Gurcharan Das's Blog, page 13

After months of talk, it’s go time for new PM

John Ruskin, the 19th century British art critic, once re marked that the greatest contribution that an aristocratic duke could make to the modern world would be to take a job as a grocer. This apparently bizarre suggestion goes to the heart of middle-class dignity -an idea that I identified in my last column to explain the significance of Narendra Modi’s victory. In our unequal, hierarchical Indian society, we need to correct our misguided notion about what constitutes a dignified life. Much like Ruskin’s Victorian society, Indians believe that dignity is not compatible with being a petty kiranawallah. When so many people work in shops, this prejudice is cruel and destructive -it cuts off decent, hardworking people from the respect of others and from self-respect.

Modi’s landslide victory invites us to be more imaginative in thinking about the nature of human dignity , to move from prejudice to a question. By electing a chai-wallah’s son, who affirmed the aspirations of the millions who have pulled themselves up in the post-reform decades through their own efforts into the middle-class, we are forced to challenge our assumption that selling vegetables is socially degrading. If an upper-class zamindar, who takes time off from his idle life of breeding race horses to stand behind a counter in the belief that supplying people with good vegetables at a fair price, or driving them to their destination in a three-wheeler, is inherently worthwhile, the prejudice might give way to a fairer assessment of human worth.

Ruskin is not only challenging how we judge shopkeepers; he also wants shopkeepers to take their own dignity more seriously . Modi’s victory has made us believe that: 1) anyone can aspire to middle-class status; 2) if one imbibes its values of thrift, ambition, industry and prudence; and 3) a middle-class society is a good society.

Narendra Modi has now been prime minister for six weeks and it is abundantly clear that this is a “Modi Sarkar“. He has established direct contact with secretaries at the head of government departments, encouraging them to take decisions and get in touch with him if things go sour. Ministers have an ambiguous place in this setup, which is probably a good thing considering the mediocre level of his cabinet. Ministers could not be happy -they have been forbidden to hire relatives or introduce personal considerations in their decisions.

Otherwise, this has been a period of welcome silence and calm after the din and clatter of the election. Now we need to see some action after months of talk. In one respect Modi should not be silent. He should learn from his predecessor’s mistake and insistently make a compelling political case for economic reform. He must keep educating Indians about the link between reforms, jobs, opportunities and prosperity . He needs to explain that only the competitive market (not giveaways) can deliver a middle-class society and that a rules-based capitalism leads to dignity, not crony capitalism. Unfortunately, he frittered away a golden opportunity to do this in the disappointing address of the President.

Modi has spoken about “tough“ decisions that are urgently needed to enforce financial discipline, and they risk losing popular good will. With this warning he has set the stage for a hard-nosed budget on Thursday. When it comes to price increases, he would do well to follow TN Ninan’s advice -take price increases in small bites and frequently, and avoid the fiasco over the increase in railway fares.

Achche din aane wale hain (Good days are coming), was Modi’s response to his victory.

Those few words carry a massive burden of aspirations but with a clear majority in the Lok Sabha and supremacy in his own party , he is the first Indian leader in a long time to have the freedom to act on his convictions. He is getting plenty of advice -the politico-bureaucratic system is trying to co-opt him, attempting to make him one of its own. He is being advised to be prudent, to make incremental changes and not unsettle the system. But he must not forget that an aspiring nation has elected him precisely because he is an outsider and wants him to shake up the system. So, he must not listen too much to others and follow his own dharma.

It Is All about Execution

Narendra Modi's defining qualities are a sense of purpose.

If there is one lesson we have learned about leadership in recent years, it is that we overvalue intelligence and undervalue determination. When choosing our leaders we betray an instinctive bias for thought over action even though history teaches us that great leaders were great doers, not great thinkers. Outstanding leaders have always had the qualities of resolve, purpose and determination in abundance, and this helped them to change the world. With a PhD from Oxford University, our last prime minister was probably the leader most generously endowed with intelligence and academic credentials. But he failed. He neither had the willpower to prevail over events, nor the ability to translate thought into action. Sickened by the drift and paralysis of the last government, the Indian voter has now chosen the opposite type of leader.

Narendra Modi's defining qualities are a sense of purpose, accompanied by attention to detail, and backed by plenty of grit and fierce determination. These are quintessential abilities of an implementer, someone who knows how to get things done. These qualities were on generous display during his election campaign and if he runs the country as well as his campaign we have good reasons to be hopeful. The answers to India's problems have less to do with new ideas and new laws and more to do with implementing old ideas and old laws. Modi reminded us of this truth time and again during the past year, and those who know him well have said the same thing-his strength lies in execution. It is time we had an executive in charge of our country, someone capable of delivering results. It is for this reason that I-a liberal, secular Indian who does not find Hindutva or BJP particularly appealing-voted for him.

Indians do well in strategy, lag in execution

McKinsey & Co, the respected management consulting company, discovered in a famous global study in the 1990s that high performing companies distinguished themselves by execution. Its data on India reinforced the bias for action. In its sample of 35 major Indian companies, based on interviews with more than 600 executives, it concluded: "While many Indian companies perform well on strategy, they are lagging in execution.

Foreigners sometimes remind us that Indians are bright. But they are too polite to add that they can also be 'over-smart'. Indians think and argue too much, see too many angles, and don't act enough. It makes hiring and recruiting talent particularly difficult, for we come out sounding good in interviews, and how do you separate the doers from the talkers? The gap between thought and action is so pervasive in Indian life that I sometimes despair if weak execution is, in fact, a deficit in character.

My experience as a practising manager and later as a board member or consultant confirms that while most managers usually achieve a reasonably robust strategy, they implement poorly. I am also associated with a private equity fund that has invested in many Indian companies over the past 10 years, and it has reinforced this conclusion: The best firms are not the ones with the best business model but the best execution ability.

The story of Narendra Modi's climb from serving chai to passengers on the railway platform of a sleepy Gujarat town to 7, Race Course Road illustrates many things, including his leadership style. As he rose in life to take on positions of increasing responsibility in the RSS and later in the Gujarat government, Modi was not content with laying broad policies. Unlike our previous prime minister, he did not abdicate responsibility for implementation to those below him. He surrounded himself with people with execution ability like himself, set clear, measurable goals, and created small 'implementation' teams. Instead of pronouncing on strategy, he got into the messy details of a project, monitored day-to-day performance, removing obstacles for those who were implementing it, staying close to them and motivating them. He recognised those who took initiative and risks, and punished those who played safe and behaved like bureaucrats. And he did all this without appearing to be interfering or micro-managing. Thus, he got fairly ordinary Gujaratis to do pretty extraordinary things.

