What Suresh Prabhu can learn from Dave Donaldson’s paper on Indian Railways

What Suresh Prabhu can learn from Dave Donaldson’s paper on Indian Railways
Economist Dave Donaldson’s paper on Indian Railways shows ramping up investment in railways and roads is one of the best ways to promote development in the hinterland
uresh Prabhu may not have heard of Dave Donaldson, but the Indian railways minister would do well to read an insightful paper by the Stanford University economist who has been awarded the prestigious John Bates Clark medal for American economists under 40.
The John Bates Clark medal is a good predictor of future achievement. Twelve of the 39 economists who have won the medal have gone on to win the Nobel Prize in economics. The strike rate increases to almost one in every two if one considers only medal winners before 1993. The more recent winners are obviously too young to be in the running for a Nobel right now, so what happened to the first 25 winners is a better gauge.
One of the works by Davidson that is specifically cited by the American Economics Association in their press release last week is his paper on how the spree of railway building by the British Raj impacted the Indian economy.
Some 60,000km of track was laid in the 75 years after the first train chugged out of Bori Bunder station in Mumbai in 1853. The military intention is well known. A network of railways was seen as a convenient way to move troops across India by a colonial establishment that had been rattled by the first war of independence in 1857.
There were economic benefits as well. Karl Marx wrote presciently in 1853 that the railways would be the forerunner of modern industry. He added that trains would also dissolve traditional social arrangements.
The British funded the expansion of the railways network by floating bonds in the London market—at a guaranteed return of 5% a year. The early nationalist critics of colonial economic policy such as Dadabhai Naoroji argued that the high cost of capital was more than the returns from the railways, and hence amounted to a drain of national resources.
Donaldson is one of the new generation of development economists who use unique data sets to examine what happened in the past. His research on the economic impact of railways uses some innovative district-level data sets that he has constructed on prices, output, rainfall, domestic trade and international trade. These are based on digitized records of the British Raj. Davidson has also developed a digital map of the railways network. Each 20km stretch is coded with its year of opening.
His three key conclusions: railway expansion led to a fall in trading costs, it increased the volume of goods shipped and the economic benefits greatly exceeded the cost of construction.
“When observing the railroad network in India, I estimated that in a typical district, the arrival of railroad access caused real gross domestic product in the agricultural sector (the largest sector of India’s economy at that time) to increase by around 17%,” writes Davidson. This estimate was arrived at after taking into account both the positive and negative impact of the train on economic activity in a district.
There are two important lessons from the sort of innovative work being done by economists such as Donaldson.
First, debates about the past can be enriched if the data is carefully examined. One recent example is a paper published by three scholars on the website Ideas for India. Sriya Iyer, Anand Shrivastava and Rohit Ticku have constructed a geo-coded dataset to examine whether temple desecrations by Muslim rulers in medieval India are better explained by political dominance or religious iconoclasm.
Second, there are contemporary policy lessons as well. Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the Impact of Transportation Infrastructure, which Davidson wrote in September 2012, as well as his later work on the expansion of railways in the US, provides ample proof that ramping up investment in railways and roads is one of the best ways to promote development in the hinterland.
This lesson should be even more resonant at a time when the new goods and services tax will remove obstacles to internal trade by creating a truly integrated Indian market

ISRO to launch South Asia Satellite on 5 May

ISRO to launch South Asia Satellite on 5 May, Pakistan not on board
The launch of the South Asia satellite GSAT-9 is scheduled on board ISRO’s rocket GSLV-09 from Sriharikota spaceport
India plans to launch on 5 May the ‘South Asia Satellite’ that will benefit all the countries in the region, except Pakistan which is not a part of the project.
“It’s going up in the first week of May,” Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Chairman A.S. Kiran Kumar told PTI in a telephonic interview.

