Thursday, 24 September 2015

The Case for Police Reforms

Back In 1861, Mahatma Gandhi was not yet born. The Uprising of 1857 was recent memory. Italy was a newly formed nation and Germany did not even exist. The light bulb, the car and the telephone had not yet been invented. That's how long ago it was. If you'll believe it, the police in nearly every Indian state is still governed by a piece of legislation (The Police Act, 1861) passed by our colonial masters 154 years ago (some states have enacted laws largely based on that act)!

Shocking as it sounds, here's an even more shocking fact: the Supreme Court issued a directive to state governments to implement a set of reforms pending passing of new legislation way back in 2006. Nearly a decade since then, those reforms are yet to see the light of day. To put it in a nutshell, the order provided for:

  • The creation of a watchdog body (State Security Commission) for protecting the police from political interference
  • A Minimum tenure of 2 years for police officials
  • Seperation of investigation from law and order maintenance, to ensure specialisation and greater efficiency in investigating
  •  A police establishment board consisting of senior officials, to decide on service related matters (including transfers, promotions and postings)
  •  An independent police complaints authority to look into and decide on any complaints against police officers
  •  Creation of a national security commission

The apex court's directions- especially the ones relating to security of tenure and taking away the power to transfer or deciding posting- would be anathema for our political class, long accustomed to using the police as an instrument to further its personal ends. 

Since the Supreme Court's orders are binding, the state governments have predictably done everything within their powers to make sure no action has been taken to date. Not surprisingly, none of the political parties have even raised this point in any election campaign so far, at least to my knowledge.

Is it any wonder that cases drag on for ages and conviction rates are so low? With little specialisation in investigation and gathering of evidence, the evidence produced by the police quite frequently fails to pass muster before the court. I'm not even talking about investigations being hampered by transfer of officials or political interference in the functioning of the police.

Unfortunately police reforms is hardly a subject likely to grab public attention, which accounts for the complete silence on the subject both from our politicians as well as the media. There is so little awareness about the fact, much less appreciation of it, that our state governments will continue dragging their feet over police reforms for several years to come. 

Until then, there's no protection for our protectors.


  1. Policing is a state subject under Article  246(3), read with the Seventh Schedule to the Indian constitution, which means that the authority for making legislation and administration of police lies with the individual states, not the central Government in Delhi. Consequently, police reforms are not possible unless the initiative is taken by the states.
  2. The Supreme Court order directing the states to implement police reforms was in the case of (Prakash Singh & Others v Union of India (2006). Click here for a copy of the Supreme Court's order.

This is a reproduction of an article I wrote on the now defunct website in July 2013. Sadly, nothing has changed since then.

Monday, 13 April 2015

Bloody Sunday: 13th April 1919

The name जलियाँवाला बाग (Jalianwala Bagh) is surely familiar to most Indians as the epitome of colonial brutality. For the uninitiated: hundreds of peaceful, unarmed civilians were massacred without provocation in Jalianwala Bagh, an odd shaped open ground in the city of Amritsar, Punjab on 13th April 1919.  96 years after that colossal tragedy, let's recount the events that led to it and the aftermath.

Prelude to Massacre
1919 was a particularly difficult time in Indian history. Having contributed over a million soldiers to the great war in Europe (out of which, over 40,000 were killed in the battlefields of world war I), Indians were expecting concessions from their victorious colonial masters. All such delusions were quickly shattered, as the British rulers soon made it clear that with the war over, it was to be business as usual.

The trade disruption and scarcities caused by war time rationing had led to massive unemployment and high inflation. The situation, already precarious, was compounded by a failed monsoon in 1918. If that wasn't bad enough, the British government imposed new taxes to fill up the virtually bankrupt coffers. Not surprisingly, discontent was rife

Sir Sydney Rowlatt (1862-1945)

The memories of the Lahore conspiracy trials fresh in mind, the British government enacted the Anarchial and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919 (popularly known as the Rowlatt Act), which authorised the government, among other things, to imprison people on mere suspicion and detain then without trial. Put it simply, India had effectively become a police state. The gunpowder was dry. A spark was all it needed to cause a conflagration.

That spark was provided by the government on the night of 9th April, when two prominent leaders of Punjab: Satya Pal and Saifuddin Kitchlew were arrested along with Mahatma Gandhi and moved to an undisclosed location. Not surprisingly, violent protests erupted across Punjab, prompting the state government to impose martial law on the 13th.

