To Download Click Here.

Date: 23-06-16

Scrap rail budget

Ending the practice of a separate rail budget is an important step to improve performance

A look at the way Indian Railways runs gives an insight into why India has been left far behind by China. An opaque system of cross-subsidies has led to substandard passenger services and overpriced freight transport. The upshot is a twofold blow for citizens. We get bad service and are simultaneously deprived of economic opportunities. In this context, the annual rail budget perpetuates the status quo. It provides an opportunity for political grandstanding through populist announcements, with people unaware that railways cannot afford to deliver on them. Fortunately, this might change.

Niti Aayog is reported to have recommended that the annual rail budget be folded into the regular budget. This represents an important step in reforming railways to make it an engine of India’s economic growth. Last year, a committee headed by Niti Aayog member Bibek Debroy recommended scrapping the annual rail budget as an important step in a series of measures to enhance the organisation’s performance. That committee was preceded by others suggesting similar reforms, which means that NDA government has a ready template on how to proceed. What it needs now is the political will to implement the reforms.

At present, some key figures rail budget presents cannot be entirely relied on to represent the true state of affairs. The problem stems from the organisation’s inadequate accounting system. Railway authorities need to move to a commercial accounting system which will make it possible for a regulator to fix tariffs, among other things. This announcement does not have to be an annual affair. Instead, it could be far more dynamic for railways to compete effectively with road transport. Better accounting practices, as suggested by the Debroy committee, will lead to a point where a separate rail budget becomes superfluous. India’s economic policy needs pragmatism and not budgetary populism.

Date: 22-06-16

Revisiting the Rajya Sabha’s role

VALERIAN RODRIGUES

In addition to its role of representation and accountability, the Upper House must reflect the difference in our polity — difference marked not merely by its culture but its diversity

The recent elections to the Rajya Sabha to fill 57 vacant seats became notorious for alleged poaching by political parties among the ranks of their counterparts with charges of corruption blaring out loud against one another. While such charges are not new, their extent was magnified in this round since these elections were crucial for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and the opposition Congress to decide who holds the scales in the Upper House. The former has found many of its pet legislative proposals stonewalled due to the lack of majority support in the House, while the latter has turned it into an important trench for its war of position against the ruling dispensation.

While the Rajya Sabha has generally played second fiddle to the Lok Sabha during the periods of preponderance of a ruling regime in both the Houses, it has become an important platform of resistance to the majoritarianism of the Lok Sabha during the Janata regime (1977-79), National Democratic Alliance (NDA) rule (1998-2004), UPA II (2009-2014) and in the last two years of NDA rule. While some instances of such resistance could be regarded as whimsical and grandstanding, overall they drew attention to the fact that electoral victory to the lower House may entitle a party to rule but not necessarily govern unless it reaches out and engages with the central concerns and interests embedded in the polity. This was clearly voiced in the resistance against the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 2002, corruption charges against the government during 2011-14, and the proposed amendment to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act in 2015.

Rationale of the House

But the Rajya Sabha is not merely meant to play such a salutary oppositional role. Unfortunately there has not been much reflection with regard to the nature and purpose of this House in India after the brilliant debate in this regard in the Constituent Assembly. While it is important to highlight the case of corruption in the election of the members to this House, and resist the tendency of parties to pack the House with their high and mighties without consideration to their being worthy or not to play the representative role, it is imperative to draw attention to the role that the Rajya Sabha needs to play in the Indian body politic today.

In the Constituent Assembly debates we find a set of four distinct reasons advanced in defence of the Rajya Sabha. First, some members of the Assembly saw it as a House of reflective and evaluative reasoning removed from the hurry-scurry of everyday life. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar termed it as the House which can rein in “passions of the moment”. Lokanath Mishra described it as “a sobering House, a reviewing House, a House standing for quality and the members will be exercising their right to be heard on the merits of what they say, for their sobriety and knowledge of special problems; quantity, that is, their number, is not much of moment”. In the same vein, M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar thought that in such a platform of reflective consideration, “the genius of people may have full play”, and it can make place for people “who may not be able to win a popular mandate”.

Clearly there was much elitism and condescension in such a conception of the House, that led to frequent potshots between members of both Houses in the early days of the Parliament that were eventually reined in by rules of Privilege Motion. Second, apart from the review and revaluation role, there was a broad consensus in the Assembly for the need for a second legislative chamber to initiate proposals for public policy, to elicit responsiveness from public authority, and to hold governments accountable. The constitutional provisions on division of work between the Houses clearly bear it out. However, in this conception, the Rajya Sabha largely duplicates the functions of the Lok Sabha and therefore, in the words of Abbé Sieyès, turns out to be “superfluous”.

