Opinion Archives - Page 2 of 73 - Lokmarg

Mining Electoral Bonds to Curry Favours?

By Kunal Bose 23rd March 2024

India is exceptionally rich in mineral resources, be it thermal coal, iron ore, bauxite or limestone. It also has fairly large endowments of zinc ore, manganese ore and chromite. Helped by resource bounties and growing local demand for energy and metals, India is counted among the world’s major producers of thermal electricity, which, however, meets with increasing frowning by environment activists, and steel, aluminium, zinc and cement. The governments at the centre and in states have over the years introduced many mining related reforms, the most important being the dispensing with the power to make discretionary allotment of reserves in favour of their auctioning. This is aiding transparency in resource allocation.

The authorities had been under growing pressure to introduce reforms as the mining sector’s production performance was not in line with resources lying underneath the earth. Moreover, much to their embarrassment, the extensive wrongdoings in the mining sector, resulting from the nexus between miners and a section of bureaucracy was increasingly coming to light. First in Karnataka and then in Goa, the Supreme Court cancelled iron ore mining leases on grounds of illegalities some years ago.

Such strong action, which had a telling effect on the country’s production of steelmaking ingredient and its supply to local steel mills and for exports must have instilled some fear and discipline among miners. The Goa government was in the firing line for its act of omission. In an indictment of the local administration, the Court said while its direction was to grant fresh licences in accordance with the mining laws, the state government’s renewal of mining leases was found to be “unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material into consideration and, therefore, not in the interest of mineral development.” The Court found violations of environmental norms in the process of ore extraction and its transportation in Goa in particular quite distressful.

After all the reforms, between making a successful bid for lease ownership of a reserve and opening of the mine is still a tortuous process where government agencies at the Centre and in states have a decisive say. Because of the rigmarole, including time-consuming environment and forest clearances, a mine opening in India can take up to eight years against three years in Australia, the world’s largest producer and supplier to the global market of a number of minerals. What will be admitted straightaway is the continuing need for government oversight once a mine is opened because mines in India are found to be prone to breaking rules with impunity and cutting corners endangering the lives of workers and causing harm to the environment. But for such oversight to be effective demands that officials posted in far corners where extraction happens will honestly record all mining related misdoings to be followed up by corrective and also exemplary actions by people at higher bureaucratic echelons.

As sector observer members of civic society will say, if this were the case then the “murky affairs” relating to Karnataka and Goa mining would not have happened. Monitoring of mines operations by using satellites and drones might have curbed what is visible from air. What will, however, always stay under radar are the dubious deals in the sector happening all the time because of the unholy understanding between miners, politicians and government officials. Avarices of miners apart, politicians and bureaucrats will not miss the opportunity to line their pockets by way of withholding required permissions till they get paid and overlooking many acts of omission by mining groups, again for a consideration.

All these are among the reasons why the mining sector has remained bereft of foreign direct investment (FDI). This is despite New Delhi’s liberalised FDI policy allowing 100 per cent foreign equity holding in the sector on automatic route for all non-fuel and non-atomic minerals. Diamond and precious stones also remain beyond the scope of FDI. Finding the overall environment not to their liking, years ago British-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto (the world’s second largest) and Norwegian bauxite and aluminium producer Norsk Hydro cried off from India. While Rio Tinto had big iron ore mining plans in the then Orissa (since renamed Odisha), the Norwegian group had nursed the ambition to develop a bauxite mine and an alumina refinery in the downstream in the same state in partnership with Tata Sons and Canadian Alcan, part of Rio Tinto since 2007.

What could have been a richly rewarding business for the three iconic houses is now owned by Kumar Mangalam Birla’s flagship Hindalco Industries. Called Utkal Alumina International, a 100 per cent subsidiary of Hindalco, it has a highly cost effective 2.1 million tonne alumina refinery at Rayagada in Odisha and a 8 million tonne bauxite mine at Baphlimali also in the same state.

ALSO READ: Why Business Houses Betting Big on Orissa?

What has underwritten the success of Birla when a combination of bigger entities, unable to take the project forward, sold their entire stakes to the former in phases? The cryptic answer will be the Birla group’s capacity, which several other Indian entities too have, to manage the environment to its advantage. The expression ‘manage the environment’ stands for the skill to find resolution of any thorny issues by taking care of the right people. Ask any media person writing on mining, she/he will confirm the opaqueness of the sector. However big private sector mining companies may be, they will have nothing to do with the media.

Their reluctance to share basic industry related information, which has nothing to do with their own working is galling. They are not listed on stock exchanges. Therefore, they have no obligation to publish quarterly and annual results and annual reports. PSUs in the country’s mining universe such as Coal India, NMDC and Moil are, on the other hand, listed entities and the media has easy access to them. In a government undertaking all income and expenses are to be shown in books and their officials cannot find a way out of a difficult situation by paying bribes.

And also unlike private sector companies, mining, metal and power PSUs were not buyers of electoral bonds, an instrument made available to business houses to support electioneering efforts of political parties of their choice. In the list of top 20 electoral bond purchasers are found Vedanta, a major producer of oil, iron ore, zinc ore and aluminium, Essel Mining, an unlisted money spinner for Aditya Birla group and Haldia Energy, a coal-based power producer in RP-Sanjiv Goenka group. Vedanta bought electoral bonds of Rs376 crore, Haldia Energy Rs377 crore and Essel Rs225 crore.

At this writing, one does not know how the mining and metal groups went about in giving the bonds to political parties. Incidentally, the five companies belonging to Jindals but managed separately by family members bought bonds of Rs195 crore. Jindals have a big manufacturing and mining profile in Odisha and they have a hugely Odisha based ambitious growth plans. It’s a given that BJP being an all-India political party will be the largest recipient of electoral bonds purchased by companies and individuals. What at the same time can be said with certainty is that mining, power and steel groups made large donations to Odisha’s Biju Janata Dal and West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress for obvious considerations. Nothing to do with politics or ideology.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Scams & Spectacles – Chronology Samajhiye

Scams & Spectacles – Aap Chronology Samajhiye!

By Amit Sengupta 21st March 2024

Things are really not working as per the pre-determined script the two-man leadership of the BJP had master-minded, along with the RSS, on how to ride the jolly good ride once again to absolute victory in the coming 2024 Lok Sabha polls. From ‘Modi hai to mumkin hain’, the slogan in 2019, to ‘Abki baar, 400 paar’, seems to have got stuck in a filthy quagmire – and they can’t even blame the opposition for it. Indeed, it only reminds a shocked nation, especially seasoned journalists who understand the ‘system’, that, even then, an absolute majority seemed ‘namumkin’ for Modi – that is, until Pulwama happened!

The tragic, sudden and shocking death of 40 CRPF soldiers travelling in a convoy on February 14, 2019, on the Srinagar-Jammu highway, in a village near Pulwama, is still simmering deep inside the conscience and consciousness of India. The tears in the eyes of the family members have still not dried.

The attack happened moments after 3 pm in the afternoon. Anyway, there are too many uncanny and unresolved questions about the attack and how such a huge quantity of explosives was being carried in a vehicle by a lone man in an extremely high security and volatile area, and that too in what is perceived to be a ‘conflict zone’. Those questions can only be resolved after a ‘fair and free’ enquiry, which is simply inconceivable in the current circumstances.

The revelations by former Kashmir governor, Satyapal Malik, however, has been terribly disturbing, and his version has been quoted widely in the media. In all probability, his version might be correct, though a proper enquiry alone can only substantiate the final sequence of events, and the instructions allegedly given to him by the PM himself after hearing the news.

Well, during the attack, or before it, the PM was in yet another ‘PR mode’, shooting for an adventure series called ‘Man vs Wild’, dressed in safari jungle jacket, at the Jim Corbett National Park.

