From the guardian... take a lool

Scientists shouldn’t rush to dismiss fears about ‘three-parent babies’ Sceptics(doubtful) can be useful critics

It was always going to be a controversial technique. Sure, conceiving babies this way could alleviate(less) suffering, but as a Tory peer warned in the Lords debate, “without safeguards and serious study of safeguards, the new technique could imperil(endanger) the dignity of the human race, threaten the welfare of children, and destroy the sanctity(holy) of family life.” Because it involved the destruction of embryos(unborn baby), the Catholic church inevitably(surly) opposed it. Some scientists warned of the dangers of producing “abnormal babies.” . Wasn’t it a slippery slope from here to a “Frankenstein future” of designer babies?

I’m not talking about mitochondrial replacement and so-called three-person babies, which Britain became the first country in the world to support this week, but about the early days of IVF in the 1970s and 80s, when governments dithered(act nervously) about how to deal with this new reproductive technology. Today, with more than 5 million people having been conceived by IVF, the term “test tube baby” seems archaic if not a little perverse. Assisted conception in the U.K. didn’t bring about the breakup of the traditional family and the birth of babies with deformities but the formation of the HFEA in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990, providing a clear regulatory framework for research involving embryos.

It would be unscientific to argue that because things turned out fine on that occasion, they will inevitably do so for mitochondrial replacement. No one can be wholly certain what the biological consequences(result) of this technique will be, which is why the HFEA will grant licenses to use it only on the carefully worded condition that they are deemed “not unsafe.” But the parallels in the tone of the debate then and now are a reminder of what deep-rooted fears technological intervention in procreation can awaken.

Scientists supportive of such innovations often complain that the opponents are motivated by ignorance and prejudice. They are right to conclude that public engagement is important, but they shouldn’t suppose that explaining the science will banish all these misgivings. They resurface every time there is an advance in reproductive technology.

In all these cases, much of the opposition came from people with a strong religious faith. As one of the versions of mitochondrial replacement involves the destruction of embryos, it was bound to fall foul of Catholic doctrine(philosophy). But the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England adduced(mention) other reasons for hesitation, emphasising that it was worried about the safety and ethical aspects of the technique. Safety is of course paramount in the decision, but the scientific assessments have given it a great deal of attention already.

There are secular voices opposing the technology, too, in particular campaigners against genetic manipulations in general. For instance,Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society responded to the ongoing deliberations of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over mitochondrial transfer not only by flagging up alleged safety issues, but also insisting that we consider babies conceived this way to be “genetically modified,” and warning of “mission creep” and “high-tech eugenics.”

Sense of unease

Parallels between the objections from religious and secular quarters suggest that there is a deeper and largely unarticulated(not given) sense of unease here. Bioethicist Leon Kass has argued that instinctive disquiet about some advances in assisted conception and human biotechnology is rather healthy: “the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason’s power fully to articulate it,” an idea he calls the wisdom of repugnance(horror). “Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder(shiver),” he says. I strongly suspect that beneath many of the arguments about the safety and legality of mitochondrial replacement lies an instinctive repugnance that is beyond reason’s power to articulate.

Like many of our subconscious fears, such feelings of repugnance are revealed in the stories we tell. Disquiet at the artificial intervention in procreation goes back a long way: to the tales of Prometheus, of the medieval homunculus and golem(automation), and then to Goethe’s Faust and Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein, modern stories of clones and Ex Machina’s Ava
so often they turn out on closer inspection to explore more intimate questions of, say, parenthood and identity. They do the universal job of myth, creating an “other” not as a cautionary warning but in order more safely to examine ourselves.

So, for instance, when we are warned that a man raising a daughter cloned from his wife’s cells would be irresistibly attracted to her, we are really hearing anxieties(tension) about our own incestuous(relating to) fantasies. I don’t think it is reading too much into the “three-parent baby” label to see it as a reflection of the same anxieties. Many children already have three effective parents, or more — through step-parents, same-sex relationships, adoption and so forth. When applied to mitochondrial transfer, this term shows how strongly personhood has become equated with genetics, and indicates to geneticists that they have some work to do to move the public on from the strictly deterministic rhetoric(loud and confusing) around genetics.

We can feel justifiably proud that the U.K. has been the first country to grapple(deal) with the issues raised by this new technology. It is right that that decision canvassed a wide range of opinions. Some scientists have questioned why religious leaders should be granted any special status in pronouncing on ethical questions like this. But the most thoughtful of them often turn out to have a subtle(elusive) and humane moral sensibility of the kind that a questing faith can require. There is a well-developed strand(run) of philosophical thought on the moral authority of nature, and theology is a part of it. But on questions like this, we should examine our own responses as honestly as we can. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2015

Read more »

Building block to enduring ties

If Narendra Modi was successful during his visits to Bhutan and Nepal, it was because he showed a subtle(elusive) grasp(hold) of the importance of gestures and interpersonal equations. He would do well to do the same during his maiden visit to Colombo. Positioning India as a counter point to China could follow later

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision, after his election, to make India as the destination of his first foreign visit, possibly reflects his personal inclination(tendency) towards India as a natural choice of a long-term ally(friendly)1@. However, it is important that it should not be viewed as an indication of Sri Lanka’s desire to place all its eggs in the Indian basket, or even as a willingness to cold shoulder China. India must hence avoid the temptation to flash the ‘V Sign’, before the race has begun, for considerable ground still remains to be covered.

A great deal has, however, taken place in Sri Lanka in recent weeks that provides India reason for satisfaction. The “peaceful transfer” of power in Sri Lanka and the absence of any serious violence in its wake, is one. The eclipsing(overshadow) of President Mahinda Rajapaksa who, while distancing himself from India was perceived to be aggressively courting China, is another. Further, the coalition that has come to power has many leaders, especially Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and Chandrika Kumaratunga, who are old friends of India. The scene is thus set for an improvement in India-Sri Lanka ties.

The India visit

Nevertheless, a lot of homework needs to be done before Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarks(enter) on his Sri Lanka visit. The objective should not be — as media headlines would have it — of “pre-empting” China, but on trying to and building an enduring(put up) relationship, which, given the close affinities that do exist between India and Sri Lanka, should have been the natural order of things. Yet, the two nations find themselves separated by much more than the Palk Strait.

Mr. Sirisena referred to his India visit as a “remarkable milestone”. But, India and Sri Lanka signed only three agreements viz., on agricultural cooperation, on cultural cooperation, and a Memorandum of Understanding on Nalanda University, none of which can be regarded as significant. They did conclude a civil nuclear cooperation agreement which amounts to a “demonstration of mutual trust”, but has nothing strategic about it. It only facilitates cooperation in the transfer and exchange of nuclear knowledge and expertise.

