PM Modi's remark expunged in Rajya Sabha

PM Narendra Modi's comments about BK Hariprasad, a Congress candidate in the August 9, 2018 Rajya Sabha deputy chairperson election, have been expunged from the records. PM Modi's comments were delivered after Hariprasad lost the election to the NDA's Harivansh Narayan Singh. This is the first time a prime minister's statement in Parliament has been removed from the records.

• In a lighter vein, Mr. Modi, referring to the JD(U) candidate and Opposition nominee, Congress MP B.K. Hariprasad, said the election was between two “Haris”, He then went on to take a swipe at Mr. Hariprasad, playing on his initials, which left the House in splits.
• RJD MP Manoj Jha, flagging the PM’s comments, said they were derogatory in direction and intent. He requested that they be expunged. The remarks were expunged by M. Venkaiah Naidu, Rajya Sabha chairman. 
• The Rajya Sabha Secretariat has confirmed that the part of the prime minister's speech that involved a wordplay on BK Hariprasad's name has been expunged from the House's records.
• The Congress leader was miffed by PM Modi's jibe. "The Prime Minister belittled the dignity of the chair and brought down the dignity of the House," Hariprasad said.
• Earlier on May 13, 2018, ex-PM Manmohan Singh etc has written to President Ram Nath Kovind, asking him to advise PM Modi against using "unwarranted, threatening and intimidating" language. The letter stated that the PM's words as unacceptable and termed them as “menacing” and “intimidating” with the “intent to insult” and “provoke breach of the peace.” On May 6, in Hubli public meeting, PM Modi said, "Congress ke neta kaan khol ke sun lijeye, agar seemayo ko paar kaorogi, toh yeh Modi hai, lene ke dene pad jayenge (Congress leaders should listen to me with open ears, if you cross your limits, this is Modi, you will have to pay)." That had led to a Parliament stalemate with the Congress demanding that PM Modi apologise on the floor of the house. The issue was finally resolved after FM Arun Jaitley tendered a half-apology. 
• “I think it becomes a massive shame for this country when the PM uses unparliamentary expressions in any House of Parliament,” Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said. 

Modi's comments are perversion of rhetoric. These unprovoked remarks reflects the true nature of the person and his attitudes towards other people in general and opposition leaders in particular. It is a national shame to have such a irresponsible fellow as our prime minister who neither tender apology nor expresses remorse for the offensive, derogatory and unparliamentary remarks on the floor of the house without any context or provocation. The least people of India could do is to defeat this type of people in forthcoming elections.

S&P's rationale for India's status quo

OVERVIEW

Despite two quarters of weaker-than-expected growth, India's economy is forecast to grow robustly in 2018-2020 and foreign exchange reserves will continue to rise.

Nevertheless, sizable fiscal deficits, a high net general government debt burden, and low per capita income detract from the sovereign's credit profile. We are affirming our 'BBB-' long-term and 'A-3' short-term sovereign credit ratings on India. 

The stable outlook reflects our view that, over the next two years, growth will remain strong, India will maintain its sound external accounts position, and fiscal deficits will remain broadly in line with our forecasts. 


RATING ACTION

On Nov. 24, 2017, S&P Global Ratings affirmed its unsolicited long- and short-term foreign and local currency sovereign credit ratings on the Republic of India at 'BBB-/A-3'. The outlook is stable.


OUTLOOK

The stable outlook reflects our view that, over the next two years, growth will remain strong, India will maintain its sound external accounts position, and fiscal deficits will remain broadly in line with our forecasts. Upward pressure on the ratings could build if the government's reforms markedly improve its net general government fiscal out-turns and so reduce the level of net general government debt. Upward pressure could also build if India's external accounts strengthen significantly.

Downward pressure on the ratings could emerge if GDP growth disappoints, causing us to reassess our view of trend growth; if net general government deficits rose significantly; or if the political will to maintain India's reform agenda significantly lost momentum.


RATIONALE

The ratings on India reflect the country's strong GDP growth, sound external profile, and improving monetary credibility. India's strong democratic institutions and its free press promote policy stability and compromise, and also underpin the ratings. These strengths are balanced against vulnerabilities stemming from the country's low per capita income and relatively high general government debt stock, net of liquid assets.

Institutional And Economic Profile: The ruling party continues to consolidate its power at the state level and, despite obstacles to the implementation of reform, strong growth is likely to continue Narendra Modi's coalition, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has further consolidated power in state-level elections in 2017 and we expect it to make further gains.

One-off factors, such as demonetization and the imposition of a goods and services tax, have led to some quarterly cooling in India's high growth figures.

Nevertheless, the medium-term outlook for growth remains favorable, based on private consumption, an ambitious public infrastructure investment program, and a bank restructuring plan that should help revive investment.

The ruling BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition dominates the electoral scene, and has a clear majority in the Lok Sabha (the Lower House of parliament, which is directly elected by the people). However, it lacks a majority in the Rajya Sabha (the Upper House, which is largely elected by state assemblies under India's federal system). In the Upper House, the opposition has been able to stall some reform efforts. The NDA has been doing well in 2017's state-level elections and is forecast to make further gains at this level, which could eventually lead to a majority in the Upper House.

The coalition has also managed to pass a number of reforms to address long-standing impediments to the country's growth. These include comprehensive tax reforms through the introduction, on July 1, 2017, of a goods and services tax (GST) to replace the complex and distortive system of domestic indirect taxes. Other measures include a Bankruptcy Code and nonperforming loan resolution framework; a plan to recapitalize state-owned banks; a plan to strengthen the business climate by simplifying regulations and improving contract enforcement and trade; and reforms to the energy sector.

However, confidence and GDP growth in 2017 appear to have been hit by the sudden demonetization exercise in late 2016 (by which high-value cash notes of Indian rupee [INR] 500 and above, which constituted about 85% of the country's cash stock, were replaced with new notes, in an effort to curb tax evasion).

The July 1, 2017 introduction of the GST, which combines the central, state, and local-level indirect taxes into one, has also led to some one-off teething problems that have dampened growth.

Nevertheless, in the medium term, we anticipate that growth will be supported by the planned recapitalization of state-owned banks, which is likely to spur on new lending within the economy. Public-sector-led infrastructure investment, notably in the road sector, will also stimulate economic activity, while private consumption will remain robust. The removal of barriers to domestic trade tied to the imposition of GST should also support GDP growth.

