How tightly will organised Big Business be able to control economic policies this time?

May 26, 2009 — drsubrotoroy

The power of organised Big Business over New Delhi’s economic policies (whether Congress-led or BJP-led) was signalled by the presence in the audience at Rashtrapati Bhavan last week of several prominent lobbyists when Dr Manmohan Singh and his senior-most Cabinet colleagues were being sworn-in by the President of India. Why were such witnesses needed at such an auspicious national occasion?

Organised Big Business (both private sector and public sector) along with organised Big Labour (whose interests are represented most ably by New Delhi’s official communist parties like the CPI-M and CPI), are astutely aware of how best to advance their own economic interests; this usually gets assisted nicely enough through clever use of our comprador English-language TV, newspaper and magazine media. Shortly after the election results, lobbyists were all over commercial TV proposing things like FDI in insurance and airports etc– as if that was the meaning of the Sonia-Rahul mandate or were issues of high national priority. A typical piece of such “pretend-economics” appears in today’s business-press from a formerly Leftist Indian bureaucrat: “With its decisive victory, the new Manmohan Singh government should at last be able to implement the required second generation reforms. Their lineaments (sic) are well known and with the removal of the Left’s veto, many of those stalled in the legislature as well as those which were forestalled can now be implemented. These should be able to put India back on a 9-10 per cent per annum growth rate…”

Today’s business-press also reports that the new Government is planning to create a fresh “Disinvestment Ministry” and Dr Singh’s chief economic policy aide is “a frontrunner among the names short-listed to head the new ministry” with Cabinet rank.

Now if any enterprising doctoral student was to investigate the question, I think the evidence would show that I, and I alone – not even BR Shenoy or AD Shroff or Jagdish Bhagwati — may have been the first among Indian economists to have argued in favour of the privatisation of India’s public sector. I did so precisely 25 years ago in Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India, which was so unusual for its time that it attracted the lead editorial of The Times of London on the day it was published May 29 1984, and had its due impact on Indian economic policy then and since, as has been described elsewhere here.  In 1990-1991 while with Rajiv Gandhi, I had floated an idea of literally giving away shares of the public sector to the public that owned it (as several other countries had been doing at that time), specifically perhaps giving them to the poorest panchayats in aid of their development.  In 2004-2005, upon returning to Britain after many years, I helped create the book Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant, and Margaret Thatcher if anyone was a paragon of privatisation.

That being said, I have to say I think a new Indian policy of creating a Ministry to privatise India’s public sector is probably a very BAD idea indeed in present circumstances — mainly because it will be driven by the interests of the organised Big Business lobbies that have so profoundly and subtly been able to control the New Delhi Government’s behaviour in recent decades.

Such lobbyist control is exercised often without the Government even realising or comprehending its parameters. For example, ask yourself: Is there any record anywhere of Dr Manmohan Singh, in his long career as a Government economist and then as a Rajya Sabha MP, having ever proposed before 2004-2005 that nuclear reactors were something vitally important to India’s future? And why do you suppose the most prominent Indian business lobby spent a million dollars and registered itself as an official lobbyist in Washington DC to promote the nuclear deal among American legislators? Because Big Business was feeling generous and altruistic towards the “energy security” of the ordinary people of India? Hardly.  Indian Big Business calculates and acts in its own interests, as is only to be expected under economic assumptions; those interests are frequently camouflaged by their lobbyist and media friends into seeming to be economic policy for the country as a whole.

Now our Government every year produces paper rupees and bank deposits in  practically unlimited amounts to pay for its practically unlimited deficit financing, and it has behaved thus over decades. Why we do not hear about this at all is because the most prominent Government economists themselves remain clueless — sometimes by choice, mostly by sheer ignorance — about the nature of the macroeconomic process that they are or have been part of.  (See my  “India’s Macroeconomics”, “The Dream Team: A Critique” etc elsewhere here). As for the Opposition’s economists, the less said about the CPI-M’s economists the better while the BJP, poor thing, has absolutely no economists at all!

Briefly speaking, Indian Big Business has acquired an acute sense of this long-term nominal/paper expansion of India’s economy, and as a result acts towards converting wherever possible its own hoards of paper rupees and rupee-denominated assets into more valuable portfolios for itself of real or durable assets, most conspicuously including hard-currency denominated assets, farm-land and urban real-estate, and, now, the physical assets of the Indian public sector. Such a path of trying to transform local domestic paper assets – produced unlimitedly by Government monetary and fiscal policy and naturally destined to depreciate — into real durable assets, is a privately rational course of action to follow in an inflationary economy.  It is not rocket-science  to realise the long-term path of the Indian rupee is downwards in comparison to the hard-currencies of the world – just compare our money supply growth and inflation rates with those of the rest of the world.

The Statesman of November 15 2006 had a lead editorial titled Government’s land-fraud: Cheating peasants in a hyperinflation-prone economy. It said:

“There is something fundamentally dishonourable about the way the Centre, the state of West Bengal and other state governments are treating the issue of expropriating peasants, farm-workers, petty shop-keepers etc of their small plots of land in the interests of promoters, industrialists and other businessmen. Singur may be but one example of a phenomenon being seen all over the country: Hyderabad, Karnataka, Kerala, Haryana, everywhere. So-called “Special Economic Zones” will merely exacerbate the problem many times over. India and its governments do not belong only to business and industrial lobbies, and what is good for private industrialists may or may not be good for India’s people as a whole. Economic development does not necessarily come to be defined by a few factories or high-rise housing complexes being built here or there on land that has been taken over by the Government, paying paper-money compensation to existing stakeholders, and then resold to promoters or industrialists backed by powerful political interest-groups on a promise that a few thousand new jobs will be created. One fundamental problem has to do with inadequate systems of land-description and definition, implementation and recording of property rights. An equally fundamental problem has to do with fair valuation of land owned by peasants etc. in terms of an inconvertible paper-money. Every serious economist knows that “land” is defined as that specific factor of production and real asset whose supply is fixed and does not increase in response to its price. Every serious economist also knows that paper-money is that nominal asset whose price can be made to catastrophically decline by a massive increase in its supply, i.e. by Government printing more of the paper it holds a monopoly to print. For Government to compensate people with paper-money it prints itself by valuing their land on the basis of an average of the price of the last few years, is for Government to cheat them of the fair present-value of the land. That present-value of land must be calculated in the way the present-value of any asset comes to be calculated, namely, by summing the likely discounted cash-flows of future values. And those future values should account for the likelihood of a massive future inflation causing decline in the value of paper-money in view of the fact we in India have a domestic public debt of some Rs. 30 trillion (Rs. 30 lakh crore) and counting, and money supply growth rates averaging 16-17% per annum. In fact, a responsible Government would, given the inconvertible nature of the rupee, have used foreign exchange or gold as the unit of account in calculating future-values of the land. India’s peasants are probably being cheated by their Government of real assets whose value is expected to rise, receiving nominal paper assets in compensation whose value is expected to fall.”

Mamata Banerjee started her famous protest fast-unto-death in Kolkata not long afterwards, riveting the nation’s attention in the winter of 2006-2007.