As this was Mr. Sirisena’s first visit, the more critical issues were either not discussed or possibly not gone into in any detail. However, India and Sri Lanka cannot afford to delay for much longer discussing major issues like the devolution of power to the Tamils in the North, nor can they be avoided during Mr. Modi’s Colombo visit. In fact, they have assumed an air of urgency as Mr. Wickremesinghe has observed that he would like to go in for parliamentary elections soon. Voting patterns in the recently concluded presidential elections demonstrate the critical importance of the minority (Tamil and Muslim) vote, and the coalition(alliance) of the New Democratic Front of Sirisena and the United National Party of Wickremesinghe need them to outvote the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.

Critical issues

A viable solution to the devolution issue is, however, unlikely without a major initiative coming from the Indian side. Mr. Modi’s team of advisers will have to do a great deal of brainstorming to come up with a solution that at one level, can meet the aspirations of the Tamils, and at another, ensure that the coalition’s standing with the Sinhala Buddhist majority is not seriously undermined. As the architects of the 13th Amendment — and the devolution idea deriving from the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of 1987 — the Lankan Tamils will look to India to ensure justice for their cause. Indian Tamils also expect nothing less, and this will have implications for India’s internal politics.

There are other thorny issues such as “accountability”, “demilitarization” and growing “communalization” of both the Sri Lankan polity and the Army — as also the pending UNHRC resolution — that will need some kind of settlement. Each in their own way impacts India-Sri Lanka relations to an extent.

Buddhist factor

Mr. Modi would do well to be also properly advised about certain other aspects that could make a difference from the point of view of the visit’s success. For instance, one of Mr. Sirisena’s alliance partners is the pro-extremist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) whose track record has been one of total opposition to India. Another component is the rabidly Buddhist, Jathika Hela Urumaya, which has turned increasingly militant of late — with regard to its protestations as also its attitude towards non-Buddhist elements in the country, especially Muslims and Tamils. How to steer(guide) between the Scylla and Charybdis of Sri Lanka’s internal politics will have to be worked out.

“Irrespective of the party in power in Colombo, underestimating the strength of feelings towards the Buddhist majority — and the extent to which a government in Colombo can make concessions(grant) — would be an error.”

An understanding of the Sinhala Buddhist mindset might help. The Sinhala Buddhist majority in Sri Lanka, it is often said, suffers from a “minority complex,” creating many imponderables(Difficult or impossible to evaluate with precision) as a result. The two JVP “insurgencies” (in 1971 and 1987-89) well reflect this. During the LTTE’s heyday, its targets included Buddhist followers; several Buddhist places of worship were also damaged or destroyed. This has left behind a legacy of distrust and insecurity, which translates into violent opposition whenever the demand for the devolution of powers to the Tamils comes up.

Irrespective of the party in power in Colombo, underestimating the strength of such feelings — and the extent to which a government in Colombo can make concessions — would be an error. Given that the vote difference in the presidential elections was hardly 4 per cent — and that Mr. Rajapaksa outpolled Mr. Sirisena in a majority of districts across the state (other than in the Tamil and minority belts) — it may not be easy for the coalition to make the kind of concessions required for pushing through the 13th Amendment. As it is, Mr. Rajapaksa’s United People’s Freedom Alliance has a clear majority in the 225-member Sri Lankan Parliament.

China angle

If Mr. Modi was successful during his visits to Bhutan and Nepal, it was because he showed a subtle grasp of the importance of gestures and interpersonal equations. He would do well to do the same during his maiden visit to Colombo. Positioning India as a counter point to China could follow later, given the existing ground realities, such as Sri Lanka’s “debt trap.” Sri Lanka owes China substantial amounts on account of Chinese aid and assistance for its developmental projects, including the Hambantota and Colombo ports. Mr. Modi knows better than anyone that the largesse of India’s lines of credit simply cannot match that of China’s. Nor for the matter, does our track record of completion of projects compare with that of China.

There are reports that Mr. Sirisena has assured China that his government is willing to implement the consensus reached during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s State visit to Sri Lanka last September. The President, reportedly, has also underlined the enduring nature of the friendly ties with China, dating back centuries. Hence, scrapping any of the ongoing projects funded by China may not be on the anvil. It would be better to be cautious and see how far the new Sri Lankan government readjusts its priorities, including its ties with China, before taking any major steps.

The realities of Sri Lankan politics also make it easier for Sri Lanka to have a satisfactory relationship with China. There is also the recent “history” of China’s help to Sri Lanka, dating back to the 1952 “rice for rubber deal,” apart from several other instances.

If Sri Lanka can be persuaded(grant) during Mr. Modi’s visit to Colombo to step back from becoming an enthusiastic supporter of China’s Maritime Silk Road Project, this in itself would be a matter of great geostrategic significance. The Maritime Silk Road Project — employing an ancient Chinese metaphor — masks Mr. Xi’s ambitions to establish a dominant Chinese presence in the Indo-Pacific, including building a network of port cities to straddle(occupy a certain area) the Indian Ocean. Location wise, Sri Lanka will have a crucial role, and if it can be detached from becoming involved, this would amount to a significant diplomatic and strategic victory. However, India will be required to demonstrate greater chutzpah, if countries in the region are to heed(listen) India’s diktats. Its record in the Maldives in recent years, and again most recently in the case of the former Maldivian President Nasheed’s arrest, does not inspire much confidence about India’s determination.

Read more »

Dreams without vision

A Railway budget is essentially an opportunity for any government to push forward GDP growth by at least 2.5 per cent, but the Modi government, in its second budget, has lost the opportunity again. The huge expectation not only in India but also across the world for a completely new orientation and a path-breaking budget has been belied(misrepresent)

For the first time in Indian parliamentary history, to my mind, no Railway budget was presented. It was only a budget speech by the Railway Minister with a statement of intended, pipe dreams. In normal circumstances, a budget must have a vision, a policy, destinations, and achievable targets with timelines. Unfortunately, none of this found mention in Mr. Suresh Prabhu’s speech. And, Mr. Prabhu has left the road map and achievability to “Prabhu”, God, Ishwar, call it by any name or faith!

For a government which has come to power with such a thumping(large) majority and promises of “Achhe Din”, these expectations were not unfounded. It’s been a big disappointment, to say the least.

Funding plan

The Minister proposes to invest Rs.8.56 lakh crore over the period of 5 years, from 2015-2019, but does not provide a plan of how the projects are going to be funded. First, the financial condition of the Railways is pitiable(poor). With an operating ratio of 92 per cent in 2014-15 (which implies less availability of capital for investments in infrastructure), it is difficult to finance any projects from its own revenues. The budget places high importance on institutional finance and long-term debt instruments as extra budgetary resource, but this supposition falls apart on a simple premise(assumption): how does one expect these “multilateral and bilateral institutions” to invest, solely based on rhetoric(empty talk), in an organisation which is mired(involved) in a financial crisis, thereby undermining its financial credibility in terms of non-availability of a revenue model? There is nothing called a free lunch.