According to ISRO officials, the launch of this communication satellite (GSAT-9) is scheduled for 5 May on board the space agency’s rocket GSLV-09 from Sriharikota spaceport.
Kiran Kumar said the satellite, with a lift-off mass of 2,195 kg, would carry 12 ku-band transponders. “Pakistan is not included in that. They did not want (to be part of the project),” he said.
People aware of the matter said the satellite is designed for a mission life of more than 12 years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had made an announcement about this satellite during the SAARC Summit in Kathmandu in 2014 calling it a “gift to India’s neighbours.” “It (name) was changed to this (South Asia Satellite) because of that only (Pakistan not being part of it),” Kiran Kumar said.
Earlier, it was named as ‘SAARC Satellite.’ “Basically, it (the satellite) is meant for providing communication and disaster support, connectivity among States (countries of South Asia region). It will provide a significant capability to each of these participating States in terms of DTH, certain VSAT capacity plus linking among the states for both disaster information transfer and also in terms of library type of things,” he said.
“So, there is a significant amount of inter-linking possible among the States (these countries),” Kiran Kumar said. According to ISRO officials, there is a potential for each participating country to use a dedicated transponder with a capacity of 36 to 54 Mhz for its own internal use. Each country would be responsible for content generation and its use, they said.

All you need to know about US's Mother of All Bombs

All you need to know about US's Mother of All Bombs

The United States on April 13, 2017, dropped a massive GBU-43 bomb in eastern Afghanistan against a series of caves used by Islamic State militants. According to the Afghanistan officials, the bomb killed over 30 Islamic State militants in the area.

What is the GBU-43 bomb?

The Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) also known as the ‘mother of all bombs’ is the largest non-nuclear bomb ever deployed in combat by the United States. The GBU-43 is a 21,600 pound (9,797 kg) GPS-guided munition and was first tested in March 2003, just days before the start of the Iraq war. It is a demolition bomb containing 18,700 pounds (8,480 kilogrammes) of the explosive H6, with a blast yield equivalent to 11 tonns of TNT. Nine metres (30 feet) long, with a diameter of one metre, according to GlobalSecurity.org, it is the largest-ever satellite-guided, air-delivered weapon in history.

What was the MOAB designed for?

The MOAB is a custom-made Air Force weapon that has been in the arsenal for more than a decade. It is designed to hit softer targets such as surface facilities, tunnel entrances and troop concentrations. It is a concussive bomb, meaning it is designed to detonate before it hits the ground. Its thin aluminium skin helps to maximise its blast radius and generate a shockwave, according to Wired.com.

How is the MOAB deployed?

The MOAB is dropped off from the cargo ramp of a C-130 transport plane with its descent slowed by parachute. This means it can be deployed from a greater height, thereby offering pilots more time to reach safety.

What is the Pentagon's view on the MOAB?

In the Pentagon's 2003 review of the legality of using the MOAB, it was concluded that it could not be called an indiscriminate killer under the Law of Armed Conflict.

“Although the MOAB weapon leaves a large footprint, it is discriminate and requires a deliberate launching toward the target,” the review said. It added, “It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use.”

Who made the bomb?

The MOAB was developed in 2002-2003 by Alabama-based aerospace and defence company Dynetics in partnership with the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), according to the company's website. The website said the bomb's preliminary concept was developed into a detailed design within just three months, and successfully tested three times in 13 days. According to the Air Force, the last time the MOAB was tested in 2003, a huge mushroom cloud could be seen from 32 km away

Soft power, harder choices To extend its global appeal, China is accommodating religion today. India, which invested early in diverse freedoms, should highlight inclusion now

Soft power, harder choices

To extend its global appeal, China is accommodating religion today. India, which invested early in diverse freedoms, should highlight inclusion now

Never before in China have I seen as much interest in India as I did last month, when I attended the China Development Forum in Beijing. The Forum, founded in 2000, is now recognised as one of the most important international meetings on global economics. The conference was held in the Diaoyutai State Guest House, built in 1959 to celebrate ten years of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, with Mao Zedong’s famous proclamation atop Tiananmen Square. With its gardens, lakes and ornate buildings, the place is a cultural icon of China and served as headquarters for the Central Cultural Revolution Group.