Such an understanding has led to repeated introduction of private members’ bills in the Lok Sabha for the abolition of the Rajya Sabha, as well as moves by the enthusiasts of the House to introduce bills to widen its jurisdiction. Needless to say, none of these proposals has made much headway. A third conception saw the House as the authoritative platform to accommodating diversity, although much of this consideration laid emphasis on political diversity reflecting federal arrangements, drawing parallels with the United States in the process. In this conception while the Lower House was meant to represent the citizen-community at large, the Upper House, primarily voted in by elected members of the State Assemblies, would represent the nation “as a differentiated whole”.

The slide

Clearly the nature of diversity in India, and the distribution of powers it resorted to through federal arrangements, was markedly different from the United States. There was a fourth conception of the House, which was not lucidly spelt out in the Constituent Assembly debates, although it could be read on the sidelines again and again, captured by the late L.M. Singhvi in the phrase “the grand inquest of the nation”. While this conception saw diversity as an essential ingredient that should inform the Upper House in India, it saw diversity not necessarily wholly encompassed by federal arrangements. Such a condition called for a very distinct overlapping representation through the Upper House. Such a conception owed much to the principle that while all representative democracies have a predictable role for the House, elected through universal adult franchise, the Upper House is a unique response to the distinct historical and cultural contexts of a polity it is called upon to represent. To what extent has the Rajya Sabha lived up to these expectations?

There are a few formal tasks exclusive to the Rajya Sabha in addition to the other chores it shares with its counterpart, the Lok Sabha, such as the power to transfer a subject from the State List to Union List for a specified period, to create additional All-India Services, and to endorse Emergency under Article 352 for a limited period when the Lok Sabha remains dissolved. While it does not have the power to approve money bills, it can offer its own suggestions on them, and while it has no representation in the Estimates Committee, its members have a proportionate share in all other committees of the Parliament, including those closely linked with financial dealings such as the Public Accounts Committee, Committee on Public Undertakings and the Standing Committees related to Ministries/Departments. The removal of the domicile requirement mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by the five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 2006 in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India and Others has further watered down the mark of diversity that was the hallmark of the Rajya Sabha. In other words, the Rajya Sabha has turned out to be another chamber of the Parliament akin to the Lok Sabha, except for the mode of selection of its members.

The thinning out of difference between the two Houses of the Indian Parliament, however, does not make the Rajya Sabha superfluous. Given the articulation of the Indian polity, in the foreseeable future the party composition of the Houses will be markedly varied in the two Houses. Given the trend of shoving off difference under the homogenising drive in the dominant dispensation today, and a majoritarianism that necessarily spells exclusion, a forum such as the Rajya Sabha can be the voice of sanity, of the excluded, and of citizen rights. It can ensure, at least to the extent constitutional provisions go, that the majoritarian thrust of the Lower House does not undermine rule of law and public institutions. It is to the credit of the Rajya Sabha that it has come to play this role at critical junctures, and particularly in the present. But is it enough? In this context it might be important that the nature and role of the Rajya Sabha be revisited, rather than merely think of it as the parking lot for those who cannot ensure their election from a popular constituency.

Direction of reform

In addition to its present role of representation and accountability, the Rajya Sabha could be the House that represents difference in our polity, difference marked not merely by its culture but its diversity. Difference in India is encoded not merely around regions, languages, and communities but also in its inegalitarian social relations. Representation through federal units hardly captures these multiple and often overlapping differences. There are some constituencies which will never be able to ensure their adequate representation through the electoral route: Muslims; women; linguistic, religious and ethnic diversity; regions such as the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir; urban informal labour; the rural poor, just to name a few constituencies. The Constituent Assembly debates, and the need for the Upper House to be embedded, are a sufficient justification in this regard. One can understand the deep discomfiture that some of the nominated members feel in the House given the adversarial context in which they have to function. There are probably ways to shape representation that reaches out and connects to nodal concerns without being overwhelming.

Valerian Rodrigues is an Indian Council of Social Science Research National Fellow and Professor at the Department of Political Science, Mangalore University.

Date: 23-06-16

Moral Strength for Effective Opposition

Politics must change on both sides in the House

With the BJP-led regime and the Opposition at loggerheads, India’s politics has descended into gridlock. Animosities run so deep that dialogue seems impossible. We have argued that the government must engage the Opposition to get things back on track. But what should the Opposition, ideally, do? Its role is to act as a watchdog for the rights of every citizen and hold the government to account. Today, the Opposition does so only intermittently, almost always for partisan interests.