I first heard Narendra Modi speak at Shri Ram College of Commerce in Delhi in February 2013, and it opened a window to his leadership abilities. It was his first speech in a long campaign to be prime minister, and he declared his ambition right away. Unlike coy Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party, who danced coquettishly around the subject, Modi sent an unambiguous message that he was hungry for the job. He was off to a head start, and his clarity of purpose was refreshing for the Indian voter.

Modi was also unambiguous about his specific goal-it was to gain a clear majority for the BJP. The chattering classes laughed each time he said it and thought he was mad. They did not know that impossible ambitions drive successful leaders. Managers call these 'stretch' targets, and their purpose is to rally troops around difficult tasks. Impossible targets have a way of motivating soldiers who forget their differences. They feel they 'own' the goal and the battle. Thus, charismatic leaders are known to achieve astonishing commonness of purpose among their subordinates-what business managers prosaically refer to as 'alignment'.

Great leaders are not nice people

Related to this, was another feature I observed about Modi's campaign-the importance of a unified team. Great leaders are not 'nice' people who seek popularity, and certainly not ones you would invite to a polite dinner party. Narendra Modi had to ensure unified command and had to get rid of rivals and sceptics, which explains why he had to marginalise L.K. Advani, Jaswant Singh and others. And why, at the same time, he had to move his most trusted lieutenant, the ambiguous Amit Shah, to perform the miracle of turning Uttar Pradesh around. And why, despite opposition from inside the party, he tied up with unsavoury, blemished politicians B.S. Yeddyurappa and Ram Vilas Paswan.

The word executive comes from 'one who executes'. The hallmark of an effective executive is good planning and attention to detail, which is an important lesson I learned at the company where I worked for many years, Procter & Gamble. (The other lesson was how to write a crisp one-page memo because you were not allowed a second page). Modi, as I have said, is an implementer, and hence planning and detail come naturally to him. What we saw on television was great oratory but behind the scenes was months of planning with dozens of karyakartas, who worked with discipline to orchestrate each event minute by minute.

Finally, Modi is a flawed individual, not unlike most of us. In his place, I would have expressed remorse a dozen times for the events in 2002, without of course, incriminating myself. I would have had a powerful think tank to feed me data, especially on economic and foreign policy issues. I could go on and on about his deficits. But at the end, his positive attributes clearly outweigh his faults. If there is one truth I would underline it is that without realising it, Narendra Modi seems to follow the British scientist Jacob Bronowski's advice. He believes that the world is not understood by contemplation but by action-"the hand is the cutting edge of the mind, as Bronowski put it.

Modi’s moment is about middle class dignity

If Indians won their political freedom in August 1947 and their economic freedom in July 1991, they have attained dignity in May 2014. This is the significance of Narendra Modi’s landslide victory. The hopes and dreams of an aspiring new middle class have been affirmed for the first time in India’s history. Modi has made millions believe that their future is open, not predetermined, and can be altered by their own actions. In a fine book, Bourgeois Dignity, Deirdre McCloskey explains that the same thing happened during the great transformation of the West in the 19th and early 20th century when the industrial revolution created a middle class that changed the master narrative of western societies.
The typical voter who elected Modi was not a Hindu nationalist. He was a young, middle-of-the-road person, who had recently migrated from a village to a small town. He had got his first job and his first cellphone and he aspired to a life better than his father’s. The stocky, selfmade , son of a station chai-walla inspired him with his message of development and governance, making him forget his caste, religion, and village. The young man became convinced that his battle was not against other Indians but against a state that would not give him a birth certificate without paying a bribe.
The chai-walla assuaged his other Indian middle class insecurities. Our young aspirer discovered that he did not have to speak English to get ahead. “If the chaiwalla can aspire to lead our nation without English, there is nothing wrong if I am uncomfortable in it,” he thought. “I too can be modern in my mother tongue.” When he witnessed Modi perform aarti on his television screen in a riveting performance at the Dashashwamedh ghat by the Ganga in Varanasi, he felt deeply moved. Suddenly, he did not feel ashamed of being Hindu. The “secular” English speaking intelligentsia had heaped contempt on his “superstitious” ways and had made him feel inferior and inadequate. During his long campaign of political theatre, Modi decolonized his mind and thus bestowed dignity on him.
Modi mentioned the word “development” five hundred times for each time he mentioned “Hindutva”, according to a computer analysis of his speeches by Dr Walter Anderson, a US state department official. For a young person who belongs to the post-reform generation, and who has risen through his own initiative and hard work, “development” is a code word for opportunity in the competitive market place that Adam Smith called a “natural system of liberty” . This system flourishes in Gujarat, and not surprisingly the state is ranked number one on the Freedom Index among all Indian states. The government in this system helps create an enabling environment that allows free individuals to pursue their interests peacefully in an open, transparent market. After that, an “invisible hand” helps to gradually lift people into a dignified, middle class life, raising living standards all around.
Underlying dignity is the freedom that reforms bring when economic decisions move from the offices of politicians and bureaucrats to the market place. When Modi said that we should make development a jan andolan, a mass movement, he legitimized rules-based capitalism (in contrast to crony capitalism). In this respect he is like Margaret Thatcher and Deng who made their people believe in the market. It was the job that a reformer like Manmohan Singh was supposed to perform. But he didn’t even succeed in selling economic reforms to Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party. Modi should learn from his failure and convert the RSS to his “development” agenda, marginalizing its Hindutva agenda. McCloskey explains that the same thing happened in the West in the 19th century when the narrative of middle class aspirations for a better life triumphed over all other narratives as people became comfortable with market institutions.
Unlike the mood of diminished expectations in the West, ours is the age of rising expectations in India. Having attained hard-fought dignity, the aspiring voter is filled with self-confidence after electing Modi. But he is also impatient and unforgiving. If Modi does not deliver on his promises for development and governance, he will not be shy to boot him out at the next election. The ball is in Modi’s court.