Ratings are constrained by India's low wealth levels, measured by GDP per capita, which we estimate at close to US$2,000 in 2017, the lowest of all investment-grade sovereigns that we rate (see "Sovereign Risk Indicators," Oct. 13, 2017, also available at www.spratings.com/sri). That said, India's GDP growth rate is among the fastest of all investment-grade sovereigns, and we expect real GDP to average 7.6% over 2017-2020 (6.5% in per capita terms).

Flexibility And External Performance Profile: Ongoing expenditure pressure at both the central government and state level will ensure fiscal consolidation remains slow, but India's external position is a strength given the planned ramp-up in public-sector-led infrastructure investment and the persistent deficits, especially at the state level, fiscal consolidation will remain difficult.

The rupee's liquidity in international foreign exchange markets will continue to buttress our external assessment.

Recapitalization of state-owned banks is likely to pave the way for some improvement in credit expansion from 2018. India's external position remains a credit strength. According to the "Triennial Central Bank Survey," published on April 2016 by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the rupee was traded in 1.1% of all foreign exchange transactions globally. We therefore consider the rupee to be an actively traded currency, which increases India's ability to finance external imbalances. The recent increased issuance of offshore rupee-denominated bonds (masala bonds) is a testament to this flexibility.

We forecast that India's external debt, net of liquid public and financial sector external assets, will average a modest 8.4% of current account receipts over 2017-2020. The level of economy wide external indebtedness is likely to remain contained throughout the forecast period, underpinned by an improved current account deficit, which we forecast will average 1.8% over 2017-2020, down from the 2.3% level recorded on average between 2011-2016. Recent narrowing has been driven by robust
exports and lower global oil prices. The Reserve Bank of India's foreign exchange reserves stood at above US$400 billion in October 2017, amounting to over six months of import cover, a sizable buffer.

Against the backdrop of the planned ramp-up in public-sector-led infrastructure investments, as well as persistent deficits at the state level, the large general government debt load and India's overall weak public finances continue to constrain the ratings. India has a long history of high net general government fiscal deficits (net of liquid assets, deficits averaged over 8% of GDP over the past 20 years and 7% in the past five years).  The planned large infrastructure investment program is likely to limit expenditure flexibility, even though the government is likely to be able to tap private sector funds for the construction of many of these infrastructure projects.

In addition to expenditure demands, the country's fiscal challenges also reflect revenue underperformance compared with most peers at the rating level. India's general government revenue, at an estimated 22% of 2017 GDP, is low compared with peer sovereigns. Administrative efforts to expand the tax base--including demonetization (which has increased the number of tax registrants) and the introduction of the GST in July--corroborate our belief that government revenues will accelerate into the forecast period.

Although we expect central government to broadly succeed in controlling deficits at the federal level, we foresee that problems at the state level will add 3% on average to the consolidated general government deficits over the forecast horizon. 

India's high fiscal deficits in past years have led to the accumulation of sizable general government borrowings (about 67% of GDP in 2017, net of liquid assets) and relatively high debt servicing costs (close to one-fifth of general government revenue). We project that net general government debt will decline by a modest amount over our forecast horizon. India's government borrowings are mostly denominated in rupees, which largely mitigates exchange rate risks. The small portion of external government debt is predominantly sourced from official lenders over long tenors and at concessional rates. 

India has a two-tier banking sector. Its private sector and foreign banks amount to about 30% of the banking system, with the public sector amounting to 70%. The private sector banks have better profitability and higher internal capital generation, and are better capitalized with lower-stressed assets than government-owned banks. 

Given their weaker profitability, we estimate that public-sector banks will need a capital infusion of about US$30 billion to need capital to make large haircuts on loans to viable stressed projects and meet the rising requirement of Basel III capital norms. 

In October 2017, the government committed to a capital infusion plan of roughly that size, partially financed by the government itself and the rest raised via other sources. We include planned recapitalization costs to our assumptions of the sovereign's general government debt issuance. Our Bank Industry Credit Risk Assessment for India is '5' (with '1' being the strongest assessment and '10' the weakest). Nevertheless, combining our view of India's government-related entities and its financial system, we view the country's contingent fiscal risks as limited. 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has made substantial progress in lowering consumer price index (CPI) inflation following the introduction in February 2015 of its medium-term inflation target band (with 4% CPI inflation plus or minus 2% as the principal nominal anchor for monetary policy), aided by broadly lower oil prices and other factors. Other steps taken to strengthen policy formulation include the introduction of the monetary policy committee framework, improved communication, and efforts to strengthen monetary policy transmission (for example, through new guidelines requiring banks to determine their lending rates using marginal cost of funds). These have also helped improve monetary effectiveness. We expect the RBI to continue to achieve its inflation targets. We believe these RBI measures will support its ability to sustain economic growth while attenuating economic or financial shocks. 

Earlier when the rating was given usually the government took a view that 

they are under-rating our performance. Now we are saying they may be 

over-rating our performance. In either case the consensus seems to be 

they are not rating properly. So leave it there ... YV Reddy

S&P was kind enough to use soft words and yet made their point of the reality clearly. In the past we had the advantage of low oil prices continuously for 3+ years but the advantage was squandered away by lethargy and reckless spending. Going forward our wrecked economy has to face increased oil price regime. Modi's reforms so far have been disruptive in nature with poor design, badly implemented without any mitigation space and had decimated informal sector. These have resulted in closure of 250,000 SMEs and livelihood loss for over 2.5 million workforce. All his vanity schemes launched with spectacularity have bounced. The result is economy shattered and all sectors are in deep distress except MNCs and service sector. The real position is reflected by 90% usage of fiscal space within first three months and reduced revenues and expenditure uncontrolled. Modi with quack advised schemes effortlessly wrecked economy but rebuilding the same is painfully slow and will take its own sweet time and in the meantime poorer classes are subjected to enormous pain for no fault of theirs. What is store for India, time will reveal in next one and half years i.e. prior to 2019 general elections. I foresee stable or worsened situation.

Bhakts makes leaders infallible

The dividing line between the use and abuse of power is very thin. It is not adulation, but criticism that keep people in power from crossing the line. Bhakti makes political leaders believe in their own infallibility, inflates their self-opinion and, inevitably, leads them to take missteps. History has shown that every authoritarian regime has ended up doing harm than good to their countries. 

