee set up by the ministry, to identify the broad parameters for ranking various universities and institutions.
The parameters broadly cover ‘teaching, learning and resources’, ‘research and professional practices’, ‘graduation outcomes’, ‘outreach and inclusivity’ and ‘perception’.

Prof. David R. Syiemlieh takes Oath as Chairman, UPSC

Prof. David R. Syiemlieh takes Oath as Chairman, UPSC
Prof. David R. Syiemlieh took the Oath of Office and Secrecy as Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, under clause (1) of Article 316 of the Constitution of India, today. The oath was administered by Shri Vinay Mittal, the senior most Member of the Commission, at a function at the UPSC office.
Prof. Syiemlieh joined the Commission as Member on June 25, 2012 and was later on appointed to perform the duties of the pos...
See More

Firing up the atomic energy establishment

Firing up the atomic energy establishment

The department of atomic energy has been the proverbial white elephant—long on promises and short on delivery
Ambitious and well-intentioned as it may be, the department of atomic energy’s (DAE’s) recent proposal to build 12 nuclear reactors to boost power generation in the country needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. In recent decades, DAE has been long on promises and short on delivery—the proverbial white elephant.
Yet it was not always so. When India’s nuclear establishment got under way in 1944—theoretical research had been going on since the mid-1930s, in European labs as well as in India—Homi Bhabha charted out a road map for the country’s nuclear programme for the rest of the century. In a country with appalling literacy levels, unspeakable poverty and little by way modern infrastructure, nuclear power was a bold gamble. Over the next couple of decades, a pool of talent was created, expertise was developed, and collaboration with advanced states sought. Though progress was not breakneck, it was, nonetheless, impressive. Apsara, which went critical in 1956, was Asia’s first research reactor; India’s first power reactor, Tarapur, came online in 1969.
With the exception of an eight-year gap between 1972 and 1980, DAE has been commissioning a reactor every two or three years. However, the reactors were notorious for having a low plant load factor (PLF)—in other words, they were inefficient. The popular belief is that this is largely due to unreliable supplies of uranium fuel but wear and tear and system malfunctions are as much to blame.
Second, India’s pace of nuclear energy growth is dismally slow. When France and the US decided to embrace nuclear energy in the 1960s and 1970s, the former built approximately 60 reactors within two decades and the latter about 100 in a similar time span. China has, at present, as many reactors under construction as India has built since independence. After the end of India’s ostracism from international nuclear commerce, the government ambitiously announced an increase in India’s nuclear energy generation up to 63 GW by 2032; this was drastically revised downwards to 27.5 GW. Recent statements suggest that the target may have been lowered further.
The inordinate delays from conception to commission have been fatal for the sector. The nuclear project at Gorakhpur, for example, was sanctioned in 1984 but is yet to be built; the power project at Narora took 20 years from 1972-92 to complete; the first two units at Kaiga took 15 years. The fast breeder reactor project is also languishing, while DAE has been promising to begin construction on the advanced heavy water reactor next year since 2003.
Cost overruns have also been ingrained into the Indian nuclear process—the Narora plant was sanctioned for approximately Rs200 crore but ended up costing four times that amount; the first two units at Kakrapar saw a 350% increase in cost from conception to commission. Every Indian reactor has seen similar cost spikes.
Technology assimilation has also been a tough nut for DAE. India’s third commercial nuclear power reactor, the 220 MW pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) at Rawatbhata, was built with technology from Canada. Since then, Indian scientists have indigenized the design and scaled it up to 540 MW and 700 MW but haven’t been able to cross the 1,000 MW mark as Canada has long done. Today, India needs larger reactors for economies of scale but DAE is yet to deliver.
To be fair, not all of the blame can be placed at DAE’s door. The international nuclear industry, for example, has been in a depressed state for a while—Westinghouse’s financial woes and Areva’s problems with steel forging were self-inflicted disasters. DAE has also had to navigate around uninspired leaders who just could not see the transformative promise of nuclear power. That has resulted in budgetary restraints, poor policies and little encouragement.
However, the atomic energy establishment does not seem to have offered much resistance to the government’s apathy; ministries normally jostle for increased budgets, influence, limelight, a place in national strategy, or a seat at the table. In some ways, the apathy has suited DAE’s own lackadaisical work habits. And the shrivelled ambitions of its Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd, which is responsible for the construction and operation of nuclear power reactors, hasn’t helped matters either.
Notably, the atomic community was also divided over the India-US civil nuclear deal—despite the lack of indigenous achievement in the country. It also went soft on the stringent supplier liability laws introduced in 2010 that were not in keeping with international industry norms and effectively made the Indian nuclear market a no-go zone for both foreign and domestic suppliers. Furthermore, there has been strong opposition from the atomic community to privatization under the bogey of national security—a convenient shield—against calls for transparency.
Responsibility for DAE falls on the prime minister’s shoulders. It is no coincidence that DAE’s brightest years were under Jawaharlal Nehru and the agency has been languishing somewhat ever since. Curing this white elephant is an easy process—without even getting into long-term, sustainable goals such as privatization, clear regulation and transparency, closer scrutiny by the prime minister and an adoption of the sector as he has done with solar power would go a long way in revitalizing a moribund agency.

