Government Versus Governance

Government (noun): The group of people and/ or organisations with the authority to govern a country or a state.

Governance (noun): The action or manner of governing a state.

The advent of Narendra Modi on the national stage has popularised the term “more governance, less government”. On the face of it there seems to be a contradiction. Government is what delivers governance, so how can diminishing the doer; improve what is to be done.

The resolution to this contradiction can be found in a witty exchange between Sir Humphrey Applebee (cabinet secretary) and Bernard Wooly (private secretary to the PM) in the British tele-series Yes Prime Minister:

“Sir Humphrey Applebee: Bernard, what happens at the moment if there is some vacant land in say, Nottingham and there are rival proposals for its use?

Bernard Wooly: Well, we set up an inter-departmental committee: Department of Health, Department of Education, Department of Transport…Treasury…Environment etc. Ask for papers, hold meetings propose, discuss, revise, report, redraft, report back…

Sir Humphrey Applebee: Precisely, months of fruitful work, leading to a mature and responsible conclusion. But if we have regional government, they would decide it all in Nottingham, perhaps in a couple of meetings…the complete amateurs.

Bernard Wooly: It is their city.

Sir Humphrey Applebee: …and what happens to us?! Much less work!...so we have much less power…and if the right people don’t have power…you know what happens…the wrong people get it….ordinary voters!”

Clearly the problem arises when the government (noun) becomes an organism of self preservation rather than a mechanism of delivering governance as it should have been. It is at this point that governance declines and the size of the government increases. And like with any other organism interested only in self preservation as the body of government grows it requires more resources, gets an ego to match and sets up mechanisms and processes that further only its existence at the cost of its true function.

For example, in 1985 India had 55 secretaries and 42 government ministers. Today after no less than 30 commissions have studied downsizing (1947-2007), the government has swollen to 79 ministers and 145 secretary and secretary equivalent positions.  

           Source: White elephants article by SHANKKAR AIYAR, NEERAJ MISHRA  JUNE 18, 2007

Virtually every third member of the current ruling alliance is a minister, indicating that the government has not expanded to meet any governance needs but perhaps to create jagirs that can be conferred in exchange of political support. Off the bat, several ministries seem to have lost relevance or appear redundant. Steel, Coal, Mines, Telecom and IT, Minority Affairs, North East, Railways, Statistics, Textiles, Labour, Parliamentary Affairs, Overseas Indian Affairs, HRD, Health & Family Welfare, Social justice, Women and Child Development, Youth affairs etc is an illustrative list of a few that that could be scrapped, relegated to department status or merged. Perhaps a detailed blog on this specifically might follow.

Bimal Jalan (former RBI governor) stated sometime in 2007, “If one wants to improve sports facilities for women in rural areas it is not one but seven ministries (Rural Development, Social Justice, Sports, Youth Affairs, Finance, Women and Child Welfare and Panchayati Raj besides the Planning Commission) who will be involved”. As such, multiple ministries create complexities and there is always someone else to pass the buck to, thus diminishing accountability. 

As the government now exists to grow itself, it creates structures and regulatory frameworks to justify its size. I believe that this has resulted in an “Us and Them” problem in India. “Us” being the ordinary citizens and; “Them” being the government machinery. The way India’s government operates makes it difficult for citizens to identify with it as a partner, and many feel more like pawns rather than participants in the government. Therefore ordinary citizens try to steer clear of dealing with the police, municipality, courts etc. (how many times have we heard “police ki na dosti acchi, na dushmani” in popular media without a single eyebrow being raised?). The kindest view of the government I’ve heard is that the government is our “mai-baap” (parent), which is in itself sad. Government should be an enabler, not a crutch and certainly not a nanny.

The ‘break’ between the ruler and the ruled has manifested itself in curious ways in India. Anecdotally, we have all witnessed fellow Indians breaking rules. It is usually as simple as stopping ahead of the line at traffic signals (or not stopping at all), breaking lines for admission forms in colleges, offering bribes at police stations or traffic cops or customs etc. In fact the biggest democracy in the world has the dubious reputation that parents teach their children how to offer bribes or how to bargain down a bribe. A person who unabashedly breaks the law is considered ‘street smart’. Is it not bad enough to have a moral failing without having it glorified as well? Jugaad does not represent innovation in, but a breakdown of the system.

A 2007 Harvard study for the Quarterly Journal of Economics titled “Obtaining a drivers license in India: An experimental approach to studying corruption” made several interesting points. One of which relates to social attitude to paying bribes (which supports my point above) as follows:

 

Two alternative scenarios are put up for the sample universe in which the individual has been caught driving without a license.

Scenario A: The havaldar (officer) offers the candidate the choice of paying either an Rs3,000 fine or an Rs300 bribe. (Bribe is just 10% of the official fine)

Scenario B: The havaldar offers the candidate the choice of paying either a Rs500 fine or a Rs300 bribe (difference between doing the right thing and paying a bribe is just Rs200)

81% of the participants chose to pay the bribe under scenario A. It is however worth noting that even under scenario B a staggering 61% of the population chose to pay the bribe instead being a law abiding a citizen. The study also noted that there were no significant differences in the propensity to bribe across various groups in the sample population. As a country it is indeed worrying if 61% of its population chose to break the law even when the pay off was not commensurate with the benefit. 

            Harvard study for the Quarterly Journal of Economics called “Obtaining a drivers license in India: An experimental approach to                   studying corruption”

It almost seems like Indians, who are usually an exemplary expatriate group in foreign lands, seem to love sticking it to the government for the sake of it, given half a chance. It is interesting to analyse the genesis of how this “Us” and “Them” issue that has turned India into a nation of crooked Robin Hoods.

Consider this, the Retailers Association of India (http://rai.net.in/docs/List%20of%20Licence.pdf) spells out over fifty different permissions needed for starting various types of retail stores, as below: 

I am no expert, but assuming that only half or even a third of these permissions are required for any given store, it would still amount to a small entrepreneur wrestling with 17-25 different formalities (with perhaps a different government servant for each).