• In the history about the rise of authoritarian regimes in 20th-century, two questions confound us. First, how did entire nations and populations allow themselves to be so hypnotised by a person or a political party? Second, how did they permit leaders or regimes to take absolute control and then chip away their liberties and then they could hold sway with an iron grip for decades thereafter?
• The process is even more inexplicable and intriguing in countries that were once democracies and democratic takeovers of power, which eventually degenerated into authoritarian reigns.
• The demonetisation has been aggressively touted as a master stroke against everything from black money to terrorist funding to counterfeit money to corruption, while also being hailed as a major reform towards a cashless economy. 
• Any criticism is almost considered blasphemous and anti-national. This sentiment was not only stoked by the government or party in power but also ordinary middle-class citizens have started behaving like accomplices of the regime by shouting down, mocking and denouncing any contrary views, branding these as unpatriotic. 
• The shoddy and inept planning and execution of the demonetisation exercise is being defended as inevitable. We are being exhorted to treat it as our patriotic duty to suffer long queues, inconveniences, disruptions to our lives caused by this man-made crisis, without complaining or criticism.
• We became so much mesmerised by the larger-than-life aura of a leader that we refuse to believe that he and his government can do any wrong? 
• Popularity has never ever chastened any politician, except very rare exceptions — a Nehru, a Mandela. Most of those who have relied on personal appeal over everything else, have eventually led their nations to grief, when their self-belief descends into megalomania. Megalomania is always fed by popularity and fawning bhakts. The bhakts create an echo chamber, which resounds only with what the leader wants to hear and believe, totally shutting out different viewpoints and realities. 
• Modi and his party won a majority single-party mandate for the first time in 30 years in 2014 and his personal popularity has remained high, despite many questions that still remain unanswered. The authoritarian and majoritarian streak cannot be denied. 
• In the case of the surgical strikes, Modi and his party exploited nationalistic and strong-man sentiments to the hilt. In the case of demonetisation, we have seen him play the brave, lone-crusader card, the selfless, sacrificing leader rhetoric and the emotional appeal. In case of GST, introducing in Lok Sabha as 'money bill' undermining the rights of Rajya Sabha and avoiding constitution amendment speaks volumes about Modi's crookedness in defeating the spirit of constitution, laws and institutions. All these points to his tendency to personalise all his government's decisions to make his regime seem almost presidential in nature and help to build his image as a towering, decisive leader.
• What kind of leader Modi is for time to tell. Many people have bought his spiel hook, line and sinker, while others are sceptical. Whether his regime turns into a democratically elected one with autocratic tendencies, especially if he gets a second term, depends on his bhakts. \
• People are free to support and adore the Prime Minister but they must realise that love for one's country is completely different from love for a particular leader, party or a government. 
• These bhakts have no right to attack, browbeat and brand as unpatriotic those questioning the policies of their beloved leader. If India turns less-than-democratic once again, the bhakts are to be blamed squarely. Every leader derives his delusions from the reflections seen in the distorted mirrors put up by his fanatic supporters.

The theory that leaders are infallible is trash. That is why in our parliamentary democracy, constitution provides checks and balances in the form of independent judiciary, parliament to account for government's actions and independent institutions. How ever a simple parliamentary majority makes all these checks & balances vulnerable and two-thirds majority makes constitution ineffective. Financial interests exposed weakness of media houses and they tow line with authoritarian rulers. For democracy to survive and deliver what is expected these things must be incorporated in constitution or statutes: (1) Truly federal structure with near total autonomy for states and local bodies. (2) Prime Minister's and Minister's executive powers must be severely restricted except during war like situations. (3) All discretionary powers must be replaced with robust processes. (4) No expenditure should be allowed without prior legislative approval. (5) All projects must undergo tendering process and all allotments either by merit or auction. (6) All appointments must be through open & transparent process providing chance to all eligible candidates. (7) Lok Pal and investigative agencies must be granted total autonomy with their scope covering every one and excludes no one. (8) Finally thrift should be the guiding policy in government spending with no extravaganza of any kind.

Rising fuel prices indicates economy in mess?

• Govt of India is the biggest cheater of nation and Prime Minister and his gang (read Cabinet) are worst cheats. 
• During the past three years, crude oil prices in international markets have fallen to 1/3rd and more than 80% of it was knocked off by GOI in the form of increased excise duty.
• Every fortnight Oil Companies adjust their tariff matching international prices in Shastri Bhavan and North Block announces increased excise duty within an hour.
• Since few months fuel pricing was shifted from fortnightly to daily and consumers were to benefit from falling crude prices without any delay is what Arun Jaitley surreptitiously indicated to people of India. 
• But what happened is opposite and reduction in excise duty was conspicuously never mentioned as if it is irrelevant item. It becomes relevant only to lay hands on people's money and not otherwise. Today fuel prices in India are one of the highest in the world. Worse than Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
• Higher fuel prices resulted in higher commodities prices and cost of living is almost doubled, especially to workers and wage earners, during past three years of Modi regime while it was static throughout the world. Are these 'Achche din'?
• For all these non sense activities of driving economy into mess, Modi & Jaitley neither has people's approval nor sanction of Parliament and this issue was never in the agenda of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Gross misuse of Executive powers by PM & Ministers. Why can't they stick to sanctioned budget and follow standard expenditure procedures?
• What Modi and Co talk of 'bold fiscal reforms' and raising taxes any time they wish are contradictory to each other and none in world will believe our government. Our credibility is lost and who will come to our country with bags of dollars for investing?
• With these bunch of rogues and cheaters at the helm, there is no way we can progress as a nation.

In a democracy, winning election doesn't confer on winner

autocratic powers to do nonsense things. He must confine to 'rule of law'

Government must confine its expenses with in the legislature approved  budget, in letter and spirit. Only emergency expenses could be met with executive orders. Ditto for modifying tax rates. Today Budget and Parliament are just formalities. Govt does what ever it wants to do, albeit whimsically, without following any procedure or laws and answers none. No rule of law for governments. It is only for the people. Once in a while, courts strikes down some actions of governments giving resemblance of existence of democracy. Our FM Jaitley has announced several times before GST roll out that its revenue model is neutral meaning some prices may go up and most prices will come down and overall government doesn't get more or less. Then why all commodities prices have gone up including food and essential items? Any answer?

Hamid Ansari, Vice President's speech at NLSIU convocation

Hamid Ansari, Vice-President's speech at the 25th annual convocation of the
National Law School of India University in Bengaluru on August 7, 2017

In his final address as vice-president, Hamid Ansari spoke at the 25th annual convocation of the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru. In his speech, he said the challenge was to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism's basic principles, including freedom of religion and tolerance. The function was presided over by Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar. 

Here is the full text of the speech Ansari gave on 6 August, 2017:

It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.

