To Download Click Here.

Date: 17-06-16

Rebuilding The University

It calls for clear, original thinking from policymakers and stakeholders

Thousands of professors have taken to the streets, putting aside their ideological differences, to protest against the bizarre service guidelines laid down in the UGC (University Grants Commission) Gazette Notification of 2016, the third amendment in only six years. The main issues concern their workload and promotions. While the workload issue seems to have been resolved in the recent full commission meeting of the UGC, the official notification is still awaited.

Promotions in universities are now made on the basis of a performance-based appraisal system (PBAS) wherein the tasks of professors are broken down into quantifiable indicators and points are assigned for each. There are three broad categories under which one is assessed: One, teaching, learning, and evaluation; two, co-curricular activities; and three, research. While there are some advantages to this system, it has been poorly thought out in that the emphasis is on quantity and not quality.

One also needs to look at the timeline of these amendments. The first set of promotion guidelines was issued by the UGC in 2010 and, defying all logic, was made effective retrospectively from 2008. The professors who became eligible for promotion between 2008-10 and whose interviews were held in time during this period got promoted under the old Merit Promotion Scheme, but those whose interviews got delayed beyond 2010 (and this is quite common in government organisations) will now be required to apply under the new, significantly stricter PBAS. This raises two questions: One, how can candidates who qualify for promotion at the same time be subject to two different sets of rules? Two, how can any reasonable government expect a candidate to change his portfolio based on its whimsical fancies? The latest amendment has only created further uncertainty as it changes the rules of the game yet again.

Clearly, policymakers lack an understanding of the profession. Every aspect of a teacher’s job is not contractible. The care and attention a teacher gives is not quantifiable but matters a great deal in how we nurture young minds. When some aspects of performance are not measurable, the employee is bound to shift his attention away from these tasks to those that can be measured and rewarded. Also, note that earning points greater than the required minimum does not translate into a higher salary!

Our goal is to build strong and internationally competitive institutions of higher education. But we don’t even have the basic infrastructure to support teaching and research. Undergraduate professors sit in a common staff-room and have no designated office space that is available even to a graduate student in the West. Having a teaching or research assistant, which is a given in high ranking universities, is something one can’t even dream about here. Research grants are almost always released years after a project is completed. Can world-class research (or any class of research) be expected in this scenario?

The nature of a job at the undergraduate level, at least in Delhi University, is more teaching driven and very different from that at the postgraduate level. In particular, the emphasis is more on categories like teaching, learning, and evaluation than research. In the US, there is a clear distinction between a teaching position and a research position. In all this, good teaching is being compromised.

Higher education needs clear, original thinking on the part of policymakers and involvement of stakeholders, budgetary issues and GATS considerations notwithstanding. We must strengthen our well-established institutions of higher learning by providing at least a basic research environment. Promotions can be based on both objective and subjective criteria without solely playing “points”. Strong and healthy institutions must be in place to retain our good faculty and encourage new talent into the profession.

Date: 17-06-16

Mistrust in Manipur

There is a lingering apprehension among the hill people that the state government would use the bills as a strategic political ploy to gain control over their land.

Written by Nehginpao Kipgen

Last fortnight, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh explained to a delegation from Manipur led by the state Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh why President Pranab Mukherjee returned three bills the Manipur Assembly had passed on August 31, 2015. The contentious bills were the Manipur Land Reforms and Land Revenue (7th Amendment) Bill, 2015, the Manipur Shops and Establishment (2nd Amendment) Bill, 2015, and the Manipur Protection of Peoples Bill, 2015. Experts will now re-examine the first two bills for a “reasonable conclusion” and in the case of the third bill, legal and constitutional experts will re-examine it for a “new legislation taking into consideration all aspects of the hill and valley people of Manipur.” The question now is what steps should be taken to bring a mutually acceptable agreement.

The British colonial government had introduced the Inner Line Permit (ILP) to protect its commercial interests. Later, it was used as an instrument to protect the tribal people and their cultures. Since Manipur is not officially a tribal state, there are constitutional challenges to implementing the ILP system. Had the Manipur Protection of Peoples, 2015 bill become law and got implemented strictly, many of the hill people (the Kukis and the Nagas) could have found themselves declared non-Manipuris since the bill requires a person to have been enumerated in all three registers — the National Register of Citizens, 1951, the Census Report 1951, and the Village Directory of 1951. In 1951, most of the hill areas were not accessible by road and the situation remains the same in some places even today.

There is a lingering apprehension among the hill people that the state government would use the bills as a strategic political ploy to gain control over their land. The unwillingness on the part of the state government to implement the Sixth Schedule in the hill areas has exacerbated the concerns of the tribal people. Had the bills been enacted into law, they will be applicable across the state of Manipur, including the hill areas. But the drafting committee formed by the state government did not involve tribal legislators. People of the hill areas were not consulted in the process of drafting the bills.