One major reason is that the Opposition is fractured. At least seven major states, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu, are governed by regional outfits that have little in common. Several regional satraps aspire for national roles, but lack vision. Their ideological commitment to constitutional goals, human rights, equality of religious, ethnic, community, caste or tribal rights is suspect. Policy — like a recent liquor ban in Bihar — which can criminalise society rapidly and impoverish the exchequer faster, is implemented on whim. Law melts into disorder, more often than not, in states like UP and Bengal. Graft is rampant. These parties need to first set their house in order to carry moral authority as a responsible Opposition in New Delhi. That leaves the Congress. With just 44 seats in the Lok Sabha now and an apparently exhausted leadership, the Congress’ ability to be India’s conscience keeper looks suspect. It need not be thus, if it goes back to its roots of democratic activism and stands up for the rights of dispossessed and politically marginalised folk. This is a vast constituency. Its grievances cannot substantively be addressed by raucous majoritarianism or repeated promises of jam tomorrow. Parties must remember their fundamental loyalty is to every citizen. Gandhi advocated using impact on the poor as the yardstick for assessing any policy. Parties should act on that principle, not according to narrow, selfish goals. Then, and only then, will they have the moral authority to function as an effective Opposition. And the nation needs one.

Date: 23-06-16

There’s no need for a separate Rail Budget

A Niti Aayog note to the PMO has reportedly called for dispensing with the practice of presenting a separate rail budget. The move makes eminent sense. Given the policy imperative of closer economywide integration of the railways, the way forward is for the Union Budget to include and incorporate rail finances, preparatory to spinning off the Railways as several corporate entities at arm’s length from government finances, on the lines of public enterprises, some of which have a higher turnover than the Railways.

Successive railway ministers have used the annual budget to play populist politics announcing new projects of suspect viability and refusing to raise fares to viable levels needed to augment capacity. True, the current incumbent has changed tack. That is all the more reason to scrap the annual exercise. There is no constitutional requirement to do so. And the Railways Act, 1989, anyway grants the central government the leeway to revise tariffs without consulting Parliament. Reforms like the recent parcel train between Delhi and Bengaluru that runs according to a time schedule are most welcome.

Railways must modernise budgetary practices and adopt corporate accounting, to keep better tab on finances. The railways, for instance, need to accurately work out the social costs involved in their operations so that there is transparent subsidy-sharing with the Centre and the states. The sustained underinvestment in the railways needs to end. The way ahead is to have independent regulatory oversight on the railways, including for fares and freight tariffs, and open up rail infrastructure for much-needed competition and private sector participation to bring qualitative improvement in rail services. A separate rail budget serves no worthwhile purpose.

Date: 23-06-16

इसरो ने सातवें आसमान पर पहुंचाया भारत का हौसला

आजादी के बाद से ही भारत सरकार ने कई उपायों से इस दिशा में काफी प्रयास किए हैं, किंतु इसकी पहुंच छोटे व मझोले किसानों तक अब भी काफी सीमित मात्रा में है। कृषि क्षेत्र में ऋण प्रवाह के साथ-साथ इसके लिए समग्र वित्तीय उत्पाद की उपलब्धता भी उतनी ही जरूरी है। इसमें किसानों और कृषि को ऋण के अलावा बीमा कवर भी दिया जा सकता है। यह इसलिए जरूरी है, क्योंकि किसानों की ऋण जरूरतों को ही पूरा करना पर्याप्त नहीं है। यदि फसल बर्बाद होती है या उत्पादन कम होता है तब किसान के पास ऋण चुकाने का कोई विकल्प नहीं बचता। ऐसे में बीमा उत्पाद जैसी सुविधा ही उनकी मदद कर सकती है। इस पर भी ध्यान दिया जाना चाहिए कि कृषि क्षेत्र को दिया जाने वाला ऋण पूर्णत: कृषि और कृषकों के लिए ही नहीं होता, बल्कि भंडारगृहों, कोल्ड स्टोरों, सिंचाई, ग्रामीण विद्युतीकरण आदि कार्यों के लिए दिया जाने वाला ऋण भी कृषि ऋण में ही शामिल कर दिए जाने से यह भ्रमित करता है। इससे कृषि ऋण आंकड़ों में तो बढ़ जाता है, किंतु वास्तविकता इसके विपरीत होती है। आज भी छोटे व मझोले किसानों की पहुंच संस्थागत ऋण स्नोतों तक नहीं हो पाई है।

