T. Rama Rao (administrator)

Transcription

>> Male presenter: [Indian accent] administrator and political activist, and columnist. He was former Public Administrator. Some of his achievements as Administrators, as Administrator include: the rehabilitation of 8,000 families in Vizag, who are displaced by the Steel Plant, and large scale irrigation projects like a two lakh acre dry land, irrigation in Prakasham district. Later, he resigned from IAS and, si-, and has, since then has been leading the Lok-Satta Movement, organized corruption and world politics. Under his able leadership, Lok-Satta played a prominent role in achieving electoral reforms and the Right to Information Act and several other reforms. But, he, Dr. Jayaprarakash Narayan is presently a member of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and his party has branches in five states, and contested in three states. And he also had, he also coordinates with several reformist organizations, like Federal Democratic [inaudible] India and People for Lok-Satta. As part of Pe-, People for Lok-Satta Rejuvenate campaign, he's presently touring several citi-, several cities in inter-, in the United States and advocating some of the chok-, solutions to the challenges India facing, like proportional representation, local government allowing NRI's voting rights and NRI's role in Indian politics. Thanks JP garu for making time in his busy schedule and thank Innovation Team for making this happen. Without no further delay, I invite Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan. Sorry for inter [inaudible]. [applause] >>JP: [Indian accent] Friends, I'm delighted to be here with you. Oftentimes, when somebody is very tall, there's a natural advantage in life. For once, I found that [presenter] being very tall was a disadvantage. The microphone was a little, at a lower level and I was amused by this idea that what appears to be of great advantage sometimes could actually be a problem on occasion. I think that's important when we discover things about a society, about a nation, about an economy, and in many ways about many organizations. I was asked to make a few points about Indian economy and politics and I've chosen the theme: 19th-century Politics and 21st-century Economy. Can they coexist and if there are some serious issues here, what can we do to make things better? If the 20th century offered us any lessons, it is that you cannot delink economics from politics. The biggest question decided by the 20th century will allow us whether or not the socialist economy was right or the market economy was right. It's a central political question. Ultimately, we recognize that the economic growth of a country is not neutral to the political trajectory of that nation. And in 1991, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, in '89 when the Berlin Wall collapsed, in '91 when The Soviet Union collapsed and much of the world embraced market economy, but with certain changes; certain significant changes. Then, the assumption of the world is that humankind has discovered what works best in terms of economic growth and political organization. But, I think we all should recognize that's not an unadulterated victory of market economy. The market economy won because they have actually absorbed some of the socialist principles. In the first half of the 20th century, education and healthcare were not regarded as government's business. But, in the second half of the 20th century, most every major country in the world of any consequence embraced both education and healthcare as part of governments business. The services may be provided by the private sector, but it must be driven by the public sector; just a broader understanding. In a many-, very fundamental sense, it is this synthesis of some of the socialist principles with a market economy that made a success of market economy possible. Therefore, I would like to start off my presentation with a brief discussion of the role of state. What is it that the modern state should be doing? It should be debating whether it should be socialist or market based. What is the role of the state? In India, this question has never been adequately addressed. I would like to argue that the state is primarily meant for public order, justice, and rule of law; apart from the difference of the [inaudible ] so on and so forth. And then it must be essentially to enhance the capabilities of the citizens of the societies-- [phone rings] of the society, so that the accident of birth, "accident of the womb", as Warren Buffet called it, does not determine the fate of the child. And that is education and healthcare. And then, of course, infrastructure required for a modern economy, in particular, transport and powers technical, communications, thanks to all of you guys; the government's role is now very marginal except minimal regulation, really. And the natural resources development there's no way anybody but a straight actor is going to do something like Tennessee Valley Authority, or the Hoover Dam. It has to be a governments business. And finally, social security, a measure of social security so that those who fall into the cracks, their concerns can be addressed in a humane modern society. Once we look at state and its role with greater clarity in this manner, I think a lot of questions can be addressed much better. The economic story of India, in the past 10, 15, 20 years, is by now reasonably well understood across the world. In 1947, we start with 2% to the global GDP. There is something called global GDP. But, not too long ago in human history terms, about three centuries, four centuries before that, India shape of economic, the world economy was something like 25%. But all until 150 to 200 years because we did not even take advantage of the Industrial Revolution. India fell to 2% of the global GDP. By 1991, this fell down to 1% of the GDP. The economy in India grew at a snail's pace, but in terms of the global economy, our share came down to 1%. In 1991, as we all know now, the current Prime Minister as Finance Minister of India, in the wake of an enormous crisis, out of compulsion, not conviction, engineered and made a U-turn in our economic policies. Today, we are back at 2% of the global GDP. In other words, we ran very hard for 63 years to remain where we were. In related terms, not that India hasn't progressed at all, but we're still the way we were in 1947. But, the general perception is with a reasonably good growth rates, those cannot matching China's, and with some everyday stuff, sustaining those growth rates, India could well be one of the major economies of the world in the next few decades. The emerging markets forum say it's by 2039. If India does a few things right, we could well be the second largest economy in the world. That China will be the largest is more or less accepted now, I think. There are a very few people in the world who say that anything else is possible now. But the future, of course, may tell us a different story. Whether India will actually fulfill our potential is a great challenge. My argument is India has the potential to achieve this miracle, but we are to make this miracle happen. Our politics has become now a great impediment to economic growth and to fulfilling India's potential. [pause] If you look at politics of India in the past 60 years, there's a huge success story. At one level, India is the first country in the world to embrace universal adult franchise on the first day that the Constitution was written. For largely illiterate and extremely poor country, to embrace adult franchise on a universal basis from day one was actually a great adventure. It was an enormous expression of faith in the wisdom of the bulk of the people of the country. This very great country in which we are right now: the first republic in the modern world, the first democracy in the modern world, the first country to practice abolition of powers, the first country with a written constitution, despite recognition that all human beings are equal, it took