Showing posts with label UPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UPA. Show all posts

Monday, May 06, 2013

Same old land issue. same old dilemma.

Even after much delay over a controversial bill on land acquisitions, the same questions over the extent of required consent and the scope for resettlement and rehabilitation continue to obstruct the creation of a sound law

The latest intervention of Congress President Sonia Gandhi in the long-pending legislation on land acquisitions has made things uncomfortable for Jairam Ramesh, the Union Minister of Rural Development. A land acquisition bill (rechristened as The Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill), was recently approved by the Union Cabinet after several rounds of discussions by a Group of Ministers (GoM). The bill has been touted as UPA’s key answer to address investor sentiment and simultaneously address the ongoing conflicts over land across the nation. However, Sonia Gandhi’s reservations and the concerns raised by activists over certain provisions in the bill could cause more delay in the new law being passed.

Earlier this month, Ramesh had managed to avert what could have resulted in a major problem for the government. On October 2, thousands of landless farmers began a foot march from Gwalior to New Delhi demanding land for the landless and shelter for the homeless. The march under the aegis of Ekta Parishad, an NGO, that undertook a first of its kind movement in recent times, was set to culminate in New Delhi by the end of October. However, ten days into the march, Ramesh managed to disperse the movement after he signed a 10-point agreement with the leader of the movement P. V. Rajagopal.

Addressing a gathering of around 20,000 people at Agra’s COD grounds, Ramesh said that a task force in consultation with the state governments and the civil society will try to draft a policy that would ensure agricultural land and homestead rights for the landless and the homeless respectively. “The Centre cannot run away from the political responsibility of bringing about land reforms, but you should continue to put pressure on the state governments,” he said, claiming the Constitution of India has given the responsibility of deciding on land-related matters to state governments.

With the Cabinet having given its nod to the bill, the government is set to introduce it in the Parliament in the coming session.

On October 16, 2012, the GoM headed by Sharad Pawar finalised the draft, that laid down the condition that even if 2/3rd landowners gave their consent to sell their land, the government could acquire it for private projects and public-private-partnership (PPP) initiatives. Interestingly, two days after the draft details were made public, the Congress President made headlines for recommending to the PMO that the number should be necessarily raised to 80%. Only in case of acquisition for PPP projects could the threshold be diluted to 67%, if the ownership of the land remained with the government. The earlier draft of the bill did have this provision, but was later tweaked after certain ministries expressed dissent over it. Sources from the government tell B&E that the land bill is now expected to undergo some changes on the percentage of landowners’ consent, at the insistence of the UPA Chairperson.

The Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill (LARR Bill), 2011 was tabled in the Parliament in September last year. It was referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee which submitted its recommendations eight months later (May 2012). But due to differences within the government, PM Manmohan Singh constituted a GoM a month ago to decide on the final draft.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
 
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles

Saturday, May 04, 2013

Why The Numbers Are Stacked Against The Congress in 2014

It’s an old cliché no doubt, but elections often are about numbers, mathematics and cold calculations. Yes, charisma, ideology, policies and campaigning strategy do matter. But at the end of the day, it really boils down to numbers. That is the reason why the Republican challenger Mitt Romney looks all set to lose badly to Barack Obama on November 6 when Americans vote for a new President. He is losing despite the terrible economic situation in the United States since Obama took over in January 2009. Obama should have lost, but it is numbers that are working for him. Republican ideology, particularly the hard line attitude of the faithful, has alienated huge chunks of voters. Women, students, blacks and Hispanics are overwhelmingly against Republicans and will vote for Obama. The number of these groups of voters will surely outnumber the angry white voters who will vote for Romney.