What goes for the government buying land on behalf of its businessman friends also goes, mutatis mutandis, for the public sector’s real assets being bought up by the private sector using domestic paper money in a potentially hyperinflationary economy.  If Dr Singh’s new Government wishes to see real public sector assets being sold, let the Government seek to value these assets not in inconvertible rupees which the Government itself has been producing in unlimited quantities but rather in forex or gold-units instead!

Today’s headline says “Short of cash, govt. plans to revive disinvestment ministry”. Big Business’s powerful lobbies will suggest  that real public assets must be sold  (to whom? to organised Big Business of course!) in order to solve the grave fiscal problems in an inflationary economy caused precisely by those grave  fiscal problems! What I said in 2002 at IndiaSeminar may still be found to apply: I said the BJP’s privatisation ideas “deserve to be condemned…because they have made themselves believe that the proceeds of selling the public sector should merely go into patching up the bleeding haemorrhage which is India’s fiscal and monetary situation… (w)hile…Congress were largely responsible for that haemorrhage to have occurred in the first place.”

If the new Government would like to know how to proceed more wisely, they need to read and grasp, in the book edited by myself and Professor John Clarke in 2004-2005, the chapter by Professor Patrick Minford on Margaret Thatcher’s fiscal and monetary policy (macroeconomics) before they read the chapter by Professor Martin Ricketts on Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation (microeconomics).  India’s fiscal and monetary or macroeconomic problems are far worse today than Britain’s were when Thatcher came in.

During the recent Election Campaign, I contrasted Dr Singh’s flattering praise in 2005 of the CPI-M’s Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee with Sonia Gandhi’s pro-Mamata line in 2009 saying the CPI-M had taken land away from the poor.  This may soon signal a new fault-line in the new Cabinet too on economic policy with respect to not only land but also public sector privatisation – with Dr Singh’s pro-Big Business acolytes on one side and Mamata Banerjee’s stance in favour of small-scale unorganised business and labour on the other.  Party heavyweights like Dr Singh himself and Sharad Pawar and Pranab Mukherjee will weigh in one side or the other with Sonia being asked in due course to referee.

I personally am delighted to see the New Rahul Gandhi deciding not to be in Government and to instead reflect further on the “common man” and “common woman” about whom I had described his father talking to me on September 18 1990 at his home. Certainly the “aam admi” is not someone to be found among India’s organised Big Business or organised Big Labour nor their paid lobbyists in the big cities.

Subroto Roy, Kolkata

Posted in Academic research, AD Shroff, Asia and the West, Big Business and Big Labour, BR Shenoy, Britain, Britain in India, British history, Economic Policy, Economic quackery, Economic Theory, Economics of exchange controls, Economics of Public Finance, Economics of real estate valuation, Financial Management, Financial markets, Foreign exchange controls, Government Budget Constraint, Government of India, India's Big Business, India's Banking, India's bureaucracy, India's Capital Markets, India's corporate finance, India's corporate governance, India's corruption, India's currency history, India's Economic History, India's Economy, India's Government Budget Constraint, India's Government Expenditure, India's Industry, India's inflation, India's Macroeconomics, India's Monetary & Fiscal Policy, India's nomenclatura, India's peasants, India's political lobbyists, India's Politics, India's pork-barrel politics, India's poverty, India's Public Finance, Inflation, Land and political economy, Macroeconomics, Mamata Banerjee, Manmohan Singh, Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher's Revolution, Martin Ricketts, Mendacity in politics, Microeconomics, Monetary Theory, Money and banking, Mumbai financial world, New Delhi, Patrick Minford, Political cynicism, Political Economy, Political mendacity, Political Science, Politics, Pork-barrel politics, Power-elites and nomenclatura, Practical wisdom, Principal-agent problem, Privatisation, Public Choice/Public Finance, Public property waste fraud, Rajiv Gandhi, Rational decisions, Singur and Nandigram, Sonia Gandhi, Statesmanship, The Statesman, The Times (London), University of Buckingham. Leave a Comment »

Introduction and Some Biography

January 15, 2008 — drsubrotoroy

My two main works, namely my book of 19 years ago Philosophy of Economics: On the Scope of Reason in Economic Inquiry (first published by Routledge, London & New York, 1989, 1991), and my monograph of 24 years ago Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India (first published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1984) are both now republished here, each with a new preface. I have also published here for the first time the full story of my encounter with Rajiv Gandhi — an abbreviated version appeared in Freedom First in October 2001 which focussed on economic policy and deliberately excluded mention of my warnings about his vulnerability to assassination and my attempts in vain to get people around him to do something about it. I have also republished my three advisory memoranda to him between September 1990 and March 1991, which were first published in The Statesman‘s Editorial Page of July 31, August 1 and August 2 1991.

I have also published here now for the first time a public lecture I gave as the Wincott Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham in 2004 titled “Science, Religion, Art and the Necessity of Freedom”. Also republished is “A General Theory of Globalization and Modern Terrorism” which was my keynote address to the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats at their Manila meeting in November 2001; it appeared first in September 11 & Political Freedom: Asian Perspectives (eds. Smith, Gomez & Johannen) in Singapore in 2002.

I have also published for the first time my April 29 2000 address titled “Towards a Highly Transparent Monetary & Fiscal Framework for India’s Union and State Governments” to the Reserve Bank’s Annual “Conference of State Finance Secretaries”.

Also to be found in one place are my most recent signed writings since 2005 in The Statesman and elsewhere on India’s economy and foreign policy, Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Tibet, Taiwan, the United States, etc.

My political affiliation in India would be to a non-existent party — as may be seen from the article on a Liberal Party for India; and I trust it will be seen that I have dispensed criticism upon the present-day Congress Party, BJP/RSS and Communists equally harshly.

Readers are welcome to quote from my work under the normal “fair use” rule, but please quote me by name and indicate the place of original publication. Readers are also welcome to comment or correspond by email, though please try to introduce yourself.

The new preface of Philosophy of Economics is reproduced below as it is partly biographical.

“(Philosophy of Economics) germinated when I was 18 or 19 years of age in Paris, Helsinki and London, and it was first published when I was 34 in Honolulu. I came to economics from natural science (biology, chemistry, physics), not mathematics. It was inevitable I would be drawn to the beauty of philosophy as a theoretical discipline while being driven, as a post-Independence Indian, to economics as the practical discipline that might unlock secrets to India’s prosperity and progress. I belonged to an ancient family of political men, and my father, who had joined India’s new foreign service the year before I was born, inculcated in me as a boy an idea that I had “a mission” (though he later forgot he had done so).

I was fortunate to fail to enter Oxford’s PPE and instead go to the London School of Economics. LSE was at an intellectual peak in the early 1970s. DHN Johnson in international law, ACL Day in international monetary economics, Brian Griffiths vs Marcus Miller in monetary economics with everyone still in awe of Harry Johnson’s graduate lectures in macroeconomics, Ken Wallis, Graham Mizon, JJ Thomas, David Hendry in econometrics with the odd lecture by Durbin himself – I was exposed to a fully grown up intellectual seriousness from the day I arrived as an 18 year old. Michio Morishima as my professorial tutor told me frankly that, as an Indian, I would face less prejudice in Western academia than in the private sector, and said he was speaking from experience as a fellow-Asian. He turned out to be wrong but it was wise advice nevertheless, just as wise as his requiring pupils to read Hicks’ Value and Capital (which, in our undergraduate mythology, he himself had read inside a Japanese gunboat during war).

