CAG the care taker of national wealth

CAG the care taker of national wealth

Ramesh Dubey Presidential reference to the Supreme Court decision came after September 28, the government had delusions that his policy is correct in terms of allocation of natural resources. So CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) to the edification and instruction cycle was again intensified. But during a public hearing on the Supreme Court’s remark, that the government broke the illusion. Indeed, a public Chacika CAG challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court not only rejected, but it also made clear that the CAG is not an accountant. It is a constitutional institution, the revenue allocation can investigate cases involving the economy. It will not work if the CAG, who will? Fresh controversy erupted 2G spectrum CAG report today, the UPA government is unfounded held, but before the Supreme Court no plea tick found and the court 122 licenses canceled the first-come, first-served policy wrong With that said let that natural resources should be allocated through competitive bidding. Presidential reference to the Supreme Court under President can ask him to explain the decision. It is entirely voluntary, the court is not obliged to give an opinion on it. Then he ruled that the auction sale of natural resources, natural resources can not be the only method of allocation. Assuming this decision victory minister of India’s most important official number (CAG) had to stand in the witness box. Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General, Union Public Service Commission, the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and the same guard. But long after independence, the government instead of the Constitution guards the guards appeared. The government plans to trim the CEC, the rules made under the three election commissioners, in which decisions are taken by a majority. Factor Seshan effect of the other constitutional institutions facing the Government was conscious and he was accustomed to these officials at these institutions, which are appropriate to his or her interests. Chief Vigilance Commissioner PJ Thomas’s appointment to the position and has been confirmed by the Supreme Court to justify illegal. The framers reckoning responsibility of guarding the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General or CAG) is assigned to, which is appointed by the President. CAG Constitution in the area of ​​financial administration and ensures compliance with laws made by Parliament. Until recently CAG boring, Ankdebaj and calculating – was considered bookish institution. His report was a mere formality and government departments on audit observations were taken bored, but governments are moving in the same cage. So that way – such allegations are being made, but it is increasing its reliability. Launched fresh attacks on the constitutional institution on August 17 this year, when the coal mines on the CAG report tabled in Parliament the allocative efficiency. The estimates for the CAG recorded during the 2010-11 average production costs and the average sales price of Coal India Limited is based upon. CAG report be tabled in Parliament since begun to happen organically. The main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party stood on the prime minister’s resignation, because the time had been allocated coal mines, the coal ministry that was responsible to the prime minister. The prime minister of corruption such a big question of ignorance. Thereafter, a team of government and congressional leaders CAG (Vinod Rai) were left behind. It is alleged that the CAG has its own political ambitions and his report is driven by the intent of taking political advantage. CAG to attack Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh and telecom minister Kapil Sibal who are at the forefront. Considering the history of criticism of CAG criticism is not new. When – when you sit on the Government’s reports, then – then it is criticized. In 1960, the then Defence Minister Krishna Menon was commenting on the CAG. On receipt of the notice of contempt he had to apologize for his comments. 1990 के दशक में एक केंद्रीय मंत्री ने सीएजी को विदूषक की संज्ञा दी थी, जो भाजपा आज कैग की रिपोर्ट पर संसद से सड़क तक हल्ला मचाए हुए है, उसी के नेता अरुण जेटली ने 2001 में ताबूत खरीद पर कैग की रिपोर्ट पर कहा था, CAG is assessed on the basis of rumors. Defence Minister George Fernandes in the NDA government on the CAG spoke of working in an unethical manner. This was proven once again that the use of public funds, transparency, financial understanding and is in the public interest or not, it is right to see the CAG. (The author is an independent commentator)

Counter Chinese designs

Ram Jethmalani

A threat as serious as terrorism faced by India is that of the expansionistic and hegemonist actions of our formidable northern neighbour China. Though the former threat is immediate, the latter (of which we get regular periodic previews) will hit us with full force only later, unless we demonstrate intelligent and effective action, in the interest of our nation.

We have no quarrel with the people of China, and we should logically be natural friends. Our great and ancient civilisations and philosophers are revered across the world. Unfortunately, the Communist China that emerged in 1949 has never demonstrated any intent of promoting co-existence between the two ancient giants.

The first indicator of this intent was the invasion and annexation of independent and autonomous Tibet, leading to the flight of the Dalai Lama. It is indeed a redeeming factor that India granted him and the fleeing Tibetans asylum. After having made its aggressive military and political point in Tibet, China succeeded in inflicting the most humiliating military defeat on India in 1962. Pandit Nehru made Parliament pass a grandiloquent resolution accusing China of ingratitude and aggression, and grabbing thousands of square miles of Indian territory. The Indian nation was told that no respectable Indian will rest until every square inch is conquered back from the Chinese. Of course, this resolve remains unredeemed even today, with no successive government having taken any steps to retrieve our national honour.

The Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen made a brief stopover in India on one of his travels abroad in 1994. We treated him like royalty with admirable obsequiousness and due servility, but he was neither impressed nor moved. He neither displayed friendship in words nor any accommodation in his actions. He literally treated us like a defeated nation. Our foreign ministry bureaucrats put on a cheerful smile and held the visit as one more ‘significant step’ in enhancing bilateral ties, a familiar phrase in diplomatic jargon peculiar to the Indian foreign ministry. While we completely lacked the courage to tell him that China is in occupation of enormous areas of Indian territory, Qian Qichen took the lead by stating that while the border dispute between our two countries would be resolved eventually, as India was the aggressor in the 1962 war, the country that made the first advance should be the first to withdraw. So much for the achievements of our foreign policy.

Nehru died a broken man with his policies in shambles and the honour of India in the dustbin of history. Except for Indira Gandhi who took on Pakistan despite support, overt and covert, of the Chinese government, every successive prime minister, whether it was Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao or even Atalji brought back nothing except more humiliation every time they visited China.

Yes, we have created working groups of officers on both sides who are still exchanging maps. While we do not display any courage whatsoever to claim our lost territory, China is now claiming the entire Arunachal, and questioning the accession of Sikkim to India, thereby totally turning the tables on us on our own soil, and accusing us of being the aggressors.

Important analysts and think-tanks across the world suggest that the Chinese are planning further aggression. ‘Non Alignment 2.0’, a paper prepared by eminent political analysts Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Nandan Nilekani and Siddharth Varadarajan warns us of Chinese aggressive and insulting postures on our borders and threats of grabbling more Indian territory. They see no immediate prospect of the border issue being settled. These views are matched by Gautam Sen, in his article, ‘India must prepare for war with China without delay’ posted on September 9, in which he states that ‘the Chinese are publicly discussing the feasibility of attacking India before 2018, when they consider that India might be better prepared’. The Long Term Strategy Group, a Washington DC-based defence think-tank led by Jacqueline Deal, Stephen Rosen, (Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University) and Shivaji Sondhi, (faculty at Princeton and director, Centre for International Security Studies) echo similar views in their articles published recently in the Indian Express.

I firmly believe that we have been wasting our time for the last 50 years in trying to settle this dispute, that China has no intention of settling. On the contrary, it has already armed Pakistan with nuclear weapons. I believe India must break this stalemate, in its national interest. We must in no uncertain terms insist with the Chinese that the entire border dispute between the two countries must be settled by the International Court of Justice, unless the Chinese are prepared to accept arbitration by some world dignitaries enjoying the confidence of both countries.

I do not accept the conclusion reached in ‘Non Alignment 2.0’ that India has an edge in terms of maritime capabilities though China is catching up rapidly and therefore India must assert its maritime superiority. We must frankly tell the Chinese that they must stop their support of Pakistan both diplomatic and military, and advise their friend to settle all disputes on the basis of international law and justice. I don’t believe that the Chinese are going to respond. I also suspect that the Chinese have a long term plan of breaking up India and converting it into a third rate power, military and economic.

We cannot act on the advice of para 41 of ‘Non Alignment 2.0’ that: ‘India’s China strategy has to strike a careful balance between cooperation and competition, economic and political interests, bilateral and regional contexts. Given the current and future asymmetries in capabilities and influence between India and China, it is imperative that we get this balance right. This is perhaps the single-most important challenge for Indian strategy in the years ahead.’ I mean no disrespect to the distinguished authors but this is not even easily intelligible.

Frankly, the only solution for India is to seek a treaty of defence with the United States, the Commonwealth countries and Israel and such other countries that appreciate Indian concerns vis-a-vis China. The recent announcement by the defence minister that India and China would resume joint military exercises resonates a comic, if not suicidal, move, paving the way for the nation’s further humiliation. Does China, given its past and present diplomatic and military behaviour, qualify for such trust and confidence by India?

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/article1283131.ece#

FDI in retail – Scorched earth policy

Shekar Swamy

Talk about a contentious issue! Seldom have we seen the country so divided, as we are witnessing now on the issue of allowing FDI in multi-brand retail. Aligned on one side is a relatively small but vocal group comprising multinational and Indian corporates and a section of the English speaking, western-looking lot; lined up on the other side are the millions of traders, retailers, farmers and small producers who form the widest base of our country. There is a raging debate on this subject. Unfortunately, a great deal of the noise seems designed more to obfuscate than to offer clarity.

What is going on?

The core of the issue
There are an extraordinary number of people who are participants in the bazaars of the country – producers and traders of all hues – as providers of goods. This is how they make a living. Suddenly, they are being told that they are inefficient and not doing their job well. They are being asked to accommodate among their midst the largest and most predatory multinational trading companies of the world. They are being told that these companies will come in with big money, and this will be good for India.

