Amnesty by another name

The Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) announced in the 2016-17 budget closed on September 30, after remaining open since June 1. The finance ministry has announced that 64,275 people have come forward to declare Rs 65,250 crore of black money. This is the largest amount declared as black money in the history of Indian taxation. Naturally, the government claims this to be a big achievement, more so since the response in the first three months was tepid(slow,मंद).

The average amount of black income per declaration is about Rs one crore. This is indeed low when there is daily news about people being caught with hundreds of crores of rupees of black incomes. It is likely that either the big earners of black incomes have not come forward or declared a negligible part of their black money. It is reported that the income tax officers pressurised people under their charge to make declarations in the last three weeks. So, either they coerced(forced,मजबूर) the small fries, or the big fellows declared a miniscule(small,छोटा) amount. Also, many of the black income earners do not pay any tax. So they do not come under any income tax circle and, therefore, would not have been under any pressure.

The last disclosure scheme was announced in 1997 — the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. Under it Rs 33,000 crore was declared and tax of about Rs 10,000 crore was collected. The 2016 scheme is also a “voluntary” programme, even though it is not called that. The 1997 scheme was called an amnesty scheme because of the low tax that had to be paid. But this time, it is not referred to as an amnesty because a higher rate of tax is being charged. The government had also given an undertaking to the Supreme Court in 1997 that it would not initiate any more amnesty schemes. The reason being that an amnesty scheme is unfair to the honest tax payers while those evading(remain,बचे) taxation get a concession for declaring their past income.

But the IDS is also an amnesty scheme because the penalty charged under it is less than what was being charged for tax evasion before the scheme was launched. Before June 2016, if a person’s income was found to be black, the penalty was 100 per cent to 300 per cent of the tax evaded. Since the tax rate is 30 per cent, the penalty worked out to 30 per cent to 90 per cent of the income evaded; under the IDS, the penalty is 15 per cent of the income. In this sense, the IDS runs counter to the government’s commitment to the Supreme Court in 1997.

The comparison of the 1997 and the 2016 schemes does not show the latter in a favourable light. This author estimates the current size of the black economy at 60 per cent of the GDP; at current prices, it would be Rs 90 lakh crore in 2016-17. Thus, what has been declared is roughly 0.7 per cent of the black income generated this year. The declarations under the 1997 scheme was roughly five per cent of the black income generated that year.

From the black incomes generated every year, a part is consumed and the rest saved. Over time, the accumulated savings become much larger than the annual income. For the rich, the savings from incomes are high, so the black wealth accumulated is much larger than their annual black incomes. Data suggests that only a small part of these black savings are declared under the amnesty/declaration schemes. Thus, barely 0.2-0.3 per cent of the black wealth has been declared in the 2016 scheme. The number of declarations in 1997 was over four lakh; now, surprisingly, it is a sixth of this number. The number of businesses, professionals, corrupt officials and politicians has risen over time. So, the number of people with substantial black incomes and wealth should have been several times the number in 1997. Even if it is assumed that the top one per cent of the population generates substantial black incomes, the numbers should have been close to 13 million.

The government has announced that it would not reveal any of the data collected through the scheme to any agency; not even the CAG. This is strange since CAG is a statutory body with powers to audit the accounts of the government. It is the CAG that pointed to the various infirmities in the 1997 scheme. Giving data to the CAG does not violate any confidentiality.

It needs to be assessed whether those declaring their black incomes are doing so correctly. They could be misdeclaring their recently purchased gold as that bought 20 years ago at one tenth the cost and thereby turning 90 per cent of their black wealth into white. Only an assessment by an independent auditor will help unearth such manipulations.