The Massacre
Sunday, 13th April 1919- the day on which martial law was imposed- happened to be the day of Baisakhi, an important religious and cultural festival in Punjab. Since the notice was not widely disseminated outside of the major cities, the vast majority of the populace from the countryside was unaware of the fact that gatherings were prohibited. And so thousands of people found themselves in Jalianwala Bagh that afternoon.

Dyer (1864-1927): The Butcher of Amritsar

The news of the gathering infuriated Colonel Reginald Dyer (temporarily named Brigadier General during the war in 1916. He retained that post until his retirement in 1920), commandant of the military brigade in Amritsar, who arrived with a group of 90 armed soldiers. Determined to strike fear into the hearts of the rebellious Indians, Dyer had his troops seal the main entrance (the remaining entrances, most of which were normally locked, were very narrow) and ordered his troops to fire at the densest section of the crowd. About 1,650 rounds were fired over ten minutes or so, before the troops ran out of ammunition.

The official figures revealed that as many as 379 persons were killed in the firing. The Indian National Congress, which conducted its own inquiry, quoted a figure well in excess of 1000. The numbers may be in dispute, but what is beyond dispute is the fact that hundreds of unarmed people were shot in cold blood without provocation. In his testimony before the Hunter commission, Dyer admitted that he had not given the crowd any warning to disperse and that he had no remorse for having ordered his troops to fire.

  • A significant number of ordinary British citizens condoned Dyer's action, as did the vast majority of the British population in India. Rudyard Kipling, who claimed that Dyer had saved India, started a benefit fund which raised over 26,000 pound sterling (over a million pounds in today's money). 
  • The general attitude towards the massacre in Britain started changing by the end of the year, after the details of that horrendous crime (which was not known known to the general populace until December ) came to be known.
  • Several influential voices in Britain condemned Colonel Dyer, notably Winston Churchill (then Secretary of State for War), who described it as "...a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation..." (ironically, he would himself be more responsible than anyone else for the great Bengal Famine of 1943 which claimed over a million lives- more about that at a later date).

Daily Mirror Report on the assassination of Michael O'Dwyer

  • For English educated, Anglophile Indians steeped in the ideas of British justice, the massacre shattered all faith in British justice. The disillusionment of this influential support base was one of the pivotal points in India's struggle for independence.
  • The Hunter Commission, constituted to inquire into the massacre, did not impose any penal or disciplinary action on Colonel Dyer. However, he was forced into pre-mature retirement in 1920. His recommendation for a CBE (for his services during the third Afghan War) was withdrawn.
  • Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant-Governer of Punjab, who had imposed martial law and who supported Dyer, denied responsibility for the massacre on the grounds that he was not responsible for the implementation of his orders on the ground. Nevertheless, O'Dwyer copped severe criticism from influential persons in the British establishment. He would be relieved of his office. 
  • Mahatma Gandhi, whose faith in British rule was shattered by the massacre, would launch the Non-Cooperation Movement the following year, which shook the British empire to its very foundations
  • Reginald Dyer suffered a series of strokes which left him paralysed and specchless before he passed way in 1927 due to cerebral haemorrhage and arteriosclerosis
  • Michael O'Dwyer, who was assassinated in March 1940 by a young revolutionary called Udham Singh.
  • While on a visit to India in 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned the Jalianwala Bagh massacre as a "deeply shameful event"

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Walking Down Memory Lane: Achhut Kanya (1936)

This is the first in a series of articles in which we shall rediscover the magic from the long forgotten early years of Hindi cinema- the era of studio contracts and actors who also sang their own songs. It was the era when India was still fighting for independence and Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Raj Kapoor were not yet out of school.

We kick off this series with अछूत  कन्या (Achhut Kanya/ Untouchable Girl), a Hindi movie directed by a German (Franz Osten), featuring among others the first Ms. India. Released in 1936, when untouchability was one of the burning topics of the say, Achhut Kanya was a reformist piece- a genre popular in the Hindi film industry in the 1930s.