The nebulous universe of law and legal procedures is well known to this audience and there is precariously little that I can say of relevance to them. And, for reasons of prudence and much else, I dare not repeat here either Mr. Bumble’s remark that ‘the law is an ass’ or the suggestion of a Shakespearean character who outrageously proposed in Henry VI to ‘kill all lawyers.’ Instead, my effort today would be to explore the practical implications that some constitutional principles, legal dicta and judicial pronouncements have for the lives of citizens.

An interest in political philosophy has been a lifelong pursuit. I recall John Locke’s dictum that ‘wherever law ends, tyranny begins.’ Also in my mind is John Rawl’s assertion that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’ and that ‘in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled and the rights secured by justice and are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest.’ To Rawls, the first task of political philosophy is its practical role to see, whether despite appearances on deeply disputed questions, some philosophical or moral grounds can be located to further social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens.

The Constitution of India and its Preamble is an embodiment of the ideals and principles that I hold dear.

The People of India gave themselves a Republic that is Sovereign, Socialist, Secular and Democratic and a constitutional system with its focus on Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. These have been embodied in a set of institutions and laws, conventions and practices.

Our founding fathers took cognizance of an existential reality. Ours is a plural society and a culture imbued with considerable doses of syncretism. Our population of 1.3 billion comprises of over 4,635 communities, 78 percent of whom are not only linguistic and cultural but social categories. Religious minorities constitute 19.4 percent of the total. The human diversities are both hierarchical and spatial.

It is this plurality that the Constitution endowed with a democratic polity and a secular state structure. Pluralism as a moral value seeks to ‘transpose social plurality to the level of politics, and to suggest arrangements which articulate plurality with a single political order in which all duly constituted groups and all individuals are actors on an equal footing, reflected in the uniformity of legal capacity. Pluralism in this modern sense presupposes citizenship.’

Citizenship as the basic unit is conceptualized as “national-civic rather than national-ethnic” ‘even as national identity remained a rather fragile construct, a complex and increasingly fraught ‘national-civic-plural-ethnic’ combinations.’ In the same vein, Indianness came to be defined not as a singular or exhaustive identity but as embodying the idea of layered Indianness, an accretion of identities.

'Modern democracy offers the prospect of the most inclusive politics of human history. By the same logic, there is a thrust for exclusion that is a byproduct of the need for cohesion in democratic societies; hence the resultant need for dealing with exclusion ‘creatively’ through sharing of identity space by ‘negotiating a commonly acceptable political identity between the different personal and group identities which want to/have to live in the polity.’ Democracy ‘has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard.’ Its ‘raison d’etre is the recognition of the other.’

Secularism as a concept and as a political instrumentality has been debated extensively. A definitive pronouncement pertaining to it for purposes of statecraft in India was made by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case and bears reiteration:

‘Secularism has both positive and negative contents. The Constitution struck a balance between temporal parts confining it to the person professing a particular religious faith or belief and allows him to practice profess and propagate his religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The positive part of secularism has been entrusted to the State to regulate by law or by an executive order. The State is prohibited to patronise any particular religion as State religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality. The State strikes a balance to ensue an atmosphere of full faith and confidence among its people to realise full growth of personality and to make him a rational being on secular lines, to improve individual excellence, regional growth, progress and national integrity… Religious tolerance and fraternity are basic features and postulates of the Constitution as a scheme for national integration and sectional or religious unity. Programmes or principles evolved by political parties based on religion amount to recognizing religion as a part of the political governance which the Constitution expressly prohibits. It violates the basic features of the Constitution. Positive secularism negates such a policy and any action in furtherance thereof would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution.’

Despite its clarity, various attempts, judicial and political, have been made to dilute its import and to read new meaning into it. Credible critics have opined that the December 11, 1995 judgment of the Supreme Court Bench ‘are highly derogatory of the principle of secular democracy’ and that a larger Bench should reconsider them ‘and undo the great harm caused by them' This remains to be done; ‘instead, a regression of consciousness (has) set in’ and ‘the slide is now sought to be accelerated and is threatening to wipe out even the gains of the national movement summed up in sarvadharma sambhav.’

It has been observed, with much justice, that ‘the relationship between identity and inequality lies at the heart of secularism and democracy in India.’ The challenge today then is to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism’s basic principles: equality, freedom of religion and tolerance, and to emphasize that equality has to be substantive, that freedom of religion be re-infused with its collectivist dimensions, and that toleration should be reflective of the realities of Indian society and lead to acceptance.

Experience of almost seven decades sheds light on the extent of our success, and of limitations, on the actualizations of these values and objectives. The optimistic narrative is of deepening; the grim narrative of decline or crisis.

Three questions thus come to mind:

• How has the inherent plurality of our polity reflected itself in the functioning of Indian democracy?
• How has democracy contributed to the various dimensions of Indian pluralism?
• How consistent are we in adherence to secularism?

Our democratic polity is pluralist because it recognizes and endorses this plurality in (a) its federal structure, (b) linguistic and religious rights to minorities, and (c) a set of individual rights. The first has sought to contain, with varying degrees of success, regional pressures, the second has ensured space for religious and linguistic minorities, and the third protects freedom of opinion and the right to dissent.

A question is often raised about national integration. Conceptually and practically, integration is not synonymous with assimilation or homogenization. Some years back, a political scientist had amplified the nuances:

‘In the semantics of functional politics the term national integration means, and ought to mean, cohesion and not fusion, unity and not uniformity, reconciliation and not merger, accommodation and not annihilation, synthesis and not dissolution, solidarity and not regimentation of the several discrete segments of the people constituting the larger political community…Obviously, then, Integration is not a process of conversion of diversities into a uniformity but a congruence of diversities leading to a unity in which both the varieties and similarities are maintained.’

How and to what extent has this worked in the case of Indian democracy with its ground reality of exclusions arising from stratification, heterogeneity and hierarchy that often ‘operate conjointly and create intersectionality’? 

Given the pervasive inequalities and social diversities, the choice of a system committed to political inclusiveness was itself ‘a leap of faith.’ The Constitution instituted universal adult suffrage and a system of representation on the First-Past-The-Post (Westminster) model. An underlying premise was the Rule of Law that is reflective of the desire of people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical.’

Much earlier, Gandhi ji had predicted that democracy would be safeguarded if people ‘have a keen sense of independence, self respect and their oneness and should insist upon choosing as their representatives only persons as are good and true.’ This, when read alongside Ambedkar’s apprehension that absence of equality and fraternity could bring forth ‘a life of contradictions’ if the ideal of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ was not achieved, framed the challenge posed by democracy.