What was relatively weak at LSE was general economic theory. We were good at deriving the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator but left unsatisfied with our grasp of the theory of value that constituted the roots of our discipline. I managed a First and was admitted to Cambridge as a Research Student in 1976, where fortune had Frank Hahn choose me as a student. That at the outset was protection from the communist cabal that ran “development economics” with whom almost all the Indians ended up. I was wholly impecunious in my first year as a Research Student, and had to, for example, proof-read Arrow and Hahn’s General Competitive Analysis for its second edition to receive 50 pounds sterling from Hahn which kept me going for a short time. My exposure to Hahn’s subtle, refined and depthless thought as an economist of the first rank led to fascination and wonderment, and I read and re-read his “On the notion of equilibrium in economics”, “On the foundations of monetary theory”, “Keynesian economics and general equilibrium theory” and other clear-headed attempts to integrate the theory of value with the theory of money — a project Wicksell and Marshall had (perhaps wisely) not attempted and Keynes, Hicks and Patinkin had failed at.

Hahn insisted a central question was to ask how money, which is intrinsically worthless, can have any value, why anyone should want to hold it. The practical relevance of this question is manifest. India today in 2007 has an inconvertible currency, vast and growing public debt financed by money-creation, and more than two dozen fiscally irresponsible State governments without money-creating powers. While pondering, over the last decade, whether India’s governance could be made more responsible if States were given money-creating powers, I have constantly had Hahn’s seemingly abstruse question from decades ago in mind, as to why anyone will want to hold State currencies in India, as to whether the equilibrium price of those monies would be positive. (Lerner in fact gave an answer in 1945 when he suggested that any money would have value if its issuer agreed to collect liabilities in it — as a State collects taxes – and that may be the simplest road that bridges the real/monetary divide.)

Though we were never personal friends and I did not ingratiate myself with Hahn as did many others, my respect for him only grew when I saw how he had protected my inchoate classical liberal arguments for India from the most vicious attacks that they were open to from the communists. My doctoral thesis, initially titled “A monetary theory for India”, had to be altered due to paucity of monetary data at the time, as well as the fact India’s problems of political economy and allocation of real resources were more pressing, and so the thesis became “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”. When no internal examiner could be found, the University of Cambridge, at Hahn’s insistence, showed its greatness by appointing two externals: C. J. Bliss at Oxford and T. W. Hutchison at Birmingham, former students of Hahn and Joan Robinson respectively. My thesis received the most rigorous and fairest imaginable evaluation from them.

I had been attracted to Cambridge partly by its old reputation for philosophy, especially that of Wittgenstein. But I met no worthwhile philosophers there until a few months before I was to leave for the United States in 1980, when I chanced upon the work of Renford Bambrough. Hahn had challenged me with the question, “how are you so sure your value judgements promoting liberty blah-blah are better than those of Chenery and the development economists?” It was a question that led inevitably to ethics and its epistemology — when I chanced upon Bambrough’s work, and that of his philosophical master, John Wisdom, the immense expanse of metaphysics (or ontology) opened up as well. “Then felt I like some watcher of the skies, When a new planet swims into his ken; Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes, He star’d at the Pacific…”

It has taken me more than a quarter century to traverse some of that expanse; when I returned to Britain in 2004 as the Wincott Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham, I was very kindly allowed to deliver a public lecture, “Science, Religion, Art and the Necessity of Freedom”, wherein I repaid a few of my debts to the forgotten work of Bambrough and Wisdom — whom I extravagantly compared with the Bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhism, also saying that the trio of Wittgenstein, Wisdom and Bambrough were reminiscent of what Socrates, Plato and Aristotle might have been like.

I had written to Bambrough from within Cambridge expressing my delight at finding his works and saying these were immensely important to economics; he had invited me to his weekly discussion groups at St John’s College but I could not attend. Between 1979 and 1989 we corresponded while I worked in America on my application of his and Wisdom’s work to problems in economics. We met only once when I returned to Cambridge from Blacksburg for my doctoral viva voce examination in January 1982. Six years later in 1988 he said of my Philosophy of Economics, “The work is altogether well-written and admirably clear”, and on another occasion he said he was “extremely pleased” at the interest I had taken in his work. The original preface of Philosophy of Economics said he was not responsible for the use I had made of his writings, which I reiterated in the 2004 lecture. At our meeting, he offered to introduce me to Wisdom who had returned to Cambridge from Oregon but I was too scared and declined, something I have always regretted. It is only in the last few years that I have begun to grasp the immensity of Wisdom’s achievement in comprehending, explaining and extending the work of both Wittgenstein and Freud. His famous “Virginia Lectures” of 1957 were finally published by his admirers with his consent as Proof and Explanation just before his death in 1993. As for Bambrough, I believe he may have been or become the single greatest philosopher since Aristotle; he told me in correspondence there was an unfinished manuscript Principia Metaphysica (the prospectus of which appeared in Philosophy 1964), which unfortunately his family and successors knew nothing about; the fact he died almost in obscurity and was soon forgotten by his University speaks more about the contemporary state of academic philosophy than about him. (Similarly, the fact Hahn, Morishima and like others did not receive the so-called Economics “Nobel” says more about the award than it does about them.)

All I needed in 1980 was time and freedom to develop the contents of this book, and that I found in America — which I could not have done in either Britain or India. It would take eight or nine very strenuous years before the book could be written and published, mostly spent at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (1980-1985) and University of Hawaii (1986-1990) Economics Departments, with short interludes at Cornell (Fall 1983) and Brigham Young (1985-86). I went to Virginia because James M. Buchanan was there, and he, along with FA Hayek, were whom Hahn decided to write on my behalf. Hayek said he was too old to accept me but wrote me kind and generous letters praising and hence encouraging my inchoate liberal thoughts and arguments. Buchanan was welcoming and I learnt much from him and his colleagues about the realities of public finance and democratic politics, which I quickly applied in my work on India, published in 1984 in London as Pricing, Planning & Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India and republished elsewhere here. The visit to the Cornell Economics Department was really so I could talk to Max Black the philosopher, who represented a different line of Wittgenstein’s students, and Max and I became friends until his death in 1988.

Buchanan’s departure from Blacksburg led to a gang of inert “game theorists” to arrive, and I was immediately under attack – one senior man telling me I was free to criticise the “social choice” work of Amartya Sen (since he was Indian too) but I was definitely unfree to do the same of Sen’s mentor, Kenneth Arrow, who was Jewish! (Arrow was infinitely more gracious when he himself responded to my criticism.) On top of that arose a matter of a woman, fresh off the aeroplane from India, being assaulted by a senior professor, and when I stood for her against her assailant, my time in Blacksburg was definitely up.