The movie starred Devika Rani, the prima donna of the era. Appearing opposite her was a 24-year old newcomer called Ashok Kumar who was appearing in only his second movie. Achhut Kanya would become one of the early blockbusters of Hindi cinema, catapulting the hitherto little known Ashok Kumar to stardom- perhaps the greatest legacy of this movie.

A car comes to a halt at a railway level crossing. The gatekeeper informs the man at the wheel that the gate will not open for another hour, to his visible consternation. He gets up to have a smoke to calm his nerves, when a revolver drops out of the inner pocket of his jacket. His wife dutifully picks it up and hands it over to him, only to get snapped at.

As they wait, the young lady's husband happens to see a memorial to someone with an epitaph that reads इसने अपनी जान दी..., दूसरों की जाने बचाने के लिए (she laid down her life...., so others could live). He is joined there by his wife, who he gruffly orders to get back in the car. Just then a ghostly spirit turns up to narrate the dead person's story.

The Young Couple at the Level Crossing

Flashback to the distant past, when the same level crossing was manned by Dukhiya (Kamta Prasad), an untouchable. Dukhiya has an unlikely friendship with Mohan (P.F. Pithawala), a brahman whose life he once saved. Their children Pratap (Ashok Kumar) and Kasturi (Devika Rani), who grew up together, are deeply in love with each other.

Unfortunately, caste barriers preclude any possibility of marriage between the two. Pratap is married off to Meera (Manorama- not to be confused with the 60s actress of the same name) and Kasturi to Manu (Anwar). Manu, a fellow untouchable, is already married to a lady called Kajari (Pramila). Angered by the disrespect shown to him by his more affluent wife and in-laws, Manu has chosen to seperate himself from them.

Their lives proceed peacefully until Kajari feels threatened and insecure, now that Manu has found himself a new bride, that too one he is deeply in love with. Pratap's wife Meera, who realises that her husband is deeply in love with someone else, reconciles to her fait until Kajari poisons her mind. The ladies hatch a vicious conspiracy to discredit Kasturi in the eyes of Manu.

One not so fine day, the scheming housewives take Kasturi to a mela in a nearby village and abandon her there, knowing fully well that she will have to hitch a ride home with Pratap, who is running a vegetable stall in the mela. Back home, Kajri poisons Manu's mind against Kasturi. The misunderstanding results in a fight between Pratap and Manu when the former is on the way back home. Unfortunately, Manu unwisely intercepts Pratap on the railway track. In the ensuing scuffle, the two fail to realise that a train is rapidly approaching them. Desperate to save the two, Kasturi goes running down the track to stop the advancing train, sacrificing her life in the process.

Kajri and Meera: Scheming Housewives

Cut back to the present, where the young man who is hearing the story is moved. He confesses to his wife in a weak moment that the gun was intended to be used on her. To his surprise, the young lady is perfectly aware of what's in store for her but accepted it like a good bharatiya nari. Her admission proves the moment of catharsis for her husband, who remorsefully realises his folly.

Movie Review
The story is by no means extraordinary. In many ways, its reminiscent of the story of Radha-Krishna who were deeply in love with each other but ended up marrying someone else. 

Three things work in favour of the movie: one the screen presence of Devika Rani (who received top billing) and the chemistry between her and the boyish looking Ashok Kumar. Seeing this movie, its hard to be believe that the two never got along well in real life.

The second plus point of this movie is the characterisation. The characters and their motivations are very real and believable. For example, when Pratap suggests elopement to Kasturi she turns it down not out of moral considerations, but simply because their family members will have to face the consequences after they are gone- a realism that disappeared from Hindi cinema in later decades.

Lastly, there's the magnificent photography.  I would recommend a viewing of this movie just for the photography. Achhut Kanya has gorgeous visuals (a huge thanks to tommydan55, who has uploaded a restored print on youtube)- the hallmark of early Bombay Talkies in the era of Himanshu Rai and Franz Osten. If you are willing to overlook the odd inadvertent jump cut, the movie is a visual delight- an extraordinary achievement, given the primitive technology available in that age.

Saraswati Devi

On the downside is the acting, which is uniformly stagey. The characters are extremely verbose, with a style of dialogue delivery that sounds like a parody. It may be said, in mitigation, that such verbosity and stilted dialogue delivery was typical of early talkies across the world. Ashok Kumar, who had no background in acting, is the only member of the crew whose dialogue delivery is natural (although paradoxically, his acting is also the weakest of the lot!).