Any assessment of the functioning of our democracy has to be both procedural and substantive. On procedural count the system has developed roots with regularity of elections, efficacy of the electoral machinery, an ever increasing percentage of voter participation in the electoral process and the formal functioning of legislatures thus elected. The record gives cause for much satisfaction.

The score is less emphatic on the substantive aspects. Five of these bear closer scrutiny – (a) the gap between ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the law’, (b) representativeness of the elected representative, (c) functioning of legislatures, (d) gender and diversity imbalance and (e) secularism in practice:

• Equality before the law and equal protection of the law: ‘The effort to pursue equality has been made at two levels. At one level was the constitutional effort to change the very structure of social relations: practicing caste and untouchability was made illegal, and allowing religious considerations to influence state activity was not permitted. At the second level the effort was to bring about economic equality although in this endeavour the right to property and class inequality was not seriously curbed…Thus the reference to economic equality in the Constitution, in the courts or from political platforms remained basically rhetorical.’ 
• Representativeness of the elected representative: In the 2014 general election, 61% of the elected MPs obtained less than 50% of the votes polled. This can be attributed in some measure to the First-Past-the-Post system in a fragmented polity and multiplicity of parties and contestants. The fact nevertheless remains that representation obtained on non-majority basis does impact on the overall approach in which politics of identity prevails over common interest.
• Functioning of legislatures, accountability and responsiveness: The primary tasks of legislators are legislation, seeking accountability of the executive, articulation of grievances and discussion of matters of public concern. The three often overlap; all require sufficient time being made available. It is the latter that is now a matter of concern. The number of sittings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha which stood at 137 and 100 respectively in 1953 declined to 49 and 52 in 2016. The paucity of time thus created results in shrinkage of space made available to each of these with resultant impact on quality and productivity and a corresponding lessening of executive’s accountability. According to one assessment some years back, ‘over 40 percent of the Bills were passed in Lok Sabha with less than one hour of debate. The situation is marginally better in the Rajya Sabha.’ Substantive debates on public policy issues are few and far in between. More recently, the efficacy of the Standing Committee mechanism has been dented by resort to tactics of evasion by critical witnesses. A study on 'Indian Parliament as an Instrument of Accountability' concluded that the institution is ‘increasingly becoming ineffective in providing surveillance of the executive branch of the government.
• The picture with regard to the functioning of the Sate Assemblies is generally much worse.
• Thus while public participation in the electoral exercise has noticeably improved, public satisfaction with the functioning of the elected bodies is breeding cynicism with the democratic process itself. It has also been argued that ‘the time has come to further commit ourselves to a deeper and more participatory and decentralized democracy - a democracy with greater congruence between people’s interests and public policy.’
• Gender and diversity imbalance: Women MPs constituted 12.15% of the total in 2014. This compares unfavourably globally as well as within SAARC and is reflective of pervasive neo-patriarchal attitudes. The Women’s Reservation Bill of 2009 was passed by the Rajya Sabha, was not taken up in Lok Sabha, and lapsed when Parliament was dissolve before the 2014 general elections. It has not been resurrected. Much the same (for other reasons of perception and prejudice) holds for Minority representation. Muslims constitute 14.23 percent of the population of India. The total strength of the two Houses of Parliament is 790; the number of Muslim MPs stood at 49 in 1980, ranged between 30 and 35 in the 1999 to 2009 period, but declined to 23 in 2014.
• An Expert Committee report to the Government some years back had urged the need for a Diversity Index to indentify ‘inequality traps’ which prevent the marginalized and work in favour of the dominant groups in society and result in unequal access to political power that in turn determines the nature and functioning of institutions and policies.
• Secularism in actual practice: Experience shows that secularism has become a site for political and legal contestation. The difficulty lies in delineating, for purposes of public policy and practice, the line that separates them from religion. For this, religion per se, and each individual religion figuring in the discourse, has to be defined in terms of its stated tenets. The ‘way of life’ argument, used in philosophical texts and some judicial pronouncements, does not help the process of identifying common principles of equity in a multi-religious society in which religious majority is not synonymous with totality of the citizen body. Since a wall of separation is not possible under Indian conditions, the challenge is to develop and implement a formula for equidistance and minimum involvement. For this purpose, principles of faith need to be segregated from contours of culture since a conflation of the two obfuscates the boundaries of both and creates space to equivocalness. Furthermore, such an argument could be availed of by other faiths in the land since all claim a cultural sphere and a historical justification for it.

In life as in law, terminological inexactitude has its implications. In electoral terms, ‘majority’ is numerical majority as reflected in a particular exercise (e.g. election), does not have permanence and is generally time-specific; the same holds for ‘minority’. Both find reflection in value judgments. In socio-political terminology (e.g. demographic data) ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are terms indicative of settled situations. These too bring forth value judgments. The question then is whether in regard to ‘citizenship’ under our Constitution with its explicit injunctions on rights and duties, any value judgments should emerge from expressions like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ and the associated adjectives like ‘majoritarian’ and ‘majorityism’ and ‘minoritarian’and ‘minorityism’? Record shows that these have divisive implications and detract from the Preamble’s quest for ‘Fraternity’.

Within the same ambit, but distinct from it, is the constitutional principle of equality of status and opportunity, amplified through Articles 14, 15, and 16. This equality has to be substantive rather than merely formal and has to be given shape through requisite measures of affirmative action needed in each case so that the journey on the path to development has a common starting point. This would be an effective way of giving shape to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy of Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas.

It is here that the role of the judicial arm of the state comes into play and, as an acknowledged authority on the Constitution put it, ‘unless the Court strives in every possible way to assure that the Constitution, the law, applies fairly to all citizens, the Court cannot be said to have fulfilled its custodial responsibility.’

How then do we go about creating conditions and space for a more comprehensive realization of the twin objectives of pluralism and secularism and in weaving it into the fabric of a comprehensive actualization of the democratic objectives set forth in the Constitution?

The answer would seem to lie, firstly, in the negation of impediments to the accommodation of diversity institutionally and amongst citizens and, secondly, in the rejuvenation of the institutions and practices through which pluralism and secularism cease to be sites for politico-legal contestation in the functioning of Indian democracy. The two approaches are to be parallel, not sequential. Both necessitate avoidance of sophistry in discourse or induction of personal inclinations in State practice. A more diligent promotion of fraternity, and of our composite culture, in terms of Article 51A (e) and (f) is clearly required. It needs to be done in practice by leaders and followers.

A commonplace suggestion is advocacy of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue. It is freedom from bigotry. It is also a pragmatic formula for the functioning of society without conflict between different religions, political ideologies, nationalities, ethnic groups, or other us-versus-them divisions.