Since then, much turbulent waters have flowed down the bridge. Come to think of it, the BJP, riding high on its well-oiled, cash-rich electoral machine, backed by an organized RSS cadre with deep pockets, and, largely, a stooge media, is in a worse situation now then what it was in — before the Pulwama tragedy. The Ram Mandir ‘Pran Pratishtha’ hyperbole, as a deliberate Hindutva card, with blanket media coverage day in, day out, seems to have vanished into the blue, and even the saffron flags atop homes and vehicles have all but disappeared. The brazen push to make the secular Indian State turn into a quasi-Hindutva apparatus, with the PM leading the rituals in Ayodhya, apart from temple-hopping across the country, seems to have found a sudden road-block.

Indeed, he was last seen in the sea-waters somewhere on the coast of Gujarat, scuba-diving perhaps, praying to the mythical watery city of Krishna, wearing, as trolls claimed, a space-helmet – “so that his face is visible, while praying, underwater”. That is, yet another glorious adventure-spectacle, mixed with a heavy dose of religion, plus, a spectacular photo shoot.

The only other leader known to do such grand, narcissistic ‘spectacles’, often oozing with bare-bodied machismo, is Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, perhaps on steroids; he has predictably won a landslide for the umpteenth time recently, with no opposition party pitched against him in a one-man show, while his most formidable opponent and famous dissenter, Alexei Navalny, just about 47, seems to have been murdered in cold-blood, in a cold prison, somewhere in the icy wilderness far away from Moscow.

Thankfully, India still seems to be a quasi-democracy, with a firm belief in the secular Constitution drafted by Dr BR Ambedkar, culturally pluralist in its deepest essence, still clutching onto the sacred doctrines of freedom and equality in its heart and soul. The second Bharat Jodo Yatra by Rahul Gandhi has been a stupendous success, the India bloc has stitched-up a strategic alliance, the South, Bengal and Punjab are refusing to accept the BJP or Hindutva, and the Supreme Court has finally delivered a great, historic order of justice in an overwhelming atmosphere where injustice seems to be the order of the day. Inevitably, this paradigm shift has plunged the fake messiah and his fanatic followers into a quagmire of doom and despair.

The electoral bonds scam has exposed an organized, unimaginably gigantic, shadowy and sinister operation, putting the most efficient and ruthless mafiosi into shame, in what appears to be a multi-million, multi-mega scam, unprecedented in the history of any living democracy in the world. ED raids are thereby directly linked to patronage to sleazy enterprises, lucrative deals and huge donations to the BJP, whereby, sometimes, companies with a pitiable financial corpus are seen to be donating massive sums running into many crores to the party, using these bonds. This has created the speculation that some of them might be camouflaged as ‘proxies’ for big industrialists; or, some big business empires might simply be wanting a quid-pro-quo in terms of yet another multi-million cash-cow project, including, perhaps, stakes in a public sector company, like airports, mining and ports.

Hence, now, the slogan, ‘Na khaunga, na khane doonga’, seems as hollow, and bereft of ethical values, as most slogans coined by the PM.

ALSO READ: The Tunnel To Himalayan Disaster

Remember a man named Wakeel Hasan. He is one of the rat-miners who staked their lives and squeezed inside the rat-hole, the death-trap of the Silkyara tunnel, in November last year and saved the lives of the 41 trapped workers inside for 16 days. This, after the best of national and foreign technology interventions and disaster management applications failed to succeed. It became 24×7 prime-time news.

After the rescue operations, the PM had a ‘live’ chat show with the rat-miners. Later, reportedly, they were not even given alternative jobs or a financial package as reward – and thereby were left to their fate to rot as rat-miners for the rest of the lives. To add salt to their simmering wounds, Wakeel Hasan’s humble home was demolished by the DDA recently in Delhi. Surely, the meaning of gratitude is different for different people!

Besides, in a dark irony, Navayuga Engineering Company Private Limited — the company that built the Silkyara Tunnel in Uttarkashi which collapsed on 12 November, 2023 — had reportedly bought bonds worth Rs 55 crore. Reports claim that they had bought 30 bonds worth Rs 1 crore each on April 18, 2019, shortly before the Lok Sabha Elections in 2019. In mid-2020, the Andhra-based firm was granted the controversial Rishikesh-Karnaprayag rail link project, apart from other projects.

Controversial, because, like the ‘Char Dham’ project of the PM, which has led to massive cutting down of trees, huge soil erosion and the fear of multiple-landslides in the fragile Himalayan ecology of Uttarakhand, the rail-link project was opposed by environmentalists as another recipe for an impending ecological disaster, after the watery sinking of Joshimath. Besides, reportedly, on October 26, 2018, income tax officials had swooped down on its offices, accusing it of violating income tax rules and laundering money.

As the joke goes on and on in social media: ‘Aap chronology samjhiye – please’! Surely, as another cliché does the rounds: ‘Modiji hain, to sab mumkin hain’!

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Why Is America Scared of TikTok, Which Is Owned By US Investors?

By Sanjoy Narayan 17th March 2024

In regions where the app, TikTok, is allowed to be used, it has been a runaway success. The social media app dedicated to short-form videos that are user-generated has more than a billion active monthly users and TikTok’s format lends itself to entertainment and comedy. Of late, however, it is increasingly being used for other purposes – news, infotainment, and marketing promotions.

The largest number of TikTok users is in the US where it is estimated to have 170 million users (a sizeable proportion of the country’s population of 332 million). Other countries with significant user bases include Indonesia (110 million), Brazil (82 million), and Mexico (58 million). Last week, however, the US House of Representatives approved and passed a bill that could potentially force TikTok’s parent, the Chinese company, ByteDance, to either sell the app or face a partial ban within the US.

In fact, TikTok is already banned in many countries, including in India where, in 2020, the Indian government banned it along with dozens of other Chinese-made apps. The reasons cited for the ban were concerns related to sovereignty, integrity, defence, security, and public order. At the time of the ban, India had an estimated 200 million active users and was the largest market for the app.

Tik Tok is also banned in Afghanistan where the ruling Islamist regime felt the platform’s content was not in line with Islamic laws. In countries such as Australia, Canada, Belgium, and Denmark, the app is banned on all government-owned or government-issued devices. In the European Union, its three main institutions—the European Parliament, European Commission, and EU Council—have imposed bans on TikTok for staff devices, and the EU remains cautious about the platform’s ties to China.

In the US, legislators’ worries about TikTok have intensified after the tensions between the US and China have escalated. Many legislators believe that TikTok’s addictive algorithm could allow the Chinese government to access user data and potentially influence Americans. The bill aims to cut off Chinese influence by selling TikTok to a “qualified buyer,” likely a Western company. Legislators fear that ByteDance might be secretly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Who Really Owns TikTok?

While ByteDance denies sharing sensitive user data with the Chinese government, concerns persist. China’s history of cracking down on domestic tech firms and its censorship practices raise suspicions. TikTok is popularly described as a Chinese app. And, indeed, it is owned by ByteDance, an internet technology company headquartered in Beijing, China. It was founded by two Chinese entrepreneurs, Zhang Yiming and Liang Rubo in 2012. But who really owns ByteDance?

ByteDance is called a Chinese company but 60% of it is beneficially owned by global investors such as the Carlyle Group, General Atlantic, and Susquehanna International Group–all US companies. The Carlyle Group is a global investment firm, founded in the US; General Atlantic is an American growth equity firm providing capital and strategic support for global growth companies; and Susquehanna International Group is a privately held global trading and technology firm, headquartered in the US. So, more than half of ByteDance’s equity is owned by American investment firms.

What about the rest? Roughly 20% is owned by ByteDance employees worldwide; and the remaining 20% is owned by ByteDance’s founders. TikTok’s CEO is Shou Zi Chew, also known as Chew Shou Zi, a Singaporean businessman and entrepreneur, based in the US.