इस बात के कई प्रमाण उपलब्ध हैं कि साधन संपन्न और चुनिंदा किसान ऋण सुविधाओं का लाभ उठा रहे हैं, जबकि विपन्न और जरूरतमंद किसान अब भी संस्थागत स्नोतों से ऋण पाने के लिए संघर्षरत हैं। जनधन जैसी योजना के बावजूद भी किसानों की इस समस्या में कोई सुधार नहीं हुआ है। कई बार आम किसानों को बैंकों द्वारा उचित व्यवहार भी नहीं मिल पाता ऋण तो दूर की बात है। सच यह है कि राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंकों की अपनी मनमानी रहती है। अधिकतर ग्रामीण क्षेत्रों में तो ये बैंक आरबीआइ के दिशानिर्देशों को भी नहीं मानते। दूर-दूर तक अवस्थित बैंक में कई माह तक लगातार दौडऩे के बाद कहीं जाकर किसान को यदि ऋण प्राप्त हो भी जाता है तो इसके लिए उन्हें बिचौलिए और कागजी कार्यवाही में ही भारी रकम चुकानी पड़ जाती है। दूसरी तरफ कई बार बैंकों द्वारा जमानत आदि की मांग भी रखी जाती है। आज भी देश के हजारों गांव बैंक शाखा से रहित हैं। वित्तमंत्री के लगातार आते बयानों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में यह तथ्य बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है कि हर गांव में बैंक सुविधा क्यों नहीं दी जा सकती? क्यों नहीं हजारों वंचित गांवों में एक-एक बैंक शाखा खोली जा सकती है? ऋण प्रदान करने का वास्तविक मकसद उत्पादन लागत में सहायता देना होता है, जो फसली सीजन में होना चाहिए, जबकि इसके विपरीत बैंकों द्वारा दिए जाने वाले ऋण का संबंध इस सीजन से बाहर होता है। कहने का मतलब यह है कि ऋण वितरण फसली मौसम यानी खरीफ के लिए जून से सितंबर तक तथा रबी के लिए दिसंबर-जनवरी में होना चाहिए, जबकि अधिकांश बैंकों द्वारा इस तथ्य का ख्याल न करके अपनी सुविधा के अनुसार ऋण वितरण किया जाता है। ऐसी स्थिति में प्राप्त ऋण के दुरुपयोग की संभावना भी बढ़ जाती है। ऐसे कई उदाहरण भी देखने को मिले हैं जब किसान क्रेडिट कार्ड से प्राप्त ऋण का उपयोग कृषकों द्वारा कृषि कार्य में न करके अन्यत्र उपयोग किया गया है। हमें इस स्थिति से निपटने के भी उपाय करने की आवश्यकता है। इसके लिए वित्तीय तंत्र की दक्षता को बढ़ाने तथा निगरानी प्रणाली को दुरुस्त करने की जरूरत है।

कृषि ऋण के संदर्भ में एक समस्या यह भी सामने आती है कि इससे बैंकों में एनपीए की समस्या बढ़ जाती है। हमें इस समस्या से निपटने के उपाय ढूंढऩे होंगे। इसके लिए दो तरीके के उपाय अपनाए जा सकते हैं। पहला किसान की वास्तविक जरूरत की पहचान करना और दूसरा समय पर पारदर्शी व सहज-सरल व्यवस्था के साथ ऋण प्रदान कराना। इसके साथ ही कड़ी और चुस्त निगरानी और समन्वयन प्रणाली बनाई जाए ताकि किसानों द्वारा ली गई राशि का दुरुपयोग न हो। बैंकों और किसानों के बीच बिचौलियों के प्रवेश को रोकने के लिए बैंकों तक सहज-सुलभ पहुंच का वातावरण निर्मित करने की भी जरूरत है। इन सबके साथ कृषि ऋण व्यवस्था को सशक्त, सहज और लक्ष्य केंद्रित बनाने के लिए बेहतर आधारभूत ढांचे के निर्माण पर बल देने की आवश्यकता है। भारतीय बैंकों की ग्रामीण शाखाओं में लागत और आय का अंतर काफी अधिक होता है। इस समस्या से निपटने के लिए हमें बैंकों के निष्पादन को बेहतर बनाने के साथ शाखारहित बैंकिंग की अवधारणा को मजबूत करने की आवश्यकता है।

[ लेखक राजीव सातव, कांग्रेस के लोकसभा सदस्य हैं ]