The valley people (the Meiteis, who dominate state government) argue that the bills are largely misunderstood and misinterpreted by the hill people. They claim that the bills are not detrimental to the interests of the hill people. But the irony is neither the government nor the Meiteis took steps to convince the tribal people, or the Joint

Action Committee Against Anti-Tribal Bills (JACAATB), the body spearheading the agitation.

On December 29, 2015, Chief Minister Ibobi Singh met an 18-member delegation of the JACAATB, which requested the CM to convene a special session of the Manipur Legislative Assembly to review the concerns and apprehensions of the hill people. Singh then requested the delegation to list their concerns regarding the three bills in writing. Subsequently, on January 11 this year, the

JACAATB submitted a six-page document outlining what they thought was “anti-tribal” and infringement on the constitutionally guaranteed tribal rights in the bills. Since then, there has been no substantial talk between the two sides.

The classification of the Protection of Manipur People Bill, 2015 as a money bill was sinister, as it was done to bypass the Hill Areas Committee. The expenditure from the consolidated fund is only incidental and not the main provision of the bill. The Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972, states that “every bill, other than a money bill, affecting wholly or partly the hill areas and containing mainly provisions dealing with any of the scheduled matters shall, after introduction in the Assembly, be referred to the Hill Areas Committee for consideration and report to the Assembly.”

Given the deep division between the hill and valley people on the issue, it was a right decision on the part of the president to return the bills back for re-examination by legal and constitutional experts. The state government should now take steps to build trust between peoples of the hill and the valley, as well as the hill people and the state government. The government should take steps to initiate a dialogue between the representatives of the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System and the JACAATB. Meanwhile, the state government should act against police personnel responsible for the death of nine tribal people, whose bodies remain unburied for more than 250 days.

The recent pattern of violence in the state has the potential of not only dividing the people but also a danger of territorial disintegration if left unaddressed.

Date: 17-06-16

Weakening the watchdog

• M. R. MADHAVAN

The Delhi government has appointed 21 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries. Several other State governments have also taken this route in the past; earlier State governments in Delhi have also made such appointments, although fewer in number. This is part of a trend of weakening the power of legislative bodies by governments which has developed over the last three decades.

Most modern republics build in the concept of separation of powers in their Constitutions. The idea is that no particular organ of state should have a concentration of powers. Different institutions act as a check on the actions of others. In the simplest form, there are at least three parts: the executive arm that makes and executes policies, the legislative arm that makes laws and holds the executive to account, and the judicial arm that adjudicates disputes and ensures that the other two arms do not violate the provisions of the Constitution. In particular, Parliament and State legislatures have the important duty of monitoring the actions of the government and holding it to account. Our Supreme Court has recognised separation of powers as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and can therefore strike down even amendments to the Constitution that infringe upon this principle.

Checks and balances

The concept of office of profit finds place in Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which state that an MP or MLA will be disqualified if he or she occupies such an office. The idea is that every legislator should be able to carry out legislative duties without any obligation to the government of the day. As Ministers have to be members of the legislature, they are exempt from this disqualification. The Constitution also recognises that there may be other cases where exceptions may be required and allows Parliament and State legislatures to make exemptions by passing a law. In several cases, courts have examined this issue and concluded that the key question is whether occupation of such office will make a legislator beholden to the executive. In general, a person is considered to hold an office of profit if four conditions are met: (a) he holds an office, (b) the office is one of profit, that is, it carries some benefits, (c) the office is under the control of the Central or the State government (d) the office is not that of a Minister or exempted by an Act of Parliament or State legislature.

The 91st amendment to the Constitution recognised the problem of the government trying to win over legislators by giving them ministerial berths. It limited the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, to 15 per cent of the strength of the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assemblies. For Delhi, Article 239AA of the Constitution limits the number to 10 per cent of the strength of the Legislative Assembly (which is seven persons). The question is whether by appointing 21 more MLAs as parliamentary secretaries — which will make 40 per cent of the membership have some type of an executive role — the nature of the Legislative Assembly is being changed. That is, whether such an Assembly will still be able to exercise its oversight role over the government. An argument has been made that these parliamentary secretaries will be able to aid the government in being more responsive to citizens’ needs. That argument, however, misses the point of separation of powers. The role of legislators is not to help the government do its job better, but to ensure that it functions in a proper manner. That is, the legislator exercises the role of a watchdog over the government on behalf of citizens and not as an agent of the government.