His four goals for the transformation of the Indian Railways, viz., improvement in customer experience, safety, expansion of capacity and making the Railways self-sustainable in terms of finances, are each lacking in a definitive road map and are thereby unrealistic and just sound like good intentions.

Let’s start with the first: customer experience. Mr. Prabhu has very succinctly(compactly) detailed his ideas of cleanliness, entertainment, catering, etc, but what he is forgetting is that such measures, while important in themselves, require massive efforts not only in maintenance, but also in creating state-of-the-art infrastructure. Mr. Prabhu forgets that the majority of the poor struggle to get into a compartment. They queue up sometimes a day in advance just to get into a compartment. Compartments are overcrowded by twice their capacity. In other words, poor people still travel in unreserved compartments in inhumane conditions. Customer experience cannot be limited to the Shatabdi and the Rajdhani trains alone. Customers on these trains would be more vocal perhaps, but the real help should be for the poorest of the poor.

Talking about safety

Second, nothing exceptional has been announced with regard to safety. The Kakodkar Committee which was commissioned during my tenure(duration) and whose recommendations the Ministry plans to examine in April 2015 gave its final report back in February 2012. Why was this report gathering dust all these years? The precious loss of time and consequently the huge cost overrun, has meant that safety standards (or the lack of them) have remained in an “as-is” state.

“The four goals for the transformation of the Indian Railways are each lacking in a definitive road map and are thereby unrealistic and sound like good intentions.”

Third, with regards to enhancing capacity of Railways: the Minister has by his own admission, stated that 492 sections of the Railways are running at a capacity of more than 100 per cent. And 228 are running between 80-100 per cent. Further, The Golden Quadrilateral and the diagonals connecting the four major metros constitute less than 16 per cent of the route, but account for more than 50 per cent of the passenger and freight traffic. These routes have reached over saturation levels of capacity utilisation and are strained(forced) to breaking point at present. What is the remedy provided by the Minister? Fast tracking of sanctioned projects of doubling, tripling lines, and priority to last mile connectivity projects, without any timeline. In the Railways, “fast-track” can be a deceptive word: there are currently 360-odd pending projects in the Railways’ kitty, some ranging from 30 years to 2 years.

Finally, the fourth goal to make Bhartiya Rail financially self-sustainable is stated as follows: “Generate large surpluses from operations not only to service the debt needed to fund our capacity expansion, but also to invest on an ongoing basis to replace our depreciating assets.” With an operating ratio, even if Mr. Prabhu achieves 88.5 per cent next year, the Railways is left with less than 12 per cent of revenues and in order to replace the depreciating assets, which itself will cost the Railways Rs.12,000-15,000 crore. What kind of large surplus is he talking about, and how on earth is he going to service the debt if he genuinely finds some generous but unrealistic businessmen to fund a loss-making project?

Lost opportunities

Looking at the budget announcements, there is an intent of 77 new projects (doubling/tripling lines, etc) worth Rs.96,000 crore, but does he really have the Railway Board with him? Where is the sanctioned and funded plan to break the cycle of “underinvestment”? Instead, there should have been a focus to improve the operating ratio to get cash generation going. Yes, there is stated goal to get it down to 88.5 per cent but there are no defined plans for improving asset utilisation, reducing turnaround times of wagons (which has taken a turn for the worse), improving system velocity by upgrading signalling, powering-up underpowered freight trains, converting all local trains to MEMU or DEMU, and implementing modern technology such as distributed power, all of which is needed to get the operations in order and get cash generation going. There is no plucking(pull off) of such low-hanging fruit. Instead, the focus is on expensive high speed trains and train-sets which they cannot afford or justify economically. Such white elephant projects will suck out all the investment oxygen from the smaller projects that will actually improve the performance. For instance, train sets would cost almost double those of conventional trains. The train sets cannot run on the given infrastructure as you would have to have total fencing(close) of the entire route and ensure not a single animal, leave alone people, would have access to the track. So, the fact is, even Delhi-Agra, on a high speed track, in present conditions, will I think take another 2 years at least.

Freight(cargo)

Looking at the freight business of the Railways: freight has grown at an abysmal(badly) 3 per cent over the last year, and coupled with an increase in freight rates, there are possibilities of freight revenue migrating to road. Already, competition from roadways has resulted in the share in total transport output for road at 50 per cent, while rail stands below it at 36 per cent. Passenger traffic volume has in fact gone down by 3 per cent from last year. The turnaround time of wagons has increased over the past 3 years, while it should have decreased. There have been no steps initiated to improve this parameter, and accelerating the growth rate of freight which is the bread and butter of the Railways.

Budget estimates for 2015-16 – Gross traffic receipt is expected to grow by 15.3 per cent to Rs.1,83,578 crore, passenger earnings will grow by 17 per cent and incremental freight traffic is 85 million tons, i.e. a growth of nearly 8 per cent. All these lofty dreams are extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve unless there is a quantum jump in the productivity of the existing assets and overall operational efficiency. Appropriation of pension fund has gone up by Rs.6,000 crore but provision for depreciation continues to languish(waste) at Rs.7,900 crore only as against Rs.6,800 crore in 2014-15. Similarly, appropriation to development fund is Rs.5,750 crore as against Rs.7,800 crore in 2012-13. In brief, the budget estimates for 2015-16 present a grim picture of the financial health of the Railways.

One of the most important inputs which Mr. Prabhu cannot avoid is the 7th Pay Commission, knocking at the door, and which could go as high as double that of the 6th Pay Commission: anywhere to the tune of Rs.25,000-Rs.30,000 crore per annum, crippling(worthless) the finances of the Railways even further. The total Plan outlay is stated as Rs.1,00,011 crore, out of which institutional financing is targeted Rs.17,136 crore, which is doubtful.

It seems the much hyped dream run of the bullet train has ended as reality has finally sunk(undone) in, as the Ahmedabad-Mumbai track is still in the final stage of surveys of about Rs.300 crore per kilometre, and would take at least 7-8 years in completion (being highly optimistic), after 2-3 years of the process of land acquisition.

It is quite evident from the budget proposals that inputs that use the experience of the Railway Board have not been reflected. In the official box where the Railway Board members were seated, it was no surprise to see the disinterest and lack of concern for the Railways reflected all over their faces.