There can be several reasons why the IDS has garnered(collect,इकठा) much less than it should have. If “round tripping” can be done at five per cent to 10 per cent of the amount of the funds, why pay 45 per cent under the IDS? Further, if the government, promises not to resort to vigorous(healthy,जोरदार) pursuit of businessmen — under “ease of doing business” — they may be under no pressure to come clean. A person who has hoarded black wealth can only be caught in a raid; such a person will not declare black wealth voluntarily unless there is a cost to not declaring. The “success” of the IDS scheme in the last three weeks also suggests that if the income tax department applies pressure, black money can be unearthed. The government seems to be trapped between unearthing black money and not applying pressure on businesses. Why this dilemma(uncertainty,दुविधा)

?

courtesy:indian express
click here for official link

download monthly pdf of september

Read more »

No proof required: A data dependent MPC

The recent decision by the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to lower the repo rate by 25 bps to 6.25 per cent has been met with criticism and skepticism(doubt,संशयवाद). Some analysts have gone as far as to assert that there has been faulty judgment.

This criticism and commentary is all part of a healthy democratic system. Also fair is that some critics (like myself) find fault with the criticism of the critics, and even find it unfair. As it happens, I also think that the RBI-MPC is unnecessarily using some very faulty tools. Just to put my cards on the table, I believe that the MPC and RBI Governor Urjit Patel have reached the best decision that was possible with the data they had. Historically, except for occasional lapses, the RBI has been a data dependent institution, and it is encouraging to see that the tradition is being strongly reinforced(strengthen,मजबूत) by the MPC.

Questioning of the MPC decision has proceeded along the following lines: First, and most importantly, that the inflation rate is too high to warrant a rate cut. The last four year-on-year headline inflation numbers have been as follows: 5.5 (April 2016), 5.8, 6.1 and 5.1 per cent (August 2016). The target of the RBI is five per cent for March 2017. So how can the MPC cut rates now, and that also with a unanimous(united,एकमत) vote?
Surely, and unlike Raghuram Rajan, the MPC is giving in to political pressure (Ministry of Finance) and major corporates (who always want interest rates to be cut). Further, the MPC is emphasising growth over inflation, that is, they have all turned doves.

It is likely that the unfortunate manner in which Rajan was not reappointed is colouring perceptions and interpretations of many commentators. For the fact remains that rather than being different than Rajan, the MPC (and Patel and RBI) are doing what Rajan would have done. How do we know that?

We know that from the second criticism by the “experts”. A popular conclusion of the experts is that the RBI has softened because it has reduced the real policy rate range from 1.5-2 per cent to 1.25 percent, that is the RBI was now targeting a 1.25 percentage points gap between the repo rate and CPI inflation. This was articulated(expressed,उल्लेख) by MPC RBI member Michael Patra in the press conference following the MPC decision.
So the experts are right in stating that the real policy rate is now 1.25 per cent.

But the experts are very wrong in deducing(conclusion,निष्कर्ष) that this is a change in policy. Look at the following headline after the June policy meeting of the RBI under Rajan: “Will have room to cut rates if inflation stays at 5 per cent” (IE, June 9). The article goes on to quote Rajan: “If we get confident of achieving five per cent inflation target by March 2017, then we will get more space to cut.” What the RBI and MPC did on October 4 was a continuation of the RBI policy. There has been enough data on food prices, especially of pulses (and fruits and vegetables), to suggest that the next six-month course of such prices is at best stable at current levels, and likely to be lower because of the influence of good weather and increased acreage, and prospects of higher yields(return,मुनाफा), for an “inflation-elastic” crop like pulses.

This assessment, and forecast, has no relationship with being dovish, or looking at growth more than inflation, or giving in to the demands of industrialists and/or the Ministry of Finance. Indeed, if the MPC members had not unanimously agreed to cut rates, they would likely have had egg (and worse) on their faces next week when the CPI data for September is scheduled to be released — a figure around 4.3 per cent year-on-year headline inflation will not be entirely surprising. The simple point is all of us are rightly expecting the MPC to be responsible — and when they do act responsibly, by cutting rates in the face of considerable evidence, let us not besmirch(disgrace,गन्दा) their honour, or intelligence, by attributing to them false motives.

But the MPC has room to improve. A central feature of all inflation targeting regimes, and all bankers, and all economists, is that the key to lowering inflation rates is the lowering of inflation expectations. In the case of already low inflation, the goal is to keep expectations stable. And as we now know for some developed economies (Japan, Europe), the key to successful monetary policy is to raise inflationary expectations.
In the first MPC-RBI policy statement, one finds the following statement on inflationary expectations, and how important and influential they are: “Households reacted to the recent hardening of food inflation adaptively and raised their inflation expectations in the September 2016 round of the Reserve Bank’s inflation expectations survey of households.”