The manuscript of this book was at the time under contract with University of Chicago Press, and, thanks to Mrs Harry Johnson there, I had come in contact with that great American, Theodore W. Schultz. Schultz, at age 81, told me better to my face what the book was about than I had realised myself, namely, it was about economics as knowledge — its subject-matter was the epistemology of economics. Schultz wrote letters all over America on my behalf (as did Milton Friedman at Stanford and Sidney Alexander of MIT, whom I had also met and become friends with), and I was able to first spend a happy year among the Mormons at Brigham Young, and then end up at the University of Hawaii where I was given responsibility for the main graduate course in macroeconomics. I taught Harry Johnson-level IS-LM theory and Friedman-Tobin macroeconomics and then the new “rational expectations” vs Keynesian material.

I was also offered a large University grant to work on “South Asia”, which led to the books Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, and Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, both created by myself and WE James, and which led to the origins of India’s 1991 economic reform and the India-Pakistan peace process as told elsewhere. Also, this book came to be accepted for publication by Routledge, as the first economics book in its famed International Library of Philosophy.

Just as I was set to be evaluated for promotion and tenure at the University of Hawaii, I became the victim of a most vicious racist defamation (and there was some connection with Blacksburg). Quite fed up with the sordidness of American academia as I had experienced it, I sued in the federal court, which consumed much of the next half dozen years as the case worked its way through the United States Supreme Court twice. Milton Friedman and Theodore W. Schultz stood as expert witnesses on my behalf but you would not have known it from the judge’s ruling. There had been not only demonstrable perjury and suborning of perjury by the State of Hawaii’s officers, there was also “after-discovered” evidence of bribery of court-officers in the US District Court for the District of Hawaii, and I had to return to India in 1996 quite exhausted to recuperate from the experience. “Solicitation of counsel, clerks or judges” is “embracery curialis”, recognized as extrinsic fraud and subversion of justice since Jepps 72 E R 924 (1611), “firmly established in English practice long before the foundation” of the USA, Hazel Atlas, 322 US 238 (1943). “Embracery is an offense striking at the very foundation of civil society” says Corpus Juris 20, 496. A court of equity has inherent power to investigate if a judgement has been obtained by fraud, and that is a power to unearth it effectively, since no fraud is more odious than one to subvert justice. Cases include when “by reason of something done by the successful party… there was in fact no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practised on him by his opponent, as…where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the other side ~ these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and a fair hearing….” (Hazel Atlas). There is no time-limit in United States federal law for rectification of fraud on the court of this sort, and I remain fully hopeful today of the working of American justice in the case.

The practical result was that this book was never able to be properly publicized among economists as it would have been had I become Professor of Economics at the University of Hawaii by 1992 as expected. The hardback sold out quickly on its own steam and went into paperback by 1991, and a friend told me it was being used for a course at Yale Law School. The reviews were mostly intelligent. Upon returning to Britain as the Wincott Visiting Professor in 2004, I found times had changed and so had Routledge who would not keep it in print let alone permit a second revised edition. But I am now free to republish the book as I please, and today in 2007, with the Internet growing to a maturity which allows the young geeks at WordPress.com to want to encourage blogging worldwide, I can think of no more apt place to reproduce the first edition of this book than here at my own blog http://www.independentindian.com.

This is not a second or revised edition, and it is unchanged in content except for this lengthy new preface made necessary by the adventures and dramas the book’s author found himself unwittingly part of since its first publication. I am 52 now and happy to say I endorse the book just as I had published it at 34, though I do find it a little impatient and too terse in a few places. The 1991 paperback corrected a few slight errors in the 1989 hardback, and has been used. I am planning an entirely new book which shall have its roots in this one though it will be mostly in philosophy and not economics — the outlines it may take may be seen in the 2004 public lecture I gave on the work of Bambrough and Wisdom mentioned above and published elsewhere; its main aim will be to uncover for new generations the immense worth there is in their work which is in danger of being lost.

At least two names failed to appear in the original list of acknowledgements. G. Bruce Chapman, now of the University of Toronto, and I talked much of serious ethics and political philosophy when I first arrived at Cambridge in 1976. And in 1980 in Blacksburg, Anil Lal, then a graduate student and house-painter, borrowed my copy of Bambrough’s work, read it, and later made a comment on the metaphysics of John Wisdom which allowed me to see things more clearly.

Ballygunge, Kolkata,
April 7 2007″

Posted in Amartya Sen, American academia, Asia and the West, BJP, Britain, BYU, Cambridge University, Christopher Bliss, Common Law and Equity, Communists, Congress Party, Cornell University, Economic Policy, Economic Theory, Economic Theory of Value, Embracery, Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge), Epistemology of Economics, Ethics, FA Hayek, Frank Hahn, Fraud on the Court, Freedom, Good and Evil, Harry Johnson, Hazel Atlas 322 US 238, India's 1991 Economic Reform, India's Economy, India's Monetary & Fiscal Policy, India's Polity, India-Pakistan peace process, International Law, James M Buchanan, John Wisdom, Kenneth Arrow, Liberalism/Libertarianism, London School of Economics, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Metaphysics (Ontology), Michio Morishima, Milton Friedman, Monetary Theory, Natural Justice, Perjury & Bribery in US Federal Court, Philosophy, Philosophy of Economics, Public Choice/Public Finance, Racism, Rajiv Gandhi, Renford Bambrough, Roy vs University of Hawaii, Science, Religion, Literature, Sidney Stuart Alexander, Sigmund Freud, State of Hawaii, Terence Hutchison, The Statesman, Theodore W Schultz, University of Buckingham, University of Hawaii, US District Court District of Hawaii, US Federal Law & Jurisprudence, US Supreme Court, USA, United States, Virgnia Tech. Leave a Comment »

Sonia’s Lying Courtier (with Postscript)

November 25, 2007 — drsubrotoroy

Two Sundays ago in an English-language Indian newspaper, an elderly man in his 80s, advertised as being “the Gandhi family’s favourite technocrat” published some deliberate falsehoods about events in Delhi 17 years ago surrounding Rajiv Gandhi’s last months. I wrote at once to the man, let me call him Mr C, asking him to correct the falsehoods since, after all, it was possible he had stated them inadvertently or thoughtlessly or through faulty memory. He did not do so. I then wrote to a friend of his, a Congress Party MP from his State, who should be expected to know the truth, and I suggested to him that he intercede with his friend to make the corrections, since I did not wish, if at all possible, to be compelled to call an elderly man a liar in public.

That did not happen either and hence I am, with sadness and regret, compelled to call Mr C a liar.

The newspaper article reported that Mr C’s “relationship with Rajiv (Gandhi) would become closer when (Rajiv) was out of power” and that Mr C “was part of a group that brainstormed with Rajiv every day on a different subject”. Mr C has reportedly said Rajiv’s “learning period came after he left his job” as PM, and “the others (in the group)” were Mr A, Mr B, Mr D, Mr E “and Manmohan Singh” (italics added).

In reality, Mr C was a retired pro-USSR bureaucrat aged in his late 60s in September 1990 when Rajiv Gandhi was Leader of the Opposition and Congress President. Manmohan Singh was an about-to-retire bureaucrat who in September 1990 was not physically present in India, having been working for Julius Nyerere of Tanzania for several years.