Read more »

In search of quality fiscal adjustment

The economy would be better served if budgetary resources are directed at the government taking higher direct stakes in PPP projects and increasing PSU bank recapitalisation

Ever since Reserve Bank of India Governor Raghuram Rajan talked about it, “high-quality fiscal adjustment” has become the buzzword for expectations surrounding the contents of this year’s budget. One can’t argue against high-quality fiscal adjustment. It’s like motherhood and apple pie. But it isn’t clear what it means. We know it doesn’t mean meeting the deficit target by squealing(press) expenditures in the last quarter of the fiscal year; running arrears with oil and fertilizer companies; or getting public sector companies to cough up additional year-end dividends. In the last few years, this has been the sad tale of fiscal consolidation(solid mass). This year, too, the deficit target will likely be met by using some or all of the above tactics despite a massive respite from the oil price collapse, large ad hoc(specific) increases in excise tax on petroleum products, and an all-time-high equity market.

But all this is in the past. More relevant for next year’s budget is what the government makes of the need to make quality fiscal adjustments. If one goes by the exhortations of corporate leaders and analysts, it is essentially increasing capital and lowering social spending (subsidies) as much as possible. Prima facie, the argument sounds fine. Capital (infrastructure) spending is good because it delivers higher and better-quality economic growth. If doing so requires running a higher deficit, it is still not a bad thing because the added expenditure goes into creating productive capacity, rather than being wasted in higher consumption.

No convincing evidence

But there are a couple of problems with this argument. First, it is very hard to find any convincing evidence, either in India or elsewhere, that an injection of public investment increases medium-term growth. The only discernible(observable) effect is that it raises growth in the year the spending occurs, which is exactly the effect that one would expect if the government increased social spending or raised the wages of civil servants.

Does this mean that the government shouldn’t undertake infrastructure projects? Of course not. For a long time now, India has talked about the need for spending a trillion dollars on building infrastructure. The price tag has probably risen quite a bit with the new government adding ambitious river-linking, renewable energy and smart cities projects. The erstwhile(sometime) Planning Commission, based on the pre-2008 global financial world, had divided the implementation between public and private sectors and how much was to be financed by domestic banks, the corporate bond market, FDI, portfolio inflows, and Central and State budgets. In turn, getting the implementation and funding going would require structural and regulatory reforms, including changes in environmental laws, land acquisition procedures, corporate bond markets, public sector undertaking (PSU) banking operations, FDI and portfolio investment limits.

The world has changed dramatically since then, and it is doubtful whether the pre-2008 calculations would work now. So, to get capital spending right, the government needs to revisit these issues, reformulate the medium-term spending and funding plan, and implement the needed structural and regulatory reforms. That’s the right way to recast public infrastructure spending, and not merely as a way to boost near-term growth, especially when there isn’t any compelling reason to do so. If anything, the global headwinds of the last few years have turned into tailwinds for India. Growth in the G-3 economies is expected to rise, oil prices are forecasted to remain very low, and global financial conditions are expected to remain easy. Under such conditions, it is hard to justify any fiscal boost to growth.

The second problem lies with conflating(mix) subsidies with social protection. Subsidies hide the true cost of resources. This leads to inefficiencies. Consider the use of fertilizer: If it weren’t subsidised, farmers would use less of it, instead adopting different and perhaps better farming techniques. So, eliminating subsidies can be a good thing. But the government isn’t planning to do so. Instead, it is aiming to reduce the overall subsidy bill by better targeting through direct cash transfers. This is a welcome step, but it doesn’t improve efficiency much. The government needs to eliminate subsidies while simultaneously expanding targeted and demand-driven social and unemployment protection programmes and untied income transfers, not out of the kindness of its heart, but because such programmes are efficient. They provide fiscal policy the ability to respond quickly to growth booms and slowdowns without going through delays caused by the inevitable lags when government machinery has to identify the need to change policy, decide on the best ways of doing so, and then implement them. Often, by the time the government manages to implement such discretionary changes, the economic conditions alter dramatically.

Four constraints

But economic growth has stalled(postpone) in India (notwithstanding recent GDP revisions), and at the centre of this slowdown is languishing(fade) corporate investment. There are broadly four binding constraints holding back investment that haven’t changed much in the last few years. In no particular order, India’s environmental laws, land acquisition framework, the structure of public-private partnership (PPP) projects and the high indebtedness of infrastructure companies (the counterpart of which lies in the very high and rising stock of restructured and nonperforming loans among PSU banks) appear to be the constraints. India’s pre-2008 growth miracle was driven largely by corporate investment, not public investment. Unsurprisingly, the growth collapse was also caused by plummeting(drop sharply) corporate investment. So, in an obvious way, reigniting(increase) corporate investment is the key to getting India back on a sustained high-growth path. Of the four binding constraints, the first two are legislative. But the latter two lie in the purview of the government alone. So, instead of boosting infrastructure spending by a few percentage points, the economy would be much better served if budgetary resources were directed to easing the latter two constraints, either by the government’s taking higher direct stakes in already-approved PPP projects or by increasing PSU bank recapitalisation.

Doing so is likely to get growth going more quickly than the limited sops the government may have planned for corporates and households by way of modest cuts in taxes here and there or a few percentage points of higher public spending that may or may not materialise.

Read more »

Strategic patience on nuclear liability

The breakthrough in the nuclear liability issue is not a solution but a declaration of intent to resolve difficult issues. The final settlement may come at a different time under different leaderships. For the present, it is important to keep the dialogue going for the greater good of India and the U.S., and it may have value which goes beyond nuclear trade

A month after the “breakthrough understanding” on the nuclear liability issue was announced by U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, its practical value now looks diminished(reduced), while its symbolic importance as indicating the willingness of the two sides — India and the U.S. — to start a new chapter in the relationship comes to light. It was a willing suspension of disbelief on both sides to move on to new areas of cooperation, which have revitalised(regenerate) a defining relationship of the 21st century.

The irony of the announcement on the progress in the nuclear liability issue is that its architects were once the arch enemies of the nuclear deal. As a Senator, Mr. Obama had moved killer amendments to the deal in its early years. Mr. Modi’s party supported the liability bill to kill the deal, which they could not defeat on the floor of Parliament. Neither of them could have their heart in finding a way to open nuclear trade with each other. Mr. Obama would rather sell sophisticated weapons and technology to India to restore balance in bilateral trade. Mr. Modi has not listed nuclear trade in his list of priorities.

TEST FOR INDIA

A conspiracy(unlawful act) of circumstances, however, made it imperative(assertive) that Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi should make progress on the liability law. According to American commentators, the liability law was a test of the new Indian government’s strategic global outlook and willingness to fulfil its commitments. For Mr. Modi, the solution to the liability issue was necessary to revive the bilateral relationship in order to secure his primary objectives of “First Develop India” and enhancing(increase) defence technology. For both of them, it became a symbol of a new beginning, marked by a demonstrated ability to overcome impediments(problems), even if it has left issues unresolved for the time being. A show of solidarity(union of interest) was more important than the commencement(start) of reactor imports. It was the legal solution for a political issue.