Given the importance of inflationary expectations, one would think, and believe, that central bankers would strive to make sure that they measure properly such expectations. Or at least measure them to the best of their ability. It is not clear that the RBI has ever fulfilled this mandate. In January 2015, at the beginning of this rate-cut cycle, the RBI cited(mentioned,उल्लेख) the results of its most recent inflation expectation survey (RBI-IES, December 2015), as supportive of a rate cut (25 bps from 8 to 7.75 per cent). This survey had shown a decline in one year forward expectations to 9.3 per cent from 13.5 per cent at the end of the previous quarter (September 2015). I had this to say: “Since when was high expectation of inflation of nine per cent low enough to warrant a rate cut? I fully agree that interest rates should be cut — but not because a junk RBI survey shows a decline in inflation expectations to a high nine per cent level. Better to junk junk than to offer it as an explanation — it makes all of us look bad”.

One and a half years later, and with an MPC in place, there is no change in this one bad habit of the RBI — the bad habit of using a junk survey, a junk result, to justify its otherwise very sound reasoning. Don’t take my word, or believe me, but do peruse(think,सोचना) the chart. There are two lines in the chart — actual year-on-year CPI inflation for each quarter, and the year ago forward expectation for the same quarter. For example, at the time Rajan cited the junk survey in January 2015, year-on-year inflation in 2014Q4 was 4.1 per cent. The forecast of the junk survey for this same quarter was 13.5 per cent!

Note also that there is no learning by doing on the part of the survey respondents. As inflation has declined, the forecast error (gap between forecast and actual) has widened, and to a near double-digit magnitude. It is intellectually embarrassing to even report these data, let alone use it.

The MPC is a new and progressive institution. The reasoning behind the vote, and the vote, of each MPC member will be made public 14 days after each meeting. We already know that it was a unanimous vote to cut. Let us hope that none of the members cite junk inflationary expectations.

courtesy:indian express
click here for official link

download monthly pdf of september

Read more »

Keep up the fair exchange

Amid(between,के बीच) tensions between the two countries, it has been suggested that India should impose a trade embargo(restriction,प्रतिबन्ध) on Pakistan by suspending its most-favoured nation (MFN) commitment towards Pakistan in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The MFN provision, given in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1994, puts every WTO member (including India) under an obligation to extend any benefit (say, lowering tariff rates) accorded to one member (say, the U.S.) to all other WTO members (including Pakistan). This core non-discrimination(unfair treatment,भेदभाव) principle is the cornerstone of the world trading system. Arguing for India suspending its MFN commitment towards Pakistan would mean India restricting imports from Pakistan without restricting imports of like goods from other countries, or/and India restricting exports to Pakistan without restricting the export of like goods to other countries. This can be achieved by imposing trade quotas, higher tariffs, taxes, or even totally banning some or all traded products. But is this economically and legally feasible(possible,संभव)?

Economic and legal feasibility 

Although bilateral trade between India and Pakistan has increased from $345 million in 2003-04 to $2.61 billion in 2015-16, it is abysmal(bad,निराशाजनक) compared to India’s total merchandise trade of $641 billion in 2015-16 and Pakistan’s total trade of around $75 billion, which includes exports worth $28.3 billion. India’s exports to Pakistan amount to $2.1 billion whereas imports from Pakistan are just $441 million, resulting in a trade surplus of $1.7 billion in favour of India. Given these numbers, assuming India were to suspend MFN status by stopping all imports from Pakistan, it would only result in a very marginal decline of Pakistan’s total exports and that too assuming that Pakistan is unable to find alternative markets. Even prohibiting all Indian exports to Pakistan, such as textiles, chemicals and agricultural products, will also not have any noticeable impact on Pakistan because Pakistan can always source these goods from other countries. On the contrary(against,विपरीत), restricting India’s exports, which have contracted considerably in the last 18 months, might hurt India more than Pakistan.