them something like, 144 years after those immortal words written in The Declaration of Independence to recognize that women are equal to men. It took a civil war and the sacrifice and the blood and gore of more than ten thousand able-bodied youth of this country to recognize that people of another skin color are the same as any other skin color. Even in that context, and given the fact that Britain took centuries before women got the right to vote in 1928, it was actually remarkable expression of faith and the part of Indian Constitution make us to recognize that all Indians, irrespective of caste, religion, language, and we have many, many, many languages even here. I'm sure many people do not realize how many languages there are in India, serious languages for thousands of years history, hundreds of years history, their own literature, their own script, and their own unique culture. [pause] Despite all this, and despite the fact that India was actually partitioned on the basis of religion, the Indian Constitution make us put enormous faith in the people of the country. And in some respects, I think that faith is fully vindicated. If you take India's political evolution, it's a remarkable success story in the sense that: A. We retained our political freedoms. B. There is intense electoral competition. Elections in India are not make-believe elections. C. The winners do not punish the losers. There are many countries in the world where the loser is punished merely because he lost the election. He may lose his head or liberty or many things. In India that never happen, mercifully. And finally, the elected government is truly an authority. It's not some [inaudible] agenda. Going by these four postulates, India is a truly vibrant, functioning democracy. And that we could actually maintain a moderate rate of growth t-, in the economy and now emerges a reasonably influential country in terms of the future economy the globe. It's a source of some satisfaction. But the fact is there are also many dark corners of Indian politics and unless they are set right, unless we throw light on them, unless we change that, we may not fulfill our true economic potential. [pause] Particularly, because India is largely poor and because most people are still illiterate, because politics is in the power struggle without any reference to ideologies or any outcomes, because there's increasing contention in politics, but there's only a change of players and there's no change in the outcomes, there's no change in the rules of the game; money has become the currency of politics. For those of you from the United States, it might appear that's very normal thing in politics, after all the US has spent a lot of money in politics. But those are two different worlds, altogether. The money spent here is entirely for legitimate campaigning purposes; most of it for television advertising. It's fully accounted. And it's transparent. Sadly, much of the money is spent in elections in India is unaccounted and for illegitimate purposes, mostly for work buying with money and liquor. So the market economy actually works in the politics of India. And that's what ought to be changed. The second perversion of Indian politics is in a country of abject poverty, it's very easy for the governments to seduce the workers, offering them all kinds of freebies; unsustainable in the long term, very detrimental to public good, but in the short term there's always a way of persuading the worker that they're free power, free color television, free rice, and every month some amount of money, irrespective of everything else that that will be given once the government resumes office. I'm not mention this things as casual. These are all a real sore spot in India by political parties; some of them actually were delivered. There is state of time in order where every family was offered a color television. And they were actually delivered in significant measure. I don't know how many were delivered finally, but millions of color televisions were delivered by the elected government as part of the promise that they made to the electorate befor election. So increasingly, parties resort to this kind of thing; taking advantage of the poverty. The third is, of course, in a very diverse country with many primordial loyalties, it's very easy to divide the people in caste, region, religion, and language. And mobilize them as working blocks, with orders and stuff, "What's in it for me if I work for this party or that party?" Because there's no, there's no sense that any party would make any difference, therefore, there's only emotional purchase available. Once we have these three attitudes in politics, which are increasingly dominant in the mainstream political parties, we have seen this crisis. We have elections, we help peaceful transfer of power, we have fierce contention, we have liberty, but political outcomes are simply not what India needs and that's what ought to be changed. And therefore, my argument is that this kind of a 19th-century political mode, a medieval political mode where politics is all about power struggle, when we master the art of getting into power without bothering about the outcomes, that cannot be coexist in the 21st-century economy. One of them has to give in. Either the politics must change, or the economy will eventually decline and collapse. What will happen depends on what we do in the next ten years or so in India. A comparison with China would be very apt because many people, obviously, are interested in the two Asian giants in terms of population we're now more number two, respectively. In terms of growth based upon large economies, now China is number one and India is pretty close to being number two. And in terms of potential, India could well emerge as one of the economic giants of the world in the next 30 years if we do well. So obviously, comparisons are inevitable. But I think one, one has to understand things in perspective. One argument often advanced is that China is not a democracy; therefore, they can do pretty much what they want. And therefore, they can actually focus on excellence in economic growth even at the cost of short term political price. Because after all, one of the great challenges of democratic politics anywhere in the world is the conflict between the short term political price you have to pay for pursuing right policies, and the long term, slow rate of social payoff is one of the most difficult things anywhere in the world. That's why we all love to hate politicians, because politicians are present with this all the time. They have to reconcile confronting interests and satisfy all groups, and they have to be mindful of the short term political price and yet focus on the long term public good. These are awesome challenges. Obviously, in a dictatorship you don't have this problems; it's easier. Nevertheless, I think we're always taken the case when we try and say that democracy is detrimental to economic growth. I would like to argue that almost everything good that happen in China is actually because of the democratization of society. And almost everything bad that happen in China after the October rev-, 1948 revolution was because Chinese leadership on occasion acted autocratically in an arbitrary manner. Take the later case, The Great Leap Forward, between 1959 and '62, because of Mao Zedong's actually irrational policies, arbitrary policies, 20 million Chinese starved to death. 