The next phase of economic reforms

The next phase of economic reforms

The Narendra Modi government now needs to focus on the economic policy reforms India needs over the next decade
The Narendra Modi government has done well to push ahead with key economic policy reforms that had been left on the table by the previous regime. The legal decks have been cleared for the new goods and services tax (GST) after the parliamentary vote last week. India now has a new monetary policy regime that is focused on inflation control. The new bankruptcy code will help deal with what Arvind Subramanian has described as the problem of capitalism without exit. The Fourteenth Finance Commission has given fiscal muscle to the idea of cooperative federalism. The Modi government has also dealt with the administrative tangles that almost ruined the Indian economy—ranging from the way natural resources were being allocated to the mismanagement of the food economy, to defence modernization.
The few men who matter in this government need to be asked a plain question: What now?
Deep policy reforms do not happen overnight. They are usually preceded by many years of preparatory work within government as well as outside it. The battle to introduce the GST has taken nearly 17 years. The transition from an eclectic monetary policy framework to one focused on inflation control was also preceded by almost a decade of intense debate; the Reserve Bank of India had set up a technical advisory committee for monetary policy in 2006. The path to new bankruptcy regulations that would help release capital blocked in failed enterprises was also not an easy one. Even the terms of reference were given to the Fourteenth Finance Commission in early 2013.
That is true of the 1991 economic reforms as well. The rethink on Indian economic policy began in the late 1970s with the setting up of three government committees—the first, headed by P.C. Alexander, on trade reforms, the second, by Vadilal Dagli, on controls, and the third, by L.K. Jha, on indirect tax reform. There was further work done on various policy fronts in the next decade as well. The Seventh Five-year Plan authored by a team led by Manmohan Singh argued in favour of a switch from a blind focus on capital investment to one that gave importance to higher productivity through the technological upgradation of Indian industry.
The Bharatiya Janata Party has now replaced the Congress as the hegemonic force in Indian politics. Modi would like his party to rule the country for several decades. The Prime Minister has also spoken about how India should become a $10 trillion economy by 2032. What are the next generation of economic reforms that India needs to achieve this goal? Can adequate jobs be created in the formal sector during this long transition? How can high growth be maintained in a sluggish global economy? What needs to be done to secure macroeconomic stability over the long run? How can new technology be used to rethink the contract between citizens and the state?
These are not questions for the next quarter or even the next phase of the business cycle. A lot of strategic thought needs to go into the issues before adequate policy is designed. One can find such strategic thinking in the Chinese system. The Planning Commission used to apply its intellectual capital to structural issues before it degenerated into an imperious watchman of spending programmes. The NITI Aayog is now tasked with the job. The Modi government now needs to look beyond its administrative achievements to focus on what economic policy reforms India needs over the next decade.
There have undoubtedly been some attempts. Modi had to backtrack on difficult reforms in the land and labour markets. The task has now been left to the states. But the Prime Minister deserves credit for at least putting his political capital to work in such tricky areas. The committee headed by N.K. Singh has looked at crafting a new fiscal policy framework. The Bimal Jalan committee has done the same with expenditure management. The impending introduction of GST should allow the government to focus on the other half of tax reforms—the shelved Direct Tax Code.
Planning is thankfully dead. But governments, like all organizations, need to think strategically for the long term. The introduction of GST will bring to an end an important phase in Indian economic reforms that began at the turn of the century. The government now needs to think about the next phase. Unfortunately, there is not enough evidence of such thinking as yet.
What should the next set of long-term economic reforms be? 

Featured post

UKPCS2012 FINAL RESULT SAMVEG IAS DEHRADUN

    Heartfelt congratulations to all my dear student .this was outstanding performance .this was possible due to ...