On 18 September 1990, upon recommendation of Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Rajiv Gandhi met me at 10 Janpath, where I handed him a copy of the unpublished results of an academic “perestroika-for-India” project I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986. The story of that encounter has been told first on July 31-August 2 1991 in The Statesman, then in the October 2001 issue of Freedom First, then in January 6-8 2006, September 23-24 2007 in The Statesman, and most recently in The Statesman Festival Volume 2007. The last of these speaks most fully yet of my warnings against Rajiv’s vulnerability to assassination; this document in unpublished form was sent by me to Rajiv’s friend, Mr Suman Dubey in July 2005, who forwarded it with my permission to the family of Rajiv Gandhi.

It was at the 18 September 1990 meeting that I suggested to Rajiv that he should plan to have a modern election manifesto written. The next day, 19 September, I was asked by Rajiv’s assistant V George to stay in Delhi for a few days as Mr Gandhi wished me to meet some people. I was not told whom I was to meet but that there would be a meeting on Monday, 24th September. On Saturday, the Monday meeting was postponed to Tuesday 25th September because one of the persons had not been able to get a flight into Delhi. I pressed to know what was going on, and was told I would meet Mr A, Mr B, Mr C and Mr D. It turned out later Mr A was the person who could not fly in from Hyderabad.

The group (excluding Mr B who failed to turn up because his servant had failed to give him the right message) met Rajiv at 10 Janpath in the afternoon of 25th September. We were asked by Rajiv to draft technical aspects of a modern manifesto for an election that was to be expected in April 1991. The documents I had given Rajiv a week earlier were distributed to the group. The full story of what transpired has been told in my previous publications.

Mr C was ingratiating towards me after that first meeting with Rajiv and insisted on giving me a ride in his car which he told me was the very first Maruti ever manufactured. He flattered me needlessly by saying that my PhD (in economics from Cambridge University) was real whereas his own doctoral degree had been from a dubious management institute of the USSR. (Handling out such doctoral degrees was apparently a standard Soviet way of gaining influence.) Mr C has not stated in public how his claim to the title of “Dr” arises.

Following that 25 September 1990 meeting, Mr C did absolutely nothing for several months towards the purpose Rajiv had set us, stating he was very busy with private business in his home-state where he flew to immediately. Mr D went abroad and was later hit by severe illness. Mr B, Mr A and I met for luncheon at New Delhi’s Andhra Bhavan where the former explained how he had missed the initial meeting. Then Mr B said he was very busy with his house-construction, and Mr A said he was very busy with finishing a book for his publishers on Indian defence, and both begged off, like Mr C and Mr D, from any of the work that Rajiv had explicitly set our group. My work and meeting with Rajiv in October 1990 has been reported previously.

Mr C has not merely suppressed my name from the group in what he has published in the newspaper article two Sundays ago, he has stated he met Rajiv as part of such a group “every day on a different subject”, another falsehood. The next meeting of the group with Rajiv was in fact only in December 1990, when the Chandrashekhar Government was discussed. I was called by telephone in the USA by Rajiv’s assistant V George but I was unable to attend, and was briefed later about it by Mr A.

When new elections were finally announced in March 1991, Mr C brought in Mr E into the group in my absence (so he told me), perhaps in the hope I would remain absent. But I returned to Delhi and between March 18 1991 and March 22 1991, our group, including Mr E (who did have a genuine PhD), produced an agreed-upon document. That document was handed over by us together in a group to Rajiv Gandhi at 10 Janpath the next day, and also went to the official political manifesto committee of Narasimha Rao, Pranab Mukherjee and M. Solanki.

Our group, as appointed by Rajiv on 25 September 1990, came to an end with the submission of the desired document to Rajiv on 23 March 1991.

As for Manmohan Singh, contrary to Mr C’s falsehood, Manmohan Singh has himself truthfully said he was with the Nyerere project until November 1990, then joined Chandrashekhar’s PMO in December 1990 which he left in March 1991, that he had no meeting with Rajiv Gandhi prior to Rajiv’s assassination but rather did not in fact enter Indian politics at all until invited by Narasimha Rao several weeks later to be Finance Minister. In other words, Manmohan Singh himself is on record stating facts that demonstrate Mr C’s falsehood.

The economic policy sections of the document submitted to Rajiv on 23 March 1991 had been drafted largely by myself with support of Mr E and Mr D and Mr C as well. It was done over the objections of Mr B, who had challenged me by asking what Manmohan Singh would think of it. I had replied I had no idea what Manmohan Singh would think of it, saying I knew he had been out of the country on the Nyerere project for some years.

Mr C has deliberately excluded my name from the group and deliberately added Manmohan Singh’s instead. What explains this attempted falsification of facts – reminiscent of totalitarian practices in communist countries? Manmohan Singh was not involved by his own admission, and as Finance Minister told me so directly when he and I were introduced in Washington DC in September 1993 by Siddhartha Shankar Ray, then Indian Ambassador to the USA.

A possible explanation for Mr C’s mendacity is as follows: I have been recently publishing the fact that I repeatedly pleaded warnings that I (even as a layman on security issues) perceived Rajiv Gandhi to have been insecure and vulnerable to assassination. Mr C, Mr B and Mr A were among the main recipients of my warnings and my advice as to what we as a group, appointed by Rajiv, should have done towards protecting Rajiv better. They did nothing — though each of them was a senior man then aged in his late 60s at the time and fully familiar with Delhi’s workings while I was a 35 year old newcomer. After Rajiv was assassinated, I was disgusted with what I had seen of the Congress Party and Delhi, and did not return except to meet Rajiv’s widow once in December 1991 to give her a copy of a tape in which her late husband’s voice was recorded in conversations with me during the Gulf War.

Mr C has inveigled himself into Sonia Gandhi’s coterie – while Manmohan Singh went from being mentioned in our group by Mr B to becoming Narasimha Rao’s Finance Minister and Sonia Gandhi’s Prime Minister. If Rajiv had not been assassinated, Sonia Gandhi would have been merely a happy grandmother today and not India’s purported ruler. India would also have likely not have been the macroeconomic and political mess that the mendacious people around Sonia Gandhi like Mr C have now led it towards.

POSTSCRIPT: The Congress MP was kind enough to write in shortly afterwards; he confirmed he “recognize(d) that Rajivji did indeed consult you in 1990-1991 about the future direction of economic policy.”   A truth is told and, furthermore, the set of genuine Rajivists in the present Congress Party is identified as non-null.

Posted in Congress Party, Economic Policy, India's 1991 Economic Reform, India's nomenclatura, India's Personality Cults, India's political lobbyists, India's Politics, Lying, Manmohan Singh, Mendacity in politics, Political corruption, Political cynicism, Political mendacity, Politics, Rajiv Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Sonia Gandhi, The Statesman, University of Hawaii. 1 Comment »

Constitution for a Second Indian Republic (April 1991)

April 20, 1991 — drsubrotoroy

Constitution for a Second Indian Republic

Author’s Note April 2007: I wrote “A Second Constitution for India” on October 2 1990 while working in an advisory capacity for Rajiv Gandhi, then Leader of the Opposition. But he did not get to see it and I was not able to guide any coherent discussion towards this vital subject. I published it on April 20 1991 in The Statesman in its Saturday supplement. While I am not sure I agree with all of my 1991  “Constitution” today, it may be useful for discussion. One salient feature of this concise 60-article Constitution is having a directly elected PM and Deputy PM with a tough Senate somewhat on the US pattern (though the distinction between Head of Government and Head of State is  maintained as in the present system) with a modified British pattern of parliamentary democracy continuing in the States.