1959 to '62 was not because of [pause] any sensible policies. The autocracy of China actually caused perhaps the greatest man-made misery in the 20th century. Similarly, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, it was again another initial blunder. But the good things that happened in China are because they tried to democratize: education, healthcare access, decentralization of power, technology to villages, enhancing productivity; these are all clues of democratization. An authoritarian leadership actually enhanced the contingent democracy. We always think in terms of democracy as merely working. Democracy is more than that. We have in India great liberty, but are we a democratic society fully in some respects? I suspect not. In some respects, I dare to argue that China is perhaps more democratic than India. You take the local governments in China. They are far more influential. There's far greater decentralization of power. There is greater citizen empowerment at the local level then in India today. Everything in India revolves on the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister at the provincial level and the District Magistrate at the district level. The citizens and the communities and the local governments have hardly any role at all. Similarly, education, healthcare, there's sense of a modern democracy, have not been given the kind of importance that they deserved in India. What I'm arguing is the normative democracy in terms of constitution and elections are necessary, but not sufficient. We have to actually have a functioning democracy in terms of society being democratized. In terms of fu-, people's future being decided not by the accident of birth, accident of the womb, but by their hard work. And the society must give an opportunity to fulfill her true potential. In that sense, we have a lot to learn from China. This categorization, crude categorization of something is a democracy, something is not, bears immediate uncertain indicators is not sufficient. And India must learn with humility the art of democratization for a society. If that is the case, what are the things India should do? I'll come to the concluding part of my presentation so we can have some time for meaningful interaction. Well, I'm making a controversial point. I'm well aware of that and I think it requires some serious examination. First is local governments. One great thing that happened in India is a maturation of federalization. India is a multi-lingual country. In a northern neighborhood in Canada, I've told there's only one other language apart from English spoken by the Quebec people, the French language. And yet, every five years or so, there is a demand for cessation and there's some kind of accommodation for the time being and we never know when Canada is going to break up. You see a tiny country like Belgium, for instance, again two languages and every other day there's a fight breaking out. Right now I'm told that there's no government in office there. They're figuring out who should be the Prime Minister. You see Sri Lanka, our own southern neighbor, there's only one other language, Sinhalese, the main language of the country. And the minority, northern Tamil's, they spoke the Tamil language. And because the country did not know how to reconcile the linguistic aspirations of these two groups, there was a bloody civil war, tens of thousands of people died, one of the most murderous terrorist groups was on rampage for decades, and only recently they have been able to overcome the terrorist group and hopefully, they'll learn the lesson. And now the indications are that they are trying to follow the Indian model of federalism. And India, in contrast, there are at least 18 major languages. It's not like China where Mandarin is spoken by an estimated 85% of the people. And all the other ethnic nationalities, apart from Han Chinese, there are only 15% of the people. In India, the largest language is spoken only by about 40% people, 40 to 45% people, Hindi. In that again, there are so many dialects that Brij Puri is different from the chaste Hindi for let's say, Bhopal or Indore. And other language, second biggest language, Telugu, is spoken by about 8 to 8½% of the people. All other languages are now after order; 8%, 6%, 5%, etc. And yet, despite having 18 languages, each of them with their own literature, their own culture, their own tradition, and their own history for centuries, some for millennia. India could actually unite all of them if the federalism today matured. When the Constitution was written, while we were a federal country it was actually quasi-federal. The federal government was more in command because the founding fathers were terrified of the possibility of further vulcanization of India, given the experience of partition in India in 1947. But, over the past 25 years, one of the great things that happened in India is this federalism has now become very mature. The states have come into their own. They have now considerable leeway in deciding things, and in deciding their own des-, their own destinies. But the tragedy is the states in turn have not recognized the need to encourage local communities to be self-governing. They spread a constitutional injunction and we have huge amendments in 1994, running into 7,700 words. If you compare that with American Constitution, the whole of American Constitution today some 222 years after it was written, it has some 7,400 words. Our provisions relating to local governments alone, they run into 7,700 words. And yet, we created over-structured, under-powered local governments and the bureaucracy, of which I was a member for a long time, the state legislatures, of which I'm a member currently, these two have conspired to ensure that the local governments are enfeebled. There is absolutely no desire in India to really empower the communities and to see that the people who can preside over their own destinies. Unless India recognizes the merit of decentralization, a very complex and lost country, we will never be able to deliver services. Without local government empowerment, you cannot have a linkage between authority and accountability. You cannot have a clear understanding in the minds of the people between their word and public good that results from that. And most of all, you cannot have a link between taxes and services rendered. And therefore, there'll be always a reluctance to pay taxes. In India, tax avoidance is a national sport. I'm sure many of us dislike to pay taxes, but in India we really elevate that to a very high quality sport. Our tax to GDP ratio, even today is only about 18%. That means only 18% of the GDP is collected by any government at any level; federal, local, or state towards taxes. Compare that with the United States, it's about 40% in this country. Go to Europe. Most countries have 50%. Some countries are 60%. Now we might not go to 60% or 50%, but to actually have a decent, functioning state of fulfilling responsibilities, the tax rates must go higher. There must be greater tax compliance. That never happen as long as the bulk of the people of India don't notice the link between the taxes they pay and the services they get. And therefore, they'll be always more towards getting something in the, on co-, on the quick. There'll be always a desire for short term maximization. Like, "Make us some freebie; this rice, or this free power, or this free color TV. Because I know there's something tangible that I get and I don't know what else I'll get anyway. Therefore, that's all I expect from politics and let the country be damned." If that is to be changed, people must see where the tax money is going and they must understand alternative uses for the tax money. For all these reasons, we have to empower the local governments. The way, for instance, to change despite being an autocratic regime, has actually been trying to do. The second major change required is "rule of law". Normally, India has an impeccable system of rule of law. The judiciary is independent, the Supreme Court is pretty strong, perhaps not as strong as the United States, but next to U-, US, the judiciary is the strongest in the world. We have many independent constitutional organs, like the Election Commission, the world's most powerful Election Commission. The election law deciding body. And many of the organs. But, nevertheless, the rule of law is pretty weak. The norms are different from the practice. The police are entirely under the control of the political institute in almost every state in the country. We cannot even conceive of a situation like what happened in Illinois state in your country