Would India be able to justify its MFN violation if Pakistan were to challenge this in the WTO’s dispute settlement body (DSB)? First, India cannot justify this on the pretext that Pakistan does not honour MFN obligations towards India. The correct recourse to Pakistan’s action is to mount a legal challenge in the WTO and not indulge in tit-for-tat.

However, India can justify its MFN violation if it is able to make a case under any of the GATT exceptions such as the national security exception, most important in the current scenario. In the pre-WTO era, the U.S. in 1985 relied on this exception to defend its MFN violation when it imposed a trade embargo on Nicaragua to oppose the Sandinista government. However, given the weak and diplomacy-based method of resolving trade disputes then, the U.S. defence was never judicially tested. In the post-WTO era, in 1996, when the European Communities (EC) challenged the Helms-Burton Act of the U.S., enacted to strengthen the American embargo on Cuba, the U.S. again justified it as a national security exception. Even here, before the adjudicatory process could start, the U.S. and the EC reached a settlement.

Article XXI (b) of GATT provides the most important national security exception. It states that nothing in GATT shall be construed(understand,अर्थ करना) to prevent any country from taking any action that “it considers necessary” for the protection of its essential security interests. Three questions are pertinent(appropriate,उचित). First, do the words “it considers necessary” give full authority to India to enact any measure it likes without any scrutiny by WTO’s DSB? Although Article XXI (b) gives a country very wide discretion(judgement,निर्णय) to unilaterally(one sidedly,एकतरफा) decide its national security measures, a certain degree of “judicial review” is still possible. Thus, at a minimum, India will have to provide a reasonable explanation to the DSB as to why restricting export of cotton and tomatoes to Pakistan or/and restricting imports of dates, light oil and portland cement (these commodities constitute almost 50 per cent of India’s imports from Pakistan) is necessary to protect India’s essential security interests.

Second, is Article XXI (b) a general national security exception? No. This exception can be invoked only if the measure adopted relates to fissionable material, to traffic in arms or other related material, or is taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations (EIR). India will most likely try to make a case in the EIR category. Even here, though India will enjoy a wide discretion to define EIR, this cannot be unilaterally determined to ensure that Article XXI is not used for political or punitive purpose.

Third, does the current situation fall under an EIR? This is difficult to answer. Notwithstanding recent escalations(increase,बढ़ोतरी), both countries continue to have diplomatic relations, cultural and social ties have not been snapped, transport links continue to exist. Also, both countries have seen far worse days in the past and yet trade and economic ties deepened.

Free trade and peace

Therefore, given the negligible economic impact and potential legal problems, suspending MFN to impose trade sanctions on Pakistan will only escalate tensions without much benefit. Instead of weakening trade ties, India and Pakistan should pay heed to this famous claim that ‘when goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’. Free trade connects countries, and thus incentivizes(encourage,प्रोत्साहन) peace. Empirically(experimentally,अनुभव से), it has been shown that higher levels of free trade reduce military conflicts(battle,विवाद). India and Pakistan should boost free trade amongst themselves, Pakistan should honour its MFN commitment to India in the WTO, and India should use the SAARC platform to push for deeper trade ties.

courtesy:the hindu
click here for official link


download monthly pdf of september

Read more »

Not simply a vision thing

Monsanto recently decided that it would stop the release of new genetically modified (GM) cotton technology because of “uncertainty in the business and regulatory environment”. At the same time, it was reported that GM mustard has moved closer to obtaining clearance for commercial cultivation in India following a key committee’s favourable assessment on issues of soil suitability and risks to health and ecology.

The issues involved are complex and contested(controversial,विवादास्पद), and the challenges and contradictions(protest,विरोधाभास) may be evident to even the most casual of observers. Bt brinjal itself may have faded away from public discourse but the debacle(failure,पराजय) over its introduction is not something that will be forgotten in a hurry. The contestations over Bt cotton continue to be alive in scientific research, in experiences on the field, and in policy debates. The seed industry has, in fact, split down the middle over a reorientation of the regulatory and policy frameworks related to Bt cotton. And yet, for a certain prominent section of the science and technology (S&T) establishment of the country, the promise of GM mustard trumps all skepticism(doubt,संदेह).