Of course India is vastly different from US. And of course, elections are still – at least officially – far away in 2014. But even at this early a stage, it is easy to see why the numbers appear stacked against the Congress in 2014. And that is the reason why Sonia Gandhi and her advisors and strategists are a worried lot. I am not talking just about the impact of the serial scams like Commonwealth Games, 2G, airport privatisation, Coalgate and the latest irrigation scam in Maharashtra. I am not talking just about the venomous bite of inflation that is destroying household budgets. I am not talking just about the manner in which Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has become the butt of jokes and cruel humour despite the recent and futile efforts of some sections of the media to portray him as a decisive leader. I am not talking just about the damage that reluctant allies like Mulayam Yadav, Mayawati, Sharad Pawar and Karunanidhi will inflict during the run up to 2014 even as they prop up the tottering UPA regime. All these things will have an impact on Congress’ fortunes in 2014. No doubt about that. But it is the curse of cold, hard numbers that could have a more dangerous impact.

Before we get into the analysis of the cold, hard numbers, let us first take a cold, hard look at the factors that led to the triumph of the Congress and the UPA in 2009. Everybody talks about how the jholawallah advisors of Sonia Gandhi who comprise the National Advisory Council crafted the Congress victory of 2009 by coming up with schemes like NREGA. Then there was the Rs.600 billion farm loan waiver announced in 2009. If you believe these played a decisive role in 2009, you are misinformed and wrong. Overwhelmingly rural states – where you would expect to find grateful beneficiaries of NREGA and farm loan amnesties – like Odisha, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh did not give a lot of seats to the Congress. Including Uttar Pradesh, the Congress managed just 46 out of 195 seats from these states in 2009. In fact, the Congress and the UPA did amazingly well in urban constituencies in 2009. It won 13 out of the 13 Lok Sabha seats on offer in Delhi and Mumbai. That performance was last seen perhaps in 1984 when Rajiv Gandhi swept India in the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. So fact number one is that Congress did fabulously in urban centers.

Fact number two is the massive vote against the Left in West Bengal and Kerala that gave Congress and the UPA 39 out of 62 seats in 2009 in these two states. Fact number three is the strong alliances that gave a lot of seats to the UPA in 2009. In West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Maharashtra, the Congress and the UPA managed to win a massive 98 out of 159 seats in 2009. And who can forget fact number four – YSR Reddy who, along with the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), gave the Congress a spectacular 34 out of 42 seats in Andhra. In 2009, YSR was clearly the incumbent hero who simply swept aside all opposition despite loud whispers of numerous scams and instances of crony capitalism. The last factor is the suicidal behaviour of the BJP that gave the Congress 20 out of 25 seats in Rajasthan in 2009.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
 
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Learning to live with Terror

Fighting terror can’t be held ransom to vote bank politics, believes Ranjit Bhushan

The spectre of terror, which has haunted India for a better part of the last three decades – first Punjab and then Kashmir, and then onto mainland India – was never brought out more starkly than it was in November 2008 when the deadly attacks in Mumbai were brought home by live media coverage to a disbelieving Indian public.

The sheer audacity and scale of the slaughter and the impotence of the Indian security mechanisms to put deterrents in place until a lot of damage had been done exposed people to their own vulnerabilities as never before.

Have lessons been learnt? More importantly, is there a bipartisan approach on terror attacks? By the looks of it, some more time would pass before such a consensus emerges. While leader of opposition, L. K. Advani, and Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, have traded charges on whose government is more prone to terror attacks – UPA 2004 to 2009 or NDA 1999 to 2004 – it would be safe to say that the Mumbai attacks remain UPA’s Kandhar. There may have been no shameful ministerial escorts for hardened killers as in Kandhar, but the shifting of IPL, which had the potential to be a sporting brand as big as Wimbledon, on grounds that India was unsafe for hosting such events, falls in the same category of ‘crawling when asked to bend’. In other words, there is now no difference between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

India’s most high profile sibling rivalry

It’s slated to be the largest non-pharma deal this year (till date), if successful. But the Bharti-MTN deal is much more than that, for it can potentially be a major game changer in corporate India’s most high profile sibling rivalry – that of the Ambani brothers

Guess who benefited from this public demonstration of the bitter spat and subsequent split? Sunil Bharti Mittal and Airtel because Mukesh and the thousands and thousands of his employees switched over to Airtel connections!