Interestingly, in his book ‘India Uninc.’ Professor R Vaidyanathan, studies bribes extorted from small businessmen (shops, roadside vendors). These bribes range from Rs10-Rs50/ day per victim and are estimated to add to a staggering Rs250 crore annually per non-metro city. Clearly, these bribes are likely in lieu of looking the other way when these establishments violate some rule or do not take one or more of any of these licenses and permissions. This is unfair to those shops who incur cost and face reduced profits to complete all these onerous formalities. Eventually, all shops are encouraged to break the law in lieu of greasing palms.

Similarly, in a study on truck transport industry carried out by The Centre for Media Studies it was estimated that bribes totalling to Rs22,000 crore was paid annually on the road. This is +35% more than India’s entire higher education budget for 2013-14. Truckers admitted that they paid bribes for failing to meet norms or to avoid delays. In fact now the situation is such that 60% of the times (as per the same survey) the officials don’t even give a reason before extorting money from truckers. There was a case in 2011 when a trucker who had not violated any overloading norms was mercilessly beaten to death by police/ RTO for refusing to pay a bribe nonetheless! If a truck driver is harassed and made to pay a fine anyway, why would he be bothered to satisfy the requirements of any road rules and licensing norms?

In the mind of this hapless small businessman/ trucker who is forced to pay, what relationship does he or she share with the government: a partnership? Or that of an extortion victim? What would be the reaction of such a person when presented with an opportunity to cheat on his taxes, for instance.

This seems like a cruel joke on Frederich Hayek who described the government as an entity that formulated and enforced policies that promote individual liberty. The state of affairs, such as it is, it doesn’t surprise me that a few small businessmen I’ve met describe the government as an obstacle course rather than a smooth highway. I believe the government has (successfully) tried to enhance its own presence and influence by installing a license/ inspector Raj of sorts (though arguably better today versus 20 years back). This license Raj red tape allows those in government to twist arms and becomes an easy conduit for bribe-seeking. This is because economies where regulatory control is too complex, time consuming, dependent on whims of government officials and generally opaque allows those in power (politicians and/ or civil servants) to extract their pound of flesh in return for withholding/imposing cost or benefit.

One way to further demonstrate the red tape – bribe link is by juxtaposing the ‘Doing business’ rank released by IFC-World bank as a proxy for regulatory quality with the ‘Corruption perceptions index’ released by Transparency International as the proxy for corruption. The scatter chart (below) clearly shows that countries with lean and efficient regulatory regimes display markedly lower corruption levels and vice versa. Admittedly, the data used is from 2010 but I believe that does not invalidate the point that is being made.

               Note: A high rank in “Doing business” indicates less friendly business environment, A high score in ‘Corruption  perceptions’                       indicates higher transparency, Source: Corruption, Institutions and Regulation (Feb 2010) by Michael Breen and Robert Gillanders

We find that the average corruption score for the top 20 easiest countries to do business in is 71.47, indicating low levels of corruption (least corrupt countries New Zealand and Denmark scored 91). On the other hand the 20 toughest countries to do business in clocked an average score of 24.47, indicating high levels of corruption. 

              Source: IFC-World Bank

Arguing that complexity is due to ‘checks and balances’ that are necessary to avoid some or the other pitfall does not hold true atleast in my mind. Does India have better checks and balances than Finland, for example? A Finnish entrepreneur can start a business in just fourteen days with just three procedures as per the IFC-World Bank report, what exactly are the checks and balances that Finland is compromising but India is not? How exactly onerous business rules contribute towards promoting individual liberty is not immediately clear to me. Is it then any surprise that the unincorporated space in India contributes about 45% to the national income, dwarfing the 15% by the corporate sector (Source: India Uninc.)? People are encouraged to stay off the grid than to assimilate.

Government involvement (or is it interference?) is not limited to the business commencement stage. Complex rules require the appointment of a large contingent of ‘inspectors’ to enforce them. A November 2013 article in ‘International Financing Review’ reviews the case of ‘Sanjiv’, a manager in a Mumbai textile store whose establishment faced about twenty inspections in a single year.  A CII-Deloitte study found that life is more onerous for manufacturing units that on average need to comply with nearly seventy laws and regulations. Apart from facing multiple inspections, units have to file as many as 100 returns a year. The data from the Deloitte study suggests that varying levels of management spend between 400 to 1,500 man days on compliance related activity. 

Source: CII-Deloitte report on Cost of Compliance in Manufacturing, January 2013

Sadly, the labyrinthine mechanism and their extra-legal shortcuts have become a method of co-opting businessmen and citizens. A September 2012 report in the NY Times ably demonstrates this. The article mentions a study looking at corporate contributions to political parties, which reveals that “Companies in technology and other service businesses — industries that require few government licenses or permissions — contributed almost nothing. The biggest donors were involved in mining, power and other sectors dependent on the government to obtain rights to natural resources”. If this isn’t telling the story of how businesses are co-opted by the system into bribing, I don’t know what is. I was unable to trace this study that is being referred to unfortunately. The larger point remains that it is no use crying “crony capitalism” without addressing its true genesis in the system itself. Businessmen not obliged to government discretion and ‘favours’ are less prone to funding political parties is what this study suggests, the others turn a vice into business strategy!

This deep entanglement between the private sector and the government for even routine operations is likely putting significant pressure on an already stretched bureaucracy. While this author has only limited data, a January 2012 report in ‘The Hindu’ (online) suggests that on per 100,000 resident basis, India has only about 20% the number of government servants as in the US (1,623 in India vs. 7,681 in US). Exacerbating the situation is the fact that almost 90% of (central) government servants belong to the lowest paid categories. This perhaps suggests that there is in fact a deep shortage of skilled staff that can actually handle the vigorous private sector interaction that is being regulated in by the government.

“Sometimes when there is talk of a minimum government one of the topics brought up is the size of the government. I don't want people to be sacked from their jobs. I endorse having the right size of government”

Narendra Modi

Source: The Hindu, Praveen Swami Jan 2012, Central Government data

Compounding the adequacy crisis, is the question of perceived inefficiency. Firstpost.com in 2012 reported a survey by the Hong Kong based Political & Economic Risk Consultancy. The survey ranked Indian bureaucracy as worst in Asia on the efficiency scale, lower even than Vietnam, Malaysia and China. The survey pointed out that bureaucrats in India are seldom held accountable for flawed decisions and it is extremely difficult to challenge them in case of disagreements. Firstpost.com also reported the survey as indicating that Indian bureaucrats are “game for under-the-table payments and companies tempted to play ball to overcome bureaucratic inertia”. Notably, this was not a one-off with Indian bureaucracy ranking worst in Asia for ten consecutive years.