Contestations

The conundrum(puzzle,पहेली) here is not so much about the technology itself as it is about the promise that imbues the technology and which holds the present and the future together. Building promises is very similar to building facts, notes Cynthia Selin who studies the intersection of science, technology and society. It is the promise and vision of the future that then becomes key in generating a constellation(planet,नक्षत्र) that provides social and political legitimacy on the one hand, and much-needed financial resources on the other. Bt cotton, Bt brinjal and many technologies of the future exist through the expectations they generate and mobilise about the future. The act of developing a technology, therefore, is as much work inside the laboratory as it should be of engaging with the state and society and with their various concerns and questions. This will not be possible if the public is seen as ignorant or ill-informed, and the activist reactionary or an agent of vested(inherent,निहित) interests. The contestation is, in fact, over the vision of S&T, of society and, for that matter, of the future itself.

In the case of GM mustard, work was done at Delhi University using public money provided by the government. And yet it needed the Central Information Commissioner to say that biosafety data around GM organisms should be available in the public domain. There are some key questions here. What explains, for instance, this deficit of trust in the public and in democratic mechanisms set up by the very institutions that provide the resources and the legitimacy for these new technologies? Is it an anxiety about failure of the technologist or of the technology itself? Or is it about the stakes involved in the socio-technical-economic system that has been mobilised to create the legitimacy in the first place? Does it say something about the potential failure of an imaginary technology that is based exclusively on the promise of the future? Can the narrative be one of hope and promise alone with no space for doubt or the possibility of any failure at all?

Technology Vision 2035

This indeed is the premise one sees embedded in India’s Technology Vision 2035 (TV 2035), a vision produced by the Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC), an autonomous organisation under the Department of Science and Technology. Released earlier this year by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, TV 2035 charts out trajectories for society through various technologies that will help make India a ‘developed’ country by 2035. The vision is both an account of a future and a route to that future where technology delivers, provides and secures. Risk and vulnerabilities(weakness,कमज़ोरिया) that are inherent to technology and therefore to our increasingly ‘technological cultures’, as Professor Wiebe Bijker, sociologist of science and technology, calls them, are part of the narrative in only a very marginal manner. There is little, if any, doubt about the capacity of technology and the different technologies to deliver the goods. TV 2035 sees people opposed to certain technologies like nuclear and big dams as a barrier to their dreams. These then need to be addressed through better governance and not better technological design because “bottlenecks(problemबाधा) lie in policy and not technology”.

The past and the present, we know, are full of various dilemmas(uncertainty,दुविधा), challenges, even failures of technological promises and yet, a substantive engagement with the ethical, legal and social (ESLA) issues of research, development and deployment of technology is conspicuous(specific,विशिष्ट) by its virtual absence.

When failure and risk are integral parts of the technological enterprise, why is it that technological visions like TV 2035 have such little space for including and discussing them? It may not be a conscious choice, but it is not an innocent one either. The particular question here is not whether GM mustard is acceptable, which is a rather different debate. The point is to note that the promise and the promissory visible frontstage in advocating a GM mustard is complemented by a vision backstage that is reluctant(unwilling,अनिच्छुक) or perhaps unable to look at anything but that promise. The ideal of the democratic in scientific and technological choices, while desirable, is certainly not an easy one to realise because the messy issues of the ethical, legal and social have to be dealt with both frontstage and backstage.

Political and democratic promise

An illustration of this is visible in a situation where the technological only appears marginal at first glance. On a visit to Kashmir, a conciliatory Home Minister Rajnath Singh offered to engage with anyone who was interested in finding a solution to the crisis there. “I will be staying at the Nehru Guest House. Those who believe in Kashmiriyat, Insaniyat and Jamhooriyat are welcome,” he tweeted in an effort to reach out to all. It was as much an invocation of the political and the democratic promise as it was of the technological promise of modern communications. The irony only came forth when he was asked how this message of the Home Minister would reach the people when the government itself had blocked Internet services.