when Rod Blagojevich, when he had tried to sell the, the Senator's appointment for a price. He was promptly thrown out of office, he's probably politically buried forever, and he may even go to jail. If you applied that standard in India, I'm afraid it would 95% of us would be found wanting. And unless we actually create a system where there's a fierce, independence of the Crime Investigation Authority, anticorruption agencies, and independent prosecution. And speedy justice; our justice system is independent, but it's very, very slow and ponderous. I don't want to go into details as to what needs, needs to be done. There are simple, elegant answers to that. I, myself, as a member of the Administrative Reforms Commission have specifically come out with series of proposals to bring about significant changes within the bounds of our Constitution. So, the answers are evident. But, we have to actually apply them so that the culture of "VIPs", Very Important Persons, the culture of cronyism, the culture of patronage, the culture of those in power determining all outcomes, even in justice system, and even when it comes to crime investigation, unless we change these things we're in serious trouble. After all, the strength of a market economy is that the market drop rates equal of everybody. It's a level playing field. And if the contracts are not honored, if those in power decide what'll happen and who the next billionaire is going to be, and those who actual do business in India are worried about how to enforce the contracts, then obviously, they'll be a serious aback to businesses. The third big change we require is to fight corruption. [pause] Corruption is obviously prevalent in many countries. The Blagojevich case shows in-, America is no exception. But, in countries like India, it's ubiquitous. It is universally believed that if you want to do business in India, you have to be corrupt. Countries like the US have the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is now later adopted by the European Commission. And eventually now has become the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Nevertheless, the fact is in many countries, if you want to actually do serious business, unless you please those in government or in politics, you cannot move forward. Un-, unless that is changed, I'm afraid any economic growth will be stalled. If you want to contain corruption again, the answers are self-evident. What you have done to Rod Blagojevich in this country must be possible for everybody in India: speedy justice, confiscation of properties, throwing them in jail, getting them out of politics, those who are corrupt and creating a mechanism for political campaign finance. We have an excellent law on campaign finance in India enacted in 2003. Works at the moment and I was privileged to be a part of that, is largely responsible for bringing about that law; it's an excellent law. In the United States, for instance, in the wake of Watergate in 1970s, you brought in the Campaign Finance Reform Law after Nixon's resignation. But since then, for about 40 years, there's been no serious change. And then came, for about 30-35 years, and then came the Feingold-McCain Law, which is actually a feeble legislation to improve the campaign finance system. India has arguably one of the finest campaign finance laws, except that it has simply not been implemented. The parties don't care about it. Ours is perhaps the only party in India that goes by that in letter in spirit. Unless we make it mandatory to actually implement that, and unless world banks exist, we are in serious trouble. But meanwhile, we have to address the challenges of corruption by institutional mechanisms, by creating an independent, strong, anti-corruption agency. And independent prosecution by punishing swiftly and surely the corrupt people by setting a strong example, punitive example, and by doing several other things that many other countries have successfully done to curb corruption substantially. Finally, politics is about incentive, just like economics. If, in a poor country like India, word-buying is what gets you to the winning post, I suspect people will continue to buy the words, many people will continue to sell the words. If the buyer and seller are happy, no law, no constitution can really set that right. We have to change the incentives. The Indian electoral system is a legacy of the colonial Britain. It's not at all a rational system. It's utterly irrational. I believe Attlee, who was the Prime Minister of Britain at that time, actually argued in favor of other models like, the American presidential system and the European proportional representation system. But the Indians said, "No, we are more British than all of you guys. We'll have to pursue with your own electoral system even if we get rid of you." And that's actually happening today. In Britain, except in the House of Commons, in every other election they're going up this old-fashioned First Past-the-Post system. In the regional parliaments of Scotland, Northern Wales, and Ireland, this is misproportionately based. In local elections, it's proportionately based. Europe and Ireland proportionally based. London City, an electorate executive, an electorate mayor, like now Boris Johnson is in, is the mayor. Utterly the first mayor in this new mode of electionist Ken Livingston. India is the only country that is sticking with the old-fashioned British best Minister, First-Past-the-Post model. It appears that Britain may actually be changing back to the House of Commons level, also. We all know what happened in the last week when the two parties for the first time after Second World War in Britain, headed by Cameron and Nick Clegg, they all joined forces to form a coalition government. And eventually, in the next two, three years, we may well see in Britain a shift to some sort of proportionate representation. The reason why India requires a shift is if one word extra means victory, one word less means defeat, in an abjectly poor country where the political culture is already considerably damaged, word buying is rampant. Word buying will continue, corruption will continue, politics will be distorted. We have to change it to a system where if you vote this way, that way, it don't matter, it's the person that the votes to get. It's not how much you control the constituency. As a local zemindar as we call it, a local chief, a man with complete clout, complete domination of the local population. That's what really gives political dividends in India today. We have to change it to a system where it's the major party and the candidates. And the platform of the political party, rather than the news offered to individuals to get the marginal vote that will determine the political outcomes. If we do these things, then we could have probably change India's political system from the 19th-century archaic model to something approximate in the 21st century. And our economy and our politics can co-exist. Einstein once said, "Twentieth century is characterized by perfection of means and confusion of ends." Indian politicians have mastered the art of acquiring power. They perfected their means. But what power is about, in terms of outcomes, is something that eludes us all the time. There's hardly any change in respect of what happens, no matter who is in office. And that's what should be changed in India. I believe Indian people are alive to this challenges. They are capable of addressing them, but they require an urgent push from all over the world with our compatriots of Indians. Indian compatriots are there. People of Indian origin is there, are there. The businesses of India, all Indian businesses, they must argue for change because they must not think politics is different from economics. There is a notion in business circles that what will do business isn't related to what, what kind of politics takes shape. Politics has a decisive influence on the way businesses take shape and the way economic growth trajectory takes shape. And unless we address