The reverberations of that ‘switch’ are being felt even today; even as the second instalment of the UPA regime settles down to govern the country. You guessed it right again. We are talking about the latest bombshell that was dropped by Sunil Mittal recently when Bharti announced a ‘New Deal’ (You can call it an agreement, a merger, a reverse merger, an acquisition or whatever word takes your fancy!) with MTN, the South Africa-based telecom giant. An excited Sunil Bharti Mittal has said on that deal, “We are delighted at the prospect of developing a partnership with MTN to create an emerging market telecom powerhouse. This opportunity also represents a first of its kind in developing an Indian-African initiative that would serve as a shining example of South-South cooperation.”

One year ago, it looked as if Anil Ambani was all set to steal the thunder from Sunil Mittal when ‘agreement’ talks between MTN and Bharti collapsed and Reliance Infocom emerged as the new and favourite suitor. One year down the road, you could say that the wheel has turned full circle and the lead established by Sunil Mittal and Airtel as the unquestionable number one telecom player from India now looks unassailable.

Some simple facts – most of them known to you by now – will establish why Sunil stands taller than Anil. The $23 billion deal – the largest non-pharma deal in the world in 2009 so far – will create an entity that will automatically become the fourth largest mobile service provider in the world with more than 200 million subscribers. Just recently, when Airtel had announced celebrations to mark the accomplishment of a 100 million subscriber base, Sunil Mittal had already hinted to this magazine (see exclusive interview) that the 200 million milestone will come far more quickly. If the deal goes through – as most analysts and insiders expect it to – what Sunil had hinted at will have already happened! And it will happen thanks to a mind bogglingly complex ‘agreement’ that will involve both cash and fresh equity. Once the deal goes through, Bharti will hold slightly less than 50% of MTN equity while MTN, in turn, will hold a 36% ‘economic interest’ in Bharti. The term ‘economic interest’ is jargon being bandied about right now because there is still some confusion about how much equity foreign investors can hold in an Indian telecom entity. As of today, foreign investors, including the largest shareholder Singtel, hold almost 74% of the equity in Bharti – the limit allowed as per existing rules.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.



Friday, August 03, 2012

Policy-MEDIA: REGULATION

Instead of taking a close look at its own policies that led to the recent public agitations, The government is now looking at ways to attack freedom of press, just for being the carrier of bad news.

The history of the government stepping in as regulator has not been impressive. Moreover, the latest proposal does not seem to augur well for the already tarnished image of the UPA. “The fast-expanding soft power of modern media came out loud and clear during the Anna Hazare movement. This power needs to be understood, appreciated and suitably harnessed,” opines B. Raman, Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, and presently Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. Rather than learning the lessons on how soft media galvanised the youth, the government is indicating that it would like to regulate this very soft media. Critics feel that this is certainly not a move in favour of progress.

The catch here is that the apparent aggression by the government to jump into regulation is not actually based on the noble idea of making the institution of media, also dubbed as the fourth pillar of our democracy, more accountable. The timing of the move suggests that the government is angry with the wide coverage that the media has given to the now frequent apolitical agitations against the way this government has been functioning. In such a scenario, if the government is to start regulating news content, all news items related to public angst against the government and issues of corrupt government practices would be termed unsuitable. This would essentially mean that the press will have to recuse itself of its primary duties of providing true, fair and unbiased information to its readers or viewer that relates in particular to the government of the day. More than anything else, it is about the government’s consistent lack of vision and a sense of priorities. Irrespective of whose government is in power, media policy in India fluctuates between the state’s desire to control on one hand and its neglect of the key issues on the other.

Today, the entire world, including China where the media is totally state-controlled, is waking up to the soft power of media. India, however, is thinking of setting up a group to deal with the accountability and regulation of media. The government, instead of blaming the media for the public flak that it has received for its own misgivings, should focus on its own deeds that lead to such agitations. Perhaps getting more interactive and participative with the media through its leaders and spokespersons could work better. The question the government should be asking is how they can facilitate the growth of this sector, instead of looking at dictatorial ways and means to regulate it.