What more can one say of the inextricable(complex,विकट) intertwining of the political and the technological with the social, legal and ethical? The technological has promise, no doubt, but it is not untethered to chart territories of its own making.

courtesy:the hindu
click here for official link



download monthly pdf of september

Read more »

know your english

What is the meaning and origin of ‘tip one’s hands’? (M Revathi, Mangalore)

It is not ‘tip one’s hands’ but ‘tip one’s hand’. This idiom has been part of the English language for several hundred years, and it is mostly used in informal contexts to mean to reveal one’s secret. When you tip your hand, you unintentionally reveal what you are planning to do; you blurt out your secret.

Vijay is being extra cautious. He hasn’t tipped his hand about who he is going to vote for.

Let’s continue to keep the media guessing. Let’s not tip our hand.

The expression comes from the world of cards. When you play cards, you try to ensure that the other players do not see what cards you are holding. If you accidentally tip your hand, you let everyone know what you have — your secret is out.

Is it okay to say ‘He is having a cell phone?’ (Akash, Tuticorin)

Although sentences like ‘I’m having a cell phone’, ‘I’m having a car’ and ‘I’m having two beautiful children’ are frequently heard in our country, native speakers of English would consider them to be unacceptable. The word ‘having’ is not usually used to indicate possession — you do not use ‘having’ to mean that you own something. You normally say ‘I have a car’ and not ‘I’m having a car’. You can, however, use ‘having’ when you are talking about a medical condition. For example, you can say, ‘I think he’s having a heart attack’.

She has a husband who supports her in everything she does.

How is the word ‘chauvinism’ pronounced? (R Dilip, Chennai)

The ‘chau’ is pronounced like the word ‘show’. The ‘i’ is pronounced like the ‘i’ in ‘bit’, ‘sit’ and ‘knit’, and the ‘s’ sounds like the ‘z’ in ‘zoo’, ‘zero’ and ‘zing’. The word is pronounced ‘SHOW-vi-ni-zem’ with the stress on the first syllable. Some people drop the vowel in the second and fourth syllables and pronounce the word ‘SHOV-ni-zm’. A chauvinist is someone who blindly believes that his country and the people in it are the best in the world. He will not be willing to listen to arguments or acknowledge facts that go against his belief; he will turn a blind eye to them. When you refer to man as being a chauvinist, what you are suggesting is that the individual very strongly believes that men are superior to women. The word has a negative connotation.

Why Vani married a male chauvinist pig like Hemant is beyond me.

Their chauvinism prevents them from seeing that their country is at fault.

Nicolas Chavin was an extremely patriotic soldier in Napoleon’s army.

What is the difference between ‘prophecy’ and ‘prophesy’? (Anjali, Delhi)

The first is a noun and the second is a verb. There are a few pairs like this in English: advice (noun), advise (verb); practice (noun), practise (verb); device (noun), devise (verb), etc. Prophecy means having the ability to predict what is likely to happen in the future.

He had prophesied that India would win the World Cup.

According to the prophecy, you will die a horrible death.

courtesy:the hindu 
download monthly pdf of september

Read more »

know your english

“So, how was the meeting? Was it as dull as usual or did people...”

“It was quite lively for a change. A few old men whom I’d never seen before piped up. They had a lot of things...”

“Piped up? Does it mean that they spoke... they had things to say?”

“That’s right! When you ‘pipe up’, you interrupt others and say something. You speak quite unexpectedly. Someone from the back row piped up, ‘How long do we have to sit in these uncomfortable chairs?’ Everyone laughed.”

“I’m sure Rahul will pipe up when he realises that his letters are not being taken seriously. That reminds me, I need to call him. Can I borrow your phone?”

“Borrow my phone? Where’s yours? Did you lose it?”

“I don’t think so. It could be quite possible that I left it in Rahul’s house.”

“You don’t normally use ‘could’ or ‘can’ before ‘possible’. You normally say, ‘it is possible’ and not ‘could be possible’ — especially when you’re talking about a past event.”

“So, I have to say, ‘It’s quite possible that I left the phone in Rahul’s house’.”