A quick word about the music: the songs are amazingly simple and the lyrics are profound. And yet its hard to express an opinion on Saraswati Devi's music, since its so far removed from anything we have ever heard or are likely to hear from Bollywood. After all, it was an era in which actors sang their own songs, which meant that composers were obliged to come up with tunes that even untrained singers could pull off.

The Crew
The first thing that strikes you in this movie is the sheer youthfulness of Ashok Kumar, who was 24 at the time but looked more like a teenager. He is not just inexperienced, but clearly out of his depth. Yet, Ashok Kumar shows the first signs of the realism that would be the hallmark of his acting. His natural acting is in stark contrast with the stagey, stilted dialogue delivery of the others around. Still, no one who saw that little known and callow 24 year old  in 1936 would have imagined that he would gone to become one of the greatest actors in the history of Indian cinema.

What does one say of Devika Rani? I had only heard about her, but this was the first time I was seeing her on screen. She has to be one of the most beautiful faces to have ever graced Hindi cinema. Although her acting was limited, she had an undeniable presence on screen. If Devika Rani was the star of that era, her screen presence certainly justified it.

P.F. Pithawala, who plays Mohan (Ashok Kumar's father) is by far the best actor in the crew. The stagey dialogue delivery notwithstanding, he is very convincing as the village chemist with a kind heart and a man who speaks his mind unhesitatingly. Having seen him in other movies of the era, it must be said that Pithawala was a remarkably versatile actor. Sadly I have been unable to find any information about him anywhere.

Devika Rani and Ashok Kumar

Najam Naqvi (1913-1982), who played the role of Manu (Devika Rani's husband), was the person in charge of continuity at Bombay Talkies.  Since he used the screen name Anwar, he appears twice in the credits of the movie under two different names! Naqvi went on to direct several movies in the 40s, before moving to Pakistan after partition, where he worked as an actor/ director.

The actress who played the young lady at the level crossing was Pramila (not to be confused with her namesake who played Kajri), the screen name adopted by Esther Victoria Abraham (1916-2006). A Baghdadi Jew born in Calcutta, Esther went on to become the first Miss India in 1947. A fiesty, spirited woman far ahead of her time, she had the misfortune of being arrested in the 50s under the orders of Morarji Desai- the then Chief Minister of Bombay state- who wrongly thought her to be a Pakistani spy due to her frequent visits across the border to promote her movies. Her son Hyder Ali is best known today for his portrayal of Raja in the 1980s serial Nukkad.

The director of the movie Franz Osten (1876-1956) is today a name long forgotten, but he was one of the leading directors of that era. In partnership with Himanshu Rai, he directed several classics of the late silent era of Indian cinema such as Prem Sanyas (1925) and Prapancha Pash (1929). He became a member of the Nazi party in 1936, due to which he was deported from India by the British Government after the outbreak of the second world war. Ironically Osten, who directed many of Ashok Kumar's early movies, was not in favour of casting the young man who, in his opinion, didn't have the looks of an actor.

Franz Osten

The music was composed by Saraswati Devi, the name adopted by Khursheed Minocher Homji (1912-1980). Classically trained, she and her sister Manek gave regular musical performances on All India Radio's Bombay station. Their programme, known as the Homji Sisters, was immensely popular at the time. Himanshu Rai put her in charge of Bombay Talkies music room in the mid 30s, making her one of the earliest film composers in Hindi cinema. Saraswati Devi also earned the distinction of being the first ever playback singer in Hindi cinema, when she sung the song  for her sister Manek who had to appear on screen but had a bad throat that day.

Unfortunately, cinema was considered a dishonourable profession in the 30s. The presence of Parsi girls in the studios raised the heckles of the Parsi community, of which some members were on the board of Bombay Talkies. Himanshu Rai's intervention with the board members saved the day, resulting in a compromise whereby Khursheed was given the screen name Saraswati Devi to conceal her real identity.

As an addendum to the earlier articles on Kismet: I discovered to my surprise, that Chandraprabha, who played the role of Rani's 'pregnant out of wedlock' sister was none other than Manek Minocher Homji. And so Manek/ Chandraprabha was the first ever actress to have a playback song filmed on her.

