Monday, October 22, 2012

Policy paralysis to policy puncture - the LPG cylinder cap fiasco

The government of India, in its March 2012 Union Budget had estimated the subsidy expenditure as 2.2 lakh crore rupees. In an attempt to bring the economy back to track, reduce the fiscal deficit and under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank, the UPA 2 government decided to bite the bullet and to cut subsidies. Cutting subsidies meant increase in prices of diesel, LPG, fertilizers, etcetera.

The cutting of LPG subsidies raised eye brows of every Indian mother and wife. The government decided that it will provide only six cylinders a year at subsidized rate, i.e., at Rs. 425. People who needed more would have to shell out Rs. 920 per cylinder, more than double the amount at which cylinders used to be bought earlier. Soon, distressed urban people started to think of alternatives like electric induction cookers, and their rural counterparts thought of bio-gas plants. 

People living in individual houses or bungalows were not as badly hit as the people living in apartments. In apartments, many had piped LPG connections. Cylinders were stored in the society's cylinder bank and gas was supplied to each of the kitchens via pipes. Here the cylinders were registered with the supplier in the name of the society and not individuals. This means, in paper, there was only one single customer. The law said that each customer would be given only six cylinders at the subsidized rate. This simply meant that irrespective of the number of houses in buildings, they would only receive six cylinders at a subsidized rate. One would really wonder how the government managed to not think of this, while framing the law, when we have a huge percentage of people in urban India living in apartments. 

But to the apartment living people's relief, the government soon amended the law and accepted that individual houses in apartments would be considered as separate customers and that each house would get six cylinders per year at subsidized rates.

Now, the government has come up with the 'kind to cash' policy, wherein customers, on displaying their Aadhar card would be given cash, equivalent to the cost of six subsidized cylinders. This was done to avoid pilferage and diminish the role of middlemen. Here again the government has a hurdle to cross. How will the government implement this policy in apartments where only some houses may have an Aadhar card and avail this facility, while others who do not have one will have to continue procuring in kind (cylinders)? Not to forget that each house in the apartment is considered as separate customer but the gas is still being supplied to houses from the common society cylinder bank.

Under the 'one house, one LPG connection' policy, the government had made it illegal for a household to have multiple LPG connections. However, oil marketing companies have the powers to make an exception to this policy by giving a household more than one LPG connection if the household has two kitchens and if they can show that food is being prepared in both kitchens. In this case, such household will get six plus six cylinders at subsidized rates. Is it that difficult to show a room as a kitchen and cook in that room at the time of applying for multiple LPG connections? This would mean that, that particular customer would get twelve cylinders per year, throughout if he manages to do this simple malpractice for a very small period.

Interestingly, the central government has let it for the states to decide as to how many cylinders they want to provide to their people at subsidized rates. The states have the freedom to spend from its exchequer and give more than six cylinders to its people. It is quite possible that the state governments may do this, by spending more than what it actually can, or by taking loans and eventually ask the centre for a relief package or to waive of its debts. Such acts will defeat the entire purpose of this cap on LPG subsidy. 

The restless government at the centre, with less than two years remaining in power is desperately trying to bring in reforms. It would be appropriate if they do not take policy decisions in haste, lest it will shift from policy paralysis to policy puncture.


Sunday, October 21, 2012

Why I support Arvind Kejriwal


As a young Indian, I am really worried seeing the lacklustre way of governance prevailing in our country. The politicians, by and large change colours as soon as they are voted to power. Most of them collude with their electoral opponents and be hand in glove in looting the public exchequer. Those who don't collude, rubbish the allegations of wrong doings made by their opponents, without even having the courtesy to let a fair probe into those. 

Politicians abuse senior bureaucrats in press conferences, some rubbish allegations of financial embezzlement saying that lakhs of rupees is too small an amount for a central minister to loot, some admit of having evidences against wrong doings of opposition members but tend to keep it to themselves to prevent the other party from exposing them, some even come into rescue of others so that they get the same 'help' when they themselves are in such a state. Being a democracy what can we, the aam voters do in such grim situations?

What Arvind Kejriwal is doing is an initial step towards a final good. He, with all guns blazing, is exposing the financial wrong doings of people in power, cutting across party lines. In this process he has been successful in driving home the moot point that most, yes most of the people governing us are eating into the chunk of resources which are supposed to be utilized for our good and hence are least bothered about we, the aam janta.