the larger questions of politics without being partisan, without really getting into who should be in power, but focusing on what should be the outcomes. Unless we do that, economy itself is in peril. Indian businesses are now slowly awakening themselves to this reality. We require a change fundamentally. I believe we will change. When status quo is unsustainable, change is inevitable. That's why the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. It did not fall because of any bullets or warfare; it fell because the people voted with their feet. Because they could see the contrast between what's happening across the borders, across the wall, and in their own society. And they could not take it any longer. And no society could depress its people forever. And a democratic society will change when people want it adequately, but people must be awakened to the possibilities of change. But the danger is change will still happen; it will not be the right kind of change. Twenty years ago, there was a very popular story in Moscow. I believe hundreds of people were queuing in front of a Russian shop for a few crumbs of bread in Moscow City, on a bitter, biting, cold, winter morning. They waited and waited but there was no bread in sight. When young man lost his temper after some time, he said, "I'm sick and tired of it. I'll go and kill the General Secretary in Kremlin." And they stormed off in protest. The others still waited patiently because they know there was still the midnight knock, there was still the Secret Police, the Gestapo, or whatever they called it in, in Soviet Union. There's still the concentration camps, the GULAGs, therefore they all waited very quietly and patiently. The same man came back after two hours. The others still were waiting and there was no bread in sight. They're all gathered around him and asked him, "What happened? Have you killed the General Secretary?" He said, "A riot in Kremlin can rob the store now, children are hungry at home, please tell us what happened?" This young man said, "You know, I went there to kill the General Secretary, but there was a much longer queue waiting there." [laughter] This story was recounted in every single household of Soviet Union in all the 15 republics at the time. People laughed about it, but they did nothing about it. Change did come in 1991, but not the kind of change any Soviet citizen wanted. Change will always come. It will always overtake us, eventually, every society. The challenge is, is it the kind of change we all need, we all desire and that will be positive? Or is it the change we'll have to submit ourselves to and pay the price for? That's the challenge facing Indian people, and Indian politicians, Indian civil servants, and Indian businessmen. I believe we are all capable of rising to the challenge and fulfilling our potential and becoming one of the great economies on one of the most moderating influences in the modern world, in a complex, ever-changing, unpredictable world. But only if we set our house in order today. And I believe the stakes for the world are as great as they are for India, because what happens to one system of humanity cannot but impact the rest of the world. And I believe the rest of the world is actually waiting for this, this caged lion, to really find its own feet and find its own direction. And I believe ultimately, 21st-century economy and 21st-century politics will coincide and show the way to many other countries in emerging economies which continue to believe that economic growth and political freedom cannot coexist. We have to prove that these two can and must coexist. The challenge in that sense is fundamental and it's human. Thank you. [applause] I'll be happy to take questions…comments, criticism. [pause] [audience chatter] Do we have a collar microphone? No? Ok, sorry. >>male audience1: [Indian accent] Thank you very much for a great talk. I think you said it perfectly when you said, you know, we, we're perfect at the means but not the ends. One of the things I find calm in Indian politics is there is rationality, there's no rationality in the structure. There is a structure deficit when it comes to peace and, for example, like take that Tamilaru TV promise. There was no motivation to actually say, "OK, we're promising a TV for every household, but this is what it's gonna buy us." Or, for example, even if you take the Supreme Court, right? Right now the new Chief Justice came up and, I mean, like, he took office, first day in 29 minutes he cleared five cases by simply dismissing most of them. [JP laughs] And, the thing is, I mean, all these things are quite arbitrary. And the reason why that is, is before somebody like, any official, any, any organization, anybody, does something, there is no requirement or motivation to say why they are doing it, what is the purpose, what is, what is the measurable goal they are trying to achieve? Any of that. I wonder if you could, if you could, you know, speculate on what could be done to, for more of that kind of-- >>JP: It's, it's a good question. I'll address each of this briefly so that we get a sense of what it's about. Take the Supreme Court. Normatively, the Supreme Court is supposed to function like the American Supreme Court. But we bungle even in the initial stages, to be fair. Instead of making it a constitutional code, which it ought to be in a very large, federal country, we made also an appellate court and practically everything under the sun. And also we gave it original jurisdiction on certain issues. The naturalities, in the United States, you know, Supreme Court, typically 100 to 150 cases, I may be, I may be wrong by an order of magnitude of ten, twenty percent. Only that many cases are taken every year. And they're heard continuously by all the nine Justices. And at the end of the year if there is some pretty big cases never heard, they're all set aside because they'll come, they'll come another day. A constitutional court doesn't have to see everything under the sun. Whereas in India, typically every year we have tens of thousands of cases going before the courts and of course have to be really, are very arbitrary as a set. Suppose we create very much like in the US federal courts of appeal, for appeals over the high court judgments at the state level, and then have the Supreme Court only as the Constitutional Court that is basically envisaged, then the problem would be substantially addressed. >>audience1: Right. >>JP: So there are very simple answers. In fact, K. K. Venugopal, a very distinguished advocate and jurist, has very strongly argued for this recently in a, in a brilliant two, two piece article in The Hindu and I complimented N.Ram, the editor for The Hindu, for actually raising the debate and I believe we have to look at these issues. Look at politics, there are two fundamental schisms. One is the role of the state; we haven't yet really addressed it as a society whether distributing television sets is the function of a government. Or is it related to this rule of law and there's education and health care of reasonable quality. What is the function of a government? We haven't yet come down to it. If it's more like a Maharajadhiraja, a king, a monarch, doing pretty much what she or he wanted. The second is, within the government is structure again, the role of a particular tier of government, an organ of state is very unclear in the minds of politicians and the public themselves. So the notion what is federal, or what does the federal government do, what does the state do, what does the local government do, what does judicial do, what do the police do, what does bureaucracy do, what does legislature do, what does executor do? There simply blurred lines, therefore, most people expect a legislator to behave like an executor, and an executor to be actively important and vestful. Judiciary actually wants to be all the time to be the executor, sometimes even the lawmaker. All kinds of things are happening. Distortions are there. And when it come to the people, at the end of the day, in