Multinational corporates are being aided by the government to muscle their way to displace Indian small businesses in a big way. The key word is displacement. What we are witnessing is state-assisted ‘land grab’ by multinationals in the name of FDI. Those who are serving the market are expected to quietly go away, as their livelihood gets taken away. The argument is that there are too many middlemen between producer and consumer. The state’s answer is to introduce the biggest middlemen in the world it can find, which is what the multinational retailers are.

The government has cast its vote in favour of Big Capital, and against the mass of the Indian people. This is nothing but a green signal to transfer wealth from the masses of market participants to a few privileged multinational corporates. This is how the seeds of income inequality are sown by state policy.

In its desire to cater to the whimsical foreign capital, the government has betrayed the people. That is why we have an extraordinary political spectacle – the Left sharing the dias with the BJP, DMK and AIADMK agreeing, the Left and TMC on the same side, the SP and BSP speaking in one voice on this issue, and the UPA allies deserting the government and ducking for cover.

This issue is far from settled.

No one trusts the policy
Forget about a consensus on this. The majority is opposed, and the government has no mandate to introduce this measure. Therefore, the government has done what it usually does under such circumstances – introduce rules and regulations supposedly designed to protect people’s interests and address the objections. Hence, the restriction to cities with million-plus population, ‘states can decide’, reservation for small and medium industry, etc.

Everyone knows that none of these restrictions will hold. Indeed, the amendments have already commenced. The language in the notification for the sourcing reservation for small and medium industry in single brand retail has already been changed from ‘mandatory’ to ‘preferably’. This is meaningless. The notification permits multinational retailers to open in the largest city in states that have indicated willingness for retail FDI but do not have cities with population of over one million. How can one trust a policy that comes with a slew of accommodating exceptions at the same time?

Fallacy of co-existence
The Planning Commission has argued that multinational retailers and small local retailers will co-exist. They even give a number. They say that only 20 per cent of retail will be taken over by multinationals. So what is the excitement about? This is an incredible argument. Every percentage point in market share taken over by multinational retail represents the loss of four lakh retail jobs. A loss of 20 per cent of the market means eight million jobs lost. Only a small fraction of this will be replaced with new employment, since the big retailers do not create that many jobs contrary to claims.

Where is the question of co-existence with multinational retailers under these circumstances? Indian retail needs to keep all the market it can cater to, to provide livelihood for the millions of small-capital entrepreneurs (including farmers) and their employees, both on the production side and the retailing end. Glib arguments that the displaced will find alternative sources of living simply don’t wash.

The ‘wastage’ argument
Thanks to large scale PR, suddenly the people of India are being told that post-harvest loss of fruits and vegetables is as high as 40 per cent. The only way to reduce this is through FDI in retail and the accompanying supply-chain infrastructure. This argument falls apart under scrutiny.

The 40 per cent number comes from a McKinsey study done in 1997. What the study did not do was provide a global comparison. A recent study released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (an international non-profit organisation) shows that the post-harvest loss of fruits and vegetables in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is 34 per cent. They lose 20 per cent of their fruits and vegetables on the farm (production losses), three per cent in handling and storage, one per cent in processing and packaging, and 12 per cent in distribution and retail.

Many agro experts and dealers in agricultural commodities have stated that the post-harvest loss numbers cited by the proponents of FDI are hugely exaggerated. What is the government’s own group saying on this issue? The report of the Working Group on Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure for XII Five Year Plan 2012-17 has dealt with this issue. Its estimate of the post-harvest loss is given in the following table. For fruits and vegetables, post-harvest loss ranges from a low of 5.8 per cent to a high of 18 per cent depending on the item, far lower than the international comparison from countries with the biggest retailers.

Western retail is riddled with problems
The system of big corporate retail in the West is a major problem from the point of view of farmers, producers, small retailers and consumers…in effect for the entire society. It works only for corporates who control the market.

The evidence is overwhelming. Take the UK as an example (and there are plenty of similar examples). It is a system of oligopoly (few sellers) on the consumer side and monopsony (few buyers) on the supply side. Just three retailers (Tesco, Sainsburys and ASDA) control two-third of the market. Prices paid to farmers have been hammered down over the years, and the farmers survive only due to the largesse of state subsidies. Ninety per cent of small retailers have shut down in the past five decades. Barely 4,000 independent green grocers survive in that country of 60 million people. Multitudes of small producers have suffered because they have been blocked out by the big retailers and do not have access to the market. Consumers pay high prices due to high mark-ups enjoyed by retailers.

The most bitter adversaries get together to fight a common enemy. Indian politics has come together in a remarkable alignment on this issue. There is a good chance that India could still avoid and escape this scorched earth retail system.
The author is Group CEO, RK Swamy Hansa and Visiting Faculty, Northwestern University, USA.

http://www.exchange4media.com/48258_fdi-in-retail-%E2%80%93-scorched-earth-policy.html