Perspectives on India’s riches

By Jyoti Mukhia
India is the country of two Indias: Shining India and Suffering India.
The Shining India:
India was positioned at 12th among the wealthiest nations by World Bank in 2005 based on the GDP, wealthier than Mexico, Russia and Australia but lagging behind China which was at 4th position.
According to recent Forbe’s list (2009) of Wealthiest people in the world, there are 23 billionaires in India with combined net worth of $99bn, surpassing former Asian leader Japan’s 27 billionaires with their total worth of $67bn. Out of top 100 billionaires India’s contribution is 6 billionaires whereas US has 36 top 100 billionaires. India ranks 7th in the number of dollar-billionaires, after America, Mexico, Sweden and Germany. Yet, we rank 134th in human development.
The news of the newly-minted Indian billionaires and the obscenity of riches of IPL are bringing sharper focus on the growing rich-poor gap in India. The list appearing in public domain through media regarding top 10 highest paid salaries CEOs, suggests that the number has increased both in size and numbers.[1] The list is being added by new debuts every year meaning thereby that more and more people of fat and vulgar salaries are being born in India.
On the one hand, 23 Indian billionaires constituted 25% of India’s GDP while on the other, 70% of Indians had to do with Rs 20 a day and a farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes, husband sells his wife in lieu of debt waiver from landlord.
The top 10 per cent of the richest Indians are 7.3 times richer than the poorest 10 per cent.[2] India, according to data from the CIA World Fact Book has a PPP of $3700, while countries like the US are way ahead with $43,500 and the UK at 31,400. Brazil is also higher than us at $8,600. So even if the top ten percent of people in the US are obscenely rich, the poor there aren’t as poor as the poor in India.[3] On the basis of the prosperity Index India is at 45th position out of 104 countries.[4]

India’s poverty Estimates:
Estimates for India indicate a continuing decline in poverty. The estimates suggest that the percentage of people living below $1.25 a day in 2005 (based on India’s PPP rate, works out to Rs 21.6 a day in urban areas and Rs 14.3 in rural areas in 2005) decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005. Even at a dollar a day (Rs 17.2 in urban areas and Rs 11.4 in rural areas in 2005)[5] poverty declined from 42% to 24% over the same period. Our poverty line has decreased and a sizeable chunk of our poor have moved up the economic scale to become middle-class (300 million today).
Although India has had significant success in reducing the number of the poorest of its poor - those living on less than a dollar a day – there are still a huge number of people living just above this line of deprivation. This is most evident when we study absolute numbers. The number of people living below a dollar a day is down from 296 million in 1981 to 267 million people in 2005. However, the number of poor below $1.25 a day has increased from 421 million in 1981 to 456 million in 2005. This the biggest challenge facing India today. This indicates that there are a large number of people living just above this line of deprivation (a dollar a day) and their numbers are not falling.[6]
Paradox: the suffering India
Despite the facts that there has been a decline in the incidence of poverty over the past two decades, and annual growth rates that cross eight percent, one in four persons in India still lives below the income poverty line. The health indicators and socio-economic indicators do not speak eulogy for us.
According to World Health Organization, about 49% of the World’s underweight children and 34% of the World’s stunted children and 46% of World’s wasted children live in India. India has the largest number of working children in the world, and accounts for 20% of the world’s out of school children. Girls’ life chances, in particular, are often severely limited, so much so that in some areas the number of girls has fallen to less than 800 per 1,000 boys. On contrary to this, about 83, 000 Indians have liquid assets more than 1 Million dollars. There are millions of people who own more than 5 palatial buildings whereas there are hundreds of thousands of people who sleep under sky.
There are still hundreds of villages and towns which are not electrified and connected with good roads. We use mineral waters in cities whereas; people in many rural areas do not have access to safe drinking water. There are millions of homeless people and Indira Awas Yojna, a flagship scheme for providing homes to BPL families is still to provide even the minimum space required homes to all eligible BPL families. On the other hand there are people who spend 700 crore on one building to live in.
Amartya Sen has rightly said that growth without democratic distribution brings no prosperity in the country, after all the ongoing financial crisis and global recession has been caused due to ‘privatizing profits and socializing losses’ and if we want to create sustainable social and economic order, we will have to distribute the profits also and not only losses.