                Source: Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/01/13/indias-bureaucracy-a-                             nightmare/

These twin issues of inadequacy and inefficiency coupled with virtually unbridled powers are best illustrated with the following example:

As per a November 2013 article by Anuj Gupta, India has around 70,000 registered boilers and only 250 boiler inspectors. Additionally, the law gave immense powers to the inspector that included shutting down a unit for inspection, and appointing agencies for repair and maintenance. This offered a fertile ground for corruption, right from getting an appointment of the inspector to not displeasing him lest he exercise his discretionary powers. In the words of Naveen Jindal (MD of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd), “For a long time, boiler inspectors have harassed many industries in the name of inspecting boilers. They are very corrupt and create problems for many industries. We have estimated that Indian industries will be richer by at least Rs 10,000 crore every year because of the new law”. I understand that the new law limiting the power of the inspectors was finally adopted in 2007 after a technical committee to study such changes was setup way back in 1972! The current status on implementation, however remains unknown to me.

In my view, this case best demonstrates the adequacy and efficiency issues with excessive government interference described earlier. Like in the case of the hypothetical retailer I mentioned earlier, isn’t it likely that the boiler owner used to consider the government a business problem rather than a business facilitator? Without making a moral judgement for now, is it then difficult to imagine this businessmen taking undue advantage of the government where possible?

As said by Hayek in The Road to Serfdom:

 “Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower, in short, what men should believe and strive for”

While so far I have mentioned the business side of government interference, it is no less in the case of personal lives of citizens. To take a simple example, and without moral judgement, is the issue of permits to consume alcohol in Maharashtra. If memory serves me correctly, this is an over 60 year old law that was suddenly enforced about two years back. The cost of the license ranges from Rs5-Rs1000 but the penalty for consuming alcohol without a license is a fine of Rs50,000 or five years in jail, or both. This again exposes a law abiding citizen to the whims of the inspecting police/excise officer.

What is the logic of this law? If there exists a sound logic then why is this law only enacted in one state leaving the rest of India ‘unprotected’. Notably to obtain this license, an ordinary citizen “shall apply to the Collector of Mumbai City / Superintendent of State Excise Mumbai or officer authorized by the State Govt” (http://mumbaicity.gov.in/htmldocs/liquor.htm). The common thread in government policy making appears to be the forced interaction of the private sector (individuals in this case) with a public official with discretionary powers at the pain of severe punishment.

This theme continues in virtually every sphere of most citizens’ lives. It is possible for a customs officer at the airport to make an arbitrary assessment of the value of goods brought in by passenger and put him in a situation where he has to pay a bribe. In fact I’ve once noticed a helpful ATM positioned right behind the customs station in the Mumbai airport. Why else would anyone withdraw cash without exiting the customs area?

An ordinary citizen’s passport hinges on the local police station giving a satisfactory visit report. Buying land and constructing a house is such a black hole for me that less said the better. It is not a surprise then that those government departments that come most in contact with ordinary citizens exhibit higher bribe propensity (data from ipaidabribe.com):

This complexity has led to the ‘dalal’ (broker) and ‘jugaad’ (quick fix) culture in India. It appears sometimes that the government rules are deliberately made so complex that a citizen is left with little choice other than engaging the services of a ‘broker/ agent’ to get the work done. This is best demonstrated in the 2007 Harvard driving license study that was mentioned earlier. The study found that agents are important players in the process with over 70% of the candidates who got the license hiring one. In fact agents facilitated licences for even those candidates that did not take the driving test. Many of such licensees did not pass an independent driving test carried out by the survey team from Harvard. To quote “Individuals who hire agents to get their licenses are about 38 percentage points more likely to fail the surprise driving test”. So not only does the system make it difficult for deserving candidates to get licenses, it actively encourages bad drivers to get one.

The table below lays out the stark differences between candidates who hired agents and those who did not:

This is not a rant against bureaucracy or law making, but the very logic underlying the existence of the government in India. If the system created is conducive to the exploitation of the ordinary citizen and businessman, then inevitably someone in power will use it to exploit. Hayek put it succinctly when he said:

“The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbour and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work”

Usually in a functioning system, these negatives would have been named and shamed by the media. Sadly, the media in India seems to have dropped the ball if the overwhelming chatter on social media is to be believed. As lines between politicians, corporates and media have blurred (see Newslaundry’s graphic at http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/07/who-owns-your-media/), the role of a journalist of a society’s conscience keeper has become diluted. It appears that media has also fallen victim to the ‘co-opting’ mentioned earlier.

The Radia tapes and their alleged link to super star journalists exposes this link quite comprehensively. Without going into judging whether the merits of the tapes (for which I have neither qualification nor expertise), at the very least they indicate a very comfortable relationship that even senior journalists enjoy with their subjects. I am not sure how that helps the journalist to remain objective.

Journalism is printing

what someone else does not want printed.

Everything else is public relations.

-- George Orwell.

A study carried out by Rahul Mitra (Purdue University) called: “Organizational Colonization and Silencing in the Indian Media With the Launch of the World’s Cheapest Car”, examines the linkages between organisations and media houses to look at how the media supports an organisations interests whilst smothering dissent. The report concludes “…the organization–media nexus constitutes ‘‘a clear and present danger to citizens’ participation in public affairs, understanding of public issues, and thus to the effective working of democracy’’ (Herman & McChesney, 1998, p. 1). I have used a case study in India to show the specific strategies whereby this nexus may reify dominant interests and marginalize dissidents.”

The larger question remains, when the system makes everyone an accessory to its crimes, who will expose them?

In summation, a government that has lost sight of its true function (ie to promote individual liberty) tends to be a self serving organism. This organism creates regulatory, tax and other structures that are geared towards its own survival and growth. These structures eventually become a tool for exploitation of ordinary citizens to whom the government seems like an obstacle course rather than a friend. A group which is consistently systemically harassed will come to view the system as an adversary rather than a facilitator. This will breed a generation that will thrive on loop holes and jugaad (breaking the law, bribing officials etc) to get around the system. This is also deeply anti-market as only the established players will have the ‘connections’ and resources necessary to ‘get things done’ thus keeping new competition out. This only prompts regulators to make new, sometimes knee jerk regulations to plug deficiencies, thus creating a vicious cycle that results in the government growing in size and governance declining.