Does China Influence TikTok?

As can be seen from the details of who owns TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, the Chinese government or state agencies do not have control over the company in the traditional sense, that is, through shareholding. However, the rest of the world outside China believes that there is a nuance regarding the Chinese government’s influence over social media and online platforms. While not a direct owner, a small stake (1%) in one of ByteDance’s Chinese subsidiaries is held by entities with ties to the Chinese government. This gives them some influence, but the extent is unclear.

Then there is the geographic factor. Owing to ByteDance’s Chinese origins, many countries worry the Chinese government could pressure the company to hand over user data. TikTok maintains its US user data is stored outside of China and that its CEO who is based in the US makes key decisions. So, while the Chinese government doesn’t directly own TikTok, the ownership structure and Chinese origins raise concerns about potential government influence over user data.

Interestingly, TikTok has never been available in China, as the country has its own version of the app called Douyin, incidentally, also owned by ByteDance. While TikTok is available internationally, in China, you would find Douyin, which has been described as the country’s domestic alternative to TikTok. It is held on a different server than TikTok, which researchers have attributed to ByteDance complying with internet regulations set by the Chinese government. Douyin is available via the web, and it operates within China, subject to monitoring and censorship by the government.

It is believed that China has strict control over its media environment, both traditional and digital. China’s central government employs a combination of legal regulations, technical control, and proactive manipulation to restrict online freedom of expression.

China’s Great Firewall (officially known as the Golden Shield Project) monitors and filters internet traffic, blocking access to foreign websites and services. Authorities use libel lawsuits, arrests, and other means to force journalists, bloggers, and media organisations to self-censor.

Moreover, China emphasises the concept of “internet sovereignty”, requiring all internet users (including foreigners) to abide by Chinese laws and regulations. Chinese internet companies have to sign a pledge on self-regulation and professional ethics, imposing even stricter rules.

The heat around TikTok is, therefore, generated by concerns that its parent, ByteDance, 60% of which is controlled by investment firms that are really American, will have to comply with Chinese regulations on internet and social media platforms and that TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, could access user data for surveillance or influence campaigns.

Doesn’t Every App Collect User Data?

Yes, they do. Pretty much all popular apps collect user data. This can include browsing habits, location, purchase history, and even how you interact with the app itself.

Data collection by apps is becoming more regulated, but it’s a complex issue. Laws like GDPR in Europe and CCPA in California give users more control over their data, but enforcement varies. In India, for instance, the government has been actively addressing data privacy and collection through various measures but it is still evolving. When apps collect your data, there are potential risks such as privacy intrusion but also security breaches where data can be stolen and used for malicious purposes.

Apps and platforms such as Facebook (with a monthly user base of more than 3 billion); X (350 million); and Instagram (1.2 billion) all collect personal data that, potentially, can be used for malicious intent that TikTok is potentially suspected of. The fact is there is no evidence that any of these apps and platforms misuse the data that they collect. Then again, there is neither any evidence that TikTok does that. Ultimately, all major platforms collect a substantial amount of user data. For users, therefore, it is wise to be cautious and review the privacy settings on any app that they may be using.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

A Diplomat's View on India Bangladesh Ties

A Diplomat’s View on Delhi-Dhaka Destiny

By Mahendra Ved 16th March 2024

The birth of Bangladesh in 1971 was thanks to a combination of forces and circumstances that cannot be repeated. Its people wanted to protect and nurture their language and culture in a country separating them by 1400 km. India wanted to get even with a hostile neighbour created by the 1947 Partition. And, it was born because of — and despite — the Cold War politics that neither the perpetrators nor the victims want to talk about today.

Well into the new century, a different phase of the Cold War has ensued with the region’s geopolitics changing with China’s enlarged entry. India and Pakistan remain perennially hostile. And Bangladesh, once derided as an “international basket case” by its mightiest opponent Henry Kissinger, is South Asia’s best economy, soon to join the middle-income group, with human development indicators that are among the best in the region.

Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, a former Indian High Commissioner and one of the most erudite scholars on Bangladesh, records this ‘Transformation, Emergence and the Evolution of India-Bangladesh Ties’ in his book with this title. Assessing the entire gamut of issues, he concludes: “India and Bangladesh are destined to cooperate given that their destinies will remain intertwined in the future.”

He underlines that like any two neighbours, India and Bangladesh have problems and issues that remain to be resolved. Even as they get resolved, they get impacted by the region’s changing geopolitics that impacts both, inevitably posing new, knotty challenges.

Not the least is the change in India’s position. Its concern in the last century was that neighbours did not sign security-related agreements with the West, especially the United States. It worked diplomatically for the Indian Ocean to become “a zone of peace”. The worry in the changed scenario is that they do not get too close to, and become dependent upon, China.

Indeed, the China factor looms large on the entire region just as it also confronts others across the globe. Chakravarty analyses at length how the India-Bangladesh“Shonali Adhyaha”, the golden phase in bilateral relations, can be impacted by it.

“If Bangladesh-China ties remain within the bandwidth of acceptability, then bilateral ties can be insulated from disruption. If it impinges on India’s security interests, then India will certainly use its leverage to counter it. There are enough indicators that both sides understand this sensitivity and so far, have navigated adroitly, avoiding crossing certain lines that could upset bilateral ties,” he writes.

The reality is that India finds itself encircled by China in the Indian Ocean region, with smaller neighbours playing the “China Card”. Developments in Nepal, the Maldives and Sri Lanka are recent examples. All except India and Bhutan have accepted China’s multi-billion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Eagerly welcoming money and infrastructure projects under BRI, they are now anxious about a “debt trap” and some have continued despite this risk.

Bangladesh is on BRI, but as Chakravarty points out, it fears that if it joins or cooperates with the Quad – Australia, India, Japan, and the United States – it might invite Chinese ire and inevitably, get caught into big-power rivalry. Playing one side against the other is not easy and could get more difficult in future given the ferocity of China’s confrontation with the US and its allies.

In a succinct comment on Bangladesh-China ties, he says: “Bangladesh thinks China is less intrusive than India.” This is inevitable when India and Bangladesh share borders, cultural links, and socio-economic commonalities and are mutually dependent.

ALSO READ: Bangladesh – Proving Kissinger Wrong And More

Having spent considerable time in Bangladesh, Chakravarty notes that the young, professional and business classes clamour for closer ties with China. But “the same people make frequent visits to India.”

A domestic political angle often played up pitches India which helped in the freedom movement as a villain. Those with Islamist leanings look to the West, including Pakistan, and China because of the latter’s adversarial relations with India. It’s befriending enemy’s enemy. Indeed, half a century down, the fact that their separation from Pakistan was opposed by the US, China and the Muslim world is becoming a distant memory for the young and is glossed over.

In a unique neighbourhood, India faces problems typical of a large country surrounded by small ones. The ‘friendliest’ Bangladesh, too, finds India’s location on its three sides constricting and generates fears and expectations. India is anxious, particularly when the smaller ones want to play the “China card.” Like the Maldives that has sent back Indian soldiers and sailors. Or Si Lanka and Nepal where each government is either “pro-India” or “pro-China,” cancelling or dishing out projects.

India’s expectations of Bangladesh, while helping liberally (but without the Chinese deep pockets and the BRI), Chakravarty writes, “are mostly security and migration-related. The principal concerns are border management, terrorism, smuggling and human trafficking, Islamist terrorism and China’s growing engagement in different sectors of Bangladesh that could give China a strategic advantage in the region.”

Chakravarty delves into India’s assistance in the freedom movement with the hope of nurturing a secular, syncretic Muslim society where minorities feel safe. With Bangladesh’s syncretic Islam taking blows from the Islamists, he foresees the struggle between Islamist and secular forces dominating Bangladesh’s domestic politics “that will occasionally turn violent.” Its political impact may not remain confined to India’s east and north-east. The book notes that Hasina has battled the Islamists but also made concessions to some sections that control the madrassas where the rural youth get trained, hoping that radicalisation would not begin early in their lives.