I do, however, fully endorse what I wrote on December 30 2002 in a personal letter to the late C. R. Irani, in his capacity as a member of the “Constitutional Review Commission” (to which he responded with very warm agreement). That letter is placed below the text of the proposal and outlines some of what I think is most urgent today in India’s constitional progress.

“Nai Duniya”, Constitution of a Second Republic

by Subroto Roy

First published in The Statesman, April 20 1991

Preamble

We the People of India, in order to establish a more perfect Union of PERPETUAL PEACE; in which the ancient virtues of COURAGE,TRUTHFULNESS and JUSTICE may be better practiced; in which the FREEDOM and WELFARE of all our People may be more easily secured, do adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution, on this the 26th day of January 1995.

FOUNDATION
1. India, that is Bharat or Hindustan, shall be a Union of States and Territories, and a sovereign member of the community of nations.

2. The Union of India shall be a democratic republic, and the Union shall guarantee a democratic and republican form of governance in each of its States and Territories.

3. The Union of India shall protect every State and Territory against foreign aggression and armed rebellion, and shall ensure its governance to be in accordance with  provisions of the Union Constitution.

4. A State or Territory may elect to establish its own Constitution, but no provision of the Constitution of any State of Territory shall be valid if it violates any provision of the Union Constitution.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
5. Every person born in the territory of India, or either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents was born in the territory of India, or who is a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution shall be a citizen of India by birth. Any person who has been domiciled in India for five years may become a citizen of India by naturalization according to law.

6. Every citizen of India who is not less than 21 years of age shall have the right to vote, and the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of religion, race, sex, descent, caste or place of birth, or by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or any other tax.

7. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny to any person within the territory of India equality before the laws or the equal protection of the laws.

8. No person within the territory of India shall be deprived of life, liberty or property save by authority of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

9. The rights of citizens to be secure in their persons, homes, communications, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.

10. No person accused of a criminal offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, nor shall any person be arrested without being informed of the grounds of such arrest, nor shall any person in custody be deprived of the right to legal
counsel, nor shall the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus be suspended unless in the case of war or armed rebellion the public safety requires it.

11. No person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once, nor shall excessive bail be required or excessive fines imposed, nor shall punishments be cruel or unusual.

12. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny to any citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India or to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India.

13. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny to any citizen the right to freedom of conscience, or the right to freely profess or practice religion, or establish, maintain and manage religious institutions in accordance with law and subject to public safety, order and health.

14. No citizen shall be subject on account of religion, race, caste, sex, descent or place of birth to any disability, liability or restriction with regard to public institutions, public places or places of worship, or use of public facilities, maintained wholly or partly out of public funds or otherwise dedicated to the use of the public.

15. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny any citizen equality of opportunity or discriminate on account of religion, race, caste, sex, descent or place of birth.

16. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny or abridge the freedom of speech, inquiry or expression of citizens, or the freedom of the press or broadcasting, subject to public safety, order, health, laws of defamation and standards of common morality.

17. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny the right of citizens to form associations and unions, to assemble peaceably without arms, or to petition for redress of grievances, subject to public safety, order and health.

18. The Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not deny to any citizen the right to practice any profession, trade or business, or carry on any occupation or means of livelihood, subject to public safety, order, health and standards of common morality.

19. Trade, commerce and enterprise throughout the territory of India shall be free, and the Union of India or any of its States or Territories shall not make any law to restrict them except in the interests of public safety, order, health, standards of common morality or economic efficiency.

20. No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

DUTIES OF CITIZENS
21. It shall be the duty of every person within the territory of India to abide by the Constitution of India and show no disrespect to its institutions; to participate in democratic processes and to vote in elections according to law; to make timely payments of taxes, fees and dues according to law; to keep clean and hygienic streets, roads, highways, neighbourhoods, waterways, railways, parks, public buildings and institutions; to protect public property; to protect the natural environment and to treat living creatures without cruelty; to abjure violence and promote harmony among all people; to value and preserve the languages and cultural history of the Indian subcontinent; to renounce practices derogatory to women or children.

EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWERS
22. There shall be a President of India in whom shall be vested the executive power of the Union, and who shall be the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Union. The President shall be elected indirectly by the citizens of India in the manner prescribed in Article 40 of this Constitution.

23. There shall be a Vice-President of India, who shall exercise the duties and functions of the President in the event of the death, resignation, incapacitation, absence or impeachment of the President. The Vice-President shall be elected indirectly by the citizens of India in the manner prescribed in Article 41 of this Constitution.

24. The President of India shall appoint a Prime Minister upon the advice of the citizens of India in a direct election in the manner prescribed in Article 43 of this Constitution. The Prime Minister of India shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Union, and the President shall, in exercising the executive power of the Union, act at all times upon the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister shall keep the President of India informed at all times, and shall reconsider advice rendered if the President so requests it.

25. There shall be a Union Parliament which shall consist of the President, the Vice-President, the Prime Minister and two elected Houses.

The Upper House, or Council of the Nation, shall consist of members elected directly by the citizens of India according to States in the manner prescribed in Article 37 of this Constitution. The Lower House, or House of the People, shall consist of members elected indirectly by the citizens of India according to States, in the manner prescribed in Article 35 of this Constitution. The legislative power of the Union of India shall be vested in the Union Parliament.

A Bill, except a Tax Bill, may originate in either House. A Tax Bill, that is to say any Bill for the raising of revenue, shall originate in the Lower House. After a Bill has been passed in one House, it shall be sent to the other House which shall pass, modify or reject it. A Bill passed by both Houses shall be sent to the Prime Minister, upon whose approval it shall be sent to the President for signature upon which it shall become law. A Bill passed by both Houses which does not receive the approval of the Prime Minister shall be returned to the House where it shall have originated. If, after reconsideration, both Houses pass the Bill, each House by two thirds of its members, then the Bill shall be sent to the Prime Minister who shall advise the President that it be signed and become law.

26. There shall be a Supreme Court of India, consisting of a Chief Justice and Associate Justices appointed by the President upon the nomination of the Prime Minister with the advice and consent of the Upper House of the Union Parliament. The judicial power of the Union of India shall be vested in the Supreme Court and such courts inferior to it that it may establish or authorize. The Supreme Court of India shall have its seat in the capital of the Union and also in every State of the Union.

27. Each State shall have a Governor appointed by the President of India upon the nomination of the Prime Minister with the advice and consent of the Upper House of the Union Parliament. The Governor shall be vested with the executive power of the State, and shall be the supreme commander of all police forces within the State.

28. Each State shall have a Parliament, which shall consist of the Governor of the State and one or two chambers, elected by the citizens of the State in accordance with the Constitution or laws of the State. All legislative power of the State shall be vested in the State Parliament or such duly elected bodies of local government which the State Parliament shall establish by law.