A tragic example of the attitude towards knee jerk regulations is the recent murder in Delhi of a student from the North Eastern part of India. One of the reactions from the political bigwigs in Delhi was: 

                       Source: Twitter feed (1PM on Jan 2, 2014)

Is the murder of an innocent student ‘legal’ now, that a new law is needed? Shouldn’t the idea be to enforce the existing law against killing someone instead of perhaps focusing on earning political brownie points by enacting another law? If the existing IPC did not deter this killing, why would another law (not even framed yet) be a deterrent to these criminals? The only thing that will deter crimes is implementation, not mere ‘enactment’ (pun intended). If one didn’t know better, the entire process seems to run on the classic political syllogism:

All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. Therefore, my dog is a cat.

Translated thus for politician’s apparent quick draw view of law making:

This is wrong. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it.

This loop can be broken only when the basis for law making is enlightened. Ultimately all laws are ‘distortionary’ in nature given that they can be differently applied to different people. Example: Let us say the government enacts a law that all restaurants should close at 10PM everyday. The enforcement agency (e.g. police) can approach a restaurant to give them a bribe in return for looking the other way if the establishment remained open after the stipulated time. This ultimately puts another restaurant, which wants to follow the law and not indulge in graft, at a disadvantage as the enforcers have a legal weapon to clamp down on it until it cracks and pays up. Thus the law, rather than improving society, actually ends up promoting graft and systemic decay.

It is this potentially damaging power of laws that needs to be recognised by politicians and ensure that only those that are absolutely unavoidable are enacted. Also, instead on concentrating on post-facto resolution of bribery, politicians must take a proactive and preventive approach to this monster of an issue. A lot of the anti graft mechanisms in India appear to focus on the after-math of the bribe (ie. post bribe being given)…even the proposed Jan Lokpal. Being penal in nature, there is a significant burden of proof required to actually enforce these anti corruption laws which making them less of a threat to the crooked.

This problem can only be truly addressed if politicians concentrated on creating a system that stymies the origin of a bribe demand/ offer in the first place. Right now the system appears to be too personality dependent, ie. someone is an honest officer, someone else is corrupt, but an enlightened leader can install a system that is less ‘proprietary’. India seems to be getting this wrong.

Some of the key steps that can be taken are:

• Scrap those laws/ rules that aren’t absolutely necessary (e.g. alcohol license in Maharashtra)

• Remove all ambiguity in the interpretation of existing laws, redraft if necessary. Clarity in laws is essential to curb discretionary powers of government servants. E.g: 66A of the IT Act is a classic example of how ambiguous drafting allowed authorities to clamp down on free speech.

• Restrict the discretionary powers of government servants.

• Adopt self governance, self certifications where possible to limit ‘inspector raj’. A classic example is that of Narendra Modi who scrapped the requirement for government boiler inspection at the state-level and passed the task on to the boiler owners themselves.

• Introduce single window clearance for business purposes and even for individual needs. There is no reason why applying for a gas connection, polling card, PAN card, Aadhar card, passport etc cant be through the same office. Enforce a strict time limit for compeletion of work with specific responsibility assigned. Impose automatic penalty for any official that misses the deadline without reason on more than 3 instances a year, for example.

• Rationalise salary structures to reduce the ‘need’ aspect of bribe seeking. Consider this, against the United Nations recommended police: population ratio 1:450 (and Bureau of Police Research and Development’s estimate of 1:568), India has just one 1 policeman for 761 people. It is interesting to note that this ratio is a sharper 1:3 for protection VIPs. Reminds me of a quote from the book, Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Under such stressful conditions, a police constable in Mumbai works for atleast 12 hours a day, and a starting gross salary of just Rs12,000 is hardly enough to sustain his family. Notably constables account for 33,000 of the 38,500-strong Mumbai force. If the backbone of law enforcement is perhaps forced to seek bribes to even make ends meet, it hints at the systemic weakness I pointed out earlier where people are encouraged to break the law. Scrapping of superfluous ministries, departments and extra-constitutional bodies will no doubt generate income to aid in higher payments to the deserving.

• Adopt eGovernance aggressively. Even for things like toll collection, use RFID tech for auto deduction. This will remove blockages at toll booths and reduce incidence of toll booth violence. 

• The solution lies in reducing the government superstructure, not add to it. Focus on implementing a lean set of laws instead of drafting a new set of impractical laws that simply cannot be implemented.

It is my belief that every new law/ rule/ amendment must be evaluated carefully on the touchstone of individual liberty. India should have as many laws as absolutely necessary, and not a single one more. The underlying logic should be: Make laws reasonable and simple to follow, punish severely those who, despite such laws, break them.

As people lose the “Us and Them” complex, wilful breaking of laws and offering of bribes will decline. I believe that Indians are, due to their ancient culture, naturally fair minded people. If someone is convinced that he will get a fair deal, his propensity to bribe, or to do ‘jugaad’ will naturally diminish. When people feel ownership over the government, I believe hooliganism and even religious riots will decline.

In conclusion, I am reminded of a cynical quip, “no politician will ever change the very system that put him/ her into power”. If this is the case then the political solution for this problem can only come from someone who is not a product/ beneficiary of this system. It is perhaps time to retire the ‘old boys club’ (in politics as well as bureaucracy). However, it is also my belief that the rebuild job cannot be left upto someone who has had no experience navigating the system. Anarchy is not the solution to imperfection and simply not belonging to the old boys club is not enough of a qualification to lead this change.

While reforming the system clearly requires team work it cannot happen without a leader who will incentivise removal of red tape and not the other way around. India needs someone who has exhibited vision and delivered clear results whilst dealing with this same system in a constructive way. India neither has the time nor the patience for empty sloganeering nor to be a guinea pig for hit-or-miss experiments. What is needed is a strong, decisive leader to make the changes needed that will overhaul the ‘logic’ of government, whilst retaining the essence of our democracy.