Of the remaining members of the cast, I fear I know nothing at all. Sadly its very difficult to come across any information on Hindi movies made before the 70s. I shall be grateful to anyone who could tell me more about the members of the cast.

I knew that Indian society must have been a lot more conservative in 1930s, when Achut Kanya was released. Nonetheless, it came as a shock to see women refer to their husbands variously as मालिक (owner), देवता / स्वामी (God). From the very first scene in which the young man rudely shoos away his wife, its evident that the status of women in 30s India (insofar as they enjoyed any) was pretty much subordinate to that of men. Sexist or even misogynistic as it may sound in this day and age, it is but a reflection of Indian society of that era.

It is equally surprising to see one of the principal characters (Manu) having two wives and not have any of the characters being surprised or scandalised by the fact. Perhaps polygamy was a common practice back then (it must be said in mitigation that the movie is set in a period well before 1936).

Seen by a viewer in the 21st century, the openness with which untouchability is discussed is astonishing. Any possibility of a marriage between Pratap and Kasturi is dismissed in an offhand, nonchalant manner, suggesting that the caste system was considered perfectly normal even in that era when Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar were working against it in their own way. We can safely assure that this movie would have never made it past the censors in our day.

Most surprising of all is the manner in which government officials are portrayed. Kasturi's father is removed from his job for stopping a train in an emergency. The policeman who comes investigating after Pratap's house is burnt down by an irate mob is a scrupulously honest man committed to his duty. Having seen other movies from the era portray government officials/ policemen in positive light one gets the impression that policemen and government officials in general were far more accountable in those days than they are today.

In Conclusion
Seen today, most viewers will surely find the slow pace and the unnatural dialogue delivery boring at best and irritating at worst. To be fair, Achhut Kanya appeared in 1936, when film makers and actors alike were still coming to terms with the challenges posed by talkies- it was just five years since India's first ever 'talkie' film hit the screens (and barely 2-3 years since silent movies went out). 

Achhut Kanya is best viewed as a piece of cinematic history: one of the earliest blockbusters of Hindi cinema and a crucial movie in the career of a hitherto reluctant actor called Ashok Kumar. 

Monday, 30 March 2015

Open Letter to Sonia Gandhi

Dear Mrs. Gandhi,

I am writing this letter in the context of your communication to Mr. Nitin Gadkari regarding the proposed amendments to the land bill. Let me clarify at the outset that I'm not a stooge of the BJP or anyone else for that matter, nor is this meant to be a response to to your letter- that's for Mr. Gadkari to take care of. This is just meant to hold up a mirror to you.

To quote your own words: "it is now being widely recognized that your government is blatantly anti-farmer and anti-poor..."

Widely recognised by whom Mrs. Gandhi? Your party? If so, will you please explain the 60,000 plus farmer suicides in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh between 2004 and 2013? Your party, whose record in terms of taking care of farmers is supposed to be (in your own words) second to none, was in power in both states as well as the centre during that period. Seriously, with that background, don't you see the blatant hypocrisy when you accuse others of being anti-farmer? 

Since you've also used the term anti-poor, will you be good enough to let us, the people of India, know why there are hundreds of millions of Indians still wallowing in poverty after 68 years of independence? Your party was in power for 54 out of those 68 years. Why is there such widespread poverty after four decades of 'garabi hatao'? Will you care to answer those questions before pointing fingers at others?

Source: National Crime Records Bureau

Moving on, you also wrote: "There can be no two opinions that the country absolutely needs to enhance its irrigation potential, build more indigenous defence factories and further improve rural infrastructure. But this cannot be at the cost of pushing farmers into a pitiable condition or destroying their livelihoods."

For once I wholeheartedly agree with you Mrs. Gandhi. Unfortunately however, our farmers are already in a pitiable condition. Why else do you think so many farmers have fled to the cities over the last decade or so? For the record, the 2011 census estimated that on an average, 2400 farmers migrate to the cities every single day- this was after 7 years of governance by your party! 

Somewhere towards the end of that letter you wrote: "Your proposition for a debate after the government has unilaterally imposed an anti-farmer law is a mockery of the tradition of building bipartisan consensus before introducing laws of national importance."