Yet tolerance alone is not a strong enough foundation for building an inclusive and pluralistic society. It must be coupled with understanding and acceptance. We must, said Swami Vivekananda, ‘not only tolerate other religions, but positively embrace them, as truth is the basis of all religions.’

Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. Moving from tolerance to acceptance is a journey that starts within ourselves, within our own understanding and compassion for people who are different to us and from our recognition and acceptance of the ‘other’ that is the raison d’etre of democracy. The challenge is to look beyond the stereotypes and preconceptions that prevent us from accepting others. This makes continuous dialogue unavoidable. It has to become an essential national virtue to promote harmony transcending sectional diversities. The urgency of giving this a practical shape at national, state and local levels through various suggestions in the public domain is highlighted by enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians.

The alternative, however unpalatable, also has to be visualized. There is evidence to suggest that we are a polity at war with itself in which the process of emotional integration has faltered and is in dire need of reinvigoration. On one plane is the question of our commitment to Rule of Law that seems to be under serious threat arising out of the noticeable decline in the efficacy of the institutions of the State, lapses into arbitrary decision-making and even ‘ochlocracy’ or mob rule, and the resultant public disillusionment; on another are questions of fragility and cohesion emanating from impulses that have shifted the political discourse from mere growth centric to vociferous demands for affirmative action and militant protest politics. ‘A culture of silence has yielded to protests’ The vocal distress in the farm sector in different States, the persistence of Naxalite insurgencies, the re-emergence of language related identity questions, seeming indifference to excesses pertaining to weaker sections of society, and the as yet unsettled claims of local nationalisms can no longer be ignored or brushed under the carpet. The political immobility in relation to Jammu and Kashmir is disconcerting. Alongside are questions about the functioning of what has been called our ‘asymmetrical federation’ and ‘the felt need for a wider, reinvigorated, perspective on the shape of the Union of India’ to overcome the crisis of ‘moral legitimacy’ in its different manifestations.

I have in the foregoing dwelt on two ‘isms’, two value systems, and the imperative need to invest them with greater commitment in word and deed so that the principles of the Constitution and the structure emanating from it are energized. Allow me now to refer to a third ‘ism’ that is foundational for the modern state, is not of recent origin, but much in vogue in an exaggerated manifestation. I refer here to Nationalism.

Scholars have dwelt on the evolution of the idea. The historical precondition of Indian identity was one element of it; so was regional and anti-colonial patriotism. By 1920s a form of pluralistic nationalism had answered the question of how to integrate within it the divergent aspirations of identities based on regional vernacular cultures and religious communities. A few years earlier, Rabindranath Tagore had expressed his views on the ‘idolatry of Nation’.

For many decades after independence, a pluralist view of nationalism and Indianness reflective of the widest possible circle of inclusiveness and a ‘salad bowl’ approach, characterized our thinking. More recently an alternate viewpoint of ‘purifying exclusivism’ has tended to intrude into and take over the political and cultural landscape. One manifestation of it is ‘an increasingly fragile national ego’ that threatens to rule out any dissent however innocent. Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’

While ensuring external and domestic security is an essential duty of the state, there seems to be a trend towards sanctification of military might overlooking George Washington’s caution to his countrymen over two centuries earlier about ‘overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.’

Citizenship does imply national obligations. It necessitates adherence to and affection for the nation in all its rich diversity. This is what nationalism means, and should mean, in a global community of nations. The Israeli scholar Yael Tamir has dwelt on this at some length. Liberal nationalism, she opines, ‘requires a state of mind characterized by tolerance and respect of diversity for members of one’s own group and for others;’ hence it is ‘polycentric by definition’ and ‘celebrates the particularity of culture with the universality of human rights, the social and cultural embeddedness of individuals together with their personal autonomy.’ On the other hand, ‘the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism’.

What are, or could be, the implications of the latter for pluralism and secularism? It is evident that both would be abridged since both require for their sustenance a climate of opinion and a state practice that eschews intolerance, distances itself from extremist and illiberal nationalism, subscribes in word and deed to the Constitution and its Preamble, and ensures that citizenship irrespective of caste, creed or ideological affiliation is the sole determinant of Indianness.

In our plural secular democracy, therefore, the ‘other’ is to be none other than the ‘self’. Any derogation from it would be detrimental to its core values.

Jai Hind.

Venkaiah Naidu: Muslims in India are secure ?

• In an interview to Rajya Sabha TV, the outgoing Vice-President Hamid Ansari bluntly remarked that “a sense of insecurity was creeping in among Muslims because of the vigilantism and intolerance”.
• Instead of allaying Ansari’s fears, the BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, attacked him. by saying that Ansari had spent the last ten years “confined to the Constitution”. Modi seemed to be suggesting that the commitment to secularism that underlay many of Ansari’s speeches as vice president were somehow shallow, and that now, freed from the constraints of office, he could pursue his “core beliefs”. 
• The Vice President elect, Venkaiah Naidu, was more direct. He said: “Some people are saying the minorities are insecure. It is a political propaganda. Compared to the entire world, the minorities are more safe and secure in India and they get their due”.
• Ironically, both these reactions only reinforced Ansari’s fears. Instead of taking this opportunity to assure the Muslim community that the government would protect them from majoritarian onslaught, the BJP has taken the route of complete denial. By browbeating Ansari, the BJP has only proved his point.

Hyper-nationalism is a sign of insecurity, says Vice President Hamid Ansari

Modi attacks Hamid Ansari

While tolerance is a good virtue, it is not a sufficient virtue ... Hamid Ansari 

Democracy can become a tyranny if opposition parties are not allowed 

to criticise government policies ...Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Who ever is reading news papers will agree that Muslims are unsafe in India ever since Modi government issued orders banning cattle sales for slaughtering in the name of cow protection and cow vigilante groups started lynching attacking cattle transporters, mostly Muslims and no action by police or government. The response by Modi and Venkaiah Naidu are irresponsible, indecent, doesn't befit their positions and reconfirms their fears.

Read Hindustan or Lynchistan?

Is privacy a fundamental right?

The government is pushing for Aadhaar but critics say it violates privacy, is vulnerable to data breaches and helps government spy on people. The Centre has maintained that right to privacy is not a fundamental right and citizens are not guaranteed the right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. The petitioner’s counsel in the Aadhaar case, has compared the situation to one under a totalitarian state where people were being forcefully tagged and tracked by the Centre. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge constitution bench would revisit its rulings that said the right to privacy was not a fundamental right and then hear petitions against the 12-digit biometric identity number.