[1] Persons like Mukesh Ambani who tops the list gets more than 44 crore (440 million) as annual salary, whereas as Pawan Kant Munjal of hero Honda gets more than Rs/-150 million per annum.
[2] The rich in countries like Brazil are 57.8 times richer than the poor, and the ratio for the United Kingdom is 13.8 times, the United States almost 15.9 times, China 18.4 times and Russia 12.7 times. More horrifying – the top ten per cent of Bolivia’s population is 168 times richer than its poorest 10 percent! The ratio for Namibia is 129 times and Lesotho 129 times.
[3] Being poor by American standards didn’t mean insufficient food. It didn’t mean starvation. It meant not having a car and depending on social security. Perhaps being homeless and falling back on government shelters.
[4] Poor but rich - dnaindia.com A survey by Legatum Institute. The index looked at variable like democratic institutions, personal freedom and social capital.
[5] Economic and political weekly, October 2008
[6] ibid

Time to improve relations between police & minorities

SHASHI THAROOR
As the country copes with the aftermath of the horrors of Mumbai, the hard work of reconstruction, of rebuilding - of reimagining our country-has begun. One genuine cause of satisfaction must be that there was no demonization of our Muslim minority, which the terrorists must have hoped to provoke. The victims of the killers were from every faith, and Indians of every religion have stood united in their anger and determination. And yet it was just the weekend before the attacks that the PM had urged senior police officers not to widen "the fault lines in our society" and to act to "restore the faith of the people- especially those belonging to religious and ethnic minorities and the weaker sections - in the impartiality and effectiveness of the police." His words reflected a real conundrum: the general public feels it is not adequately protected against the random violence of terrorists, but every pro-active policing effort seriously alienates India's largest minority community. Young Muslim men have been picked up and brutalized for no reason other than their demographic profile, and yet the sneering triumphalism of the terrorists' Islamist propaganda seems to leave the authorities little choice. But if the efforts to stamp out the sources of terror merely incite the sullen resentment within which terrorism breeds, every crackdown will prove counter-productive. There has to be a better way. And there is. Indian dealt effectively with Sikh extremism by the skilful use of the talents of a pluralist state. The Khalistanis never succeeded in making their cause one of the Sikh community versus the Indian state. Instead, we saw the majority of Sikhs stay loyal to their country, as a largely Sikh police force, led by a charismatic Sikh officer, K.P.S. Gill, ably combated the minority of Sikh terrorists, while the Indian state orchestrated a democratic political process which brought elected Sikh leaders to power in Punjab. There is absolutely no reason why a similar approach cannot work with the Muslim community, the overwhelming majority of whom are proud and loyal Indians. To do so we must start by getting more Muslims into the security forces. There are well-known historical and sociological reasons that explain why Muslims are under-represented in the country's police forces, the Central Reserve Police and crucial gendarmeries like UP's Provincial Armed Constabulary. Obviously, we cannot infuse a significant number of Muslims into these forces overnight. But it's obvious that we need to enhance the recruitment and retention of minorities in the police forces and to conduct police outreach to minority communities. Such an approach would simultaneously reduce a major source of grievance in the Muslim community, increase the trust between the police and the people they are policing, and dramatically improve our own intelligence about currents within a community whose vulnerability to the blandishments of terror is high. We can learn some lessons from how other democracies have dealt with similar concerns. Despite the Sachar Commission report, few in India want to see an additional layer of reservations for minorities in state institutions. But Britain, which abjures quotas altogether, follows a policy of 'positive action' to help under-represented groups compete more effectively in the selection process for police jobs, and conducts extensive outreach work through mosques, black churches and community groups. We in India also need to recognize that if we want under-represented Muslims to compete effectively for police jobs, they need to feel the police is part of them, rather than an external entity. It's clear we need to: actively solicit applications from minorities for the police at all levels (including the Provincial Armed Constabulary and the Central Reserve Police); offer special catch-up courses open only to members of the minority communities that will prepare them for the entrance examinations; at the moment few feel qualified to take the exams, and fewer still pass; and require police officers to work with community organizations, mosques and madrasas to encourage minorities to apply. In other words, instead of more "reservations", with the resentment that breeds, let us make it easier for minorities to join the police. But let's not stop with recruitment: we also need to focus on the retention and progression of minority officers. Unless young people from minorities see that the police service offers real career opportunities and a good quality of life in the workplace, they will not overcome their negative perceptions. The fact that, in many Western countries, there are several officers from the visible minorities now at senior officer rank, sends a powerful message to these communities. In India, the promotion of minority police personnel at senior and middle levels and using them as visible symbols of the police force would constitute a powerful model to the minority community. We could also take a leaf out of Britain's book in what they do to combat racism within the police, as well as enhance cross-cultural knowledge, offering training courses to white officers that include a 'long weekend' spent living with a minority family. Britain is far from perfect - as the current discrimination case filed by Deputy Commissioner Tariq Ghafoor suggests - but many Hindu policemen, especially in Gujarat and the suburbs of Mumbai, would benefit immeasurably by spending a few days in a Muslim mohalla. Let's face it: if our police are not properly and continuously trained in minority relations, the current problems will continue. Of course India is not Britain, and no foreign ideas can simply be imported wholesale into our country. But we must acknowledge the grave risk to the national fabric of any community being alienated from the police. Our police forces must reflect the diversity of India. Such a policy would be the "other side of the coin" to a tough security policy which is indispensable to reassure the common urban resident, terrorized by the bomb blasts, that the Government can keep them safe.