Admittedly promulgating ordinances is never healthy in a democracy. For once Mrs. Gandhi, I'm on the same page as you. However, the tone of your letter is at odds with the fact that UPA government promulgated 61 ordinances in its 10 years in power. Where was your concern for bipartisan consensus back then? Yes it true that you did not hold any constitutional post then, but the whole country knows that the real power resided with you throughout those ten years and that the only thing you sacrificed in 2004 was accountability.

In fact your family members, including your own self, have never been shy of using the ordinance route themselves, as you can see in the graph below, which shows the number of ordinances promulgated under governments headed by you or your family members (in chronological order: Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi). We're not even talking about the kind of 'bipartisan consensus' that your mother in law forged with opposition parties when the preamble to the constitution of India was changed during the emergency.

Incidentally, there's another point I must bring to your attention Mrs. Gandhi. It appears to most Indians that your letter to Mr. Gadkari is a purely one sided conversation expressing only your views and that you have conveniently avoided a debate on the subject. If you are really concerned about the subject matter, why don't you accept his invitation to a debate?

To be sure, I'm not arguing the merits of your arguments- that's for legal experts. As I mentioned, this letter is only meant to hold up a mirror to you. I'm sure any reasonable person would agree that in the light of these facts your moral position in relation to the accusations you have made is pretty weak. Tell me Mrs. Gandhi, with that background is it even possible for us to take you seriously?

Saturday, 28 March 2015

Anna: Anarchist or Dictator?

For people like this writer, who have a genius for getting predictions spectacularly wrong, its always an unmitigated joy when on the odd occasion, subsequent events prove them right. As it happens Anna Hazare has just given me that pleasure.

To quote my own words: "I am deeply concerned at the direction in which Anna's movement is heading... I was never in favour of holding a legitimate, democratically elected Government to ransom". 

These words were written on 9th November 2011. Over three years later, Anna has just proven my point by calling for a jail bharo andolan in protest against the proposed bill to amend the land acquisition law, notwithstanding the invitation to an open debate from Nitin Gadkari.

Anna Hazare

If that wasn't bad enough, Anna Hazare went on to issue a counter-invitation, this time to the prime minister, calling for an open debate. Unless I'm mistaken, the message is that: Anna will choose his opponents entirely at his convenience and even choose the timing and medium and the other person had bloody well bow before his will or risk a hartal. I'm afraid, these methods are anarchic and dictatorial. There is no place for such methods in a democracy.

There are those who would argue that Anna's methods are similar to those of Mahatma Gandhi. I for one do not buy that argument. The situation in India today cannot be compared to that in Gandhi's time. Whereas the great man's fasts were in protest against an alien government imposed upon the country, Anna's protests are targeted at a popular government legitimately voted to power by us, the people of India. If the will of the people overrides all other considerations, then pray how else did the present government come to power? How did it get the outright majority it enjoys in the Lok Sabha?

And so while I have nothing but the the highest respect for Anna Hazare's integrity and his intentions, I'm vehemently opposed to his methods. Whatever he intends to do, its incumbent on him to respect the institutions of the democracy we are proud of.

Friday, 13 February 2015

AAP Ki Sarkaar

Dear Mr. Kejriwal,

Let me start off by congratulating you on your party's landslide victory in Delhi. As comebacks go, this has to be one of the most extraordinary ever.

As an aam aadmi, your party's victory gives us the hope that we finally have a political party that can bring transparency and an end to corrupt practices in election funding and distribution of election tickets. It gives us the hope that we finally have a party of our own, which can produce leaders who come up in life on personal merit, not due to accident of birth.

It was refreshing to see you urge your party members not to get arrogant in the hour of victory. I take it that you have realised, as we all do, the fact that your party could fill the vaccuum of opposition created by the Congress' steep fall from grace. This could be golden opportunity to rewrite the rules of the game. However, as a well wisher I would like to sound a cautionary note before you embark on your second innings as the Chief Minister of Delhi.

To start with, let me remind you that there's no place for ultimatums in a democracy. No matter how strongly you feel about your viewpoint, in a democracy decisions have to be made by consensus, not by force. It was one thing for you to sit on a dharna when you were an activist, quite another to do it when you were the chief minister of a state. You lost a golden opportunity as well as your credibility once by serving an ultimatum. I trust the lesson wasn't lost on you.