With China eager to step into the caveat being created by the rise in protectionism in the United States, this was a special year for the Forum: There were hints of China’s soft power ambition everywhere, from the décor, the fluent English conversation with the students chaperoning us, to the topics chosen for the various panels and lectures. China’s Premier Li Keqiang gave an eloquent speech in Chinese, talking about his country’s role in today’s troubled world, occasionally pausing to correct the translator’s English; at one point, when the translator said “passions”, he turned to her and she quickly corrected herself, “emotions.” There were lectures by global corporate leaders and prominent economists. Amartya Sen had a special “Nobel conversation” with a charming Chinese journalist.

A sign of China’s effort to project soft power is its changing attitude to religion. Under attack during the Cultural Revolution, Buddhism is no longer anathema. China now has nearly 250 million Buddhists, constituting 18 per cent of China’s population — and 50 per cent of the world’s Buddhists. During a coffee break, a Chinese student accosted me to chat about Sadhguru, from whom he derived “spiritual inspiration”, quite unthinkable a few years ago. He assumed that, as an Indian, I would know all about Sadhguru.

I did not want to disappoint him and so, deciding not to be too fussy about facts, managed a decent conversation about Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev’s life and teachings.

I spoke in two India-specific sessions, one with the former Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei on “The Future of India and China in the New Stage of the World Economy” and the other, organised by China Finance 40 Forum, at a beautiful, quaint restaurant in Fuchengmen Inner Street. The group’s stylish title derives from the fact that it was formed by 40 finance and economics experts, all roughly 40 years old.

It is an open, argumentative forum, the kind one encounters in America and India. I told them what I believe, that the two countries in the world best poised to grow and become global leaders are China and India. China is ahead of India, having invested in health and education early, and having grown rapidly, between 9 and 11 per cent, since 1980. India’s growth picked up later, in 1994, and breached the 9 per cent mark only in 2005.

There are risks for both nations. China is trying to transition to what was known to be India’s strength — soft power — to connect to the world through the arts, films, literature and science. In the long-run, soft power is more resilient than hard power. That is why Athens, and not Sparta, a more formidable military state, is known as the cradle of western civilisation. That is why the US nurtured its universities to become global centres of learning and outreach. It is encouraging to see China recognise this: But such a switch will not be easy. With its powerful government, totalitarian control and lack of civic freedom, China will have to negotiate some risky turns to get there.

It is for this reason that, I believe, in the long-run, India is the safer bet. India made the difficult investments — in democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, higher education — early. The recent demonetisation was a big mistake. Without it, India would have been growing at over 8 per cent by now. Luckily, the country made decisions that were good, such as the adoption of the GST and the effort to cut down bureaucratic costs.

But India also has risks — they come from the resurgence of the country’s nationalistic right wing, which suffers from a sense of shame about India and an envy of other militaristic countries and chauvinistic cultures. There have been sporadic actions by this group across the country that can destroy the investment India made in soft power, which, once undone, can do immense long-run damage. I hope that the leaders interested in India’s welfare will act to stall these regressive elements.

What needs to be appreciated is that, while economic policy is important, and profits and finance undoubtedly matter, a country’s long-run strength depends disproportionately on culture, social norms, the level of trust among people, the sense of inclusion and pride people have in their society. (And it is worth adding, pride cannot be built by beating up people who do not have it). For this reason, the first World Development Report that I initiated after joining the World Bank in 2012 was called Mind, Society, and Behavior. The Report is a trove of how the mind-set matters — if you repeatedly tell certain groups that they are backward and less intelligent, they begin to perform worse, even when there are no innate differences.

Some of the most compelling studies on this are from India involving caste. How you present the option to get educated can make a big difference in people choosing to get educated. Different cultural backgrounds lead to different choices. And so on. There are serious examples enough in the Report. So, let me close by recounting a facetious tale from my college days, summing up the role of mind-sets. The Catholic Church announced a contest in which people had to name the most important person who ever trod the earth. The winner would get $20.