Disclaimer: My sincere appeal is to readers to appreciate the intent of this write-up. The intent remains to see India as a free, fair prosperous nation that ensures opportunity for all with no discrimination. I do not claim to be an expert in administration nor do I wish to paint all politicians, bureaucrats etc with a wide brush. These are some stray thoughts that have crossed my mind during various interactions and I decided to put them down here as succinctly as I could. While I have taken care to ensure the correctness of data and charts I am by no means in a position to guarantee it. I do hope this blog post inspires everyone in a positive way rather than taking offense, which is is no way intended. 

Narrow wins and losses for BJP

 
Seats that I expect that will be won/lost by BJP by a margin lesser than 25,000 votes. I expect 87 seats to be such narrowly contested overall in my population space. Of these 62 are being narrowly won (29% of my overall prediction of BJP's seat tally of 215), and 25 being narrowly lost. I expect average margin of victory in such seats to be about 11,000 and average margin of loss to be about 12,000.

List given below. Believe it or not. I don't have a personal stake in any of them. Hope the relevant people to take notice and work harder.

Narrow wins

Madhya Pradesh: Bhind, Satna, Mandla (N), Ratlam (N), Khargone

Maharashtra: Dhule, Nagpur (N), Gadchiroli (N), Chandrapur, Palghar (N), Pune (N)

Chattisgarh: Bilaspur, Kanker

Karnataka: Gulbarga (N), Bellary, Upudi-Chikmangallur, Tumkur, Chikballur (N)

Bihar: Sitamarhi (N), Madhubani, Siwan (N), Sasaram (N)

Jharkhand: Godda, Lohardaga

UTs + NCR: Andaman/ Nicobar, Dadra/ NH, South Delhi (N)

Rajasthan: Churu, Jhunjhunu (N), Jaipur rural (N), Karauli Dholpur (N), Chittorgarh (N), Rajsamand (N)

Gujarat: Mahesana, Porbandar (N), Jamnagar (N), Amreli, Panchmahal, Bardoli (N)

Haryana: Faridabad (N)

Himachal Pradesh: Kangra

Uttar Pradesh: Lalganj (N), Deoria (N), Akbarpur (N), Faizabad (N), Gonda (N), Mirzapur (N), Varanasi, Amroha (N), Rampur (N), Fatehpur (N), Allahabad (N), Bahraich (N), Fatehpur sikri (N), Aligarh (N), Phoolpur (N), Maharajganj (N), Sitapur (N), Saharanpur (N)

Orissa: Mayurbhanj (N), Balasore (N)

Narrow losses

Madhya Pradesh: Indore (N)

Maharashtra: Bhiwandi

Chattisgarh: Durg (N)

Karnataka: Bidar (N), Davengere (N), Bangalore South

UTs + NCR: West Delhi

Punjab: Amritsar (N)

Rajasthan: Ajmer, Kota

Gujarat: Junagadh (N), Anand, Dahod, Bharuch (N)

Uttaranchal: Tehri Garwhal, Nanital Udhamsingh

Assam: Jorhat

Uttar Pradesh: Basti, Bulandshahr, Robertsganj, Domariyaganj, Nagina, Firozabad, Mohanlalganj, Shahjahanpur

N = seats which are giving effect opposite of the last time. eg. if a seat – Mandla was lost by BJP in the last elections and is being won now, it will have a ‘N’ suffix, and vice versa.

Election prediction for BJP

With the elections looming next year we have scores of pundits pontificating on polls on primetime. So I thought, why don’t I give it a shot. After all given their past records in forecasting, I can hardly do worse J

Anyway, I am not a statistician and given this handicap (or is it a strength?), I am not entirely convinced that a sample size of a 4-5,000 (a dozen or so respondents per constituency) will given prediction with any credible degree of accuracy. Imagine the same pool of a few thousand broken up into different constituency, different communities, different age groups, different age groups, different income groups etc etc. So how accurate can a statistical prediction be? I frankly don’t know. To my discredit of course.

What I have attempted to do is a seat-by-seat prediction across states. The calculation can be described as making some educated (and some uneducated) guesstimates of factors such as incumbency, increase in voting percentage, the Namo swing factor etc etc. In fact, the genesis of this calculation is the assumption that 2014 polls will be the most presidential style elections in India since perhaps the JP movement.

 
Let me first spell out the seat predictions, state-wise:

Uttar Pradesh                                         52 out of 80

Madhya Pradesh                                    25 out of 29
Karnataka                                               22 out of 28                                         
Bihar                                                   21 out of 40
Gujarat                                                19 out of 26
Maharashtra                                        15 out of 48
Jharkhand                                               12 out of 14
Rajasthan                                               11 out of 25
Chattisgarh                                             10 out of 11
Assam                                                05 out of 14
Haryana                                                  04 out of 10
Himachal Pradesh                                  04 out of 04
UTs+ NCR                                              03 out of 14
Orissa/ Odisha                                        03 out of 21
Punjab                                                 02 out of 13
Uttarakhand                                            02 out of 05
Goa                                                         01 out of 02
Arunachal Pradesh                                 01 out of 02
J&K                                                         01 out of 06
West Bengal                                        01 out of 42
Kerala                                                     01 out of 20
Total                                                     215 out of 454  

IBTL prediction                                      163 out of 543

Times Now Prediction                           162 out of 543
(based on IBTL tweet on 16^th Oct 13)

Andhra Pradesh (42 seats), Tamil nadu (39 seats) and north eastern states will be extras. I have not estimated these seats given the lower chances of BJP here and paucity of time for me. Anything here will be a bonus. I have assumed a 5% Namo vote share swing in Uttar Pradesh, but if this was to be 6% the seats would rise to 54 and if it was 10% the seats would be 65. But I have left it at 52 for the sake of being conservative. Notably, I assume BJP enters no alliances in UP pre poll.

I assume BSY will merge with BJP in Karnataka. The key point to be noted is that given the ‘quant’ nature of the estimates, these estimates make more sense when taken overall. For example, there are a lot of people who believe BJP will sweep the NCR in the Lok Sabha polls. However, my quant model does not give such results, hence I have given only 1 seat to BJP here. Similarly my estimates of MP and Karnataka may seem on the higher side compensated by Rajasthan and Gujarat that seem lower. But I have to apply the same logic uniformly to be sure I don’t unfairly penalise or give benefit to BJP.