Disempowering the legislature

Two other developments, the anti-defection law and MPLADS/MLALADS (local area development schemes), also weaken the separation of the legislative arm from the executive. The anti-defection law was enacted in 1985 through the 52nd amendment to the Constitution. This requires all legislators to abide by the party diktat on every vote in the legislature. Therefore, the legislator cannot exercise independent judgement on any issue if the party leadership has taken a position. Thirty years of experience shows us that this has led to concentration of power in party leaderships. For instance, one sees any government that is trying to build consensus — such as for the Goods and Services Tax legislation — negotiate with the leaderships of various parties, rather than convince individual MPs on the merits of the case. Also, the ruling party can require all its MPs to vote in support of a motion. These MPs have effectively lost their rights — and therefore cannot do their duty — of exercising their independent judgement on issues and performing the watchdog role.

In 1993, the Central government started MPLADS, through which legislators can earmark a certain amount of public funds for projects in their constituency. The concept has been adopted by many states as MLALADS. The argument was that elected MPs and MLAs know the needs of their electorate well and can be effective in allocation of resources. This again subverts the role of legislators. Their role is to allocate the entire Central and State budgets, and to monitor the spending. They are expected to use their knowledge of ground-level issues in this allocation, and see that the funds are spent properly. By providing each of them a specific amount to spend on projects, their oversight role is weakened.

The role of legislators is critical in a democracy. They are elected by citizens, and have the task of ensuring that the government is acting in the best interests of the public. In this, they are expected to exercise their independent judgements on what constitutes public and national interest. They act as a bulwark against autocratic actions of the executive. Therefore, it is imperative that their independence is protected. Actions that impinge on such independence, such as excessive appointments to executive positions, the anti-defection law and MPLADS, should be reversed. Otherwise, there is a risk of a slow erosion of the institution of legislatures, which could put at risk the very existence of our republic.

M.R. Madhavan is the President and co-founder of PRS Legislative Research.

Date: 17-06-16

Views to watch

There is little that is surprising about India’s recent refusal to allow Google to launch its Street View service, which gives users a 360-degree view of public spaces. As this newspaper has reported, the proposal was rejected following objections raised by the Defence Ministry. The decision is said to have come in the backdrop of the terror attack on the Pathankot airbase in January, with investigators suspecting that terrorists used Google Maps to study the topography of the targeted area. Barely days after the airbase attack, the Delhi High Court asked the government to examine the issue of sensitive locations such as defence installations and nuclear power plants showing on Google Maps. It isn’t clear if these concerns have been addressed. Street View goes a step further than the maps. It displays panoramic views of public spaces, thanks to images captured by Google’s moving vehicles, adding a layer of depth and reality to the maps. India has hinted that its refusal is not final and that such issues could be resolved once the Geospatial Bill, which seeks to regulate map-creation and sharing, comes into force. But it is unclear whether this will help, given that the proposed legislation is somewhat overenthusiastic about regulation. India isn’t the first country to seem troubled by Street View. Since its launch in 2007 in the U.S., the service has faced roadblocks in many countries. In the U.S., for instance, both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense had concerns over Google capturing images of sensitive locations. In Europe, especially Germany, concerns over loss of privacy took centre stage. The script wasn’t different in Japan.

And yet, Street View is available in all these countries. Solutions were eventually found. Before long, the service figured out a way to blur people’s faces and licence plates automatically before the pictures were made public. In the U.S., Google was asked to remove sensitive information, and its image-capturing cars were ordered to keep off military bases. In Germany, households were given the option of blurring their buildings. In Japan, the height from which the cameras scanned the neighbourhoods was lowered and local governments were notified prior to Google’s photography. Even Israel, which takes internal security very seriously, gave the green signal to Street View five years ago, reportedly making sure Google doesn’t show images in real-time and only photographs public spaces open to all. While there is an obvious tourism angle involved, Google representatives have spoken of Street View’s usefulness in disaster management. All things considered, it might not be in India’s best interests to keep out this technology for long.

Date: 18-06-16

Adequate storage for hybrid renewables

There is much potential for solar plants and wind farms to be complementary as the latter can function while the former is inactive. It follows that solar-wind hybrid systems can reduce variability in generation and bring about better grid integration. But the draft national wind-solar hybrid policy seems to put the cart before the horse, as it were.

The draft policy says the central regulatory commission should firm up guidelines for determining tariffs for the hybrid systems, and further that the body needs to frame guidelines for scheduling and wheeling power from the hybrids. But in the absence of such critical norms, to expect investments to actualise suggests the triumph of hope over experience. The draft text is replete with trite truisms: there is scope for solar photovoltaic capacity in existing wind farms, and wind potential in the vicinity of solar plants. The policy avers that the hybrid power fed into the grid will not be more than the transmission capacity/grid connectivity allowed for existing wind or solar project. But it is obvious that adequate line capacity is required for evacuation. Storage is another vital challenge.