Modi shouldn't forget Fareed and millions like him

It has been an exhilarating month. We have marvelled at the sights and sounds of India's great election mela on our television screens. The image, most memorably etched in my mind is of a confident Muslim boy, Fareed, in a small town in Western UP. When the female interviewer asks his name, he retorts with a flirtatious smile, "Who wants to know?" He tells us proudly that the pucca street on which they are standing was a kaccha village road not long ago. As the camera pans, he points to three barber shops, two beauty parlours, an electronics store and an unfinished tower. "This is going to be our mall!" Fareed runs a small business delivering flowers to the big city nearby, but business has been rotten in the past two years; most of his friends have lost their jobs. "Do you think I'd be hanging around chatting... even to a beautiful woman?" She blushes. "That's why I plan to vote for Modi. Yes, I know, Muslim and Modi, but he promises jobs and growth."It is because of Fareed and the million hopes of young Indians that I endorsed Narendra Modi in my last column . It brought lots of hate mail. BJP's supporters were offended that I had called Modi communal and they passionately tried to convince me, an unrepentant liberal, about the true meaning of secularism. Congress fans dismissed my column as 'paid news' . My intellectual friends were aghast - how could I have abandoned sacred secularism for profane growth? Since I had made enemies of everyone, I must have done something right. A friend in Mumbai tweeted despairingly, 'why can't we have growth and secularism?' That would be a no brainer. Alas, it is not on offer. None of us wants to give up secularism but if growth continues to fumble, it is secularism which will be endangered. History shows that right-wing extremism thrives during unemployment and disaffection. Yes, it is a risk to vote for Modi but it is riskier not to vote for him as he is our best chance for jobs, growth and the demographic dividend.In less than two weeks there will be a new government. Going by the latest polls, Modi is clearly ahead. If the polls are right - which they were not in 2004 and 2009 - and assuming he is elected, his first priority should be to reassure Muslims that he is the leader of all Indians and his government will not allow the events of 2002 to happen again (as they haven't in Gujarat); he is also duty bound to protect minorities against the daily acts of discrimination, especially by functionaries of the state.The next priority should be to forge an alliance with chief ministers, making them partners in governing India and bring about genuine federalism. Having been chief minister for three terms this should be a natural. This alliance will allow well-managed states to implement reforms rapidly that would take too long to enact in a fractured central Parliament. Arun Shourie has recently explained that Article 254(2) of the Constitution allows a state law to prevail over a central law provided the President gives assent (which means, in effect, Modi's government has to be in favour of it.) Once a few states begin to implement the reform, others will see the benefits and follow suit. A partnership with chief ministers will motivate the more aspirational states to focus on raising India's Doing Business ranking, and as India becomes more competitive, investors who are presently fleeing China for Vietnam, Thailand and Bangladesh might well add India to their list.Modi should begin each day by remembering why he was elected by Fareed and millions like him: to create jobs and skills. Expectations are running high and he must cool them down, explaining the lag between investment and growth. Attacking inflation is equally important and there is no better ally than Raghuram Rajan. Modi should follow the recipe which has brought No 1 rank to Gujarat in economic freedom - focus on infrastructure, bring in lots of talented persons, free up space for private initiative, empower the bureaucracy, and deliver public goods brilliantly (water, roads, electricity, education and health). Finally, don't subvert institutions; respect them but reform them.