While I do have some interesting observations, I do not have the time to detail them out now. One statement though: BJP has in the last 10 years given away a lot of easy seats to allies and even in a few places it was present it seemed comatose. Orissa for example where BJP used to win in several seats with a massive 30-50% vote share is now a distant dream for the party. West Bengal where BJP contestants get about 2-6% share of votes in virtually every seat has been ignored, as has the southern states. In fact, it seemed that the BJP leadership wanted to convert it into a JDU style regional party. However, it is my assumption and hope and prayer that the advent of Namo will change this comatose and lazy style of functioning and recharge the cadre to a national level.

As you can see under the table presented (above), my prediction is a more decisive than other polls (IBTL and Times Now) that appear to mirror each other. Are they too afraid to stray from consensus or am I plain wrong…only time will tell.

Party games!

Perhaps the longest held golden rule in Indian politics has been: Muslims and Christians vote en bloc while Hindu votes are scattered. So if you want to rule India, woo minorities, you can afford to ignore Hindus.

This rule has held due to a variety of reasons. One theory I’ve heard is the induced shame of their religion in the minds of the Hindus themselves. This makes them only apologetic Hindus and they vote ‘secular’ parties come election time. The other theory is based around Hindus being divided along caste lines causing political parties pander to that particular caste PLUS Muslims/ Christians. This causes a chunk of Hindus belonging to a particular group to vote for or against a particular Party. There is one more theory that there a bunch of Hindus would like to vote en masse for a Hindu-focussed party but have been disappointed with such partys. For example, while ABV provided a great government at the India level, they did very few things that a Hindu party was expected to do (e.g. Uniform Civil Code, Article 370 etc). There could be many more reason (even contradictory to ones mentioned) that have led to the golden rule being so successful till now, but they are not important for this post.

However, with the advent of Narendra Modi (Namo) this golden rule that scores of secular dynasties have built their mansions by no longer appears to hold. For the first time, the majority of Hindus appear to be converging under the BJP’s banner while the minority votes split among the various parties that profess secularism. This change in the established dynamic is unsurprisingly catastrophic for many established politicians in India. A classic deer in the headlights syndrome. They just don’t know what to do…and they are floundering.

So how does this change impact the fabric of Indian politics. Hmm. There are three types of Indian politicians as far as the golden rule of secularism (the way they define it anyway) is concerned. Some are completely wedded, even blinded, by it for political reasons (and perhaps other reasons best known to them). The second category is people who use it extensively for its electoral convenience and the third is the category that is considered ‘communal’ by the media or is not concerned with ‘secularism’ much.

The Congress, Communists, Muslim League etc, easily fall into the first category. Congress is the prime example that is so, so ‘secular’ that many online commentators consider them actively anti-Hindu (I reserve expressing my opinion on this here). This category will find it exceptionally hard to change tracks. In fact they are so blinded by the rule that has worked so well for so long they probably don’t even think they need to change, forget wanting to or being able to even if they wanted to.

Parties like Samajwadi Party (SP), Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Trinamool Congress (TMC), DMK, AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal (BJD) etc are in my opinion in the second category. Most of these were primarily personality based, caste based or region based identity politics parties, in fact they are what I like to call ‘accidental secularists’.

Parties like BJP, Shiromani Akali Dal, Shiv Sena etc fall into the third category. They have not benefited from any sort of secularism. In fact, BJP suffered between 1998 till date because its core constituency thought that is has deviated too far from its Hindutva (true secularism, some might say) in its pursuit of Indian style ‘secularism’.

With Narendra Modi led BJP growing in popularity, a lot of commentators have said that BJP will not find partners to form the next government. Because these geniuses are unable or unwilling to categorise political parties a little bit more subtly like I have done here. Category I seculars will of course not align with BJP at all. Category III will almost always be with the BJP barring any personality issues or conflicts.

The category that is most interesting is category II. It is this category that MSM is assuming will remain steadfast in its opposition to BJP, and this assumption is wrong.

With the allegedly increasing Bangladeshi presence in W. Bengal, and no signs of a revival of a Hindu identity yet in WB it is in TMCs interest to continue with its secular line for now. However a post election alliance is not ruled out. Though I still remain an advocate for BJP to foray aggressively into WB to establish its own base there. I am sure there is a fair sized constituency that want a BJP like option to vote for, that as of now seems absent.

Given the rapport that BJD and AIADMK enjoy with Narendra Modi I believe these two parties will also align with  BJP but mostly post election. BJD is largely a region/ state focussed party and AIADMK is a community focussed party, so for both Indian style secularism while desirable is not crucial for political survival. I expect both to join NDA after elections. It makes sense for them to keep their options open before elections just to hedge their bets. If BJP comes out in lead I think it’s a sealed deal. BJD may support NDA from outside while AIADMK may like to join NDA with a few ministerial berths.

Sharad Pawar’s NCP is the easiest one. He left Congress to form NCP solely on Sonia Gandhi’s foreign issue (and perhaps his own disappointment of not being able to become PM). But within short time did a volte-face to support Congress at the centre and state. In this he is bested only by Mulayam Singh of SP. Anyway, this is what we expect of Sharad Pawar, one of the most astute politician in the last half century in India. India’s version of Teflon Tony in some ways. If BJP were to come out in front, I have little doubt that NCP will join NDA. In fact a confirmation of this would be if after elections are declared NCP has some ‘disagreements’ on seat sharing with the Congress in Maharashtra state and then ‘suddenly’ decides to go it alone.