a system where the word has no meaningful consequence in their lives, and this is a central fact, and in a system where a few words more or less is gonna determine the political outcomes, in an abjectly poor country what happened is a very natural thing. What's happening in India in terms of money politics is a rational response to an irrational situation. It's a perfect irrational response. I mean, if I were a citizen, if I know that nothing probably of any consequence happen in terms of the outcome in the election, then I would try to maximize my short term gain. >>audience1: Right. >>JP: And if a thousand rupees or two thousand pieces offered per vote, and this not an ab-, this is not an abstract figure, it's a very real figure in India in several states, particularly Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, etc. In an abjectly poor country there's big money. And therefore, I try to maximize my short term gain. Others, the freebies after the election, the free power and free color TV. Or emotional purchase because in a primordial society, where caste and other loyalties are all important, and we haven't really enabled people to discover that there's something more important than your caste, there's something personal for your family. Better education for your children, maybe. Good health care for your family, maybe. That's more important than your caste and religion. Unless we establish that link, always this primordial loyalties be more important. And therefore, emotional purchase. And politicians are perfect at the art of using these three purchases: directly buying the vote, offering freebies for the vote, or giving emotional purchase in the form of caste, religion, and language. And that's why we have to address in these three vests, local governments, citizen central governments, electoral system, a fight against corruption. It can't be a one sector, one [inaudible], there's no single silver bullet. I will say these are the five bullets together. >>audience1: Right. >>JP: And unless we are understand adequately, I know all of the deeply concerned, but unless the concern is informed by a deep awareness of what, what's the way forward, it could be a really concern. We have to actually go forward. And that's my argument. >>audience1: Thank you. >>JP: Thank you. I'll try and be brief, I know. >>male audience2: [Indian accent] Yes. >>JP: Please. >>audience2: So, most of the problems that you mentioned revolve around two causes. Basically, there isn't probably a right re-, legalization of probably like, procedure for it, like you mentioned the Supreme Court thing, right? Like, that we don't have a like, a separate appeals court, right? And the second one you mentioned was there is no right implementation in, in spite of the right legalization existing, but the people we expect them to correct are the same people who are getting the purchase out of it by exploiting it. So, it's, it's, it's like a loop it seems to me, like, h-, how, how do you resolve that-- >>JP: It's a terrific question. It's a terrific question. In our politics, it's about solving the dilemmas of a society. If you have a constitution whose intent is sound, politics is the structure, the bridge between the constitutional values and the society's current culture. Now, if politics that ought to be a solution has become part of the problem, then we turn to the vicious cycle. The dangerous loop you talked about. But let's go a little backwards. Why did this happen in the first place? When India became free, we had arguably, the greatest galaxy of leaders ever assembled on the face of the earth. The only comparison would be to the American Freedom Fighters and the Constitution makers, the Founding Fathers of the United States. There is no other episode in history when such a galaxy of liberal-minded, well-educated, deeply committed, great leaders came together with a common purpose to build a nation. Post-independence was some time again, that caste played a role. But subsequently, the best and the brightest society. They have given up on politics. They have thought that they would pursue their own personal goals, which is of total their right, that's what life is about, but at the cost of public domain. The vacuum is left and the scum of humanity increasingly filled that. Or bad practices particularly took over. In politics, too, like in economics, aggression's law operates. Bad politics always drives away good politics. So, the answer really lies, in order to break this deadlock, this logjam, in the middle classes, the educated people, the young people who are forward looking recognize in the centrality of politics even to the economic future of the country. And playing a role. Everyone doesn't have to simply give up everything and then go and become a martyr or a farmer. Everybody can't go and become a contestant. But we all have to play creative political roles as citizens from registration from voting to voting sensibly and definitely to mobilizing other people to think rationally, to pursuing rational policies, to enhancing the quality of public discourse, to everything that's required to really make a democracy healthy. Look at the United States the way there was this massive debate in this country in the healthcare policies. And even truly perhaps the last word has not said. And there's going to be an election in the next few months and maybe people will have a chance to speak, speak up. And, I'm, I'm sure there'll be a sequel to that. That is the stuff of politics. In India, I don't recall, I'm not sure if I can recall a single instance when a Prime Minister ever addressed the country on a single issue of say, how to educate our people? How to improve the quality of healthcare? Or anything else for that matter. So we have to redefine politics and unless the middle classes are deeply engaged, and unless they learn the art of pursuit of personal goals along with pursuit of public good simultaneously, we have problem. Somewhere we have to break this logjam. Politicians, there's no point blaming them, I know we all love to hate politicians. Everybody, even in the United States, everybody loves to hate a Congressman or politician. It's a normal, democratic skepticism. It's a good, healthy thing. But that doesn't solve the problem. You can improve politics only by better politics and more politics, not by abolition of politics. >>audience2: Thank you. >>male audience3: [Indian accent] Dr. JP, thank you for coming here. You said politics are intertwined with money, not only that, in India they're also intertwined with violence. So, maybe there should have been a competition of ideas. It's been, it's been replaced, it's already is replaced by competition of rhetoric. So, what I wanted to ask you was about a specific instance. How do you think the Telangana issue should be handled and what is your party's stance on that? >>JP: Ok, I knew this question would come up in some form or the other. [laughter] And I'm sure another question will come up about reservations; I'll be surprised if it doesn't come up. You know, we love polarities in India. We love a yes or no kind of an approach. But we have to be a little more sensible and practical about dealing with this matters. As I said before, our federalism has matured remarkably. One of the great success stories of India is of federalism. In the past 25 years, there's been a steep change in federalism; we can be very, justly proud of that. It's the only great example of a truly diverse society that models federalism after the United States. In some ways a much more miraculously than the United States because we have such vast linguistic gulf, apart from poverty, etc. But nevertheless, in a complex federal policy, we're going to have these issues coming up. But, we must not lose our shirt over that and this whole notion that creation of a Telangana is a disaster, or it is a solution; it is a cure. Both is very dangerous. It's neither a cure nor a catastrophe. We must take it in our stride. Except practical, political arrangements and