चयन का सही आधार

आने वाले कुछ सप्ताह में मैं मतदान करने के लिए जाऊंगा। मतदान बूथ पर मेरा सामना खामियों-खराबियों वाले उम्मीदवारों से होगा, लेकिन मेरे सामने उसे चुनने की मजबूरी होगी जिसमें सबसे कम खामी होगी। यहां सवाल यही है कि किस आधार पर मैं अपनी पसंद के उम्मीदवार का चयन करूं? सामान्य सी बात है कि मैं उस उम्मीदवार को वोट देना पसंद करूंगा जो करोड़ों भारतीयों के जीवन में संपन्नता-समृद्धि लाने में मददगार हो। इस संदर्भ में भ्रष्टाचार, महंगाई, सेक्युलरिज्म और आतंकवाद जैसी बातें भी अपेक्षाकृत कम महत्व रखती हैं। कोई भी भारतीय तब तक चैन से नहीं रह सकता जब तक कि सभी भारतीय अपनी जरूरतों को पूरा करने के संदर्भ में दिन-प्रतिदिन की चिंताओं से मुक्त नहीं हो जाते। सभी राजनेता गरीबों के प्रति अपनी चिंता दर्शाते हैं, लेकिन करोड़ों गरीब और निम्न मध्यम वर्ग के भारतीय गरीबी रेखा से थोड़ा ही ऊपर जीवन-यापन कर रहे हैं, जो अपने आर्थिक जीवन में सुधार के हकदार हैं।सभी भारतीयों के जीवन में समृद्धि लाने के क्रम में मैं दो आधारों पर उम्मीदवारों का चयन करूंगा। इसमें पहला आधार क्रियान्वयन की क्षमता है। किसी काम को करने की क्षमता को मैं किसी विचार को हासिल करने से बेहतर मानता हूं। वादा तो कोई भी कर सकता है, लेकिन यथार्थ के धरातल पर उसे कुछ लोग ही उतार सकते हैं। मैं उस उम्मीदवार को वोट दूंगा जो विचार और क्त्रियान्वयन के बीच के अंतर को पाट सके। मेरा दूसरा आधार भारत के सीमित अवसरों से जुड़ा हुआ है, जो महज दस वषरें में खत्म हो जाएंगे। इस अवसर का आधार है जनसंख्या लाभ की स्थिति। यह एक तथ्य है कि भारत ऐसा युवा देश है जहां की अधिसंख्य आबादी कामगार वर्ग में शामिल है। जनसंख्या के लिहाज से जैसी हमारी स्थिति है वह हमें आर्थिक लाभ की स्थिति प्रदान करती है, क्योंकि उत्पादक वर्ग के लोगों की संख्या अधिक है जो गैर उत्पादक वर्ग को सहयोग देने की स्थिति में हैं। विश्व बैंक के मुताबिक लाभ की यह स्थिति प्रति वर्ष प्रति व्यक्ति जीडीपी विकास में दो फीसद का अतिरिक्त योगदान देती है। पूर्व-पश्चिम के सर्वाधिक सफल देश जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ से भलीभांति अवगत हैं। हाल के वषरें में चीन को भी यह उपलब्धि मिली है। मैं उसे वोट दूंगा जो जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ की शक्ति को समझेगा और उसके अनुरूप एजेंडा तय करेगा। इसके लिए बुनियादी ढांचे में निवेश करना होगा, कौशल प्रशिक्षण देना होगा और गैर उत्पादक सब्सिडी में कटौती करनी होगी। उद्यमियों के लिए निवेश का माहौल बनाना होगा, जिससे बड़ी तादाद में नए रोजगार पैदा होंगे।गरीबों को सब्सिडी की नीति के बजाय इस तरह के कदमों से दीर्घकालिक समृद्धि आएगी। जब लोगों को रोजगार मिलेगा तो वह अधिक उपभोग करेंगे, जिससे उद्योगों को ताकत मिलेगी। इससे वह अधिक बचत कर सकेंगे, जिससे हमारे देश की पूंजी में इजाफा होगा। इसका असर आगे चलकर अधिक निवेश और विकास में झलकेगा। अभिभावक और कर्मचारी अपने बच्चों की शिक्षा और स्वास्थ्य पर अधिक खर्च करेंगे, जिससे भविष्य में हमें अधिक उत्पादक श्रमशक्ति हासिल होगी। अधिक उत्पादन से महंगाई भी नीचे आएगी। उच्च आय और कम सब्सिडी से देश की राजकोषीय स्थिति मजबूत होगी और सरकार तब शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य और गरीबों के कल्याण के लिए अधिक काम कर सकेगी। जाहिर है हमें देखना होगा कि प्रतिस्पर्धी दलों में इसके लिए कौन अधिक बेहतर है। इसके लिए क्षेत्रीय पार्टियां उपयुक्त नहीं, क्योंकि वे मुख्यतया क्षेत्रीय मुद्दों पर केंद्रित होती हैं। वे धर्म व जाति के कार्ड खेलने में महारत रखती हैं, लेकिन आर्थिक विकास पर शायद ही बोलती हैं। आम आदमी पार्टी की मुख्य चिंता भ्रष्टाचार और क्रोनी कैपिटलिज्म है, न कि निवेश और नौकरियों का सृजन। क्षेत्रीय दलों और उनके नेताओं को वोट देना अपने मत को बेकार करना होगा, जैसे कि सपा के मुलायम सिंह, बसपा की मायावती और यहां तक आप के केजरीवाल को भी। दो राष्ट्रीय दलों में कांग्रेस के भीतर बैठे सुधारवादी जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ की शक्ति को अच्छी तरह समझते हैं, लेकिन वे कुछ कर पाने में असमर्थ हैं, क्योंकि सत्ताधारी वंश विकास का बहुत इच्छुक नहीं।सोनिया और राहुल गांधी गरीबों को तत्काल कुछ दिए जाने के पक्ष में हैं, बजाय इसके कि नौकरियों और रोजगार के माध्यम से सतत चलने वाली विकास प्रक्त्रिया का इंतजार करें। उनकी प्राथमिकता सड़कें और ऊर्जा संयंत्र नहीं, बल्कि सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली के जरिये खाद्यान्न वितरण, बिजली सब्सिडी और गैस सिलेंडरों में रियायत, मनरेगा तथा दूसरी कल्याणकारी योजनाएं हैं। इस नीति की वजह अधिकाधिक वोट पाने की मंशा है, लेकिन इससे विकास दर गिरती है, महंगाई बढ़ती है और दूसरी तमाम समस्याएं पैदा होती हैं। विकास और समानता की गलत नीति के कारण संप्रग सरकार ने सुधारों को रोक दिया और बुनियादी ढांचे पर ध्यान नहीं दिया। इससे निवेशकों का भरोसा भी टूटा। परिणामस्वरूप भारत की विकास दर नौ फीसद से गिरकर 4.5 फीसद पर पहुंच गई। इस वजह से मैं नहीं मानता कि कांग्रेस पार्टी जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ को समझने में समर्थ है। कांग्रेस संप्रग सरकार के काल में रुकी पड़ीं 750 बड़ी परियोजनाओं को शुरू करा पाने में भी समर्थ नहीं, क्योंकि सरकार में ही सत्ता के दो केंद्र हैं और हमारी नौकरशाही भ्रमित है। इसी का परिणाम अप्रत्याशित भ्रष्टाचार और अन्य नीतिगत अपंगताएं हैं। पिछले दस वषरें को देखें तो भाजपा ने भी रचनात्मक विपक्ष की भूमिका नहीं निभाई। इसने कांग्रेस के विकास विरोधी रवैये का सही तरह विरोध नहीं किया, लेकिन पिछले वर्ष से नरेंद्र मोदी के कारण उसकी सोच में जबरदस्त बदलाव आया है। उन्होंने विकास के एजेंडे के तहत निवेश, रोजगार, कौशल प्रशिक्षण और बुनियादी ढांचे पर ध्यान दिया। मोदी एक बेहतर प्रशासक और अच्छे क्त्रियान्यवनकर्ता हैं। वह विकास प्राथमिकताओं पर नजर रखते हैं, लाल और हरी फीताशाही को रोकते हैं और सेवा में सुधार के पक्षधर हैं। हालांकि केंद्र में गठबंधन के कारण उनके लिए यह सब आसान नहीं होगा, लेकिन उनमें समस्याओं पर जीत हासिल करने वाले एक राजनेता के सभी गुण हैं।मोदी मेरे दोनों ही पैमानों पर खरे उतरते हैं। इसी कारण मैं भाजपा को वोट देना चाहता हूं। मैंने पहले कभी भाजपा को वोट नहीं दिया, क्योंकि उसकी राजनीति बहुसंख्यकवादी और हिंदुत्व के एजेंडे पर आधारित थी। यदि लालकृष्ण आडवाणी या पुराने लोग इसका नेतृत्व करते हैं तो भी मैं इसे वोट नहीं दूंगा, क्योंकि उनकी आर्थिक सोच भ्रमित है। मैं मोदी की एकाधिकारवादी और गैर-सेक्युलर प्रवृत्तिसे चिंतित हूं, लेकिन कोई भी अन्य पूर्ण योग्य नहीं है। मुझे विश्वास है कि अगले पांच वषरें तक 2002 जैसा कुछ नहीं होगा। मैं मोदी को वोट देने का जोखिम लेना पसंद करूंगा, क्योंकि मैं जनसंख्यात्मक लाभ को खोना नहीं चाहता। एक गरीब देश में रोजगार सृजन पहली प्राथमिकता होनी चाहिए। जीडीपी में एक फीसद विकास से 15 लाख रोजगार पैदा होते हैं और प्रत्येक रोजगार से अप्रत्यक्ष तौर पर तीन लोगों को रोजगार मिलता है और प्रत्येक रोजगार से पांच लोगों की आजीविका चलती है।