JD(U) is the saddest case IMHO. It partnered with BJP for the longest time and they have done some good work together. It was an interesting arrangement. JDUs Nitish Kumar became the CM of Bihar in partnership with the BJP. The leader of JDU, Mr. Sharad Yadav who was then politically senior to Nitish Kumar, became the convener of NDA and elevated himself to national status. He was likely to coordinator between BJP and JDU as well. As time passed, media gave a lot of attention to Nitish and despite being junior to Sharad in party political terms he became more popular than him. This has to hurt anyone, especially a politician who are said to live by popularity numbers. It is believed by some people that given his long absence from ground politics in Bihar, Sharad Yadav is dependent on his political survival on Nitish Kumar who likely has more actual control of the party-cadre machinery in Bihar. It is widely understood that Nitish has recently gotten into his head that he himself is Prime Ministerial material. That he has tried to scuttle BJP’s nomination of Narendra Modi’s PM nominationis visible to the most casual observer. Nitish’s higher relative popularity and Sharads political dependence on him may have forced Sharad Yadav to toe this hardline by Nitish eventually leading to a break-up between one of the most fruitful political partnerships in recent years. Now the situation is that Sharad Yadav’s job of national level coordination has been made redundant! He has no national presence without partnership with the BJP and he has no local power without support from Nitish Kumar. It is a difficult period for him. How will he handle his political future? He knows JDU faces an uphill task going it alone against BJP even locally in Bihar as Nitish’s behaviour may have cost JDU some popularity. While Nitish gave the usual secular argument to break ranks with NDA and BJP even he should know he cannot actually bank on this as vote pulling tool. Not with Congress and Lalu Yadav doing so too. This is exactly what I meant when I said that secular votes will be divided! The only way out I see for Sharad Yadav is to break ranks with Nitish Kumar. Whether it will actually happen or not, or on what issue the break will happen is anybody’s guess, but for Sharad, I don’t see how else can he become relevant again on a national or even regional level. So If someone had to stick their neck out and make a prediction, I would not be surprised if the prediction was for Sharad Yadav to part ways to Nitish Kumar and then carve out a new identity for himself with BJP’s help. If this happens Nitish will go the Lalu way. If Sharad Yadav stays with Nitish, then given the Modi wave, both will go the Lalu way J

Speaking of Lalu, he would have been most worried if JDU had aligned with the Congress which would in turn have no use for Lalu’s RJD party. But Congress is the new untouchable thanks to the massive, massive corruption of the last ten years, so JDU has declined to align. This has put JDU ins a very weak position as mentioned above, allowing breathing room for Lalu. I don’t expect Lalu to create a grand comeback but yes he will gain from JDUs predicament.

SP and BSP are the two parties that control between them the most important state (electorally) in India: Uttar Pradesh (UP). BSP, run by Mayawati, caters to the so-called lower castes (dalits) among hindus but has over the past few years tried to attract the Brahmins that constitute a sizeable chunk (~12%) of UP’s population. SP is an out and out Yadav and Muslim party. To the point that I’ve seen Mulayam Singh Yadav (MSY) who runs SP being referred to as Mullah-yam Singh on social media in the past. MSY and Mayawati are bitter rivals and stories of their rivalry are legend. Ever since BJP lost its foothold in UP, the power pendulum here has shifted between BSP and SP almost alternatively. BSP and SP are also bitter rivals. Given this rivalry people are surprised to see them supporting the same government in centre even as they wrestle it out at the state level. The reason that is widely speculated by many is that the Congress has some legal sword hanging over SP and BSP bosses and the CBI is used to blackmail them into submission. As such I will not be surprised to know if both SP and BSP have severe animosity towards the Congress. After all, no one likes to be used and abused for so long. So how will BSP and SP behave?

SP is right now ruling UP. It massively favours its Muslim voters over Hindus, atleast that is the public perception IMHO. The recent riots in Muzzafarnagar has polarised Hindus and Muslims in the state. More so caused by the selective news leaks, biased reporting, biased action and selective visits to communities. A senior Muslim leader in SP, who has long being a power centre on to himself is IMHO using this tragedy to increase his hold on the party putting the father son duo of MSY-Akhilesh Yadav (CM) in some consternation. Ordinarily this religious polarisation would not have bothered MSY so much. Because he would still know that Muslims would rally behind SP anyway. Hindu so-called backward castes would be divided between SP and BSP and some other regional players. Part of the Hindu vote would go to BJP, whose vote share would go up but too much to worry SP. But, Narendra Modi’s advent means that Hindu’s see BJP as a true right of centre party rather than the pale reflection it had become over the last decade. So the polarisation may not be among caste lines any more. All Hindus whether so-called upper or lower castes will rally behind BJP. It is this that makes SP win more difficult. It is this fear that is causing the senior Muslim leader in SP to act so much in haste to make it hardline pro-Muslim pitch. Because Hindus were anyway not his personal core constituency. This worries MSY who cant afford this hardline pitch because he would still want some Hindus to vote for SP. This is a clear conflict of interest. While MSY debates with this situation in his mind, his Muslim colleague will milk this situation to the maximum. He will make it seem like he alone is fighting for minority rights while his bosses dilly dally. In fact this riot related polarisation is perhaps exactly what he was waiting for to make a grab for power. In fact, this has been in a gruesome way a lucky stroke for this guy, almost too lucky. Hmm.  If MSY doesn’t back down, which he cant without losing his identity within his own party first, this leader will cause a break in the party. I will not be surprised if SP breaks up, whether the break-up is cosmetic or genuine is not important at this time. The new hardline group will have a constituency, the other one will flounder around for a couple of years (if that) and fade away for all practical purposes. In other words, I believe the beginning of the political career end for the MSY family has begun.

BSP on the other hand is also facing difficult times. However having been a little bit further on the secularism scale versus SP, and having a sort of insulated voting constituency, Mayawati may yet survive to fight again another day. But for now she will be a diminished force in the face of the Narendra Modi onslaught.

This has been a bit of a long post, perhaps not the most articulate. But given the nature of Indian politics I don’t know if it could have been any more articulate at all. To summarise, Narendra Modi is a force of the sort that has not so far emerged in the history of independent India. Not only does Modi bring a strong ideological backing but has actually delivered on development objectives with minimal wastages and without favouring any one community over the other. He belongs to a so-called lower caste but has never used it as a easy tool for political gain. He reportedly does not like hangers on and is beyond the politics of favours and fear. He is a complete outsider to the Delhi culture of adjustment versus development. He is also a outsider culturally (as mentioned in my last post) making him the ultimate weapon of the sort that has not been faced by any of the old boys club. His ideological background will bring right wing Hindus over to his side, his casteless politics and true democratic distribution of wealth and power will bring the on-the-fence Hindus to him. This will change many things in Indian politics, many masks will be removed, many ‘seculars’ will fall and many parties will be divided as predicted above. For the first time, Hindus will vote as a vote bank, upsetting established equations, perhaps forever. And Modi will find many partners while doing this, much to the chagrin of the mainstream media :)

Why people hate Narendra Modi?

This is a question that has baffled me quite a bit. For the longest time justified their hate (cant really think of another word to describe their reaction to him) by citing his role in abetting the tragic 2002 post Godhra train burning riots. While they may have felt their anger justified soon after the riots, it should logically have abated after the court appointed investigations have all but exonerated Namo from any alleged role in the riots. But that has not happened and these people still are all fire and brimstone over what has happened.