people are seeking. Now, how practical is it? Is it the best way forward, is something that the nation must slowly debate and come to terms with it because the, the implications are not going to be merely regional or limited to one state. They are going to apply to the whole country. If language is not a marker, in a country where every non-Hindi state has one state, one language principle, work with a new marker so that in, in Tamil Nadu, the Northern part of the country, the Eastern or Western part of the country, demands now crop up, how we deal with that will depend on what kind of markers we decide. There's nothing wrong in having markers. Like an artisan in some parts, you can simply say, "I'll take this parallel and I'll take this vertical, and that's it. I don't care how this state is created, but this is my state." There's nothing wrong with that, that's what India wants. But you must also uniform principle. The second thing is the first part of India where a region, which is host to the Capital City, unlike in United States, the capitalist in India not only politically centralized, but also economically centralized, demographically centralized. The hubs of economic growth, that region in all seem to have a separate statehood. Until now, it's the far flung regions heavy from big cities that wanted a separate statehood. Now when economy is increasingly concentrated around big cities, what is every interest at? Because what happens here could happen tomorrow in Western Maharashtra Mumbai. Northern Tamil Nadu in Chennai, Southern Karnataka in Bangalore, or some other state with some other capital city, or big city. We're to realize, we have to recognize that there is an issue here and find a way of resolving that issue. Once we do those two things, it doesn't matter what we do. We can, because it makes no difference. The real answer lies in local governments, not in one state more or one state less. Neither integration nor separation of a state is going to change anything monumentally. It's just going to create one more Chief Minister in the Cabinet. Nothing more. >>audience3: Thank you. >>JP: Yeah. >>male audience4: [Indian accent] Since I'm the last question, I'd like to ask two questions, ok? [JP laughs] My first question is about the distinction that you drew about the Chinese ground level democracy versus our normative, the normative democracy in India. I read a book by Fareed Zakaria where he kind of drew a distinction between democracy and rule of law. And he said that rule of law is equally or more important than actually elections and other external characteristics of democracy. But I don't think that rule of law actually exists at ground level in China either, they don't have even the property rights, even though they're not strong in India, they're probably stronger in India than China. So I would like to have your thoughts about why does -- >>JP: OK >>audience4: work in China? That's question number one. Question number two is about the Maoist Insurgents in India. Even people like [inaudible] are coming out saying that because of this abject failure of governments and there even the Maoists are out there; violence might be the only answer that the people there might have against the Indians-- >>JP: Good questions, but-- >>audience4: I don't, I don't agree with him, I just want your thoughts-- >>JP: I understand. First about Fareed Zakaria and China's rule of law and absence of it. Now, when I made a comparison between India and China, I did just to caution the Indian scholars and others who consistently argue that we are so democratic and wonderful that we have nothing to change. It is not to argue that China is better than India in that respect. That would be a foolish argument. All I'm arguing is that there are factions in Chinese governance which are perhaps more democratic than in a liberal, free Indian society. Overcentralization has been our bane. Decentralization has been their strength. Decentralization by definition is democratization. A total democratization. In India, we have not yet done it. Obviously, rule of law is far more deficient in China than in India. In India, the instruments of rule of law are really very strong; they're there. The delivery is weak for a variety of reasons we have to now set that right. But in other ways, the acceptance of rule of law as a notion, as a norm, are the instruments of rule of law a constitutional and legal instruments of rule of law, we are ages ahead of China. There's no question, but still we have to set something straight. Obviously, what we have to demonstrate to the world is that freedom and economic growth are compatible. Democracy is not related to growth because some people are now coming to the dangerous conclusion that growth in an emerging economy means autocracy. So why I argue, so why I'm arguing that China is invested democratic is, is democratic impulses of China that actually led to growth, not autocratic impulses. You must see both of them together. Otherwise, I agree. But I'm not very, a great fan of the notion of Fareeh Zakaria, that you must increasingly view power to the unelected. I recognize the importance of the unelected institutions like the Supreme Court, like the Election Commission, etc. But the think that you can somehow solve the problems of politics by nonpolitical institutions is a typical bureaucratic or middle class approach. There is no substitute to politics. Clean, decent politics, mobilizing public opinion, and more and more and better and better people playing a creative role; being deeply engaged as citizens and as, as people who would influence the outcomes of the local level and the state and national level. There's no substitute to that. And the danger is, and somehow believing that because we have a Supreme Court, we have an Election Commission, or some other strong body, everything will be alright. My friend, Seshan, a very good personal friend, even today, and since has very few friends remaining actually, he's a good man but not very strong and sometimes a civic man. He was a great Election Commissioner. What did he prove? He proved that the constitutional lawist in India could be autonomous if they really, sought, sought to be so. If they chose to be so. He proved that they could actually be independent. But, could he change the nature of elections in India? Far from it. Seshan himself knows that. It's not his failure. After all, the constitution itself is a creation of the constitution and a law of the land. The Parliament gives the mandate for the Election Commission to function. It can only function within that. It has no mandate to go beyond that. Therefore, to think that somehow by investing so much authority and prestige and hope in them, we can solve the problems of India, we'd comitting a great mistake. They are necessary, but they're not sufficient. Ultimately, politics have to be set by politics. About Maoists, I'm glad you asked this question. Undoubtedly, the failure of governance in India are in capacity to fulfill the aspirations of the bulk of the people. And the fact that the accident of birth is determined in the future by the bulk of the children. These are the fuel; these are the fodder for generating any number of violent moments. Some of them turned to be Maoist; that's not the only one. We have recognized that, but having recognized that if we do not also recognize that in a democratic society where the constitutional liberty are available and vote is available, the only forum of dissent, form of dissent is within the bounds of the constitution. Namely, you holler, you shout, you protest, you demonstrate without obstructing others, without disrupting other peoples freedoms, in front of the White House. When I went the other day, I saw; found two groups of people with the banners about all kinds of things. That is legitimate democratic protest, its basis is provided and they continue to try and attract public attention and eventually, as even politicians recognize that they cannot ignore that issue, they will address that. That