Inevitably in the future, India will have to engage with the conflicting political legacies led by the two ageing women leaders now in their late seventies. Their succession may or may not emerge from the rival families Ailing Zia’s son Tareq is wanted by law and remains in exile. Hasina has yet to indicate any preference for a successor, either from within or outside her family.

The oft-posed question is about India putting all its eggs in Sheikh Hasina’s basket. Chakravarty contrasts that by Sheikh Hasina’s with the record of the two-term premier, Begum Khaleda Zia, when Islamists were part of her government and militants killed with impunity. The distrust is inbred and inevitable, on both sides. That leaves India with no option, as of now. Chakravarty underscores the ‘risk’ but sees no clear picture. “In the long term, India’s strategy should be to develop ties with parties across the political spectrum,” he opines.

Hasina once asked Chakravarty, then India’s envoy: “What did you get from Zia?” He told her that India had no high expectations from her. A decade hence, the ground situation remains the same. Only time can tell how the internal dynamics will work, and how they will impact India-Bangladesh relations.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Why India’s Richest Don’t Want to Give their Wealth Away

By Sanjoy Narayan 10th March 2024

Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City and the founder of the financial, software, and data company, Bloomberg L.P., could well be the world’s most exceptional living philanthropist. Over his lifetime, Bloomberg, who is 82, has given away a staggering $17.4 billion to various charitable causes. That sum, in Indian rupees, is 1.44 lakh crore. Bloomberg’s dedication to improving education, public health, and social equality has left an indelible mark, making him one of the most influential philanthropists of our time.

In 2023 alone, Bloomberg contributed $3 billion to support the arts, education, environment, public health, and programs aimed at improving city governments around the world. In the same year, according to a ranking by Hurun, a research, media and investments group, the top 10 Indian philanthropists together donated ₹5,800 crore or $700 million. In Indian media, it was widely described as an impressive contribution that made a significant impact. To put it in perspective, however, the sum that the top 10 Indian philanthropists donated together is a little less than 25% of what Bloomberg donated in the same year.

Bloomberg is not richer than the richest Indian, by the way. He is actually poorer. Bloomberg’s net worth, according to the Forbes real-time ranking of billionaires, is $106.2 billion. The richest Indian, according to the same Forbes list, is Mukesh Ambani, with a net worth assessed at $117.5 billion. Ambani ranked as the ninth richest person in the world. And, in 2023, he and his family, according to the Hurun Philanthropy list (which happens to be the only credible and authentic estimation of Indian philanthropy), made a donation of ₹376 crore or, if you are into comparisons, $45 million. As stated before, in the same year, Bloomberg, who is the 12th richest person in the world, contributed $3 billion.

The number of Indian billionaires has been growing apace every year. According to Forbes, a record number of Indians, 186 in total, have made it to Forbes’ 2024 World’s Billionaires list, an increase from 169 last year. The total number of billionaires in the world is estimated by Forbes to be 2,555, a staggering 19-fold increase since 1987. American billionaires, unsurprisingly, account for the highest number–735 on the Forbes list but for a country that accounts for one of the world’s largest population of poor people (according to the Multidimensional Poverty Index, which considers factors like health and education, 14.96% of Indians are in multidimensional poverty), 186 billionaires is a massive number.

Yet, the number of Indians among the world’s biggest philanthropists is appallingly small. In fact, the biggest philanthropists in India aren’t the richest, and even as the number of Indian billionaires burgeons, the amount that they give away remains paltry. Interestingly, one of the greatest philanthropists of all time was an Indian pioneer industrialist and founder of the Tata group, Sir Jamsetji Tata who passed away more than a century ago. Tata began his endowments in 1892 and his lifetime donations are estimated to be worth $102.4 billion, which is many times what today’s India’s richest businessmen together donate.

The Indians that do lead in philanthropy are ones that keep a far lower profile than their headline-grabbing richer peers. The two biggest philanthropists in India today are Shiv Nadar, 78, and Azim Premji, also 78. Both built their fortunes primarily in technology. Premji started with his father’s cooking oil and soap making business and founded Wipro, a multinational corporation that provides information technology, consultant and business process services. Nadar is a first-generation entrepreneur who started HCL, a technology multinational similar to Wipro.

Last year, Nadar and his family donated ₹2,042 crore mainly to arts, culture, and heritage; and Premji donated ₹1,774 crore primarily to education. In dollar terms, their contributions, $214 million and $246 million, respectively, hardly match what the world’s billionaire philanthropists donate but in India, they are far bigger philanthropists than their richer peers who control bigger Indian business conglomerates.

Why don’t India’s Rich Give Away their Money?

One easy answer is that they probably fear the taxman. Many Indian businessmen own their businesses (and, ergo, their wealth) through intricate webs of holding companies that help them minimise the taxes they have to pay on their incomes and wealth. To be seen to be forking out large sums to good causes could attract unwanted attention. Indeed, many rich Indians do like to donate and when they do, they prefer to be anonymous.

Some of the available figures of corporate or individual donations may also not be accurate. The relationship between wealth and philanthropy in India is complex. While some wealthy individuals actively engage in charitable giving, others may not contribute as significantly. Then there are traditional and historical factors. India has a strong tradition of religious giving. Many affluent individuals donate to temples, religious institutions, and festivals. This form of charity is deeply ingrained in Indian culture and may not show up on philanthropy lists and rankings.

The emergence of wealthy and super-rich Indians is also a new phenomenon. Many among India’s growing breed of new rich have built first- or second-generation wealth and are not yet secure enough to donate part of that. It could take a couple more generations before philanthropy becomes a more widespread practice. Thus, wealthy Indians often prioritise supporting their extended families, including education, healthcare, and other needs. This familial responsibility can sometimes take precedence over broader philanthropic efforts.

India wants to be a global economic superpower. Many believe it is on its way to becoming one. In the last quarter, the Indian economy, according to official figures, grew at 8.4%, which is far higher than most of the world’s big economies, and last week Prime Minister Narendra Modi said “with this speed, India will become the world’s third-largest economy.” At the same time, India grapples with extreme income inequality. The gap between the rich and the poor is stark, and the country’s developmental needs are huge. That is why India’s rich ought to take philanthropy more seriously, and that is why individuals such as Premji and Nadar are exceptions who should become examples to follow.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Understanding the MSP Issue, India and WTO

By Jasdev Singh Rai 4th March 2024

One of the farmer leaders called for India to exit the World Trade Organisation. India is engaged in tactical bargaining at WTO to retain minimum support price (MSP). The WTO is desperate to reach outstanding issues of the current Agreement on Agriculture while many ordinary supporters of farmers are accusing the Indian Government of siding with corporates. In this article we explore the facts and how each is stuck in a complex muddy field from which there are few ways out.

Let us start with MSP, or Minimum Support Price. A simple fact of agriculture is that farming is no longer a subsistence occupation. Subsistence farming used natural fertilisers such as manure and farmers practised crop rotation, keeping the soil healthy. Farmers mostly produced for themselves and sold some in the market.

However, as population and life spans grew in India, traditional farming could not meet the growing demand. India had to go to international markets to buy staple foods such as grain and rice to feed its population. Often, India didn’t have enough money and borrowed it or went with a begging bowl for cheaper grain. It was ridiculed and was open to pressure by donor countries. An empty stomach is at the mercy of the provider.

The Green Revolution was a kick-start to move towards food security and self-sufficiency. The prerogative was to produce enough basic foods to feed all of India and keep enough in store for difficult times and even export. India was willing to subsidise this juggernaut of self-sufficiency drive. It changed small farmers to become small commercial farmers.