A Muslim man raised his hand and said, “Mohammad”. “Good try”, was the response of the jury. A Jewish lady offered, “Moses”. No. And this went on. Then an Indian, a Hindu, stood up and said, “Jesus.” The jury broke into a clap, while there was a gasp of anguish from the Hindus in the audience, who rushed to ask why he felt that way.

Tucking the 20-dollar bill into his pocket, the man answered, “Business is business, and must not be mixed with religion.”

Digital Payment Revolution : Facts & Figures Digital Payments Progress

Digital Payment Revolution : Facts & Figures

Digital Payments Progress

·         Lucky GrahakYojana and DigiDhanVyaparYojana launched on 25.12.2016

·         100 Digi Dhan Melas held in 100 cities all over the country.

·         100 day long information, education and communication campaign led by NITI Aayog to make digital payments a mass movement in India.

·         At least 15,000 institutions have gone cashless across just these 100 rural and urban cities across each one of the 27 states and 7 UTs.

·         With a turnout of over 15 lakh from cities, small towns and villages, the melas have enabled lakhs to open new bank accounts as well as create new Aadhaar cards.

·         Rs.258 crore of prize money won by 16 lakh winners, including customers and merchants belonging to different corners of the country and from varied walks of life.

·         The lucky winners of the Mega Draw felicitated by the Prime Minister in Nagpur.

·         BHIM App and QR Codes launched

·         BHIM App has already created a new world record by registering 1.9 crore downloads in just four months since its launch in December, 2016.

·         India haso seen an unprecedented increase in number of transactions made using several user-friendly digital payment methods viz. UPI,USSD, AePS.

·         Volume of all digital transactions increased by about 23 times with 63,80,000 digital transactions for a value of  Rs. 2425 crore in March 2017 compared to 2,80,000 digital transactions worth Rs.101 crore  till November 2016.

·         Aadhaar Enabled Payments have increased from 2.5 crore in November 2016 to over 5 crore in March 2017.

·         Immediate Payment Service (IMPS) transactions have also increased from 3.6 crore to 6.7 crore during the same period.

BHIM-Aadhaar, the merchant interface of the BHIM App

·         It will pave the way for making digital payments by using the Aadhaar platform.

·         Any Indian citizen can  pay digitally using their biometric data like their thumb imprint on a merchants’ biometric enabled device which could be smart phone having a biometric reader.

·         Any citizen without access to smart phones, internet, debit or credit cards will be able to transact digitally through the BHIM Aadhaar platform.

·         Already, 27 major banks are now on board with 7.15 lakh merchants so that they can start accepting payments using BHIM Aadhaar.

ONBOARDING

·         Total Onboarding (including syndicate update): 7.15 lakhs ,  Transactions: 12.62 lakh

·         Aadhar:1.75 Lakh

·         BHIM/UPI 4.79 lakh

·         QR Code:1.68 lakh  

BHIM – Cash back and Referral Bonus Schemes

·         To ensure that the culture of digital payments permeates down to the grassroots.

·         Under the Referral bonus scheme both the existing user who refers BHIM and the new user who adopts BHIM would get a cash bonus credited directly to their account.

·         Under the Cashback scheme the merchants will get a cash back on every transaction using BHIM. Both schemes are to be administered by MEITY and implemented by NPCI.

·         Outlay of Rs. 495 crore for a period of six months.

75 Townships declared Less Cash Townships

·         In order to achieve the target of 2500 crore digital transactions during the current financial year, the Prime Minister announced about 75 townships spread all over India as ‘less-cash townships’.

·         A less-cash township is one where the deployment of payment acceptance infrastructure is complete, all the families in the township are covered under training programs.

·         Selected townships on the basis of third party assessment by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)

·         Townships with more than 80% of the total number of transactions being done through digital modes of payments during the review period are included in this list.