The resolution of the liability issue was on the wish lists of both the U.S. and India and it became the litmus test of the success of the visit. Apart from the business community of the U.S., the other suppliers, such as Russia and France, were also keen to have the issue resolved. Even the Indian manufacturers of components were nervous about the liability issue and its potential to wipe out their profits. The sense of euphoria(enthusiasm) that was created by the announcement that “the deal was done”, whether by design or otherwise, did more good than harm to the whole visit.

The liability issue has not been resolved and many loose ends remain even after the announcement of the details. But the announcement of the understanding created the atmospherics on the first day of the Obama visit, leading to the historic declaration on the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region Vision statement, the real breakthroughs in India-U.S. relations. The solution of working around the liability issue gave fresh confidence to both countries to move to strategic cooperation and defence co-designing and co-production under the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI).

Political significance

Many lawyers and analysts in both countries list deficiencies in the new arrangement by arguing vigorously(smartly) that the law cannot be bypassed by administrative action. The intention of the liability law was to impose liability on the suppliers, and letting the suppliers off the hook would be morally and legally unacceptable, they contend. Some in India characterise the arrangement as totally against public interest and as a concession with no tangible(real) benefits for India. They predict, not without reason, that it might be struck down by courts. They are not wrong in law, but they miss the political significance of the move.

What should not be forgotten in such analyses is that the liability law was introduced in Parliament by evoking(provoke) the horror of the Bhopal tragedy, but the real purpose was to block the implementation of the nuclear deal at least with regard to the U.S. The tears that were shed(drop) in Parliament by some speakers on account of the Bhopal tragedy could well be crocodile ones because they knew that it was not the absence of a liability law that resulted in poor compensation to the victims. The ineptness(awkwardness) with which India reacted to the Bhopal tragedy was shameful, to say the least. It was also intended to make India breach(break) the promise it had made to the U.S. government that it would purchase nuclear material worth $10 billion. In other words, it was a political move to drive a wedge(put) between India and the U.S., and not to increase the possibility of higher compensation for the victims. The lament(regret) that the present arrangement will reduce compensation is, therefore, deceptive(unreal). Those who have been nervous about India getting closer to the U.S. are voicing it. They first expressed cynicism(distrust) about a U.S. President being powerless, were then silent over the success of the visit, and then took recourse to denigrating(harmful) the liability arrangement.

Potential obstacles

Those who express concern over the imperfections of the arrangement should seek solace(comfort) in the fact that nothing will change in a hurry. The liability bill is not the last obstacle to India-U.S. nuclear trade. Many provisions of the export control laws will raise their heads along the way even if companies in the U.S. accept a settlement on liability, which contradicts(oppose) international law. Mr. Obama is in no hurry to sell reactors to India and incur(get) the wrath(anger) of the non-proliferation hawks for strengthening India’s nuclear capability even under safeguards. I was told by a senior White House official in 2009 that the U.S. had nothing to lose by not having nuclear trade with India. The U.S. had not manufactured reactors for several years and these would have to be specially fabricated. India was free to buy reactors from Russia or France.

Although the nuclear deal was hugely significant for bringing India into the nuclear mainstream, grey areas remain when it comes to its implementation. The extent of “full” civilian nuclear cooperation is yet to be defined. Does such cooperation cover the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent fuel? The ghosts hidden in the Hyde Amendment will emerge in the future if the U.S. finds it necessary to report that certain aspects of Indian foreign policy are contrary to the vital interests of the U.S. The most optimistic prediction is that a U.S. nuclear reactor could be operationalised in India in about 10 years. Many economic, political and scientific developments would take place in the interregnum(The time between two reigns, governments ), including changes in leadership in both countries.

The nuclear picture

A major factor to remember is the gloomy prospect of nuclear power itself in the post-Fukushima world. Many countries have either abandoned(give up) nuclear power or are in the process of reducing their dependence on it. Even today, there is no clear estimate of the lasting damage in Fukushima or the cost of a clean-up, because of the extreme secretiveness of the Japanese authorities. Those evacuated(move) from the affected areas are still in temporary shelters, without realising that they would not be able to move back to their homes in their lifetime. India has decided to carry on with business as usual, but it cannot but review its position when it makes progress on alternative sources which may become substantially cheaper. The price per unit of electricity generated with nuclear power will increase when the insurance costs and the costs of safety are added on account of the latest developments.

“To those in the U.S., progress on the nuclear liability law was a test of the Modi government’s strategic global outlook. For Mr. Modi, a solution was necessary to revive the bilateral relationship.”

The Kudankulam experience, of operating imported reactors, is far from encouraging and the popular movement against such reactors will only grow in the future. The first reactor at Kudankulam reached 97.68 per cent criticality in January this year and not in December 2008, as originally envisaged(imagined). The criticality of the second reactor has been delayed again.

Russia has already fired the first salvo against Westinghouse (U.S.) and Areva (France) reactors by claiming that the cost of electricity generated in the U.S. and French reactors would be double the production cost at Kudankulam. The cost of additional investments for insurance and installation of safety equipment might make them unaffordable. The nuclear picture would change by the time negotiations begin under the new arrangement. Perhaps, India’s nuclear power policy may change before the new rules on liability come into force.

Teresita Schaffer of ‘South Asia Hand’ has characterised the nuclear understanding as “a leap of faith” to gain a degree of comfort between the two countries. “At this point, it is significant that the two governments are trying to go together into uncharted territory in dealing with a knotty(difficult) issue.” In other words, it is a declaration of intent to resolve difficult issues; not a solution to the liability imbroglio(An intricate and confusing interpersonal or political situation) . The final settlement may come at a different time under different leaderships. For the present, it is important to keep the dialogue going for the greater good of the two countries. The understanding may have value which goes beyond nuclear trade. It was an ice-breaker between Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi, which enabled them to wade(walk) into more vital issues.

India is playing on several chessboards at the same time. Every move may not appear logical or productive and there may even be setbacks. Some moves may have to be abandoned as the situation dictates. Mr. Obama’s strong pronouncements on religious intolerance in India may have already muddied(dirty) the waters. The election results in Delhi may be another dampener. The move on the liability law may be tentative and unsatisfactory, but it was absolutely necessary for gains in other areas. It may still be a liability, but other assets may well be on their way. Strategic patience is required to exercise strategic autonomy.

Read more »

Not a make-or-break budget

Both India’s executive decision making and policy thought are on a roll. Dynamic, steady incremental(additive) steps have been chosen as the way forward by the leadership. This makes sense when growth is on an upward move, and, no matter what, it’s not going to take off into orbit just because we wish it. Therefore, a solid platform that opens doors to long-term sustained economic and social progress is imperative. Yet, all kinds of views are surfacing, branding the imminent Budget as a make or break occasion. In differing with this analysis, I echo Shakespeare — “striving to better, oft we mar what’s well.”