In the earlier post (http://megadodopublication.blogspot.in/2013/08/the-curious-logic-of-hate.html), I have briefly touched upon the brainwashed nature of this hate. However that is applicable to the ‘opinion takers’ amongst us. Lay people, or people who live abroad and try to sound intelligent about India or just the general populace whose daily information dose consists of taking their opinions from Main Stream Media (MSM), rather than forming their own through an application of brains.

However, in this post I want to look closer what why drives the hate of ‘opinion makers’. Ie the people who are in the position of influencing the opinion of ‘opinion takers’. This would normally consist of people who like to interact with a whole bunch of other people: journalists, editors, think tanks, politicians, ‘intellectuals’, celebrities, talking heads on TV panels etc etc. Why should they hate Narendra Modi? The answer that comes to my mind, albeit perhaps incorrect, is that they are simply discriminating against him, but are afraid to do so openly.

Before I explain, I want to highlight a study I briefly read about in (I think) an excellent book ‘Freakonomics’ by Levitt and Dubner. The study was to highlight the racism that continued to exist in sections of America but how it was hidden or channelled differently. The study used the then popular game show ‘The weakest link’ to showcase its theory. The game consists of 6-8 contestants who each answer trivia questions by turn. For each correct answer money gets added to the prize kitty. The game proceeds through multiple rounds and at the end of each round the players collectively to vote out one person from amongst them. Finally the person remaining in the end wins the pot collected through the series of right answers during the game. In the first few rounds it makes sense to vote out the weakest players so that the pot grows bigger. In the later rounds it makes sense to eliminate the strongest players so that the final rounds one has to face only a ‘easy’ opponent. Now the social movements that demonised discrimination against blacks and women are the freshest in ones memory. As such, someone playing on the show with the nation watching would not like to take the risk of being seen as a racist or a sexist. So it appears that the elimination of these two classes of contestants (blacks and females) did not seem to follow the logic of elimination elucidated earlier. But this does not mean the ‘discrimination’ itself vanished. The study found that the targets of discrimination shifted to Hispanics and senior citizens. So Hispanics were voted out in earlier rounds even if they did well etc etc. So the disease of discrimination remains, but the carriers only show it in a different way. For more on this, please read the book I mentioned earlier and/ or have a look at this: http://www.wattpad.com/334172-freakonomics?p=32

Now why do I think the story above is relevant to the ‘opinion maker’ hate of Narendra Modi and the use of 2002 riots to justify it. The reason is simple, Narendra Modi is not ‘one of them’. Consider the senior politicians and journalists and other opinion makers that exist today. Many of them have a ‘pedigree’, atleast in their minds of sorts. A pedigree that comes from belonging to a certain family with a certain surname or having a certain bank balance or a certain award or then having gone to a certain type of school or even the people with whom they have gone to a school with. A simple wiki search for some of the senior editors of MSM and politicians will indicate to you what I am trying to say. Now contrast this with Narendra Modi’s wiki (excerpts below):

“Modi was born on 17 September 1950 to a family of grocers in Vadnagar in Mehsana district of what was then Bombay State (present-day Gujarat), India. While a teenager, Modi ran a tea stall with his brother around a bus terminus.[14] He completed his schooling in Vadnagar, where a teacher described him as being an average student but a keen debater. He began work in the staff canteen of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), where he stayed till he became a full–time pracharak (propagator) of the RSS. Modi remained a pracharak in the RSS while he completed his Master's degree in political science from Gujarat University.”

Once you read both the sets of data, you can see why one set of ‘opinion makers’ discriminate against Namo. BUT, BUT, BUT…that is not considered socially acceptable, so this set needs to bring out a acceptable reason to justify their hate for him. Another reason for discrimination could likely be Narendra Modi belonging to a so-called lower caste. This also is not an acceptable reason (morally reprehensible in fact) of hating someone. So again, they bring out the bogey of 2002 riots to justify their hate of him, which is in fact, IMHO, caste-ist and class-ist.

Let me illustrate this point by an example. For a minute forget everything you have read above here. Lets say you are back in 1940s in the USA when blacks were still discriminated against to some extent. Now one morning you open a newspaper and read a story of a first time elected black governor of a state in the mid-west of USA. He is one of the few black politicians around. He has come up from a very humble background, worked very hard, studied in local universities, did a lot of social work and through his dint of hard work and determination broke through the not-so-glass glass ceiling and got elected governor. He manages the state very well, in fact it is the best managed state in the entire country in the opinion of many. However one day, things take a turn for the worse and there is a violent incident in the state. That incident prompts a violent reaction. The first-time governor takes immediate action but is sadly unable to prevent the loss of lives associated with a spontaneous social conflagration. Despite his quick control of the situation, this black governor is accused of being complicit in the riots. Lies are invented by the editors and journalists and NGOs to vilify this governor. Incidents that have never happened are passed around MSM as gospel truth. The Government orders all sorts of hearings and enquiries against this governor. The Governor too humbly submits to all these multiple investigations to clear any doubts and instil confidence in the people. While these enquiries are on, the governor also wins three elections, getting a vote of confidence of sorts from the people who actually suffered in the events that he is accused of engineering. The US Supreme court finally orders a thorough all-encompassing enquiry against the black gent in which he is given a clean chit. This is in addition to all the other enquiries that have not been able to find anything on the governor earlier. Finally the people feel that the matter has been settled and the process of healing can begin. However, the media and the opposition governor candidate and his acolytes continue to accuse the governor of the same crimes he has been all but completely exonerated of. The same accusations continue to be repeated in the national media and opposition speeches while the lone governor continues to do good work for the people of his state. End of story. Important to note that this is a hypothetical example made up to illustrate a point, in no way reflective of my opinion of the USA which I consider the biggest meritocracy today.

Now for what would you say this governor is targeted for by the ‘majority’ of his country. For any actual criminal act? No…the courts and investigations have prima facie rejected that. For his economy and development focus….? Perhaps not, who doesn’t like good roads and prosperous industry.  Then what? His skin colour and background? Hmm.

Now compare the situation of this hypothetical black governor with whats happening to Narendra Modi today. You will have the answer to the question asked in the title of the post.