Secularism or growth? The choice is yours

This month’s national election may well be the most important in India’s history. Our country faces a limited window of oppor tunity called the ‘demographic dividend’ and if we elect the right candidate, prosperity will enter crores of lives. And in the course of time, India will become a middle class country. If we elect the wrong candidate, India will experience a ‘demographic disaster’ and the great hope of youth will turn into despair.India’s opportunity comes from being unique ly young — the large majority of people are of working age. Such a demographic situation gener ally brings a surge in economic growth as gains to society from those in the productive age far outweigh the burden of supporting the old and the very young. The dividend typically adds two percentage points to per capita GDP growth per year, as many economically successful countries have demonstrated in the past.We should vote for the candidate who has the ability to harvest the demographic dividend. He will achieve it by investing in infrastructure and skills training; cut red tape to encourage private investment; and eliminate unproductive subsi dies. This will create masses of new jobs. People in those jobs will consume more, which will give impetus to consumer industries. They will also save more, which will drive investment and growth. With more production, inflation will gradually decline. Falling fertility in the demo graphic transition will improve women’s health which will add to the workforce and improve social indicators. Higher income and lower sub sidies will improve government’s finances, mak ing it possible to invest more in education, health and welfare of the poor.Who among the rival parties is best capable of delivering the demographic dividend? Certainly not the regional parties — they are mainly obsessed with local issues. The Aam Aadmi Party is con cerned with corruption and crony capitalism and has shown little interest in attracting investment or creating jobs. Between the two national parties the Congress is ambivalent. Its reformers under stand the power of the demographic dividend but they are usually trumped by a ruling dynasty that favours equity over growth, preferring give-aways to win votes from the poor. Although Congress new manifesto does speak of jobs and growth, it is a half-hearted attempt. Because of this ambiva lence, reforms and infrastructure building slowed in the UPA government, confusing investors and paralyzing the bureaucracy. And this led to a trag ic fall in India’s growth and rise in inflation.That leaves the BJP. As an opposition, it has been a disaster. However, the BJP’s thinking in the past year has been dramatically transformed by Narendra Modi who is single-mindedly focused on investment, jobs, skills and growth — key ingredients in realizing a demographic dividend Modi has proven to be a consummate implement er, a rare skill among India’s politicians. His suc cess lies in giving clear direction to the bureauc racy, which could help him un-gum the system at the centre. Given clarity of purpose, the Indian bureaucracy is capable of high performance, as we saw in Narasimha Rao’s first two years from 1991 to 1993. For these reasons, he is our best chance to deliver the demographic dividend.Modi is likely to reduce corruption as well based on his record. Those who think he will fail to manage a coalition do not give him credit for being a shrewd politician who has recently wrest ed leadership of his party. The BJP without Modi is an unappealing option; nor is voting for him vote for RSS’ social agenda. The RSS is afraid in fact, that its Hindutva programme might be marginalized by his economic agenda. But there is a clear risk in voting for Modi — he is polariz ing, sectarian and authoritarian. There is a great er risk, however, in not voting for him. It is to not create jobs for 8-10 million youth that enter the market each year. One per cent rise in GDP rough ly adds 15 lakh direct jobs; each job creates three indirect jobs, and each job supports five people This means three crore people are impacted by one per cent growth. Restoring growth to 8% is prize worth thinking about when casting one’ vote. There will always be a trade-off in values at the ballot box and those who place secularism above demographic dividend are wrong and elitist.

Elect to transform India with these eight big ideas

The world is divided between optimists and pessimists. Optimists believe that if the government invests in infrastructure, removes barriers facing entrepreneurs, jobs will multiply, the economy will grow, and the country will gradually turn middle class. Pessimists worry about problems— inequality, crony capitalism, degrading environment, etc. The problems are real but optimists focus on opportunities and lead nations to success. Let’s hope an optimist is elected in 2014 after a decade of UPA’s pessimism, and here are eight big ideas to help him/her restore India to health.

First, bring urgency to growth, rubbishing the false trade-off between growth and equity, which is the destructive legacy of the Left under UPA-I and of the national advisory council under UPA-II. To this end, give priority to investment in power and roads. Second, eliminate the nearly 70 clearances (yes 70, according to planning commission’s new manufacturing policy!) for starting a business, and fuse them into a 'single window clearance' achieved by our competitor nations. India’s notorious red tape is mainly responsible for our 134th rank in World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ report. Every country protects its environment but none stops hundreds of projects in the process.

Third, complete the good work already done to make the Goods and Services Tax (GST) a reality and India a national market. GST will replace the present nightmare of indirect taxes—state sales taxes, central sales tax, excise duty, service tax, entry tax, etc. Since it will tax only the added value at each stage, it will discourage cash transactions as no one wants to lose credit for taxes already paid. Compliance will rise, tax revenues will swell, black market will diminish, and peoples’ morals will improve.

Fourth, create masses of formal jobs by reforming senseless labour laws while creating a labour welfare fund (with contributions from employers and government) to finance transitory unemployment and re-training. Companies have to survive in a downturn. When orders decline, either one cuts workers or goes bankrupt. Successful nations allow employers to ‘hire and fire’ but protect the laid off with a safety net. India’s labour laws insist on lifetime jobs. Hence, Indian companies avoid hiring ‘permanents’ and 90% workers have ended up as ‘informals’ without a safety net. Protect workers, not jobs.

More than half our people are stuck in agriculture and the fifth imperative is to create a second green revolution. To this end: A) Scrap ‘agricultural produce marketing committees’ (APMC) which function as wholesaler cartels in mandis. Opening markets will allow traders and farmers to buy and sell freely, making India into a national market. When large retailers buy from farmers, they will save food from rotting through cold-chains, raising returns to farmers and lowering prices to consumers. B) Discard the minimum support price system, which has created massive distortions—growing rice in water scarce Punjab!— and destroyed the entrepreneurial dynamism of the Indian farmer. C) Reverse UPA government’s damaging decision against genetically modified crops. Recall, Bt cotton doubled India’s cotton production in five years and made us the world’s largest exporter. D) Have a predictable export-import regime for farm products. Stop the present ‘switch on, switch off’ policy which harms the farmer and brings disrepute to India. E) Remove the irrational conditions that are preventing global retailers from entering India. And BJP must get over its unreasonable opposition to FDI in retail. In those states where FDI in retail is banned, consumers will lose the opportunity for lower prices, farmers will lose prospect of higher returns, a third to half of fresh produce will continue to rot, and millions of unemployed youth will be denied jobs and careers in the modern retail economy.