Can we, for a moment, view the Budget as analogous to a corporate annual report? Both occur because they are required once a year, to take stock of the financial situation and lay out perspectives for short and long terms. Rarely does one find this report covering all policies, tactics or actions required to run a company, or giving a solitary decisive signal to markets; in other words, this annual event is not a make or break occasion.

Strategy for Finance Minister

The key signal from this government to global business and investor space is a capability for financial discipline and prudence(Knowing how to avoid embarrassment).

The last Budget followed a fiscal deficit target of 4.1 per cent of GDP — a clear challenge — and an aspiration to bring this lower. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley seems to be indicating comfort with a long-term target sub -3 per cent. Such a road map is one obvious anchor for the Budget, even with some dilution(weakening) in the short term. An astute balance between pushing for a public investment-driven growth, while domestic and global market growth remain an issue, and ensuring that subsidies are relevant, effective and delivered efficiently — more bang for less bucks — can be a cornerstone of his strategy.

Expansion of revenue base, particularly through well-organised implementation of GST is another. The Finance Minister may have to loosen purse strings to attend issues created by inverted duty structures and other levies or costs which make India uncompetitive. Intentions to simplify the direct tax regime and administration require concrete translation to avoid ad-nauseam(To a sickening extent) discussion for another year or more. Meaningful expansion of taxpayers without burdening existing ones is a tightrope walk requiring political will. The war on unaccounted monies(currencies) must intensify(heighten), but one will have to be judicious in not creating a new set of problems by turning the clock back to revisit dismantled(broke up) draconian(strict) concepts. If just writing tough laws ensures ethical behaviour, we would never have had problems under the FERA regime(government), for example, when much distortion(A change for the worse) actually took place.

The question persists if our expectations are running ahead of realities. Growth beyond the anticipated 6-7 per cent is needed to fill underutilised capacities and this could take time. The future levels of 7-8 per cent need deep structural reforms which will not happen overnight. Corporates face poor top-line growth so far; analysts see many top companies as overleveraged. Small and medium businesses are in tight spots. Indian manufacturing is not in the pink of health and a recovery time frame is not certain. Zeal for fresh investment is inhibited.

Measured expectations

In the circumstances, the Budget can surpass reasonable expectations if it achieves a blend of strengthening consumer sentiment; creating a sound expenditure management and fiscal road map; addressing supply side inflation; proper channelling and timely implementation of public spending; ensuring that life is not further complicated for taxpayers and seriously address industry competitiveness. While it is correct and appropriate for us to retain high confidence in the aggregate, we also owe it to hold measured expectations from a single event.

Read more »

know your english 26 feb

“You haven’t been jogging the past couple of days. Are you okay?

“I'm doing fine. I had a pretty hectic week, so I decided to sleep in at the weekend.”

“Sleep in? You mean sleep, don't you?”

“No, I mean 'sleep in'. When you say that you 'slept in', what you mean is that you got up later than usual. You chose to remain in bed and ...”

“So, ‘sleeping in’ is intentional.”

“That’s right! When I was young, there was no question of sleeping in. My father used to wake us up at 5 o’clock. There was no difference between a week day and a weekend.”

“On the days my mother sleeps in, my father does the cooking.”

“That’s nice of him. Please don’t sit on that chair. There’s a film of dust on it.”

“Film of dust? Is it okay to say ‘film’ of dust?”

“Yes, it is. When you say there is a film of dust on the chair, you mean that there is a thin layer on dust on it. Here’s another example. There was a film of sweat on his forehead.”

“These plates need to be washed again. There is a film of grease on them.”

“That’s a good example. When it gets really cold, a film of ice covers the pond.”

“I’ve never seen that happen. I hear you have a new boss. What’s he like?”

“It’s a ‘she’. Her name’s Vinodhini, and she seems a sensible person. She called for a meeting yesterday and listened patiently to what we had to say. She was ...”

“Do you think she’ll be making a lot of changes? Like your previous boss did?”

“A few changes, maybe. But she’s not going to throw the baby out with the bath water.”

“Throw the baby out? What baby?”

“When you tell someone not to throw the baby out with the bath water, you are cautioning them not to discard the good things with the bad. For example, ...”

“If you wish to improve the manner in which your office functions, don’t change everything. Don’t bring in a set of new rules.”

“Exactly! Don’t discard the ones that have worked well for you. Keep them, and change only those that are causing problems. Our game plan has helped us win six games. Just because we’ve lost the last two doesn’t mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water.”

“How about this example? I don’t intend to throw the baby out with the bath water. I’ll be retaining the good points from the earlier proposal.”

“Sounds good to me. Have you convinced your father to get you that fancy bicycle?”

“He is against it. He says the city is not safe for cyclists.”

“He is right. Our city is definitely not bikeable. There are too many ...”

“What do you mean by ‘bikeable’?”

“The word is being used nowadays to refer to a place where it is safe to ride bicycles. For example, most cities in India are not bikeable.”

“The colony that my friend lives in is certainly bikeable.”

“He’s a lucky guy!

Read more »

know your english 2 march

This term frequently appears in the media whenever there is an election. It refers to the money that political parties use for their illegal activities — for example, bribing voters by giving them cash or other incentives! ‘Slush fund’ is also used to refer to the money set aside by business houses to carry out illegal practices — bribing politicians, etc.

*Let’s use the slush fund to buy the votes of those who are still undecided.

*If you wish to run a successful business, you need to set up a slush fund.

The term was first used in the navy. Several hundred years ago, the words ‘slush’ and ‘slosh’ were used to refer to the fat or grease that resulted when meat was cooked. The enterprising cook stored the grease, and sold it when the ship reached a port. The money that was made was called ‘slush fund’, and it was used to buy things for the members of the crew.

How is the word ‘salon’ pronounced?

(GR Vivek, Chennai)

How you pronounce the word depends on which side of the Atlantic you are from. For the British, the vowel in the first syllable is like the ‘a’ in ‘ant’ and ‘pants’, while the following ‘lon’ rhymes with ‘don’ and ‘con’. They pronounce the word ‘SA-lon’ with the stress on the first syllable.

The Americans, on the other hand, pronounce the ‘a’ like the ‘a’ in ‘china’ and the following ‘o’ like the ‘a’ in ‘pass’ and ‘ask’. They pronounce the word ‘se-LAAn’ with the stress on the second syllable. Both ‘salon’ and ‘saloon’ come from the French ‘salon’ meaning ‘reception room’; in the past, the two words were used interchangeably to refer to any large room.

With the passage of time, they began to acquire different meanings. ‘Saloon’ was used to refer to a bar, while ‘salon' began to be used to refer to an establishment where one went to get a haircut. Nowadays, it is common to hear people refer to salons as ‘parlours’. By the way, the first vowel in ‘saloon’ is like the ‘a’ in ‘china’, and the following syllable rhymes with 'moon' and 'noon'. The word is pronounced 'se-LOON' with the stress on the second syllable. Nowadays, the word is used to refer to a building or a room used by the public for a specific purpose — for example, people talk about a ‘dancing saloon’ and a ‘billiards saloon’.