·         These townships are likely to generate over 1.5 lakh digital transactions every day thereby leading to about 5.5 crore digital transactions in a year.

Executive decisions are not for judges The Supreme Court ban on the sale of liquor is an example of judicial overreach. Such policies are unambiguously in the domain of the executive

The Supreme Court, ruling on a public interest petition about road safety, has banned the sale of liquor at retail outlets, as also in hotels, restaurants and bars, that are within 500m of any national or state highway. The implications and consequences of this decision have unfolded in the fortnight since. There is much collateral damage for governments, tourism and livelihoods.

For state governments, there is a massive loss in revenue. The auction fees raised from licences to sell liquor will contract sharply. Revenue from taxes on alcohol will also diminish. The problem is accentuated by the fact that at least one-half, possibly two-thirds, of retail outlets, bars, restaurants and hotels are located within a range of 500m of national or state highways. Rough estimates suggest that state governments could lose as much as Rs50,000 crore per annum in revenue.

Tourism will be hurt badly. Existing regulations stipulate that hotels in the four-star and five-star categories, or above, must have a licensed bar; many of them will now lose their premier status with a star-downgrade. It will dampen if not stifle tourism, partly because of reduced ratings for hotels and partly because foreign tourists might opt for alternative destinations in countries that do not have such restrictions. Domestic tourism, too, could be affected and diverted.

Employment and livelihoods are bound to be a casualty. The closure of liquor-retail stores will take away jobs from their employees. The inevitable downturn in business for hotels, restaurants and bars will directly reduce the jobs they provide and indirectly reduce jobs in enterprises that form part of their supply chains. The tourism sector provides employment—direct and indirect—to large numbers of people. There will be a significant reduction in such jobs. The multiplier effects of the contraction in employment will be considerable at the macro-level, particularly as the services sector is the primary source of job creation, and one million people could lose their jobs.

Clearly, the economic costs of the court decision could be substantial. This is widely recognized. The tourism sector and the hospitality industry are up in arms. State governments are issuing notifications that many roads in and around their cities are no longer state highways. The government of India is considering a presidential reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution.

The problem is the dangers posed by drunk driving to road safety. There are two points that deserve mention before concluding that this is the most appropriate solution, which it is not. Data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau show that of the total road accidents in 2014, over-speeding accounted for 48%, reckless driving for 42%, poor weather conditions for 5%, mechanical defects for 2.5% and drunk-driving for 2.5%. More than 40% of the drunk driving victims died, but the fatality proportion was not much lower, at around 33%, among victims of overspeeding and reckless-driving. And, even if the Supreme Court decision is implemented perfectly—unlikely because of circumvention or corruption—anyone can drive 500m to buy liquor and then return to the highway.

The only effective and sustainable solution to the dangers posed by drunk-driving is strict enforcement and punishment that becomes a deterrent. For this purpose, the law can be strengthened further. In fact, the Union cabinet has recently approved amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, which raise the fine for drunken driving to Rs10,000, and if such driving results in death, it would be treated as culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years. Even stronger penal action is necessary. The fines can be escalated and driving licences can be suspended for longer durations, particularly in repeat offences.

There is a more fundamental question. Is this a matter for the Supreme Court to decide? My answer is no. It is an administrative matter where the decision rests with state governments. It is not just about the appropriate authority for such decisions. The problem with Supreme Court decisions is their binding nature, much like law, which cannot be changed unless the concerned bench reviews its decision or a constitutional bench sits and decides.

The Constitution of India sets out a separation of powers between institutions of the state—executive, legislature and judiciary—to ensure the checks and balances so essential in a political democracy. Any amendment in the Constitution, any decision about rights and obligations, or any passage of laws, is the exclusive domain of the legislature. All policies and administration which are based on the needs and priorities of the state, are the task and prerogative of the executive—except for some actions, such as imposing taxes or allocating expenditure, where approval of the legislature is specified in the Constitution. Protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, and ensuring that existing laws are followed by the government, for which the administration is accountable, is not only the obligation but the domain of the judiciary. Of the three, if any one institution of the state attempts to perform a function that essentially belongs to another institution of the state, under the Constitution, this can be described as overreach.