Secondly, let me remind you of the midnight raid led by your party minister Mr. Bharti. Whatever his intentions may have been, the minister had no right to instruct police officer what to do- that's the prerogative of senior officers, not politicians. Political interference in the functioning of the police is the very reason why most Indians have no faith in the police or the judiciary. If your party truly believes in cleaning up the system, it would do well to remember that a clear separation between legislature, judiciary and executive is indispensable for a healthy democracy.

Third, let me urge you not to let populist urges get the better of you. Your party promised power at nearly half the current rate for the first 200 units. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise that such freebies will do more harm than good eventually. Such foolish, irresponsible populism is the main reason why the vast majority of the state owned power companies are on the verge of bankruptcy and millions of Indians have to live with power outages running into several hours. Eventually you'll have to take the courage to tell the public that nothing comes free.

On a related note, Mr. Kejriwal, your economic vision frankly alarms me. The economic prosperity that India has experienced over the two decades until UPA II was because of the sterling work of Indian entrepreneurs. Its no coincidence that the few pockets of excellence owe to the private sector. I trust you realise that India needs less government, not more. The government can only facilitate growth, not make it happen. As we have learnt from personal experience from our socialist years, raja bane vyaapari toh praja bane bhikari'.

Fourth, I hope that you never lose your idealism. Forget not, that the Indian National Congress- that old party of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Bose (not the present day family owned political party)- too became corrupt after the first taste of power in the late 30s. That's how fast idealism can vanish Mr. Kejriwal. Having been in the field yourself, you have a much better idea of the sheer scale of the challenge before you. 

Lastly Mr. Kejriwal, I urge you to move ahead one step at a time. We all dream of seeing your party as a national party that can change the very nature of Indian politics. For that, AAP will need to become a strongly entrenched regional party with a strong track record before spreading out to other states. That naturally takes a long time- at least a decade or two. Admittedly its difficult, but definitely doable. Remember, it took the BJP three decades of existence (plus nearly three more as the old Bharatiya Jan Sangh) and a charismatic leader with a strong record of performance to win with an outright majority.

Once again Mr. Kejriwal, my hearty congratulations on the historic victory. Just remember that you have only taken a baby step. There's still a long long way to step at a time.

Saturday, 24 January 2015

A Historic Opportunity

I wrote an article early in December about expected reforms to commercial laws in the coming year. I included, among others, a new companies act to replace the existing one, a goods and service tax (GST) to subsume the plethora of existing indirect taxes, a new direct tax code to replace the existing direct tax laws and lastly, changes to existing labour laws to make them more flexible.

This article was not written in 2014. In fact it was not even in this decade. I wrote it way back in December 2007. Take out the part on the new companies act and the rest of that article can still be reproduced word for word! That, my friends, is the pace at which reforms have historically moved in India. 

One of countless laws in need of overhaul 

Until a few days ago, one got the impression that the present government, having awakened long dead hopes of change, had gone into drift mode. That was before they embarked on the ordinance route. Not surprisingly, it has received considerable criticism for the use of 'midnight' ordinances from its political opponents, much of it unjustified. Let me explain why.

Article 123 of the constitution empowers the President of India to pass laws by ordinance. However, an ordinance passed under article 123 is only temporary in nature. It will become a permanent law only after it is passed by both houses of parliament. Effectively, the ordinance is only a starting point- a device to speed up reforms instead of waiting for a new session of parliament to start. Eventually it will pass through the same process as any other law- a fact the people who are crying foul are surely aware of.

It is perfectly possible that the NDA government might get around its weak position in Rajya Sabha by having the president call a joint session of both houses under Article 108 of the constitution. Should that come to pass, the govermnent will almost certainly manage to push through the changes owing to its overwhelming strength in the Lok Sabha. If the opposition feels that the government is using backhanded methods by calling for a joint session, it would do well to realise that the government's strength in numbers is due to popular mandate- and that their weak numbers are precisely due to the fact that they were rejected by the voters.

A draconian remnant of the socialist era

True, the ordinance route is normally contrary to the spirit of a democracy, but the circumstances are far from normal. We are talking about reforms that are desperately overdue. After three decades India has a government with a clear majority. The people are desperate for change and the demographic dividend will be over in another 25 years. This combination of circumstances may note present itself for several decades. India has waited several decades for change. We can either act now or remain waiting forever. For the better or the worse, the ends justify the means.