“Good! It’s quite possible that they went to the wrong hotel.”

“Talking about hotels, did you and Ajit go to the new restaurant yesterday?”

“Yes, we did. The food wasn’t anything great, but we managed to...”

“You should worry about the food only when you are paying for it. Last night’s dinner was Ajit’s treat, wasn’t it?”

“That’s what I thought. But when the bill arrived, he said we should go Dutch.” “Go Dutch? What does it mean?”

“When you go Dutch, you agree to share the cost of something with someone. You end up paying half the amount.”

“I can understand college students going Dutch when they go to a restaurant. But why would people with good jobs go Dutch? It doesn’t make sense. Both of you have money.”

“Let’s just say that Ajit is very careful with his. He always insists on going Dutch.”

“When Shekar took Gayathri to a movie, she insisted that they go Dutch.”

“Good for her. Is Gayathri the person who keeps saying ‘good morning’, no matter...”

“That’s right! Like many people in our country, she says ‘good morning’ at three o’clock in the afternoon. But it’s okay, right? Especially, if you happen to be seeing the person for the first time that day.”

“No, it’s not okay. You usually wish someone ‘good morning’ before noon. Anything after twelve o’clock, you usually say ‘good afternoon’ or good evening’. Depending on what time of day it is.”

“So ‘good morning’ has nothing to do with whether you’re seeing a person for the first time or not?”

“No, it doesn’t! If I see you for the first time at two o’clock in the afternoon, I have to wish you ‘good afternoon’, and not ‘good morning’. That’s what a native speaker would do. If you wish someone ‘good morning’ at three o’clock in the afternoon, he’ll probably think you’re trying to be funny!”

courtesy:the hindu

download monthly pdf of september

Read more »

DOWNLOAD MONTHLY PDF OF SEPTEMBER

 Now you can download monthly pdf of SEPTEMBER month.these articles are not only for english but also it will expand your current affairs.this ebook also contains exclusive articles from know your english.

number of articles-31

file format-pdf

price-25/- only

download now:SEPTEMBER

CLICK HERE FOR AUGUST

Read more »

Military fables of a democracy

In 2004, the world saw evidence of one of the most horrific acts of torture and sexual abuse by an army on captured prisoners. The soldiers did not belong to the army of a banana republic or a military dictatorship(absolute rule,तानाशाही) but to the U.S., a democracy. The prisoners were Iraqi, held at the Abu Ghraib prison.

At present, India is going through a staggering(unstable,विचलित) phase of amnesia(memory loss,भूलने की बीमारी): that it is a democracy. War clouds have caused a flight of reason. The valorization(value,मूल्य) of the Indian military after the “surgical strikes” has culminated(highest,पराकाष्टा) in a perverse(distorted,विकृत) logic amplified(enhance,बढ़ाना) by a shrill media: you cannot question the government on matters military as it is equivalent to insulting the army, which itself is beyond scrutiny(examine,जाँच) and reproach(insult,तिरस्कार).

Aggressive nationalism 

The question here is not of the veracity(reality,सच्चाई) of the surgical strikes but whether questions can be asked of the government and the army. The logic that answers in the negative is one that suits a military dictatorship, not a democracy.

If this logic held, we would have never known how the American and British governments led their people to the catastrophic(destructive,विनाशकारी) Iraq war over flimsy(weak,कमज़ोर) reasons of national security. The Abu Ghraib expose too would have never seen light. Nor would have our own Kunan Poshpora. That such logic shows a tendency towards the militarisation of society, especially now when an aggressive nationalism gains ground.

Witness the closing of public mind since Uri and the surgical strikes. Actors are facing a public outcry either for “disrespecting” soldiers or for “supporting” Pakistani artistes. Parties are being condemned for demanding “proof”. And farcically(laughable,विनोदपूर्ण), television guests are thrown off studio debates for speaking over martyred soldiers’ fathers. The army, in essence, has become a holy cow.