This essay is about judicial overreach. Ashok Desai, the learned counsel and former attorney general, argues that it can take four possible forms: the terms of Articles of the Constitution can in effect be changed by a Supreme Court decision; the judiciary can introduce or enforce policies which are the domain of the executive; the judiciary can lay down regulations, in effect laws, which are the domain of the legislature; and court decisions can impose a fiscal burden on the state, in the form of expenditure incurred or revenue foregone, which is the domain of the executive and the legislature.

In my view, the recent Supreme Court ban on the sale of liquor is a clear example of judicial overreach for two reasons. Such policies are unambiguously in the domain of the executive. The decision imposes a fiscal burden on state governments, in the form of revenue foregone, which is at the expense of some priority expenditure. The adverse economic consequences for governments, tourism and employment are also cause for serious concern as they will affect the well-being of citizens.

There are several examples of such overreach. I can do no better than quote from a public lecture by former Chief Justice J.S. Verma, also cited later by the Supreme Court: “Judiciary has intervened to question a ‘mysterious car’ racing down Tughlaq Road, allotment of a particular bungalow to a judge, specific bungalows for the judge’s pool, monkeys capering in colonies, stray cattle in streets, clearing public conveniences, levying congestion charges in peak hours at airports, under the threat to use contempt power to enforce compliance with its orders. Misuse of contempt power to force railway authorities to give reservation in a train is an extreme instance.”

The judiciary has also gone far beyond its role of interpretation of the Constitution. Article 124 reads: “Every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose, provided that in the case of an appointment of a judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted.” Three Supreme Court judgements have, in effect, rewritten Article 124. It now means, in practice, that every judge of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President solely on the basis of the recommendation initiated and accepted by a collegium consisting of the Chief Justice and four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court. The original provision left room for the exercise of preference, prejudice or nepotism by the government. The new practice, de facto, establishes this as a right of the judiciary with the same exercise of preference, prejudice or nepotism by the collegium. There is a clear need for checks and balances, with accountability, in this process.

It must be said that in independent India, the Supreme Court is the institution that has protected and preserved the fundamental rights of citizens in a most unequal society. For this, much credit is due. At the same time, it must be recognized that the Supreme Court has encroached on the jurisdictional space of the executive and the legislature, which has increased with the passage of time. Hence, judicial overreach has grown, particularly in terms of policymaking and judicial legislation. This is worrisome.

In this context, there are two asymmetries worth noting. First, the judiciary has the constitutional right to check the overreach of the executive and the legislature, but there is no such check on the judiciary or its accountability. Second, the judiciary does not always check the underperformance of the executive—for example, it has failed to check government inaction against vigilante groups taking the law into their hands—which can be described as judicial under-reach.

An independent judiciary is of critical importance in a political democracy, for it provides checks and balances vis-à-vis the executive and the legislature. But there must be some institutional mechanisms that check judicial overreach or judicial under-reach to make the judiciary accountable, particularly to citizens. The answer might lie partly in self-regulation. Almost four centuries ago, Francis Bacon put it perfectly in his Essays Of Judicature (1625): “Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere and not jus dare—to interpret law, and not make law or give law.”

Indian television’s second golden age

The entry of Netflix and Amazon Prime in the Indian market has the potential to catalyse a TV-content renaissance

If you don’t like how the table is set,” says Frank Underwood, the Machiavellian politician at the heart of Netflix’s House Of Cards series, “turn over the table.” It’s a gnomic bit of wisdom fated for a thousand management presentations. The streaming video company makes for a fine example, fittingly enough. Before Netflix launched the show in 2013, video-on-demand focused on licensing and streaming movies and television shows. House Of Cards was its first venture in original content. It turned out to be a critical darling and a hit. Thus started the latest phase in what has often been called the second golden age of television in the US. Now, with Netflix and Amazon Prime looking to start a content war in India, can they have a similar effect here?