Religion, politics: Potent mix, potential threat

CNN-IBN

The investigation into the September 29 Malegaon bomb blast case has revealed that Hindu groups may have been indulging in terror acts. Some Hindu religious leaders including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur have been arrested in the case.
A serving Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Srikant Prasad Purohit, is now being questioned not just for the Malegaon blast but also for the February 2007 Samjhauta Express blast in which 66 people died as well as the Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blast of 2007 in which 42 died.
Now Hindu religious leaders are uniting and some of then met in Panipat on Sunday to form a Dharam Sangrakshan Samiti to defend the blast accused from the allegations levelled by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad.
In Panipat, the Sangh Parivar demonstrated its united resolve to fight for those accused of terrorism. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) now plans to hold a massive rally of religious leaders on November 26 to demonstrate their support for the blast accused.
With the Malegaon blast investigation forcing Hindu leaders to speak in a united voice CNN-IBN show Face the Nation debated: Should Hindu religious leaders stay out of politics? The panel included former Bharatiya Janata Party leader KN Govindacharya, Professor of Sociology in Jawaharlal Nehru University Dipankar Gupta and BJP National Executive Member Siddharth Nath Singh. The discussion was moderated by senior editor Sagarika Ghose.
When Hindu leaders are accused of killing innocent people and indulging in terror acts isn't it time to do aatmachintan (introspection) just as they want the Muslin leaders to do when Muslim youths are accused of being involved in terror acts.
Govindacharya set the ball rolling by claiming that the government has been ignoring the Hindus and such terror acts only reflect the frustration in the society.
"Hindu Samaj has definitely done the aatmachintan and this kind of emotional outburst are the result of such aatmachintan. There are two reasons: First when Hindu samaj (society) feels that there is no government that takes care of their interests and feelings then such outburst are a natural consequence though undesirable. Similarly when the legitimate established organisations espousing the cause of Hindu society apply double standards to their own convictions and they are not honest about their concern of large section of Hindu society, then definitely the Hindus do the aatmachintan and the result is mushrooming of such outfits," Govindacharya said.
Tit-for-tat?
When asked if he was justifying terrorism, Govindacharya replied, "Not at all. I don't justify but just condemning won't do anything. One has to be quite dispassionately honest about the state of situation and responsibly find the solutions. If solutions are not there we may go on indulging in blame game against each other just as it was on December 6, 1992. But lessons were to be learnt from December 6, 1992 by politicians, judiciary and executive also but none of them have learnt lessons. Politicians have indulged in duplicity, double talk. Bureaucrats as always are lack lustre and irresponsible. For example, ATS is leaking news. What good does it do to the society or to the nation? There are inordinate delays in the judiciary. If anybody has committed crime let the law take it own course, let them punish the guilty but they should not go through such untoward publicity like leaking sources of ATS."
BJP President Rajnath Singh has said that Hindu saints are being maligned and VHP's Praveen Togadia says a Hindu can never be a terrorist so isn't it the same politics as what BJP accuses the Muslim politicians of.
BJP's Siddharth Nath Singh justified his party's stand by invoking Mahatma Gandhi.
"There is a difference. In Batla House the issue was they were supporting those who acted against the nation and condemning those who fought and died for the nation. So there is the difference. I think the basic thing which we all are forgetting is when you say religion or Hindu being into politics, I think we must also understand it is not just a religion which you are talking. Gandhiji also said ‘politics without religious values is of no use to me'. He meant the Dharma. Dharma needs to be in politics otherwise it will become immoral. When you take religion which you mention as Hindu religious people should not be into politics, it is the Congress and others so called secular parties which bring religion into politics. For example; the Dharma of any political party which is religious values is that there should be a uniform civil code. Now the Congress doesn't want that. They bring in religion at that stage," Singh argued.
But India today is a very different country from the early 1990s when rath yatras were taken out and when Babri Masjid was demolished. So if the BJP does return to the hardcore Hindu agenda can it win votes?
BJP's way to votes
Dipankar Gupta argued that BJP can never every rid itself of its Hindutva agenda.
"When you come down to the wire, the defining characteristic of the BJP is Hindutva. It can occasionally take on other issues as well like economic regeneration but everybody is talking about that. So what's different about the BJP? The difference is Hindutva. So when push comes to shove, its Hindutva colours come out. I don't have a very strong position on whether Hindu religious leaders or Muslim religious leaders should be in politics or not but I have a strong position on one subject which is this that character certificates cannot stand in for the law. You can't have faith saying that this is more important than law and legal procedure should be suspended because Rajnath Singh says so and to say ‘we believe so and so to be above reproach. Why should the law come into the picture? How dare the law come into the picture?' This is exactly what the people are talking about. This is what I think is most unconstitutional and dreadful for the democratic structure of the society. It is something reprehensible and there is no way by which one can condone such statements made by a national leader like Rajnath Singh and the fact that the rest of the BJP is standing by him," Gupta said.