Sixth, sell off hotels, airlines, and all uncompetitive public sector enterprises, including banks, which have been bleeding the country for generations. Especially, break the monopoly of Coal India, which has made India--sitting on the world’s third largest reserves--the largest coal importer in the world. Seventh, abolish all subsidies and replace them by cash transfers into the bank account of the female head of the household via mobile banking. NREGA, PDS, Food Corporation and all such leaky institutions must be phased out. As large sums are involved, employ the world’s best practices to determine who is a deserving beneficiary. Finally, get rid of license raj in education to meet the insatiable demand for good schools.

This is a big agenda but it is achievable by an optimist leader, who is also competent in execution. Such a leader will not only declare this policy agenda but will monitor progress, get into the messy details of execution, not to micro-manage but to encourage the implementers of the policy, and clear barriers. He will thus give the those who have to execute the policies—the bureaucracy--a sense of purpose and this will propel India to high growth, a demographic dividend, and to achieve its potential.

Sunday Times of India, March 2, 2014

अमर प्रेम के भ्रम से उपजी त्रासदी

पिछले एक माह में रिश्तों में पैदा हुई त्रासदी से कई महत्वपूर्ण लोगों की जिंदगी में विनाश आया है। अच्छे लेखक और यूपीए सरकार में मंत्री शशि थरूर की पत्नी की दिल्ली में मौत हुई। कहा गया कि यह आत्महत्या थी। लगभग इसी समय फ्रांस की प्रथम महिला वैलेरी ट्रिरवेइलर को भी पेरिस के अस्पताल में भर्ती करना पड़ा। ये दोनों घटनाएं संदिग्ध विवाहेत्तर रिश्तों के उजागर होने के बाद हुई। सुनंदा पुष्कर ने अपने पति पर एक पाकिस्तानी पत्रकार के साथ अंतरंग संबंधों का आरोप लगाया। ट्रिरवेइलर की जिंदगी फ्रांस के राष्ट्रपति फ्रांस्वां ओलांड के एक अभिनेत्री से संबंधों के कारण उजड़ गई। प्रकरण उजागर होने के कुछ दिनों बाद दोनों अलग हो गए। ये ग्लैमरस सेलिब्रिटीज के बारे में कोई उथले सैक्स स्कैंडल नहीं थे। ये मानव परिस्थिति के बारे में कुछ गहरी और दुखद बातें उजागर करते हैं।ऐसे प्रकरणों में आमतौर पर वफादारी न निभाने वाले पुरुष को दोष दिया जाता है। उसे झूठा, विश्वासघाती और धोखेबाज कहा जाता है। फिर ऐसे लोग भी होते हैं जो प्रेम विवाह की प्रथा को भी उतना ही दोषी मानते हैं। आधुनिक प्रेम विवाह में तीन पहलू होते हैं-प्रेम, अंतरंग संबंध और परिवार। इनके कारण संबंधित युगल से प्राय: असंभव-सी अपेक्षाएं की जाती हैं। बेशक विवाह के पीछे मूल विचार तो परिवार का निर्माण ही था। फिर इसके साथ रोमांटिक प्रेम आ गया और यह मांग भी जुड़ गई कि जीवनसाथी अंतरंग रिश्तों में भी परिपूर्ण साबित हो।दार्शनिक एलन डि बोटोन के मुताबिक पुराने समय में पुरुष इन तीन जरूरतों को तीन भिन्न महिलाओं के जरिये पूर्ण करते थे। पत्नी घर का निर्माण करती थी, बच्चों की देखभाल करती थी। एक प्रेमिका चोरी-छिपे उसकी रोमांटिक जरूरतें पूरी करती थी और अन्य प्रकार के संबंध के लिए कोई बाहरी औरत होती थी। भूमिकाओं का यह विभाजन पुरुषों के बहुत अनुकूल था, किंतु आज हम एक ही व्यक्ति से तीनों भूमिकाएं निभाने की नामुमकिन-सी अपेक्षा रखते हैं। ऐसे में खासतौर पर मध्यवर्गीय कामकाजी महिलाएं इन अपेक्षाओं को लेकर बहुत दबाव महसूस करती हैं। फिर घर के बाहर कॅरिअर में सफल होने का तनाव तो होता ही है। ऐसे में वे सिर्फ एक प्रेमपूर्ण, उदार और वफादार पति चाहती हैं।आधुनिक प्रेम विवाह की इतनी सारी जरूरतें पूरी करने की पागलपनभरी आकांक्षाएं बहुत बड़ा मनोवैज्ञानिक बोझ हो जाता है। इससे शायद सुनंदा पुष्कर और ट्रिरवेइलर की त्रासदियों को समझने में मदद मिल सके। मेरे दो पसंदीदा उपन्यास फ्रांसीसी लेखक गुस्ताव फ्लाउबर्त का मेडम बोवेरी और लियो तोल्सतोय का एना कैरेनिना की नायिकाओं की त्रासदी के पीछे भी निश्चित ही ये ही कारण थे। दोनों महिलाओं को ऐसी आर्थिक सुरक्षा प्राप्त थी, जिससे किसी को भी रश्क हो सकता था पर उनके विवाह में प्रेम नहीं था। दोनों को जीवन से रोमांस की आधुनिक अपेक्षाएं थीं और उन्होंने विवाहेत्तर संबंधों में इसे पाने का दुस्साहस किया। हालांकि समाज उनके इन संबंधों के प्रति उदार नहीं था और दिल टूटने से उनकी जिंदगियां आत्महत्या में खत्म हुईं।मौजूदा भारत में लोगों के जीवन में रोमांटिक प्रेम का परिचय कराने में बॉलीवुड की मुख्य भूमिका रही। फिल्मों के प्रभाव के बावजूद भारतीयों को यह रोमांटिक प्रेम का मिथक कभी पूरी तरह स्वीकार नहीं हुआ। इसीलिए अरेंज मैरिज की समझबूझभरी संस्था न सिर्फ कायम है बल्कि फल-फूल रही है। संपूर्ण मानव इतिहास में ज्यादातर समाजों में अरेंज मैरिज की ही प्रथा रही है, किंतु 19वीं सदी की शुरुआत में पश्चिम में मध्यवर्ग के उदय के साथ लव मैरिज चलन में आया। यह उसी दौर की बात है जब यूरोप में वैचारिक जागरूकता आई, जिसमें स्वतंत्रता, समानता, व्यक्तिवाद और धर्मनिरपेक्षता जैसे विचार हावी थे। लव मैरिज के साथ ये उदार मूल्य ब्रिटिश राज के साथ भारत में आए। आज ये मूल्य बहुत बड़े पैमाने पर मध्यवर्ग में जगह बना चुके हैं।