The policy does rightly mention that solar and wind power being infirm in nature pose challenges for grid security and stability. And as we aim to scale up solar- and wind-operated power plants to utility size, we need to be seized of the issues of grid stability and power storage for renewable energy plants. The policy does mention in the fag end that the government would support development of standards and technology for hybrid systems. But there seems much too much focus on garnering fiscal, financial and various other incentives for individual stand-alone solar and wind projects. Such a policy stance can plain mis-allocate resources and lead to high costs.

Date: 18-06-16

Smoothen Out Distortions

Market-friendly or simply business-friendly? It depends on how India pushes for real reformsThe Narendra Modi government swept into power two years ago on a reform agenda. The prime minister had promised to unlock the latent power of the private sector to drive increased economic activity and initiated a reform process that has proved difficult to fully realise.

National-level reform is difficult everywhere. But it seems particularly so in India. Evidence from the transitions in the former Soviet Union and Latin America, in particular, shows that opening trade and border barriers, without addressing internal economic distortions — government restraints that are anti-competitive — also often leads to partial reform and crony capitalism.

It has proved difficult to overcome the vested interests that benefit from these distortions, or anti-competitive market distortions (ACMDs). In this regard, India’s experience is not so different from the experience in other markets that are also in the process of reform.

ACMDs are typically laws or regulations that protect a privileged or vested-interest elite group by blocking competition or artificially raising the costs of competitors. India has adopted a form of these with its embrace of local content regulation in a number of areas.

Simply being business-friendly is not enough. For true reform, government policies must be market-friendly. A host of protective regulation shelters under the guise of being business-friendly (usually protecting preferred, privileged businesses).

On May 23, the Legatum Institute, a global think tank based in London, launched a ground-breaking report on the challenges and opportunities faced by the modern Indian economy. ‘Anti-Competitive Market Distortions and Their Impact: A Case Study of India’ (goo.gl/jOwJxs) explores potential growth areas for the country and quantifies the cost of inaction across several key sectors through the focal lens of domestic competition, trade and property rights.

Garibi Hatao, Here’s How

The study’s results are dramatic:

If India eliminated all its distortions, it would be the fifth-largest economy in the world, and in GDP per-capita terms, it would rise from being ranked 169th to being ranked 67th.

If India eliminated all its distortions, it would generate over 200 million new jobs, and reduce absolute poverty to zero.

If India improved its insolvency rules, opened up to foreign investment in certain areas and better protected intellectual property rules, the number of people living on less than $2 per day would be reduced from 770 million to 627 million.

Simply optimising its regulatory environment with regard to the World Bank’s ‘Doing Business Index’ would lead to a productivity gain of only 0.07%. This is because deeply embedded structural issues hamper India’s economic development. Simply improving business registration processes and procedures will lead to some new business creation, but will not be sustainable unless accompanied by deeper reforms.

Improving its insolvency rules, opening up to foreign investment in certain areas and better protecting intellectual property (L2) could lead to a productivity gain of 148%.

Removal of distortions across the dimensions of trade, competition and property rights protection could lead to a GDP gain of around 650%.

Labour market flexibility is a key driver and accounts for about a quarter of the overall GDP gain possible.

The report additionally contains a treatment of both the civil aviation (goo.gl/5bs6KE) and the cotton-textile-garment sector (goo.gl/byF0hD) where there are significant distortions. This is particularly impactful in India where so many people are employed in these sectors.

The opportunity for India to completely eliminate poverty is, by far, the most outstanding finding of this report, and the most encouraging to the future of the country. At present, nearly 60% of Indians (770 million people) live on $2 a day or less, and roughly 23% of Indians (307 million people) live on $1.25 a day or less.

The second level of the report’s modelling posits removal of many ACMDs, including the allowance of foreign currency bank accounts, removal of international capital controls, improving insolvency provisions, shoring up intellectual property protection and increasing transparency of government policymaking.

Implementing these changes would result in an 11% reduction in the number of Indians living on less than $2 a day (143 million people lifted out of poverty), and a 4.5% reduction in the number of Indians living on less than $1.25 a day (59 million lifted out of poverty). The total elimination of distortions in India is, of course, impossible. But this represents an aspirational goal. The 656% increase in GDP would lead to the complete elimination of poverty at $2 a day and $1.25 a day in India.

Dear Darlin’, You’re Fired

If the Indian people are to reap the rewards that can be gained from a reduction of distortions, the government will need to seize the initiative and push structural reform even in the teeth of resistance from the beneficiaries of distortions.

The test for the Indian government is whether it is market-friendly or simply business-friendly, and whether the difference is truly understood. The stakes for the Indian economy, the Indian people and the relief of poverty could not be higher.

Singham is CEO, and Kiniry is managing associate, the Competere Group

Date: 17-06-16

डर और कर