• An eight-judge bench in 1954 and also by a six-judge bench in 1962 ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right in the constitutional provisions. Textually it is correct today that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Even freedom of press is not expressly stated but courts has interpreted it.
• Whether there is any “right to privacy” guaranteed under our Constitution or not and if such a right exists, what is the source and what are the contours of such a right as there is no express provision in the constitution.
• Supreme Court in case after case realised that the rights to liberty and freedom of expression cannot survive if the right to privacy is compromised. Privacy is crucial in digital age. A democracy cannot exist without the Right to Privacy.
• Without right to privacy, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and more particularly the right to liberty under Article 21 would be denuded of vigour and vitality.
• Privacy can reside in several articles. Lack of privacy can have a chilling effect, triggering freedom of speech protections under Article 19(2). The question of protecting privacy could not depend on first determining the location of the right to privacy. History teaches us that without privacy, the consequences are unimaginable.
• The relationship of the right to privacy with Aadhaar enrolment is what complicates everything. The government is pushing for Aadhaar, saying it is necessary to plug leakages in subsidy schemes and to ensure benefits reach those targeted but critics say the move violates privacy, is vulnerable to data breaches and helps government spy on people.
• If the object of Aadhaar is smoothly functioning government benefit schemes, why give law enforcement agencies or indeed anyone else access to the database at all?
• The Aadhaar Bill has been passed with no public consultation about the privacy safeguards necessary for such a database and no provision for public or independent oversight. The rights to liberty and freedom of expression cannot survive if the right to privacy is compromised.
• Allowing Aadhaar to go ahead unchecked in the manner, seeking linking aadhaar to almost every transaction and aspect in life, is effectively reducing the citizen into a 12-digit number and transforming the country into a concentration camp for the citizens.
• Aadhaar has had an invasive and controversial presence well before the government’s attempt to legitimise it. Our Attorney General (funded by our taxes) has argued that we have no right to privacy. Attorney General KK Venugopal argument that the framers of India’s Constitution “consciously omitted” privacy as a fundamental right is his imagination in wrong direction. Any version of the Aadhaar Bill would have been subjected to close scrutiny. The Bill was deliberately mislabelled as a money bill to avoid scrutiny by Rajya Sabha creating even more suspicion.
• Privacy is an amorphous term which is not absolute and cannot prevent the State from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens. Attempting to define the right to privacy may cause more harm than good.
• In order to recognise privacy as a right, it would have to be defined first. But this would be a near impossible task as an element of privacy pervaded all fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• Right to privacy is a pre-existing natural right which is inherent in the Constitution, even though it is not explicitly mentioned. The right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The concept of privacy is embedded in liberty as well as a person's honour.
• Even if the court now finally finds that Aadhaar violates the right to privacy, the damage is already done with the vast majority of the population already enrolled, their information already held in insecure databases, and linked to public and private services. We should all, of course, be praying that the court finds that there are 40 years of consistent judicial support for a fundamental right to privacy, and this cannot be taken away by the government so callously.

Privacy is essential to autonomy and the protection of human dignity. Privacy enables us to create boundaries and protect ourselves from unwarranted interference in our lives. Privacy protects us from arbitrary and unjustified use of power by states, companies and other actors. It lets us regulate what can be known about us and done to us, while protecting us from others who may wish to exert control. Privacy is a fundamental human right. Over 130 countries have constitutional statements regarding the protection of privacy. Despite international human rights law, it’s all too common that privacy is violated by states and companies. While we should continue to fight for our privacy under the law, the best thing we can do as users to who value our right to anonymity, is to use internet tools. 

My View:
This BJP/NDA government headed by Modi by aggressively promoting expensive cashless transactions with artificial cash shortage is just like sales chief of those companies rather than leader of the nation. He has no respect for rights of citizens. His aim is to increase revenues not by promoting economic activity but by tracking almost all transactions and arm twisting people and collecting more taxes for funding his trophy projects and worthless ideas while leaving poor & peasants in distress. Can you imagine leader of largest democracy in the world arguing in Supreme Court that citizens, who elected him, have no right to privacy except what ever is granted by his stupid brains? His thinking doesn't understand that privacy is fundamental right of humans and doesn't require any constitution or laws for recognizing this.

Anu Aga: A life shaped by tragedy

Mrs. Anu Aga, Ex Chairperson, Thermax Ltd,  8th richest Indian woman once

• Anu Aga, ex-Chairperson of Thermax Ltd., and once India’s eighth richest woman.
• Her net worth is estimated at $1.16 billion (2017) by Forbes.
• Thermax was set up by her father AS Bhathena in 1966 as Wanson (India) to provide a range of engineering solutions. The company was renamed Thermax in 1980 after her father retired. Her husband, Rohinton Aga, headed it till 1996, when he died of a massive stroke. 
• While Ms Aga was still finding her feet as the head of Thermax, she suffered a second tragedy - her 25 year old son Kurush died in a road accident. 
• In the late 1990s, Thermax had got used to "satisfactory underperformance". Thermax's growth had nose-dived at the time, with share prices plummeting from Rs. 400 to Rs. 36 because of the market downturn. 
• Ms Aga has said that an anonymous letter from a shareholder accusing her of letting him down forced her to take stock of the situation. It dawned upon her that as the largest shareholder of a public limited company, it was her responsibility to turn the company around even if she personally felt she didn't deserve to be its chairperson.
• She was convinced that management was out of its depth and needed outside help. Her senior executives resisted the idea. Most men find it difficult to seek help because it comes in the way of their 'macho image'. The board decided to hire a consulting company.
• The board was reconstituted to bring in more independent directors. The promoter members stepped down from executive positions, and operational aspects were left to a non family professional team led by the managing director.
• The full-scale reform, with help from the Boston Consulting Group between February 1996, when she took over as chairperson of Thermax and 2004, when she stepped down, Ms Aga transformed the company into a global turnkey player in energy and environment projects. Thermax shares were trading on the Bombay Stock Exchange at Rs. 447.15. 
• Eight years after Ms Aga took the top post, her daughter Ms. Meher Pudumjee replaced her as head of the company in 2004. However, she continues to be on the company's Board of Directors.
• What is non-negotiable, she pointed out, is her time with her grandchildren Zahaan, 9, and Lea, 6.  
• Mrs. Aga is keenly involved in the causes of communal harmony and human rights, especially of women and children. Since retiring, she is closely involved with Akanksha, an NGO which supplements the educational needs of the slum children. In partnership with Pune Municipal Corporation and Akanksha, Thermax Foundation has adopted three municipal schools in Pune. She is on the Board of Teach for India, an initiative that attempts to bridge the inequity gap in education.
• In 2010, Mrs. Aga was awarded the Padmashri for her work in the social sector.
• In 2012, Mrs. Aga is a Nominated Member of the Rajya Sabha in 2012. 