Farmers now use nitrogen-based fertilisers, all year supply of water with ever deeper mechanised wells (tube wells), and seasonal labour. Now they farm to sell rather than just feed the family. They have mostly abandoned rotation farming, growing 2-3 crops a year on the same plot of land, almost sucking life out of the land.

The inputs such as water, diesel, electricity, labourers, seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, hiring tractors or owning one on hire purchase etc all amount to considerable expense. India’s farms are small, with about 86% of farms ranging from 1-3 acres. They are family owned.

There are about 125 million farmers in India. About 58% of the Indian population depends directly or indirectly on farming sector with jobs ranging from farmer, farm labourers, traders, labour for traders, truck drivers, assistants and so on.

The Government provides many support structures and incentives, such as a well-developed procurement system called the mandi system. The Government buys the grain from farmers and ensure a minimum price so farmers can make profit. This is called Minimum Support Price or MSP. Usually it is direct input costs, called A2 and others such as unpaid family time, labelled as F1 plus 50% to 85% top up, depending on the crop, to make farming viable for the family. There was meant to be another factor called C2 which is unpaid rental and interest on fixed capital of the land. This has not been instituted. Farmers still find it difficult to make a reasonable living.

ALSO READ: Understanding the Mandi System in India

In theory, MSP is given to 22 crops products listed as essential commodities. But in reality only a few products get it and not all states provide it. It is mainly Punjab, Haryana and some parts of Himachal Pradesh. Rice and wheat are among leading crops that the Government pays for.

The road to food security is expensive but the country has become self-sufficient. It no longer goes with the begging bowl for basic foods such as rice and grain. In fact it has the capacity to export them.

The alternative is to buy basic foods in the international market from countries like Canada, Australia, United States and some other countries. Farms in these countries are an average 400 acres and in Australia can be as large as 25,000 acres. By economies of scale, these farms can buy fertilisers cheaper, have few labourers per acre of land and much fewer machinery per acre. Only a few tractors are needed for a 400 acre farm, whereas in India every 3 acre farm has to hire a tractor, wait their turn to hire or buy a tractor for their small farm.

It is not difficult to understand why cash crops can be produced cheaper by these countries with larger farms. The farms are bigger partly because these are the new worlds where land was plenty. In India and Africa, farming has been in families for centuries if not thousands of years.

If India buys on the open market and stops subsidising its farming, it will be open to the uncertainties of international politics. Other countries could demand more than money in return for selling cheaper wheat. The recent Ukraine conflict has shown how African countries dependent on Ukrainian wheat nearly faced starvation until Russia stepped in.

The other alternative is for India to go the way of some western countries and drive small farmers out in favour of large corporate Agri Business as USA did. Subsidies can be smaller and production can be cheaper with overheads spread over large area. However, that also means over a 100 million of not more farmers thrown into the job market without any jobs available. And another 300 to 600 million people dependent on the farm sector being made jobless. Politically, it will be suicide for any party to go down this route and nationally there could be unrest with nearly 50% of the population unemployed. MSP supported farming can be considered to be a form of indirect social security for farmers in return for ensuring food sovereignty.

The WTO

However, India faces another pressure, the World Trade Organisation or WTO. It took over from GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, in January 1995. WTO is market orientated and concerned about ensuring international trade being conducted fairly and competitively. It does not like subsidies which it calls market distortion. And it also negotiates and sets limits on tariffs which are taxes on imports.

Distortions occur if two countries, A and B manufacture the same product, for instance a ceramic plate. If production costs in country A is ₹10 a plate and in country B it is ₹8 a plate, then country B is likely to be able to sell more of it. However, country A may decide to subsidise every plate by ₹5 and thus enable the manufacturer to sell for ₹5 on the international market, undermining country B. This is distorting the market with a subsidy.

On the other hand, country A may decide that any plates imported from country B will be taxed ₹5. This pushes the price of country B plate ₹to 13. This will ensure that people in country A will buy the plates made by their own country at ₹10 rather than ₹13 a plate from country B. This is called protective measures and also distorting the market.

The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) first came into force on 1^st January 1995. It sought to put limits on subsidies. The AOA has three categories of subsidies. Green subsidies are permitted in fields such as training for farmers, which does not distort the market. Amber Box subsidies are market distorting subsidies. It was agreed that developed countries such as Canada, USA etc can give up to 5% subsidy. Developing countries such as India, China and most of the South can give up to 10% subsidy. The Blue box subsidy is where State subsidises to prevent over production and thus stop market distortion. This could be putting limits on production or giving money for uncultivated land set aside for environmental purposes.

The 5% subsidy for developed countries is a lot of money for a farmer with 400 acres. However 10% subsidy for a farmer with 3 acres of land does not make farming viable. India has been defying this by giving 50% to 85% subsidies. Clearly, WTO is not happy. Or rather some countries in WTO are not happy.

A group of 17 countries, known as the CAIRNS group, want WTO to impose these subsidy limits on countries like India. Leading them are Canada, Australia and USA. Australia brought a case against India on its 85% sugarcane subsidy. India lost that.

USA, Canada and Australia particularly want to bring a case on wheat subsidy in India. These countries know that the agriculture sector could collapse in India and India may be forced to buy wheat from them. They want to penetrate the big Indian market.

WTO and INDIA

Under Dr Manmohan Singh and now Narendra Modi, India has resisted this pressure. India wants WTO to allow it to continue with high subsidies. Its food sovereignty depends on that. The Modi government has been withholding consent on some other agreements until these concessions are agreed, particularly on tariffs for e-commerce. In the current 2024 round at Abu Dhabi, Piyush Goyal, the Industry and Commerce minister, scuppered any agreement on fishing stocks as India cannot afford not to give subsidies to fishermen and farmers.

WHAT NOW

There has to be 100% consent for a WTO agreement to become binding. India will no doubt continue to resist any pressure to reduce subsidies. One way forward is for the Agreement on Agriculture to come out of WTO and be handed to UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. WTO is not obliged to be cognisant of human rights, sustainable development goals, right to family life, right to education etc as it is not a UN body. But UNCTAD is a UN body and its policies and agreements have to align with those conventions.

WHAT SHOULD INDIA AND FARMERS DO.

Some farmers are arguing that there should be MSP for all crops. This is not feasible and is not really part of a food sovereignty approach. The Government is mindful of the impact on environment and water. Farmers and Indian government need to work together internally to achieve sensible policies and internationally to force changes at WTO or take Agreement on Agriculture out of WTO.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Narendra Modi’s Southern Discomfort

By Sanjoy Narayan 3rd March 2024

If you go by the media, both Indian and international, the Narendra Modi led Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) victory in the yet to happen parliamentary elections in India is already baked in, which is to say that it is a conclusion that has preceded the actual event. With a degree of certainty that view does not vary much, as most political sages, whether in the media or in the wise environment of every Indian living room, are sanguine that Modi and his party will win a third term in government when the elections are held and the results come out in mid-May this year.

They are probably right. Modi himself has been quoted as saying that he could “gauge the mood of the nation”, and that voters “will definitely give the NDA (the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance) more than 400 seats and the BJP at least 370 seats.” In 2019, the NDA won 353 seats, 303 of them won by the BJP on its own. That is an impressive tally but still not as massive as the 404 seats that the Congress party, led by Rajiv Gandhi, won back in 1984, after the assassination of his mother, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Can the BJP and its allies match that feat in this year’s elections? Modi’s regime enjoys very high approval ratings. He himself is among the most popular leaders that post-Independent India has had. In fact, according to one global survey, he continues to hold the title of the world’s most popular leader, with an impressive approval rating of 76%. His regime will obviously benefit from a number of factors at this year’s polls, which are expected to begin in April.