This is a dangerous tendency, for the militarisation of society and the predominance(supremacy,प्रबलता) of militaristic values is opposed to some fundamental tenets(belief,सिद्धांत) of democracy like critical thinking and questioning of hierarchy. Militaristic values are also intrinsically(internally,आंतरिक) connected to notions(opinion,मत) of hypermasculinity(bravery,बहादुरता). Of course, unquestioning obedience is useful in the institutional context of the army and in limited situations of war, but it cannot become a general value of society for all times.

More crucially, militarisation fundamentally obfuscates(unclear,अस्पष्ट) society’s real problems. Fear becomes the basis of society, and a soldier’s job becomes the most important occupation. People who clean the sewers with no protective equipment, and at great threat to their lives, do not, in this narrative, serve the nation. As the writer Aakar Patel asks, why are sewer cleaners, dying in the hundreds, and sanitation workers not considered martyrs?

The tragedy of a dead soldier is justifiably commemorated by all. But millions die unsung, performing jobs in hazardous(risky,जोखिमपूर्ण) conditions. The precariousness(uncertainty,अनिश्चितता) of soldiers on the Siachen Glacier is rightly sympathised with, but not the horrors of manual scavengers who have to handle human faeces and die due to diseases.

Shouldn’t there also be outrage(anger,गुस्सा) over men carrying their dead daughter and wife on their shoulders because hospitals refused ambulances, as was the case in two separate incidents in Odisha? Where is the outrage and TV coverage about the 1.2 million (preventable) child deaths in India last year, the highest in the world? How does this number compare with deaths caused by terrorism? For society’s well-being, should this not be the most important problem exercising discourse?

Ironically, a militarised society despite valorising the soldier does not actually speak for him/her. Warmongering could only lead to the deaths of more soldiers. While Kargil and its 527 war heroes entered India’s military folklore, Operation Parakram and its 798 dead soldiers are little discussed by the public. How is it justifiable to lose nearly 800 soldiers without even fighting a war?

Further, in every violent conflict like Uri, the overwhelming numbers of the dead are sepoys and non-commissioned officers hailing from the most marginalised strata of society. It is a tragedy at many levels.

The uniting factor 

The valorous(brave,बहादुर) soldier versus the pusillanimous(coward,कायर) civilian and the patriotic soldier versus unpatriotic civilian are false binaries on which a militarised society thrives(grow,पनपना). On the one hand, defence arms procurement, and land and recruitment scams show the involvement of both higher echelons(group,टोली) of the military, and civilians (politicians and bureaucrats). On the other, what unites both is that tragic social conditions are disproportionately shared by the soldiers and civilians from the poorest and most oppressed groups, especially the costs of war. After all, the shrieking TV anchors and the elite(specific,विशिष्ट) civilian classes wanting a war are not the ones fighting the war, or are among the 15 lakh people forcibly evacuated from border village homes and living in makeshift camps.

The valorisation of the military in a democracy is ironical. Ultimately, what is the military fighting for? Is it merely Indian territory? The military, while protecting the nation, does not dictate India’s constitutional values. By conflating the two, a fundamental mistake is made. In the eyes of the world, what distinguishes India from Pakistan is not that it has a bigger military, but that it is a settled, even if flawed, democracy. The Indian Army is different from the Pakistani Army because it is, ultimately, under the control of the people.

Every public institution, including the military, has to be subject to public accountability and scrutiny. There is no maxim in a democracy that says you cannot ask questions of its army.

Similarly, striving for non-violent resolutions is not being anti-national. An army veteran writes: “It’s easy to ask for peace when you are a thousand miles away from the Line of Control.” This is why soldiers facing bullets at the border are not the ones in charge of public policy in a democracy. As Onkarnath Dolui, who lost his son in Uri, painfully pleads, “Believe me, I don’t want war as it demands countless of lives, like that of my son, on either side.”

Soldiers and their sacrifices deserve respect in society, but they cannot overwhelm every other aspect of society. Military fables have their place, but they cannot substitute democratic debates. While we mourn the deaths of soldiers, we have to understand that poverty is the biggest killer in India, by a million times over. A militarised society prevents us from seeing that.

 courtesy:the hindu

click here for official link

download monthly pdf of august

Read more »