चाहे आधुनिक प्रेम विवाह भारत में पश्चिम से आया पर रोमांटिक प्रेम हमारे लिए नया नहीं है। संस्कृत और पाली प्रेम काव्य में हमें इसके दर्शन होते हैं। विद्याकार के खंडकाव्य और सतसई तो इसके उदाहरण हैं ही, कालीदास जैसे शास्त्रीय कवि और बाद में भक्ति काव्य खासतौर पर गीत गोविंद में यह दिखाई देता है। इस काव्य में लगातार निषिद्ध रोमांटिक प्रेम की चर्चा है। ऐसे निषिद्ध प्रेम के मोह से कौन बच सका है। एक सुंदर अजनबी के साथ प्रेम संबंध एक रोमांचक संभावना है खासतौर पर बरसों तक बच्चों की परवरिश के थकाऊ अनुभव के बाद तो इसका आकर्षण बढ़ ही जाता है। सिर्फ शारीरिक सुख ही इस ओर नहीं खींचता पर खुद के अहंकार के पूजे जाने का गर्व भी इसकी वजह होती है।हालांकि इन आह्लादकारी विचारों पर अपने जीवनसाथी को चोट पहुंचाने का अपराध बोध मंडराता रहता है। विवाहेत्तर संबंधों में हमेशा कोई न कोई तो शिकार होता ही है। भारतीय पुरुष के लिए यह जीवन के दो लक्ष्यों, धर्म यानी नैतिकता और काम के बीच संघर्ष का भी होता है।  देह के आनंद का उत्सव मनाने वाले कामसूत्र में भी कहा गया है कि काम की आवेगात्मक इच्छाओं की लगाम धर्म के हाथों में होनी चाहिए।इसके कारण एक धर्मसंकट पैदा होता है। एक व्यक्ति दूसरे को धोखा दे या खुद को। दोनों में से कोई भी विकल्प आजमाए, उसकी हार ही है। यदि आवेग को प्राथमिकता दी तो जीवनसाथी के साथ धोखा होता है और प्रेम जोखिम में पड़ जाता है। यदि प्रलोभन के प्रति उदासीन हो जाए तो खुद के दमित होने का जोखिम रहता है। यदि प्रेम प्रकरण गुप्त रखता है तो वह व्यक्ति भरोसे के काबिल नहीं रहता। स्वीकार करता है तो बेवजह का दुख पैदा हो जाता है। यदि खुद की बजाय बच्चों के हित को तरजीह देता है तो बच्चों के चले जाने के बाद असंतोष पैदा होता है। खुद के हित को तरजीह देता है तो बच्चों की कभी खत्म न होने वाली नाराजी का सामना करना पड़ता है। खेद है कि यह दुखद और नैराश्यपूर्ण स्थिति 'काम' के कारण पैदा होती है, कम से कम पुरुषों के दृष्टिकोण से तो यही बात है।पिछले कुछ दशकों से भारत में विवाह को लेकर रवैया बदल रहा है और युवा अब दैहिक संबंधों पर स्वतंत्रतापूर्वक चर्चा करते हैं। अरेंज मैरिज के बने रहने के बावजूद युवावर्ग उसके प्रेम में पडऩा चाहता है, जिससे उसे विवाह करना होता है। जब उनके विवाह में कोई गड़बड़ होती है तो उनका रोमांटिक भ्रम छिन्न-भिन्न हो जाता है। फिर देवदास की तरह वे टूटे दिल की तीमारदारी में लग जाते हैं। वे यह नहीं समझते कि कभी न खत्म होने वाला प्रेम बॉलीवुड और रोमांटिक काव्य की देन है। उन्हें अहसास नहीं है कि मानवीय प्रेम हमेशा खत्म होता है। हम अकेले पैदा होते हैं, अकेले मरते हैं। इन दो घटनाओं के बीच हमें जो भी साथ मिलता है वह विशुद्ध रूप से किस्मत की बात है। अकेलापन यह हमारी सामान्य मानवीय परिस्थिति है। हमें संकल्प के साथ अपने इस अकेलेपन को एक परिपक्व, परवाह करने वाले और स्वतंत्र व्यक्तित्व में बदलना चाहिए। एक-दूसरे के व्यक्तित्वों और पृथकता की सच्ची स्वीकार्यता ही वह नींव है जिस पर एक परिपक्व विवाह आधारित होना चाहिए।

Modern marriages aren’t made in heaven

In the past few weeks, sexual tragedies have blighted some prominent and attractive lives. Sunanda Pushkar, wife of the writer and minister, Shashi Tharoor, died recently in Delhi. Around the same time, the French First Lady, Valerie Treirweiler, had to be hospitalized in Paris. Both events followed revelations of alleged sexual affairs. Sunanda Pushkar accused her husband of an intimate relationship with a Pakistani journalist. Ms Treirweiler was devastated by the French president, Francois Hollande’s liaison with an actress; France’s first family split a few days later. These are not only titillating sex scandals about glamorous celebrities — they reveal something deeper and infinitely sad about the melancholic human condition. 

The standard narrative in such cases is to blame the unfaithful man, calling him 'scumbag’ and 'cheat'. There is another narrative, however, which holds the institution of 'love marriage' equally guilty. Modern marriage combines three idealistic ideas — love, sex, and family — which make distinctive but unreasonable demands on a couple. To raise a family was, of course, the original idea behind marriage. To it has been added the second ideal of romantic love; and a third — that one's partner should also be a great performer in bed. 

