India Positive Read online

  We should welcome Free Basics as a concept, but we need to bring out the concerns as well. Given the huge social welfare implications of this project along with the business opportunity it presents, a great solution can and must be hammered out. Facebook should feel secure about opening up the internet because there is little doubt that, even with universal access, people will spend most of their time on FB. We netizens, on the other hand, need to accept that if Facebook is leading the initiative, they deserve to get some reasonable benefits out of it.

  Our government is certainly not able to provide internet services on the scale envisioned by such projects. Involving the private sector is thus necessary and inevitable in our country. From public transport apps to free internet providers, such initiatives should be welcomed, not painted as villains. We must also, however, iron out any legitimate concerns that may be raised about them. Free Basics is welcome, Mark, but only with a bit of free, basic common sense.

  It’s Time to Analyse OROP with Our Heads, Not Our Hearts

  The ‘one rank, one pension’ scheme for our defence forces needs to be objectively debated in the public domain

  Few government professions in India enjoy as much public goodwill as our defence forces. Mention the Indian Army (for the purpose of this article, army includes all forces—air force and navy as well) and our chests swell with pride. The army is an apolitical body that works well and quietly, and does a great job protecting our borders from some of our not-so-friendly neighbours. Even in times of domestic trouble, such as riots or floods, the army is called in and things begin to get better.

  In combat, or during encounters with terrorists, our soldiers often lay down their lives or suffer grievous injuries in the line of duty. With all this selfless sacrifice, it is not difficult to see why the army enjoys so much support from our civilian population. Our popular culture, especially films and songs, mostly shows the army in a positive light (unlike the police and politicians). Media coverage, too, focusses on their sacrifice and hard work.

  While this positive image is great, it can cloud an objective analysis of how we manage our defence resources in certain situations. One such issue is the OROP scheme. While OROP means ‘one rank, one pension’, it is a bit of a misnomer. It actually refers to one rank, the latest, and the highest pension for that rank, irrespective of when you retired. Army veterans essentially want an upward pension revision system for all veterans in the country or their surviving spouses, estimated to be around 3.2 million in number today.

  There are several reasons why their demand is justified. Pension discrepancy between an officer who retired in 1990 and an equal-ranked officer who retired in 2015 can be dramatic. A certain consistency is required, especially since the army intrinsically believes in the concept of rank, and allows its officers to retain their ranks even after retirement. Many political parties had also promised OROP in their election manifestos, so the government had to deliver at some point. Popular and social media largely sided with the veterans, with arguments ranging from ‘they guard our borders so we should give them what they want’ to ‘how can we disrespect our soldiers’.

  Somewhere in all this, things became too simplistic. The army was good and the veterans were always right. The political class and the government were stingy, greedy and insensitive. After all, those who protect our borders must be treated well. OROP was seen as a way to ensure that our soldiers are justly rewarded for their services. Hence, you better give OROP, and now!

  People who recommended an objective analysis had to scurry and hide in a corner. For nobody would hear a word against OROP, and with the veterans protesting in the nation’s capital, even the government was pushed to a corner. OROP was announced. The government estimated a liability of around ₹12,000 crore per year from its implementation. However, the veterans are still not happy, as they feel many of their demands are not met by the present scheme.

  What should we do? Should we maintain the ‘Army Good, Politician Bad’ argument? Should we still say ‘give them whatever they want because they guard our borders’ (by the way, paramilitary forces like the BSF are not eligible for OROP)? Or should we at least look into the various aspects of OROP and, dare we say, its pros and cons?

  We should. For, in a country of limited resources like India, an expense as big as OROP must be examined carefully and kept within limits. At present, our defence budget is ₹250,000 crore. In addition, we pay defence pensions amounting to ₹60,000 crore per year. OROP will add another ₹12,000 crore to this expenditure annually. Note that these pensions are, by definition, for services already rendered. Nothing is obtained in return for this outlay.

  While we all agree we should treat our army personnel well, what’s the best course of action in this situation? To pay the veterans more, or to pay new hires in the army more? To increase the salaries of the officers, or those of the jawans? To invest in recruiting better talent, or in creating more jobs? Should money be spent on pensions, or more hospitals for veterans? Should war-affected veteran families be paid different pensions from those who retired safe and sound? As a solution to increased pension expense, can veterans be re-hired in certain jobs that are useful to the economy? Also, if we have OROP for the army, why not for our paramilitary forces and police? Can we afford to pay them all?

  All these issues make OROP more complex than it seems, and it is high time we had a sane, objective debate about it, rather than an emotional, army-is-amazing-so-just-give-it-everything one. Forget OROP, many sectors don’t even have pensions. Sure, a certain form of rank and pay equalisation needs to happen so that things don’t fall too far apart. However, it has to be done in the context of what is possible and affordable, and after analysing what alternative welfare those funds can actually provide as well as the precedent it will set for similar schemes. Only then will we reach a sensible conclusion on OROP. We love our army with all our hearts, but it’s time we thought about issues related to it with our heads.

  @chetan_bhagat

  Whatever the state of the economy, just happy that for a change the economy is the top issue on national news and not religion or caste.

  288 replies/ 1,075 retweets/ 5,769 likes

  The Three New I’s of Indian Politics

  Intention, initiative and ideas: Netas do not require anything more in a post-truth environment

  Every Indian newspaper and magazine, and several notable publications worldwide, have carried their own take on demonetisation. Most of those analyses did a cost-benefit analysis of the move. Many intellectuals and leading economists have called the move questionable, simply on the basis of cold facts.

  Most of the old cash has been declared and swapped in banks. This means that either (a) there wasn’t that much black money in cash to begin with; and/or (b) the black money hoarders managed to swap the old black cash efficiently for new black cash.

  Anecdotal reports suggest that the old cash was being swapped for new cash at rates as low as a mere 10 per cent commission. Bank officials around the country helped game the system (it really was like a video game, with the RBI adding new surprise rules on a daily basis).

  While some deposited money could be declared in the latest version of the ‘new’ voluntary disclosure scheme, it is now widely accepted among intellectuals and economists that gains from the crackdown on black money were limited.

  At the same time, many enumerate the costs of the demonetisation scheme as the following: a real slowdown in the economy that will reduce tax collections for the government and the earnings of many honest taxpayers; chances of a full blown recession along with loss of employment; millions of lost man hours that were spent in queues; and a loss of credibility for the Reserve Bank of India and the government as a whole because of the knee-jerk nature of the exercise as well as the ad hoc directives that they continue to churn out.

  Well, they are not wrong. The true economic benefits of this exercise will be limited. Unless followed up by real measures to limit the generation of bla