Gujarat Riots 2002: Nov 18, 2002: Her protests against "insufficient" State Government measures in Gujarat to rehabilitate victims of the post-Godhra communal clashes invited media attention, as she was the first person from the corporate sector to visit Gujarat and voice concern at the raging violence. "Out of several camps that I visited, the Shah-e-Alam camp had 1,950 families living in the open with practically no shelter, except a few bamboo poles with torn clothes hanging over them. Almost all the relief camps I visited bore ample testimony to the Government's apathy. I was pained at the injustice meted out, or rather complete callousness showed by the Government and fellow Indians. When the Gujarat earthquake, a natural calamity could garner so much in terms of mobilising funds and support, how could they just turn a blind eye to the riot-hit victims - a disaster that could very well have been avoided?" she asks.

"If the reason for this is because the victims belong to a minority, then I will say the time-honoured Indian value system is a miserable failure," she says. Aga spoke at a function organised by the Coalition for Peace and Harmony at the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI) auditorium here recently. "If there was governance, would the violence have continued for two months? While the official toll of the number of Muslims killed is 900, the unofficial death toll stands at 3,000 as against the 60 Hindus having lost their lives. The figures are self-explanatory," the social activist pointed out. "I am not debating on the number of persons killed from the two faiths, the talking point is how educated people could fall prey to narrow communal feelings and either perpetrate or condone violence that resulted in the loss of over a thousand lives. Is it not a degradation of our basic humanness?" she asked. 

She warns that as a fallout of the Government's "lackadaisical attitude" towards minority victims, mistrust and hatred may brew all the more and "a second Godhra" may not be very far away. "The authorities should rectify their mistakes when there is time at hand," she suggests. Condemning fundamentalism in every religion, she took a dig at the business world too. "To me, Godhra or the subsequent events are not a spontaneous one-time occurrence. It is a symptom of a society that is callous, indifferent, and is only concerned about individual selfishness, amassing wealth and acquiring positions." 

Business today represents a powerful force as it has the best human talent, leadership skills, technical know-how and large capital at its command. It can be the most potent agent of social change provided we businessmen, choose to define human well being as the `business' of Business. Only then would the purpose of business be served," said the successful businesswoman wrapping up the talk. 

Earlier at a CII national meeting in April 2002, the chairwoman of the energy major Thermax, Anu Aga, received a standing ovation after delivering an impassioned speech about the suffering of Muslims in Gujarat.

BJP Commits suicide in AP

The ruling BJP virtually committed suicide in AP, by stalling private bill of Congress member KVP Ramachandra Rao, for granting "Special Status to AP" in Rajya Sabha yesterday (Fri 22/7/2016), illegally and immorally, contradictory to business rules of the house.

Then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced "Special Status to AP" for 5 years in Rajya Sabha as a precondition of BJP leaders in upper house Venkaiah Naidu and Arun Jaitley, then opposition leaders in RS demanded 10 year's special status to AP, while passing AP Reorganization Bill 2014. However after assuming power Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2014, contrary to all his election promises made in AP, developed cold feet, for political reasons detrimental to AP interests.

• Central assistance extended to AP after bifurcation was falling very much short of the provisions of the Act.
• 20,000 crore Polavaram project scheduled to be completed by 2018, has received 50 crore during 2014-15 and 200 crores in 2015-16. At this pace it would never get completed.
• Capital city construction requires at least 100,000 crores, where as so far assistance received is less than 2,000 crores.
• New Railway zone for AP with Visakhapatnam as HQ was put in cold storage violating AP Reorganisation Act.
• Dugarajapatnam port project  was diverted to Tamilnadu, violating AP Reorganisation Act.
• Estimated Budget  deficit of Rs.16,000 crores for 2014-15 and similar amount for 2015-16 was not reimbursed so far. Center continues asking clarifications after clarifications but not paying speaks volumes about their intentions.
• Special Status to AP was not granted so far on the pretext that it is contradictory to Niti Aayog (erstwhile Planning Commission) where as Manmohan Singh's cabinet already approved this. Niti Aayog is neither superior to Parliament nor Union Cabinet inferior to Niti Aayog.
• No tangible explanation given by BJP Government so far. Nor alternate compensatory amounts stated.
• BJP with vote base of less than 3% in AP, is virtually non existent in rural AP, is aspiring to become significant force by its pseudo leaders without any mass base will now get buried permanently in AP.
• Now Congress, which lost deposits in all the constituencies of AP in 2014 post bifurcation elections, stands to gain some mileage, only at the expense of rattled YCP.
• TDP by announcing support to the bill, despite being Congress private bill but in the larger interest of AP, overcoming the obligations of being part of Modi's NDA coalition government in Center stands sincere in the eyes of people of AP.
• On Sat 22/7/2016 by stalling the bill in RS, BJP had virtually put its neck in the suicide rope's loop.
• Tomorrow, i.e. Mon 25/7/2016 if the bill is not put to voting and BJP extend its support to bill and eventually grant "Special Status to AP", its self hanging in AP would get completed.
• BJP leadership's wishful thinking to become stronger by weakening TDP in AP is short sighted. In fact they would become stronger in AP by strengthening TDP government. So far its leaders false claims that central support of more than a lakh of crores was extended to AP so far, but not properly acknowledged by TDP Government in AP was laughed at even by lay man in AP.
• According to me, BJP has committed suicide by AP on Sat 22/7/2016 for its political histrionics during past two years. 
• Perhaps BJP is looking at Telangana allying with TRS & KCR, forgetting how they used  Sonia Gandhi and Congress for achieving separate statehood and once done, dumped them 100 feet under ground.
• Finally, BJP should realize that with zero rural base and scattered urban base in two Telugu states, BJP can't survive as a political party on its own. Piggy riding on TDP is beneficial to them especially with 1999-2004 experience when BJP almost received 9% votes in 1999 election and making impressive wins was with allying with TDP.
• Let us see whether better sense prevails with BJP's central leadership. In the mean time AP people will continue to suffer for no fault of theirs.
• In the words of Undavalli Arun Kumar, ex Rajahmundry MP, while Congress made an "attempted rape of AP" in 2014, BJP did raped AP today.
• Venkaiah Naidu turned out to be "AP Drohi" in the disguise of "disciplined BJP party worker".