We have a sensible institution in India called 'arranged marriage' which we contrast with 'love marriage'. Throughout human history arranged marriages were the norm in most societies. People got married to raise a family. In early 19th century, with the rise of the middle-classes, 'love marriage' emerged in Europe. It coincided with the Enlightenment, which incubated 'modern' ideas such as liberty, equality, individualism and secularism that quickly swept the world. These liberal ideas, along with 'love marriage', came to India on the coat tails of the British Raj. Initially it infected a tiny westernized minority but today it has permeated a larger middle-class. Most Indians received their ideal of 'love marriage' unreliably from Bollywood, which may explain why good old fashioned arranged marriage is still well and alive in India. 

In pre-modern times, men satisfied the three needs via three different individuals, according to the philosopher Alain de Botton's sensitively male perspective. A wife made a home and children; a lover fulfilled one's romantic needs clandestinely ; and an accomplished prostitute or courtesan was always there for great sex. This division of labour served men well. Given a chance, I expect, my grandfather would have lived thus. But today, we make impossible demands on a single person to meet romantic, sexual and familial needs. She feels huge pressure to fulfil all three roles plus make a career outside the home. What she mostly wants is a love marriage with good and faithful husband. 

The insane ambition of modern love marriage to satisfy so many needs places a huge burden and this might also help to explain the tragedies of Sunanda Pushkar and Valerie Treirweiler. It was certainly behind the tragedies that befell the heroines of two of my favourite novels, Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina. Both women had enviable financial security but also loveless marriages. But both had modern, romantic expectations from life, and dared to fulfil them outside marriage. Society did not forgive their illicit love affairs and their lives ended in tragic suicides. 

Human beings may have become modern and liberal but society remains conservative. Who has not been tempted by illicit love? An affair with a beautiful stranger is a thrilling prospect, especially after years of raising children. There is also fear of death if one is middle-aged — life is passing and when will another chance come? But these exhilarating thoughts have to be weighed against hurting another human being. One must always empathize with the victim of adultery. Even the Kamasutra admits that dharma trumps kama. 

Does one betray another human being or oneself ? Either way one loses. If one decides to have a fling, one betrays a spouse and puts one's love at risk. If one abstains from temptation, one risks becoming stale and repressed. If one keeps the affair secret, one becomes inauthentic. Confessing to it brings needless pain. If one places one's children's interest above one's own, one is disappointed when they leave. If one puts one's own interest above theirs, one earns their unending resentment. This, alas, is the unhappy, melancholic human condition.

Aam Aadmi is not the reforming party India needs, Financial Times,January 26, 2014

The leadership is trapped in the ideas of the old left, writes Gurcharan Das
For the past six weeks Indians have been mesmerised by the stunning success of the Aam Aadmi party, which has propelled its 45-year-old activist leader, Arvind Kejriwal, to chief minister of Delhi. The AAP – or Common Man party – is only a year old but its popularity is challenging the supremacy of India’s two main political parties, the left-leaning Congress and the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party.Yet despite its many commendable features, the AAP is not the party needed to revive investment and growth and unlock India’s potential. Mr Kejriwal’s gentle, charming rhetoric seems to hide illiberal instincts. His party, furthermore, could prevent the formation of a stable government in this year’s national elections if it diverts enough votes from Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata party, the leading contender.
The AAP has rapidly given many Indians a wonderful sense of nationhood. Its transparent fundraising contrasts with the murky electoral financing of other parties. Its strident rhetoric has forced parliament to enact anti-corruption legislation that had been languishing for years. Its politicians’ frugality has embarrassed those of other parties who live in sprawling bungalows with gun-toting security brigades.
A young, aspiring middle class, sick of corruption, is largely driving the AAP phenomenon. Filled with hope and ambition, it wants jobs, opportunities and a better life for its children. But the party’s leadership is trapped in the ideas of the old left and could take India back to its socialist past, the pre-1991 days when it was a perpetual underachiever. Since the leadership is out of sync with the aspirations of its followers, the party may yet hit a wall and run out of steam. It is a fate that has been met by many populist movements before.
The AAP failed its first economics test this month when it disallowed foreign investment in Delhi supermarkets. It did not realise that its supporters would prefer to work in modern supermarkets rather than dingy localkirana stores. It forgot that, the world over, the “common man” shops in supermarkets where prices are lower because large retailers shun intermediaries to buy their produce directly from farmers, passing on the savings to consumers.
Instead of fighting supermarkets, the AAP should have scrapped a law that forces farmers to sell through official “agricultural produce marketing committees” – in effect, wholesaler cartels. This would benefit consumers, curbing rises in fruit and vegetable prices. It would also, for example, allow supermarkets to buy directly from farmers, keep the produce fresh throughout the supply chain and save food from rotting in the field.
The man in charge of running one of India’s leading cities has the opportunity to transform it into an innovative services hub, and to lift his supporters to the affluence enjoyed in the Asian tiger economies. But Mr Kejriwal does not realise that, since the arrival of the metro over a decade ago, Delhi has changed from an old bureaucratic town of constipated civil servants to become a lively commercial city.

His first move was to give all households 20,000 litres of free water a month – a populist ploy that will not help the poorest 30 per cent of Delhi citizens who are without running water. This middle-class subsidy will lead to meter-tampering and destroy the finances of the publicly owned water authority, leaving scant funds for maintenance, or for laying new pipes in poor neighbourhoods.

What makes Mr Kejriwal unique is his obsession with corruption. But to tackle it he will have to go beyond his favourite idea, the Lokpal, an independent anti-corruption agency with the power to expose wrongdoing by officials. At a minimum, he must eliminate opportunities for official malfeasance by reforming the bureaucracy and the judiciary. He has shown little inclination for this hard work.
Indian voters, unfortunately, do not have a choice when it comes to economic issues. Every party is left of centre; hence, reforms take place by stealth.
The space at the right of centre remains empty. More than the AAP, India needs a liberal party that openly trusts markets and focuses on economic and institutional reform. But this situation might soon change. Mr Modi is openly right of centre. Even though his own party is confused on economic issues, his state of Gujarat has registered double-digit economic growth for more than a decade through his ability to attract private investment. He may not be the liberal reformer India needs but he is decisive, business friendly and gets things done.
No party seems capable of winning a majority in the forthcoming elections, and voters are reconciled to another coalition. The AAP’s role might well be that of a spoiler, which will mean instability in a country where decision making has been paralysed for the past five years under Congress party rule.
The writer is the author of ‘India Grows at Night: A Liberal Case for a Strong State’