For one, the Indian economy’s performance has been outstanding, at least in terms of macroeconomic numbers. Not only has India been the fastest growing among the world’s largest economies (its GDP of $3.2 trillion makes it the world’s fifth-largest economy), according to official figures released last week, its GDP surged 8.4% in the last three months of 2023 compared with the previous year, up from a growth of 7.6% in the June-to-September period. India has overtaken countries such as the UK, France, Italy, Canada, and Brazil, and despite challenges like demonetisation, GST reforms, and the COVID pandemic, the economy has shown remarkable resilience. Inequality and job creation remain problematic but overall the Indian economy has fared well.

Besides, the Modi government has accelerated infrastructure projects, such as impressive new highways. On average, 36 km of highways are built daily, more than triple the earlier pace. It has also doubled the capacity of solar and wind-powered energy in the past five years. The average Indian citizen has also benefited from initiatives such as Swachh Bharat (a cleanliness drive), digitisation of subsidy and social welfare benefits, as also housing for the poor, and piped water supply. The Modi regime’s foreign policy stance has improved India’s global standing and its rising stature has rubbed off on people’s national pride.

BJP also finds support among large proportions of India’s majority community of Hindus, and actions such as the recent lavish inauguration of a temple in Ayodhya on a site where a mosque was demolished three decades ago have only strengthened that support.

Discordant notes from the South

Still, such positive factors for the Modi government could be dampened by some disharmony. In southern India, the BJP has not fared well. Continued efforts by the BJP and its allies to increase their influence in the south have not been successful. In southern states, the BJP faces strong opposition from regional parties and the opposition’s Congress party.

In Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, the BJP’s attempts to make political inroads have not worked out. In Tamil Nadu, the ruling party is the regional All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK); in Kerala, it is the Left Democratic Front (LDF); in Andhra Pradesh, the government is led by the regional Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP); and in Telangana, it is a Congress-led government that is in power since December 2023. In Karnataka, the only southern state where the BJP made significant inroads and ruled during 2018-2023 (save a short interruption by the Janata Party), it was dislodged last year by the Congress.

Let’s do a bit of math. The BJP’s tally from the south in national elections has not been heartening for it either. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, Karnataka, and Puducherry together have 130 of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha. In the 2019 elections, while BJP and its allies swept the northern states, in the southern states, they managed to win only 30 seats, 25 of them from Karnataka. In contrast, of the 91 seats that the Congress-led UPA won in 2019 Lok Sabha, 58 were from the southern states. The BJP’s foothold in the south is clearly weak.

There are non-political disparities between India’s northern and southern states as well. Data shows that southern Indian states consistently outperform the rest of the country in health, education, and economic opportunities. There is enough evidence to suggest that a child born in southern India is more likely to live a healthier, wealthier, and more socially impactful life compared to a child born in the north.

Interestingly, at India’s independence in 1947, southern states (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh) were mostly in the middle or bottom in terms of development. However, since the 1980s, southern states have diverged positively compared to the rest of India, with accelerated progress.

The combined population of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Puducherry is estimated at 250 million, representing approximately 18% of India’s population, but Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, alone has an estimated population of more than 240 million. A lower population has its advantages.

The progressiveness of the southern states and their economic performance is demonstrated by their per capita GDPs and how those stack up with the rest of India’s states and Union Territories. While, small states such as Goa, Sikkim and Delhi understandably top the list of per capita GDP rankings in India, it is significant that some of the southern states such as Telangana (at the fifth spot), Karnataka (at the sixth), Tamil Nadu (at the ninth), and Kerala (at the 11th) are way higher than, say, northern states such as Uttar Pradesh (at 32), Bihar at (33), and Madhya Pradesh (at 25).

India is likely one of the most complex countries in the world with a degree of heterogeneity across regions that is unparalleled elsewhere. The differences are sharpest between the north and the south. Besides linguistic, cultural, and traditional differences with the north, the southern states have never really accepted some aspects of the BJP’s nationalistic stance. The party is still viewed as a northern party from the Hindi belt and Hindi has never really become a part of linguistic array in the south. Not surprisingly, the BJP’s efforts to spread its influence in the southern states have largely failed.

So if we come back to the math and consider the BJP’s aim of getting 400 plus seats in the elections this year, the numbers, as the idiom says, might just not add up.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Live Streaming In Pakistan – Family Business Season 2

By Mahendra Ved 2nd March 2024

Forget corruption charges and delivering poor governance – two families in Pakistan have worked their way back to power. They can thumb their noses at critics, at home and in the Western world who call “dynastic rule” undemocratic. For now, the two rival ‘dynasties’ have buried their differences to keep out their third rival Imran Khan, a “non-dynast”.

In a power-sharing deal, Shehbaz Sharif – notwithstanding his disastrous 18-month rule during 2022-23 – is poised to be the prime minister again. Maryam, his niece and elder brother Nawaz Sharif’s political heir is now Pakistan’s first woman chief minister, and that too, of Punjab, the most populous and powerful province. As Sharifs keep the two big jobs, above them all, Asif Ali Zardari is poised to be the country’s President, again, facilitated by the all-powerful army-led military and civil ‘establishment’.

The ‘establishment’ retains all the aces in domestic and external relations. It has ditched Khan, its ‘proxy’ of the 2018 vintage. Convicted in numerous cases, he is in jail even though his hundred-plus supporters were elected in a House of 264, making the entire exercise controversial.

That is because the ‘establishment’s’ calculations failed. Although tipped for a fourth term as the prime minister, Nawaz fell short of the numbers and had to make way for his younger brother. The deal with the Bhutto-Zardaris who came third in the electoral race, gets Punjab for the Sharifs but also keeps alive ambitions within their clan.

Khan has lost despite his proven mass popularity. In hindsight, his position became untenable when General Asim Munir and Justice Faez Isa whom he had targeted as the prime minister reached their respective top offices. Besides, he alleged an American ‘conspiracy’ for his ouster. Now, he and his supporters will struggle and protest in and out of the jail, courts and the legislature. In Pakistan, it is business as usual for now, until the cyclical process, driven by political wrangling, public disenchantment and monitored by the men in khaki, ends where it began.

Maryam at 50 marks a generational change. Bilawal Bhutto Zardari joining the Shehbaz government would have reinforced that. He had pleaded in the previous National Assembly that the old guard makes way for the young. He did not succeed. How a complete debutante Maryam and Bilawal’s experience limited to foreign affairs — though not an unusual thing in South Asia — would have fared in tackling the country’s myriad problems is a different story.

There indeed was some talk of Bilawal as the prime minister, Pakistan’s youngest at 33. But the deal went the way his father Asif Ali — the real (civilian) king-maker this time around – possibly wanted, to secure the presidency and the power in Sindh for his clan.

He had earned the sobriquet “Mr Ten Percent” by allegedly taking the cut in business transactions, when his wife Benazir was the prime minister twice, adding to her woes and a collapse in governance. Her 2007 assassination and the sympathy it generated led him to the president’s house. Although he had the Constitution amended to limit the president’s powers, during 2008-13, the country was run from his office.

ALSO READ: Maryam To Be Pakistan’s First Woman CM

Not for nothing he is called the “wheeler-dealer”, ‘Machiavelli II’ and more. Pakistan’s most astute politician is also a great survivor. As feudal in politics do, he was involved in family feuds, including the killing of Benazir’s brother Murtaza. He has a lengthy record and the length of time spent behind bars, without ever being convicted.

They say that “the only thing certain in life is death and taxes”; in Pakistan, it might as well be “death, taxes, and Mr Zardari’s political relevance”….. Yet, he is also the first democratically elected president to serve out a five-year tenure, and likely to become the only person to have held that office twice,” Zain Siddiqi writes in Dawn (February 23, 2024).