is democracy. All else should feel sufficiently mad about it, like some of the nice Hollywood films. Somebody gets into Congress and moves the Congress and the nation and something about it. That's all politics is about. But if I say that because I'm not happy with the way things are, I will take to the gun, I will extinguish the liberties available under the Constitution, I'll take law into my hands, and I will, in fact, repeal this constitution instead of abolish the constitution itself. That's not acceptable. Therefore, the state and the people have every right and duty to do everything within the bounds of the constitution to control it. Let there be no mistake, whatsoever. Abraham Lincoln had this question repeatedly posed to him during the Civil War. He said time and again if the first article of the American Constitution collapses, all else fails. Therefore, in order to preserve the first article, namely the union, there should be union of states. I will do whatever it takes. Just like there is a hierarchy of principles or hierarchy of needs, there is also a hierarchy of principles. The ultimate principle for the state is to preserve the Constitutional order. Everything else is to become subordinate to that. Having said that, merely by doing whatever it takes to control them is it enough? No. We also have to create a just order, give confidence to the bulk of the people that, "Look, we understand your agony. We hear your voice, we created a framework which more just and more humane and it's not even perfect, it's always work in progress, but everybody has a chance." I don't agree with, the author at all in this respect. I know, you don't either. It's very dangerous not to use arguments without understanding the context. She's able to speak out because she's at liberty. What happened in Cambodia, please remember. When Pol Pot was in power, one third of all Cambodian people were decimated. The youngest child was first killed so that the rest of the family understood the pain. The fellow with glasses, somebody like you or me, just because you wore glasses, the fact that you wore glasses means that you are, you are not a hard working man. You're not a liberal. They feel you are dangerous to society. They killed them. The people with soft hands; they were killed. One after the whole family was killed. One third of the whole country was butchered by its own government. It never happened in history, not even Hitler did that. If that is how a notion of a future, I don't think any Indian wants it. Because of temporary anger about the injustices on occasion we may say, "Oh, next race is better." But no. It's a dangerous argument. As long as freedom is there, as long as vote is there, there's only one route, there's, there's only one road. That man may not be recorded but they have some questions I'll be happy to take. It's up to you. Ok, ok, ok. I'll just take that question. >>male audience5: [Indian accent] You recently become the MLA in, in some region. So, I'd like to know some of the positive experiences you had in like, typical Indian movies and Indian literature, the recent one. They depict Indian politics as something really nasty, something really dirty. Actually, you've met some people at some, at least civilians who were nice to you, who actually abided by the line, give you a kind of positive spirit like, "Yes, there are people who want a change." I'd like to know more about that. >>JP: Ok. First of all, we must have a, a broader argument. Are politicians necessarily scoundrels? Does it mean that the scum of humanity in this politics and all the nice people and nice people are outside politics? Are there two groups of society? Or, are politicians doing, in a set of circumstances, whatever they think they should do in order to try? We must have some clarity. I would plead with you to recognize that politicians are just another set of human beings. They are not a very specialized set of corrupt, rotten, criminal human beings, they are human beings. Period. If you create an institutional framework where by doing what is right you can also politically prosper, they would happily do that. The Prime Ministers, the Chief Ministers, the MPs and MLAs of India, they are not taking a vow to destroy India. They are taking a vow to do whatever it takes to get, to get into power. And to do whatever it takes to stay in power. It's for us to create a system where you can do something honorable and decent and public-spirited and yet, be politically relevant. If you consistently prove that by doing the nice thing and the right thing, you're politically irrelevant. We are actually driving them to do something wrong. My experience proved this to be absolutely true. Most of the fellow legislators of my, in my provincial assembly, 80% of them at least, almost everybody, with exception of myself, they have paid money to get the vote. It's, it's universally known. But despite that, they recognize that they have become victims of a vicious cycle. Given a choice, given a chance, they'll actually do something nice and decent. They despair all the time, but they feel that they are in the vicious cycle they can't get out of the trap easily. So, they're not villains. And my faith is vindicated. But, will they always behave in a manner that, that really oppose their views? No. Because they're creatures of their own parties, they're slaves of their party, and they're slaves of the power game. And they simply feel that there's no escape from that. So, unless there is external pressure and pull, and unless we, we mobilize the society and prove that clean politics and honesty are compatible with survival in our public office; I don't think we can change that. I'll conclude the comment with one last word. We have in India today a phenomenal opportunity. We have the technology, thanks to all of you, the world is virtually flat, and we can access almost everything that's happening almost anywhere in the world; get knowledge of a kind which would be unbelievable earlier. We have the resources, may not be enough to have an American standard of living, which probably is crazy anyway. It's too high. It's not possible for the whole globe, but we have enough resources to be able to fulfill all the basic needs of Indian people and to give opportunity for us to fulfill our potential as a country. What we lack are institutions. What we lack is the right kind of politics. And with all these institutions, technology plant, can be transplanted easily. Institutions like take a lot of nurturing. Institutions take a lot of public pressure. Institutions take the middle classes and the educated people to be engaged; deeply and on a sustained basis. What I'm arguing is, let us be engaged because our future is on the line. And in a fundamental sense, the mankind's truthfulness is on the line. There's no reason for cynicism and despair at all. On occasion it appears to be exceedingly difficult, but there are forces of change. The young people are increasingly more confident, they believe that they can change their country; they're idealistic whether they live in India or abroad. Economic growth itself is actually spurring forces of change in the country. It's going to make many people ask uncomfortable questions and the communications evolution that all of you have had is reaching in you also, many Indians, including the ordinary, poor, shop owners, and, and hard workers. And all these will ultimately bring about a fundamental change, but the question is what direction of change it'll take? That depends on what we do now. That's why I gave you the most great example. If we do the right thing together, today, if we give confidence, then that change will be the right one. Otherwise, change will anyway happen, but not the, not necessarily the right one. I ask a few in our own enlightened self-interest, interest of India, and in a larger sense an interest with the broader humanity. We worked ourselves to make a difference to the way the Indian political trajectory takes shape. Thank you very much. [applause]