The starting point of the revolution in television programming in the US is probably 1999, when The Sopranos premiered on cable channel HBO. TV had never quite seen its like before—a show centred on a mobster, juxtaposing the banality of his family life against the brutality of his professional life. It was unflinching in its portrayal and developed a depth and complexity in its character studies that rose on occasion to literary heights. HBO’s next bet was even riskier. The Wire, premiering in 2002 and written by a former police reporter, took the city of Baltimore, Maryland, as its canvas and examined everything from urban institutional decay and the functioning of city government to the feedback loop between inner city poverty and urban crime networks.

These shows could not have been made in prior decades. In television, as in cinema, distribution determines content. As long as US television was dominated by free broadcast channels with their dependence on advertising revenue, it had to cater to the broad middle. This kept the programming largely safe and uncontroversial; no advertiser would bet money on a show that took excessive risks or targeted a niche audience.

Paid cable television played by different rules. It depended on subscription fees, not advertising, leading to greater latitude in programming. Once it achieved critical mass—it reached its subscription peak around the turn of the millennium—this meant shows like The Sopranos and The Wire. The decade and a half since have seen a glut of high-quality risk-taking television programming—from Breaking Bad to Mad Men to Game Of Thrones—that has replaced Hollywood as the definer of the cultural moment. In the process, it has gained considerable cachet. The Wire is taught at Harvard and top-tier Hollywood talent like Martin Scorsese and Susan Sarandon, among a host of others, are now dabbling enthusiastically in the television world.

Changing distribution models have had a similar effect on Indian cinema. After liberalization, the abolition of the permit raj for ticket prices, allowing up to 100% foreign direct investment, and the rapid growth of multiplexes have allowed studios and film-makers to diversify while keeping financial risk at an acceptable level. Films that would have been deemed too urban, too regional or too controversial when distribution networks centred on 500-seat movie theatres and broad releases have now become viable. This has expanded Indian cinema’s palette; a subaltern Masaan, a feminist Pink and a regional language Sairat are now acceptable mainstream propositions. It has given rise to a generation of film-makers who are blurring the distinctions between art-house and commercial. And it has enabled quality independent cinema; Anaarkali of Aarah is a fine example.

But Indian television hasn’t been able to truly exploit the post-liberalization media and consumer environment. The occasional show may have broken the mould, but the content ecosystem is dominated by the middle-of-the-road programming that marked the broadcast era in US television. Part of this is to do with revenue streams. In the US, average revenue per user is much higher for cable than for Internet services; in India, the reverse holds true. Consequently, broad appeal is a must.

The recent entry of Netflix and Amazon Prime in the Indian market and their lack of dependence on advertising revenue—and thus greater risk-taking ability—mean that change could be on the way. The American video on demand giants are looking to acquire original content aggressively. For instance, Netflix has announced an original series based on Vikram Chandra’s novel Sacred Games, while Amazon has 17 original shows lined up. This is with good reason. In the 2009-15 period, scripted TV shows aired on broadcast television, cable and via streaming services in the US grew by a mammoth 94%. The US market is reaching peak television—and that means cutthroat competition, particularly with cord-cutting streaming services increasingly eating into conventional revenue streams.

Thus the hunt for new markets. There are limitations in India, of course; broadband Internet penetration for one. But the low base also means a great deal of scope for future growth—and a concurrent first mover advantage. There will inevitably be missteps in a market as varied culturally, linguistically and economically as India’s. Netflix and Amazon, however, have deep pockets and high stakes to play for. And if they can manage a high profile success or three, that will create pressure on Indian cable channels to follow suit.

India’s first golden age of television reached its apogee in the late 1980s with Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayan—the show that brought the country to a halt every Sunday morning. Three decades on, there is potential for its own second golden age.

Do you think Indian television is on the cusp of a second golden age?