Besides being in and out of jail and being in exile, Zardari has some things in common with Maryam Nawaz: controversies over educational qualifications. Zardari’s claims cover degrees in England and France, while Maryam, who had to change schools when young, could not complete her studies in medicine when her admission was challenged, but has supposedly done her M.A., and Ph.D. Another is both remained out of the government but active politically. Indeed, Maryam joined only a decade back to counter Imran Khan’s growing charisma among the youth.

Maryam is the fourth Sharif family member to become Punjab’s chief minister. The province accounts for 53 per cent of Pakistan’s 241 million population and 60 per cent of its $350 billion GDP. Her problems are more daunting than those her father and uncle tackled, with arguable results.

At the top of her problems is her being a woman politician in a deeply conservative Pakistan. Only around a dozen women were elected to the National Assembly in last month’s elections. Most women enter parliament in seats reserved for women and religious minorities.

For Maryam, a mother of three and a grandmother, it could be familial, like Benazir who had a husband (Zardari) to deal with, at home, in public and in her government. Maryam too has a husband Mohammed Safdar Awan, a former army captain and a lawmaker.

A fiery orator like Benazir, Maryam will have to guard against all that Bhutto faced — from the hardliners among the clergy who cite scriptures to disapprove of a woman holding public office. Patriarchy at all levels dominates Pakistani society. The most daunting could be the militants who took Benazir’s life. Indeed, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), with affiliates of the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), has dug deep roots in Punjab.

Coming from a business family, Maryam has done well to keep her focus on economic issues that not just Punjab but the whole of Pakistan need to tackle. Women activists are enthused by the symbolic boost for women and that she has touched on women and the young, on education and health in her inaugural speech.

But all these need money and the initial pronouncements carry little by way of reforms – less ostentatious spending and more taxation – that the foreign donors, especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been demanding.

Reports link Maryam to her maternal great-grandfather, Gama (Ghulam Mohammed) Pehelwan, undivided India’s champion wrestler and “Rustam-e-Hind” who migrated to Pakistan. He was never defeated. Gama remains a known name in India. She could work on this legacy and her father Nawaz’s readiness to do business with India.

It will be interesting to watch if Maryam, on a possible India visit sometime in future, will create as much public frenzy, and goodwill for Pakistan, as Benazir did in 1972 at the Simla Summit and while meeting Rajiv Gandhi, her Indian counterpart in the 1980s.

The writer can be contacted at mahendraved07@gmail.com

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

Where Life Must Go on, Like a Stream in the Hills

By Amit Sengupta 29th February 2024

This fear is tangible, though the mountain sunshine has spread like mountain sunshine — sharp, soothing, serene and sensuous. It’s as tangible as the rustling of the leaves, the falling of the branches, and the lingering sound of thick, animate, forest shadows. It’s a feeling you can touch, like the sound of the rippling mountain stream down below, day and night, a romantic melody during the day, a loud lullaby in the dark, stark, silence of the night. However, these days, fear stalks a small, brave, beautiful, good-hearted, hardworking village in the Himalayan foothills — but life goes on. Life must go on.

Three dogs killed or taken by leopards in just about one year. It’s called baghera in these dense forest villages in the hills. Like everywhere, be in the suburbs of Mumbai, or the small towns of Tehri Garhwal, they stalk human civilization as predators looking for easy food. Dogs have been their eternal prey, in case they can’t get hold of a goat or sheep. This is because the mountain dogs are free creatures, they roam around in the lanes and by-lanes of the villages and the forests, and they chase the monkeys and pigs which arrive like monsters to ravage the crops. Hence, like alarm calls of the barking deer which warns of a tiger in the core area of national parks, the monkeys arrive here with the baghera in the shadows of the green undergrowth – waiting for the dogs.

There are villages in Garhwal, surrounded by huge water bodies due to the big dam, and endless expanse of forests – a direct consequence of the Chipko movement – where there are no dogs, not even one! The last one has been picked up by a leopard, hence, the village folks are compelled not to keep pets. The forests surrounding the villages are full of leopards, and, thankfully, a flourishing prey base – but dogs are the first and final casualty.

You can talk to a stoic and calm Garhwali who lives on the edge of a hill facing vast tracts of valley and forest. He would say, nonchalantly, “This morning, a couple of leopards were sitting in our verandah. So my wife and I could not come out of the house. Look here, they were sitting right under this galgal (huge yellow fruits belonging to the orange family) tree under the sun. One of them lives near that temple below. Two others come down from the hills, near one of the streams, at the bend of the road. Another couple seems to have made my house and the surrounding area its home. They simply refuse to move. On Diwali night, I started early from work on my scooty. But I had to wait a long time, all alone in the dark at a distance from my house, because this couple simply refused to move.”

And, yet, it is peaceful-coexistence here, as it is in all forests where indigenous communities, including adivasis, have lived for centuries, sharing time, space, geography and habitat with wild animals. No human has been harmed — mostly. And a 90-year old sturdy mountain woman, armed with nothing but a tall lathi, wooden staff, can take her flock of sheep or goats all alone in the thick of the forest with not an iota of fear in her heart.

However, the death and disappearance of three loving dogs is a simmering tragedy in this little village with less than ten houses, where little girls go to schools in the neighbourhood, sometimes crossing the forest. Others walk long distance to the nearest town through the zigzag of the forest. Another man runs an aata chakki propelled by a small and strong waterfall in the heart of the forest.

The line between home and the forest is thick. So, a wall has been built now by a family, because their main door would open into the street and the forest, and their two little daughters should be safe. People are shutting their doors early in the evening, not venturing to come out after the dark, guarding their children and animals with extra care and protection. A woman heard the leopard three nights ago in the vicinity of her open-to-sky courtyard. Someone saw its paws at the river bed. Two little shops in one corner still choose to be open till late after evening, their lights twinkling in the cold darkness of night, their soft whispers heard from a long distance. The predator is around.

In the night, sometimes, the forest wind blows with a theatrical flourish, full of song and drama. It’s like the Bengali jatra enacted as theatre during Kalboishaki in Bengal, when there is great thunder and lightning, and the air is thick with the erotic aroma of moist earth and nature, but rain refuses to arrive! Here, in the expanse of the Himalayas, where meadows move into woods, and woods into shadowy, hidden secrets, you can actually touch the sound of the wind; sometimes, it acquires such intense ferocity that it seems apocalyptic! It will blow your mind!

The trees swing and move and sway, as if stricken by infinite longing, intoxicated with unrequited and unfulfilled passion, and the vermillion sky in the blue horizon, soaked with anticipated rain, suddenly becomes luminescent, as if bending down to embrace the wind. It’s like a drunk sea tide riding high on a full moon night, wanting to touch the moon.

Then rain arrives — magical. And there is no understatement about it. In torrential madness, like gigantic waterfalls on the way to Gaumukh, the orgin of Ganga, the mountain river still young, primordial, pulsating, and sensational. This rain is different here from the equally dramatic rain which falls eternally during the monsoon in Kerala; like in the town of Macondo, with all doors painted blue, in the magic realism epical, One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

ALSO READ: Breaking Bread With Tribal, Around A Sublime Fire

The Himalayan rains carry the transparent fragrance of bark, leaves, petals, fragile rocks, fungus, rotting plants and leaves, ancient trees and roots, thick foliage and strange substances, and earth, which anchors and holds all together. On the tin shed, on ledges, across the fences, in the mustard flower fields, the rain lashes like an incredible Santana drum orchestra in ‘Woodstock’. The sound reaches a crescendo, subsides, and moves, yet again, in high pitch, to and fro, like a trained classical musician playing with traditional, primitive drums. Inside mud, wood and stone homes, therefore, warm and cosy, everyone huddles together to hear a folk tale over a cup of hot tea, or sit around the kitchen fire to have a simple, hot, pahari meal.