Govindacharya too tried to buttress the point the hardcore Hindutva may not yield the desired results and pointed out the states elections held just after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition as an example.
"I want to say that after 1992 demolition BJP lost all the states in the 1993 elections. Therefore such acts need not end up in increasing the votes. Secondly I want to say that BJP President who was today roaring on behalf of Pragya just 15 days back his statement was that he feels ashamed of his association with Pragya. Incidentally he had met Pragya just once. Therefore I say that such kind of double talk is also remembered by the people and their memory is not so short. The lost credibility of the last 15 years of BJP will also have some impact on the mind of the people," he said.
Is not the BJP by brining in religious leaders into politics actually ruining the moral symbolism of Hinduism?
"I feel political leaders should keep distance from the religious programmes and activities publicly. If Advaniji had not led the rath yatra then perhaps the discourse on validity of the civilisational aspect of Lord Ram would have been brought forth," Govindacharya said.
Singh quipped, "Probably Govindacharyaji is forgetting that he was part of the BJP at that stage."
The Hindutva agenda
When the NDA was in power, it seemed that the BJP was moving away from it core agenda and forging a new identity. Now it seems with BJP party president back with sadhus and sants (religious leaders), the party is back to the hardcore Hindutva position and is not going to alienate allies who have secular positions.
Singh did not buy the argument and instead said that Rajnath meeting religious leaders should not be made into a big news.
"Firstly all the allies are free to follow their own policies. Secondly, I don't really understand why to Rajnath going and attending the meeting of sadhus and sants is becoming a big issue. Why only Rajnath Singh, there are so many political leaders who carry some religious leaders to catch certain votebanks. Here it was a get together of various saints of India. The Dharam Sangrakshan Samiti is for Congress and others are maligning Hindus. They are maligning Hindus and the terms being used. The news says Hindu terror and a newsweekly says saffron in uniform. This needs to be criticised by all of us not just the BJP," Singh said.
However, Gupta cut him short. "It shows that the BJP lacks moral fibre and that it indulges in double talk. As you mentioned a little while back when it comes to Muslims they are more than happy to condemn them even before a case is tried out and even after an alleged SIMI activist has been released they say the court has been very lenient."
Singh was not to be left behind and retorted, "We as a political party have never said ‘a Muslim terrorist’. We have said the Congress doesn't want to hang Afzal (Mohammed Afzal Guru who has been given death sentence in Parliament attack case) because it relates to a votebank. We criticise that, we condemn that."
Gupta continued to argue that the BJP was trying to circumvent legal process.
"Not getting the sants or whoever they are when they are allegedly being charged for explosions is a violation of our democratic principles and laws of land. This is a police case and they have filed a case. At this point of time for Rajnath Singh to say that I know these people are innocent and that the case and any action taken against them is political vendetta is completely anti-democratic and should not be allowed at all. Why is the BJP doing it? It is simply because the Congress has stolen its thunder when it comes to the atom bomb, on economic policies and almost everything. The only thing left with the BJP right now is Hindutva and they are falling back on it," Gupta said.
Singh once again harped that Hindutva should not be seen as one-dimensional. "Dipankar perhaps doesn't understand that Hindutva is perhaps a progressive way of leading the country, it means development also."
But Gupta did not backtrack. "I don't see anything progressive when the BJP President says the law is not important but my character certificate is? I see everything regressive in that and it is the worst thing the BJP can do."
Singh continued to defend his party's stand and said, "Rajnath Singh going and attending a function is not wrong and the party stands with him. Secondly Rajnathji has not gone and defended anybody. He has always maintained that the law should take it own course. But Congress should not use the ATS and selectively leak information. Now Lt Col Purohit is not linked to Samjhauta blast but two days back it was being said that 60 kgs of RDX was used in the Samjhauta blast."
Should not the leaders come out and say that there is something wrong when Hindu youths indulge in violence?
Govindacharya concluded the debate saying, "If established organisations indulge in double talks then this is the result which is totally undesirable for the nation. They have failed in their duties."
Final Web/ SMS poll: Should Hindu religious leaders stay out of politics?
Yes: 61 per cent
No: 39 per cent.