What is the meaning of ‘happenstance’?

(K Sharadha, Bangalore)

‘Happenstance’ is a combination of ‘happen’ and ‘circumstance’, and the word is mostly used in American English to mean something that happens by chance. The result or outcome of this accidental meeting is usually good. The word is pronounced ‘HAP-en-stance’.

*My meeting Aamir at the airport was sheer happenstance.

*It was just happenstance that we were in the same compartment.

Is it okay to say, ‘They were paying only a lip service’?

(T Renuka, Tiruchi)

No, it is not. You ‘pay lip service’ to someone and not ‘a lip service’. When you pay lip service to someone, you agree with everything the person has said, but you don’t really do anything about it. It’s all talk and no action on your part.

******

Read more »

know your english

“I’m so sorry about yesterday. I couldn't come with you because my uncle's train was late by nearly five hours. I had to wait and ...”

“Don’t worry about it. You look tired. Why don't you take a load off your feet.”

“Take a load off my feet? Are you asking me to sit down?”

“Very good! When you ask someone to take a load off his feet, you are asking him to sit down or lie down. The expression is mostly used in informal contexts.”

“I see. We’ve been walking for nearly three hours. Let’s go to the park over there and take a load off our feet.”

“It’s also possible to say, ‘take the weight off your legs/feet.’ Now then, ...”

“I’m not tired, so I don’t need to take the weight off my feet. Anyway, as I was saying, I regret for not coming with you to the dealer ...”

“You don’t ‘regret for doing something’, you ‘regret doing something’. For example, I regret missing your birthday party.”

“John regretted that he hadn't worked harder when he was in college.”

“I guess that’s a regret many people have. So, what ...”

“You say that ‘regret for’ is unacceptable. So, is ‘regret to’ also unacceptable?”

“The expression ‘regret to’ is mostly used in formal contexts to mean that you are sorry about something. I regret to inform you that you haven’t been promoted.”

“We regret to inform that you have not been admitted to our PhD programme.”

“Is that the kind of response you got from all the American universities you’d applied to last year?”

“Unfortunately, yes. I regret having spent all that money on application forms. Anyway, now I have decided not to go to abroad and study.”

“You ‘go abroad’, you don’t say ‘go to abroad’. The same is true of ‘overseas’ as well. Many students in our country want to go abroad and study.”

“My friend goes overseas every six months. Let’s talk about something else. Tell me, where is it? I didn't see it outside. Did you pick ...”

“Where is what? What are you talking you about?”

“Your new car, of course! Weren’t you planning on getting a new car yesterday?”

“Yes, I was planning to buy one yesterday. In fact, I had arranged for the loan. But unfortunately, the seller decided to move the goalposts at the last minute.”

“Move the goalposts? What are you talking about?”

“When you and someone agree on something, and at the last minute you move the goalposts, what you are doing is changing the rules. You do this ...”

“You probably decide to change the rules because you want to make things difficult for the other person.”

“Exactly! By moving the goalposts, you are making it difficult for the person to achieve what he wants to. Maya had a tough time with her PhD supervisor. Every time she thought she had more or less completed her study, he moved the goalposts.”

“I’m told that some supervisors like to harass their student by moving the goalposts. How about this example? The deal fell through because the builder kept moving the goalposts. He kept increasing the price.”

“That’s life, I guess.”

Read more »

know your english 25 feb

How is the word ‘elan’ pronounced?

(T. Vasanthi, Chidambaram)

One simple way of pronouncing this word of French origin is to pronounce the ‘e’ like the ‘ay’ in ‘pay’, ‘bay’ and ‘say’, and the following ‘a’ like the ‘a’ in ‘ant’, ‘apple’ and ‘pants’. The word is pronounced ‘ay-LAN’ with the stress on the second syllable. It is mostly used in formal contexts to mean lively and energetic. When someone dances with ‘elan’, he moves about the floor with a lot of energy and style. The word literally means ‘to dart’.

*Don’t be fooled by Nina’s lazy walk. Once she’s on stage, she dances with elan.

*After a long time, the country had a President with a certain elan.

What is the meaning of ‘furlough’?

(KV Kanchana, Erode)

First, let us deal with the pronunciation of the word. The first syllable is pronounced like the word ‘fur’ and the following ‘lough’ like the word ‘low’. The word is pronounced ‘FUR-low’ with the stress on the first syllable. It comes from the Dutch ‘verlof’ meaning ‘permission’. It was originally used to refer to the leave of absence granted to a soldier; when a soldier returned home to spend time with the members of his family, he was said to be ‘on furlough’. Nowadays, the word is being used with a wide range of people — workers, prisoners, soldiers, etc.

In fact, anyone who is employed can go on furlough. Dictionaries define the word, as a period of time when someone is permitted to be absent from work.

A furlough is temporary; once the leave period is over, the individual is expected to return to duty. In the case of a prisoner, he returns to jail. The word can also be used as a verb. When a company ‘furlougs’ its employees, it tells them not to come to work — in such cases, they are usually not paid for the period of absence.

*Vikram is on a six week furlough.

*If the situation doesn’t improve, we may have to furlough many of our employees.

What is the meaning of ‘Mexican standoff’?

(CR Ananthanarayanan, Bengaluru)

This is a situation we often see in our movies. ‘A’ has a gun pointed at ‘B’, ‘B’ has a gun pointed at ‘C’ and ‘C’ has his gun pointed at ‘A’. The three keep looking at each other, but no one is actually brave enough to pull the trigger. A no-win situation like this is generally referred to as ‘Mexican standoff’.

In everyday contexts, the expression can be used when only two people or two parties are involved. ‘Mexican standoff’ has more or less the same meaning as ‘deadlock’ or ‘stalemate’. The expression was used quite frequently during the Cold War — when the Soviet Union and the United States eyed each other rather suspiciously.

*Neither the union nor the management is willing to compromise. It’s a Mexican standoff.

Is it okay to say, ‘Roses are the first thing that come to my mind when I think of Ooty’?

(J Paul, Mumbai)

You normally say, ‘come to mind’ and ‘spring to mind’. Careful users of the language would avoid ‘my’, ‘his’, ‘her’, etc. in these expressions.

*What’s the first thing that comes to mind when I say ‘beach’?

Read more »

Secrecy and information theft

Government offices the world over are notoriously(infamous) porous(छिद्रित). Even those which boast of a high standard of physical security sometimes do not have a matching ability to protect their information systems. WikiLeaks is a striking example of how even one of the most technologically advanced nations like the United States can be found wanting in this area.