Kejriwal's approach is equated to 'hit and run' by his opponents. When he targeted the Congress, they accused him of being the B-team of the BJP. When he targeted the BJP, Congressmen accused of people within the BJP motivating him against their opponents within the party. Also a senior leader in the Congress, whose words his party men themselves don't pay heed to, accuse Kejriwal of showing vengeance against Sonia Gandhi for not letting him into the National Advisory Council. All politicians continue mud-slinging Kejriwal, lest they understand that they are simply making a fool out of themselves. When one party is targeted, their opponents endorse Kejriwal's allegations, forgetting that they had rubbished Kejriwal when he had spoken against them. This proves who is tensed and whose approach actually is 'hit and run'. Moreover, Kejriwal is neither at the helm of the CBI or the judiciary, nor a member of Parliament to order a probe to bring the issues, he raises to a logical conclusion. He, as an aam admi can only ask for a fair investigation into the cases, which he has and is doing.

People accuse Kejriwal for conducting made-for-media events. What is his mistake if the cameras follow him and shoot whatever he does? Media want headlines and he very well knows to handle them and give them what they want. Is it his mistake? He should rather be appreciated for this. 

Next, he is said to be utopian in his thoughts. Is being optimistic, utopian? He thinks that corruption should be eradicated from our country to the maximum possible extent. He also goes on to say that the present day politicians are status quoists and are least bothered to change the fractured system. I feel that many people are also following the politicians and showing no signs of hope, which is, in no way good for the nation's future.

I see Kejriwal as a person who tried bringing change in the system, initially, being a part of it, as a bureaucrat. Upon realizing the limitations at work, he came out of it, joined the social workers fraternity and acted as an efficient pressure group. Further realizing the government's insensitivity, he decided to be a part of the system again and fight it from within, but this time not as a bureaucrat, but as a politician. I feel that he has given up his cozy living for the good of the people and a vision for a new India. A person with a good intention should be appreciated rather than being accused. I hence totally support his movement.

Jai Hind!

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Why Shoot The Messenger?

Sonia Gandhi's son in-law Robert Vadra was in the eye of a storm some days back when India Against Corruption (IAC) activists Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan made public a case of financial impropriety involving Vadra and realty giant DLF.

The allegations made by the activists was that DLF gave properties valued at Rs.300 crore to Vadra at undervalued rates. They also said that Vadra's company with a capital of Rs.50 lakh and with no obvious revenue stream, got an unsecured interest free loan of Rs. 65 crore from DLF. Activists allege a quid pro quo where Vadra, using Sonia's political office may have managed to do favours to DLF.

The details put out in the public in a press conference by Kejriwal and Bhushan was already exposed months back by the national daily - Economic Times.

Media accuses Kejriwal of having taken an immoral and unfair stand by raking up this issue again.

Media questions Kejriwal's attack on the individual Vadra. Media is seeming to forget the fact that Vadra is no simple citizen. He is the son in-law of our nation's one of the most powerful political figures. This very fact makes the issue big. Also the fact that Vadra could have used his mother in-law's clout to make things easy for DLF cannot be brushed under the carpet.

Media accusers Kejriwal of having painted Vadra dark by not giving the latter an opportunity to clear his stand. People in media say that Kejriwal should have spoken to Vadra prior to the expose.

Let us put things in perspective. Firstly, the media should understand that Vadra has a celebrity status. It is said that he is not frisked in airports! How can such a person, especially of the Gandhi family, be contacted by an 'aam aadmi' like Kejriwal? Secondly, all accept, including Kejriwal himself that this issue was first made public by Economic Times months back. Did any of the people in the media and politics who raise such questions now, ask the editor of the Economic Times if he had spoken to Vadra before the news was published? Thirdly, 're-expose' by team Kejriwal was made only after they confirmed the facts by going through the account books of Vadra. Who in the world makes an expose after seeking permission from the people involved? Are the hidden camera exposes made by media aired after seeking permission from the people taped and showed in it?

Media also accuses Kejriwal of using his celebrity to revive this and bring this issue to the fore. I would like to ask what is wrong in using one's celebrity, to bring to the fore, an issue involving corruption tot he tune of crores of Rupees? Be it Vadra or Chandra, Sonia's son in-law or someone else's, corruption is corruption and it needs to be not only exposed but also investigated impartially.

Media should now get into the merits of the case rather than accusing Team Kejriwal for raking this issue. The media should go through the account books of Vadra and make it public. It should interview Vadra and the concerned DLF personnel.

Lot many ministers, including some of the cabinet ministers came out in the media to slam Kejriwal and render support to Vadra. None dared to speak about the case's merit. No opposition party raised this issue when it was published in the Economic Times months back. Nor did the media publish and debate it. Doesn't this raise suspicion?

It was only some days back when Team Kejriwal said this in their press conference, all were overwhelmed. All news channels had this issue being debated in the prime time. Go behind Vadra and DLF, why shoot the messenger? After all he is just asking for a fair trial to happen in this case.

Kejriwal has promised to expose another case of corruption on 10.10.2012. Eagerly waiting for that.

Jai Hind!