And sleep arrives like a childhood dream, full of candy flowers, ghost stories, forgotten songs and poetry, and the smell of old cotton clothes, still, perhaps, hiding a faint memory of lavender. A familiar, loved memory. A soft, sensuous longing. A lingering, hidden, angst. A joyful moment of rapture.

In the morning, the mountain sunshine arrives like mountain sunshine. The mountain stream is rippling in its eternal journey through civilization. The villagers are collecting grass and wood, tending to their cattle, nourishing their vegetables in the garden and the crops in the fields. The kids with their rosy cheeks are going to school with their backpacks. And the dogs are out there, free and happy as ever, running here and there, looking at you with their soulful eyes, waiting for the monkeys to arrive.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

How Old Is Too Old To Be a Head of State?

By Sanjoy Narayan 25th February 2024

Frequent gaffes by the two main contenders for the 47th presidency of the United States has brought the focus sharply on whether age is more than just a number when it comes to politics. Unless something unforeseen happens, the US presidential elections in November this year will be a face-off between the incumbent Democratic US President Joe Biden, who is 81, and his challenger and former Republican President Donald Trump, who is 77.

Both gentlemen have been grabbing the headlines recently with what would seem like instances of memory lapses or cognitive failure. A few weeks back, while delivering a speech, President Biden mistakenly referred to Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as the leader of Mexico. Earlier this year, Trump confused his main Republican rival Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and former speaker of the US House of Representatives. Ironically, Biden made his confused remarks when he was defending his position after a special counsel report on his handling of classified documents that had referred to his memory as “poor”.

Both Biden and Trump have committed other similar gaffes that point to memory lapses but their aides insist that the two are not mentally infirm and that they do not suffer from age-related mental conditions that could interfere with a job that is arguably one of the most important and impactful in international geopolitics. The US is the most powerful country in the world–economically and politically–and the US President is highly empowered to take decisions that could affect the rest of the world in profound ways.

How old is too old in politics?

The focus on their age, however, can raise questions about whether age should be a factor determining eligibility for top political jobs. Should there, for instance, be an age limit for those who aspire for top political jobs? Many company boards have retirement ages for their directors who have to step down, say, when they reach 70 or 75. Should governments have similar rules on retirement?

According to a new Pew Research Center analysis, the average age of current national leaders is 62 years. When grouped by decade, the largest share of global leaders today (35%) are in their 60s. Roughly a quarter (22%) are in their 50s, while 18% each are in their 40s or 70s. Measured against those statistics, both Biden and Trump are much older than the average.

Yet, both of them are younger than many heads of state in the world today. For instance, the oldest currently serving head of state is Paul Biya, who at 91 has been the president of the Central African country of Cameroon since 1982. There are others too who are older than Biden and Trump. Palestine’s president Mahmoud Abbas is 86; Cuba’s Raoul Castro is 85; and Namibia’s president Hage Geingob served till he died early this month at 82.

In India, surprisingly, heads of state (and I refer here to Prime Ministers and not Presidents) have been relatively young. When Jawaharlal Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India in 1947 he was 57; Indira Gandhi was 48 when she became Prime Minister; Rajiv Gandhi was 40; and Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister, was 63 in 2014 when he began his first term. He’s 73 now.

India has also had its share of older Prime Ministers, though. When Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister in 2004, he was 71, the same age at which the late Atal Behari Vajpayee became Prime Minister. And, in 1977 when Morarji Desai became Prime Minister he was 81. His successor Charan Singh was 76 when he got the top job; and when I.K. Gujral became Prime Minister in 1977, he was 77.

There aren’t really many instances of cognitive failures or memory lapses by Indian Prime Ministers or other senior ministers–at least, they haven’t been reported in the media (although I once attended an Indian foreign minister’s press conference in 2010 where he repeatedly referred to Russia as the Soviet Union but I guess we can pardon that slip!).

In fact, some anecdotal accounts of Indian Prime Ministers showing signs of exhaustion or tiredness are lapses that might not have anything to do with age. One of them famously concerns H.D. Deve Gowda, who became Prime Minister quite unexpectedly in 1996 when a short-lived coalition of regional parties won the elections. Deve Gowda was only 63 when he got that job but he soon earned an unenviable reputation for falling asleep during official meetings. His nodding off probably had nothing to do with his age. After all, who doesn’t like to sneak in a cheeky siesta or a power nap?

Lifestyle choices can make a difference

Indian politicians, particularly those who have taken up powerful positions in government often enjoy and edge over others when it comes to health and mental well-being. Many of them follow healthy lifestyle routines that keep them in good stead. At 73, Prime Minister Modi is pretty fit, both physically and mentally. A keen adherent of yoga, he practices the discipline daily and has been doing so for years; he walks regularly; and is a vegetarian who also fasts intermittently. His predecessor, Manmohan Singh, now 91, was also known for his spartan eating habits and healthy lifestyle. Neither Modi nor Singh (during his two terms as Prime Minister) has ever shown signs of mental confusion or committed gaffes such as ones by Biden or Trump.

Historically, India’s prime ministers have led disciplined lives that have been healthy and abstemious. Forty-six years ago, when Morari Desai became Prime Minister at 81, the New York Times wrote: “Mr. Desai forswears many pleasures of life. Not only is he a teetotaler, he is also a rigorous vegetarian, living on a diet of fruits, nuts and milk and fasting frequently. He renounced sex after he and his wife had five children.”

Zooming back to the two most likely candidates for the US presidential election, the question is whether having an age limit is a guarantee for having someone who is sound of mind to run a country or should it be something else. Earlier this month, in a guest column for the Economist, David Owen, a former British foreign secretary and Member of Parliament, waded into the Biden-Trump age controversy and argued that no one above the age of 70 should be considered for the job of head of state. Lord Owen, who is also a former neurologist, argued that in humans aged 60-70, the brain’s frontal lobe and an area called the hippocampus begins shrinking and this affects how the brain processes information. Because of that memory and cognitive functions can get affected.

Extrapolating from that and with examples from history (examples involving the US President Franklin Roosevelt and his decision to stand for elections in 1944), Lord Owens recommends that Biden should voluntarily step aside in favour of a younger nominee from the Democratic Party during this spring’s national convention of the party.

Lord Owen’s suggestion of an age limit is one point of view. The problem with it is that not everyone ages in the same way. There are enough examples that one can draw from different fields to show that some individuals continues to demonstrate mental acuity well into their eighties and even nineties. The list of notable people who have continued to work well into their senior years is too long to list out here.

Why not tests instead of an age limit?

Rather than an age limit to ensure that only people with sound minds get to govern countries, would it not be more scientific to test the brain functions of an ageing person, depending on the purpose and the level of cognitive abilities that are needed for a job? There are different ways of assessing the brain function of an aging person, depending on the purpose and the level of detail needed. Some methods that could be adopted are:

Cognitive screening tests: Short, quick tests that check how well your brain is processing thoughts. They involve answering simple questions and performing simple tasks, such as recalling a list of items, spelling words, or drawing a clock. These tests do not diagnose specific diseases, but they can identify a problem with cognition and the need for more in-depth testing.

Brain imaging techniques: These are methods such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) scans or electroencephalogram (EEG) that can help detect changes in the brain due to aging, disease, or injury.

Neuropsychological assessment: This is a comprehensive evaluation of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functions of the brain. It involves a series of tests that measure memory, attention, language, reasoning, problem-solving, and other skills. This assessment can help diagnose specific conditions, such as dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, or brain injury.

Instead of an age limit, scientific tests and assessments such as those listed above could be a better way of ensuring that an aging candidate retains the mental capabilities that the job of, say, the head of state would require. However, there is a catch. Will such tests be acceptable for politicians, political parties, and the interest groups that they represent? My guess is that they probably won’t. At least not in the foreseeable future. Till then, we will have to amuse ourselves as some senior citizen politicians make their occasional gaffes, suffer memory lapses or just nod off to sleep.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/