The appalling(Fill with apprehension or alarm; cause to be unpleasantly surprised) state of India’s public offices is a case in point. The buildings that house them take the cake for permitting shockingly liberal access to vandals(destroyers) and marauders(Someone who attacks in search of booty). The disgusting state of hygiene in most of them in itself bears testimony to their porous nature and neglect, both of which certainly promote an ambience(atmosphere) that is least conducive(contributing) to a security culture.

Porous and unsecured

While Central government offices are a shade better than those in the States in terms of visitor control, there is no scope for being smug(self-satisfied). This is despite the fact that the new government at the Centre has done a lot to block unauthorised men, including lobbyists, from visiting government offices. In a much less complicated universe, in the early 1950s, Rajaji, as Chief Minister of the Madras State, successfully kept out ruling party men from the sacred confines of Fort St. George. This has possibly not had the desired result as reports of leakage of valuable information from a key Ministry in the nation’s capital show.

All you need to secure entry into many government offices in our country is a reasonably attractive-looking identity card, which may not necessarily be genuine or whose validity has expired. Few questions are asked after one gains entry. There are no sequestered(Kept separate) areas which are out of bounds. Greasing(covering) the palms of security staff to secure unauthorised entry is also not an unknown practice. Here again where there is deployment of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) guards, things are in fairly reasonable shape. Elsewhere, the security staff are ill-trained and clueless and therefore abysmally(terribly) inadequate.

Shastri Bhavan which houses many important Ministries — including Petroleum and Human Resource Development — is the most prominent among the many administrative buildings in the capital which usually resembles a kumbh mela on most working days. Those found on its campus constitute a spectrum, which includes influence and information peddlers and hangers-on, watching the hustle and bustle of the place. Those who are there on genuine business form only a minority. The heist(stealing) of documents from the Union Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry should be viewed against this backdrop.

Corporate angle

We do not have an idea of what the stolen papers at Shastri Bhavan constituted. Speculation is that they are on commercial data, apart from overall policy indicators. The report that a few papers with national security implications were also stolen has no especially in  corroboration(certification) as yet. What is feared as having been compromised is what is ready meat for corporate interests,the pre-Budget weeks. The temptation to pre-empt government decisions, and overtake competitors is too much to resist in an ambience of sordid(dirty) venality(corruption). This is true of any firm which is low on ethics and largely profit-oriented. This is why we should not be overly surprised about ‘Shastrigate’. The phenomenon will keep repeating itself at periodic intervals. The public focus should be on what the government does to identify the loopholes to reduce the frequency of such successful raids on government information storehouses.

Early reports point to no great technology having been employed by the network that was behind the conspiracy(unlawful act) to breach(break) Shastri Bhavan. The alleged disabling of CCTVs in the building was at best vandalism( destruction). A few at the bottom of government hierarchy — who go by the generic name ‘peons’ — had possibly been bought over and the keys to the doors leading into the offices secured for a price and duplicated to gain entry. It was as simple as that if press reports are true. This would mean that important documents had either been carelessly left behind on tables or stored in cupboards with flimsy(weak) locks. If the Delhi Crime Branch investigation ultimately confirmed this, the staff concerned (possibly the section officer/under-secretary or above) are culpable(blamable), irrespective of whether they connived(Plot something harmful) with each other in the crime or not. They need to be disciplined if only for an obvious lack of care in protecting valuable documents.

Security classification

There is nothing known to us till now which suggests that this was either a sophisticated operation or an intricate(complex) form of cyber crime. Media reports refer to the stand taken in official circles that this was conventional theft after taking advantage of the vulnerability (read greed) of the lowest functionaries. There is also the claim that no great damage was done because most sensitive information was stored in computer systems, and whenever hard copies of crucial papers were required, the bare minimum was printed for circulation on a need-to-know basis — as it should be in a modern-day office. If this stand is ultimately upheld by the investigation, and the theft is proved as one confined to physical documents — there is some extenuation(less serious) that will go in favour of the higher officials.

Fundamentally, there is a need for a hard look at existing systems. There is also a case for extending the high standards which have successfully protected information stored both in the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat, and possibly at the headquarters of all three defence forces.

What the investigation will have to address next is whether the leaked information was actually sensitive and classified. Without establishing this, it may not be possible to successfully press charges other than that of theft and trespass against the conspirators. We have a funny situation where many government organisations mark almost every other document as either secret or top secret. Very often the decision to classify a document is taken at the level of under-secretary/section officer in a mechanical fashion and without any application of mind. The approval of the joint secretary, subsequently, is said to be routine.

Security classification is a double-edged weapon. It no doubt vests sanctity(holiness) to a record/note in circulation which it would not otherwise gain. At the same time it brings about a ludicrous( humorous) situation in which everything that a department possesses is converted into a treasure that has to be protected every working day, without the means required for doing so. When those who are accused in the Shastri Bhavan case are eventually charge sheeted and taken to court, some of them could take advantage of a loose classification protocol, and are liable to be discharged, if, at the minimum, the prosecution is unable to prove either a role in the break-in or direct benefit from what was contained in the documents.

Investigation and justice

A lot of scrutiny(examine) and application of mind will be needed for successful application of the Official Secrets Act (OSA). Incidentally, the OSA is of 1923 vintage and a complicated piece of legislation. There is one strong school of thought which says that the OSA has no reason to remain on our statute books after the Right to Information Act of 2005. An indictment(A formal document written for a prosecuting attorney charging a person with some offence) of the accused under the OSA, after thorough investigation, requires the scrutiny of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and its approval, after which a complaint can be filed in the competent court.

A favourable outcome thereafter for the investigator is usually dicey(chanceful). Interestingly, a person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of a company is not liable to punishment under the OS Act “if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence(hard work) to prevent the commission of such offence” — Section 15 (1). A company under the scanner has already distanced itself from one of its executives who has been arrested. These are the factors that make a swift delivery of justice to the aggrieved party, viz. , the state, a near impossibility.

The Modi government deserves to be complimented for its proactive decision to have the suspects under surveillance and later nabbing(arresting) them. If it had lost some time in bringing them to book, it is explained by the fact that delicate operations such as these have to be well thought out and executed at an appropriate moment. There cannot be any kind of heavy footedness in the matter.

There is the final question that should nag most of us. Should the investigation continue to be in the hands of the Delhi Police, or should it be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)? In this, one cannot assume a categorical stand here. A lot will depend on the kind of evidence that is ferreted(look out) out in the next few weeks. If there is a nationwide conspiracy that emerges, or if investigation extends beyond our borders, there is a case for the CBI stepping in. Otherwise, the Delhi Police are competent enough to proceed on their own steam and carry out the inquiries to their logical conclusion. To see a ghost in the MHA’s alleged reluctance(disagree) to call in the CBI will be unfair to both the Central government and the Delhi Police.

(R.K. Raghavan is a former CBI Director.)

Read more »