29. The Governor of a State shall appoint a Chief Minister who shall be a member of the State Parliament enjoying the confidence of that Parliament. The Governor shall act upon the advice of the Chief Minister in exercising the executive powers of the State except in conditions of Emergency as stated in Article 56 of this Constitution. In the event no member of the State Parliament shall have its confidence, or in conditions of Emergency as stated in Article 56, the Governor of the State shall exercise the executive powers of the State in consultation with the State Parliament, until such a time as either such confidence comes to obtain, or new elections to the State Parliament take place within a maximum time of one year, or conditions of Emergency come to an end.

30. Each State Parliament shall elect its representatives to the Lower House of the Union Parliament in accordance with the provisions of Articles 34 and 35 of this Constitution.

31. Each State shall have a Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Judge and Associate Judges appointed by the Governor as the Constitution or laws of the State may establish. The judicial power of the State shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the State and such courts inferior to it as the Constitution or laws of the State may establish.

ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE
32. All elections in the Union of India and its States and Territories shall be held on the 2nd day of October in any year, and this day shall be known as Election Day or Gandhi Jayanti and shall be a bank holiday. There shall be no more than 14 other bank holidays in the year, and no more than  2  in any month of the year.

33. The power required for the conduct of all elections to the Union Parliament and all State Parliaments shall be vested in a Chief Election Commissioner, who shall be appointed by the President upon the nomination of the Chief Justice of India with the advice and consent of the Prime Minister and the Upper House of the Union Parliament. The Chief Election Commissioner shall be assisted by four Associate Commissioners, one each for Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern India, and State Election Commissioners, one for each State.

34. Election to any State Parliament shall be for a maximum term of 4 years. A State Parliament shall consist of no more than 1000 members, chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies of the State, each member representing no more than 100,000 citizens so far as is possible.

35. Elections to the Lower House of the Union Parliament shall be for a term of 2 years, and the House shall stand dissolved every 2 years. The Lower House shall be elected indirectly by the citizens of the States, the delegations from a State being elected by members of the State Parliament. Each member of the Lower House shall represent indirectly 1 million citizens of the State so far as is possible. The Lower House of the Union Parliament shall have no more than 1000 members, each member having one vote.

36. The Lower House shall choose its own Speaker; determine the rules of its own proceedings; punish its members including by expulsion with the approval of two thirds of its members; keep a record of its proceedings and publish the same regularly except such parts as may in the judgement of the House require secrecy in the national interest. During their attendance in Parliament or travel to and from Parliament, members shall be privileged from arrest except for treason, felony or breach of peace. Nor shall any speech made in the Lower House be questioned in any other place. No member of the Lower House shall hold any other office of profit or honour of the Union of India or any State or Territory of India.

37. The Upper House of the Union Parliament shall have no more than 100 members, of whom 90 shall be chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies of the Union and shall have one vote each. Elections to the Upper House shall be for a term of 6 years, with one third of the elected members retiring every 2 years. No person shall be elected to the Upper House for more than three terms successively. For purposes of elections to the Upper House, the Union of India shall be divided into territorial constituencies each of approximately 10 million citizens, so long as there are no more than 22 constituencies from the States of Southern India (presently consisting of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Goa); 22 constituencies from the States of Eastern India (presently consisting of Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Assam, Sikkim, West Bengal and Bihar); 22 constituencies from the States of Northern India (presently consisting of Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir,Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana); and 22 constituencies from the States of Central India (presently consisting of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa). There shall be one constituency in the Union Territory of Delhi and one constituency in all other UnionTerritories together.

38. The President of India may appoint up to 10 members of the Upper House each of whom shall have no vote and shall hold one term of office of 2 years. The President shall make such appointments in view of considerations such as the representation of the arts, sciences, sports, literature or social work, as also the representation of any community, caste, religion or other group which, in the opinion of the President, deserves a voice in the Upper House in the national interest.

39. The Vice President of India shall chair the Upper House but shall have no vote unless they are equally divided. The Upper House shall choose its own Chairman pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President; determine the rules of its own proceedings; punish its members including by expulsion with the concurrence of two thirds of its members; keep a record of its proceedings and publish the same except as may in the judgement of the House require secrecy in the national interest. During their attendance in Parliament or their travel to and from Parliament, members shall be privileged from arrest except for treason, felony or breach of peace. Nor shall any speech made in the Upper House be questioned in any other place. No member of the Upper House shall hold any other office of profit or honour of the Union of India or any State or Territory of India.

40. The President of India shall be elected for a term of 5 years by the Union Parliament, and shall be a citizen of India not less than 35 years of age. If there are more than two nominations, there shall be a primary election in the Upper House by secret vote, and the names of those receiving the highest and second highest number of votes shall be sent to the Lower House which shall elect between them by secret ballot. The President of India shall not hold any other office of profit or honour.

41. The Vice-President of India shall be elected for a term of 5 years by the Union Parliament, and shall be a citizen of India not less than 35 years of age. If there are more than two nominations, there shall be a primary election in the Lower House by secret vote, and the names of those receiving the highest and second highest number of votes shall be sent to the Upper House which shall elect between them by secret ballot. The Vice-President of India shall not hold any other office of profit or honour.

42. The terms of the President and Vice-President shall not be concurrent.

43. The Prime Minister of India shall be appointed by the President upon the advice of the citizens of India in a direct election, and shall hold office for four years. The Prime Minister shall be a citizen of India not less than 35 years of age, and no person shall hold the office of Prime Minister for two terms successively. Candidates shall register 12 months prior to the date of the election with the Chief Election Commissioner. The Chief Election Commissioner shall report to the President the results of the election to the office of the Prime Minister, and the President shall appoint the candidate receiving the highest number of votes.

44. Upon the nomination of the Prime Minister, the President shall appoint a Deputy Prime Minister and a Council of Ministers, who shall hold office at the pleasure of the President and who shall assist the Prime Minister in the discharge of the duties of the office. The Deputy Prime Minister shall exercise the duties and functions of the Prime Minister in the event of the death, resignation, incapacitation, absence or impeachment of the Prime Minister.

45. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers shall from time to time answer the questions of members of the Union Parliament as requested by the latter, and the Prime Minister shall no less than once every year address the Union Parliament on the State of the Republic.

46. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Deputy Prime Minister nor any member of the Council of Ministers shall hold any other office of profit or honour.

DUTIES OF THE UNION AND THE STATES
47. The duties of the Union of India shall include

– defence of the Republic from foreign aggression, armed rebellion and crime
– foreign relations and foreign trade
– management of currency and exchange-rate
– management of the public debt of the Union
– inter-State highways, waterways and dams
– regulation of inter-State railways
– regulation of harbours and airports
– regulation of civil aviation
– regulation of communications and broadcasting
– protection of national monuments and archives
– development of space and atomic research, research
universities and institutes of national importance
– planning of metropolitan areas
– environmental protection, national forests, parks and wildlife
– regulation of banking other than rural banking
– regulation of stock exchanges and futures markets
– census, voter registration, and social security

48. The Union of India shall in addition
– promote and encourage State and local democracy
– reduce disparities of income and wealth consistent with economic efficiency
– reduce inequitable transfers of debt to future generations by ensuring balance in the Union Budget over a quincennial period
– promote harmony among the nations of the world, abjure violencein the settlement of international conflicts, foster respect for international law, and maintain just and honourable relations with other nations.

49. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India shall extend to substantive questions of law and constitutional interpretation; fundamental rights of citizens, and relations between the citizen and the Union and its States and Territories; international law; inter-State relations and commerce; relations between the Union and any State.

50. There shall be a Reserve Bank of India. Upon the nomination of the Prime Minister and with the advice and consent of the Upper House of the Union Parliament, the President of India shall appoint a Governor and Deputy Governors of the Reserve Bank of India. It shall be the duty of the Reserve Bank of India to maintain a sound currency, that is, a stable value of the Rupee for transactions within the Union and outside it. The Reserve Bank of India shall be further responsible for the charter and regulation of banks, and the efficient working of financial and credit markets.

51. Upon the nomination of the Prime Minister and with the advice and consent of the Upper House of the Union Parliament, the President of India shall appoint a Comptroller and Auditor General of India, who shall be responsible for the issue of public moneys and the audit of the accounts of the Union of India.

52. There shall be a Public Services Commission of India. Upon the nomination of the Prime Minister and with the advice and consent of the Upper House of the Union Parliament, the President of India shall appoint a Secretary-General of the Public Services Commission, who shall be responsible for all matters relating to the civil services of India.

53. The duties of each State of India shall include
– civil order and police forces in the State
– State highways, waterways and dams
– regulation of State railways
– land registration and tenurial reform
– agricultural pricing, stocks and extension
– animal husbandry
– colleges and non-research universities
– finance of schools and setting of school standards
– regulation of electricity
– regulation of insurance
– regulation of rural banking
– management of the public debt of the State
– vital statistics
– public health
– environmental protection
– State parks and forests

A State of India shall in addition
– extend processes of democracy by promoting ad encouraging constitutional local government
– reduce disparities of income and wealth consistent with requirements of economic efficiency
– reduce inequitable transfers of debt to future generations by ensuring balance in the State Budget over a quincennial period
– endeavour to secure a common civil code for citizens of the State
– promote harmony among the peoples of India.

The duties of local governments established in a State by law shall include provision of primary and secondary education or regulation thereof; provision of and maintenance of streets, roads and lighting or regulation thereof; provision of fresh water and sewage disposal or regulation thereof.

54. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of a State shall extend to substantive questions of law and interpretation of the State Constitution; civil and criminal law within the State; marriage, divorce, custody and guardianship of minors; fundamental rights of citizens and relations between citizens and the State.

WAR AND EMERGENCY
55. The President of India, upon the advice of the Prime Minister and with the consent of a majority of each of the Union Parliament, shall have authority to declare and make war on behalf of the Union of India and its State and Territories, and to raise armed forces and resources for this purpose. A declaration of war may include the suspension of fundamental rights so long as that no such suspension shall continue for longer than 30 days without the consent of a majority of each House of the Union Parliament.

56. The President of India, upon the advice of the Prime Minister and with the consent of a two thirds majority of the Upper House of the Union Parliament, shall have authority to declare the whole of India or any part of its territory to face an imminent danger from foreign aggression, armed rebellion, disturbance or natural calamity, and proclaim an Emergency accordingly. Proclamation of Emergency may include declaration of Governor’s Rule in a State according to Article 29 and suspension of fundamental rights, so long as that no such suspension shall continue for longer than 30 days without the consent of a two thirds majority of the Upper House, and no elections to any State shall be delayed for longer than one year.

AMENDMENTS AND MISCELLANY
57. Within the groupings of States given in Article 37, new States may be formed or State boundaries altered by authority of the President of India, upon the advice of the Prime Minister and with the consent of two thirds of the members of each House of the Union Parliament and the consent of a majority of each State Parliament affected thereby.

58. The provisions of this Constitution may be amended by the authority of the President of India with the consent of a four fifths majority of each House of the Union Parliament.

59. Impeachment from office of the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister of India shall be initiated by a four fifths majority of each House of the Union Parliament. The Speaker of the Lower House shall inform the Chief Justice of India of such a majority in each House, whereupon the Chief Justice shall constitute a Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India which shall act as the Court of Impeachment.

60. Written and printed communications between the Union of India and foreign nations; between the Union of India and the States of India, and between the States of India and the Union of India; and between the Union of India and citizens of India shall be in the Hindustani (Hindi) and English languages. Any language or dialect of India may be spoken in the Union Parliament or any State Parliament with the prior permission of the Chairman or Speaker of the chamber.”

December 30 2002 letter to Mr C. R. Irani, Constitutional Review Commission:

“Dear Mr. Irani, Other than yourself and Mr. Sorabji, most other members of the Constitutional Review panel seem to be retired judges or bureaucrats. How many are under 50 years of age? Or have demonstrable knowledge of e.g. modern economics or constitutional political theory? Such a panel may be worse than nothing, since after its fossilized reports are in, it will take another 50 years before genuine constitutional reform can be addressed. Here are some examples:1. There is no such thing as a “Central” Government of India. There used to be one taking orders from London, giving orders to “Provinces” on the periphery. Free India has been a Union of States. Each Indian is supposed to be and to feel as being a citizen both of the Union and of his/her State, owing loyalty and taxes at both levels. Yet the colonial anachronism continues in all our thought with devastating results, so, e.g. the States remain mendicants before an all-powerful “Centre” which remains a mendicant before the new “London”. Ergo, your panel should be talking about Union-State relations, and the proper nature of federalism in modern India. But is any member a recognised expert on fiscal finance? For a start, all our State and Union Government accounting would need to be sorted out properly before anyone can comprehend what is going on between them. 2. The Governor of the RBI must be made a Constitutional post, on par with e.g. the Auditor-General. Reason: Monetary policy needs to be made independent of the fiscal compulsions of the Government of the day, which was the intended function of the RBI at its inception in 1935. Instead it has become a large Department of the Finance Ministry. The RBI’s sole job should be to establish and maintain the soundness of the currency, both domestically and internationally. I wonder if such an idea will arise from the panel appointed to look into it. 3. Our 16 large States have an average population of 61 million people. Each needs to be allowed to have its own Constitution if it so wishes on the American model, where the Union Constitution presides over a large number of State Constitutions. Indeed the resolution of the J&K problem and indeed our problems with Pakistan may rest in a broad, controlled devolution of fiscal and monetary powers to all States, with the Union’s mandate becoming clearer and more focussed and feasible and realistic as a result. Will your panel talk about this? (Delhi does not forsake its own power, as even Old Man Tughlak found many years ago.) I could go on. Eleven years ago, I wrote in Foundations of India’s Political Economy “The 1950 Constitution was a marvellous document at the time. Since then it has become too bulky, too full of exceptions and qualifications, and far from comprehensible to the ordinary Indian. A neater, cleaner and shorter document may be sought which keeps the best of the 1950 Constitution and integrates it with the experience of forty years as well as the best of foreign constitutions, with the aim of promoting a system with less uncertainty and more stability.” The Statesman on April 20 1991 published my proposed Constitution for a Second Indian Republic, now … I enclose a copy for your interest. In Keshavananda Bharati the Supreme Court meant that liberal, republican, representative democracy in a free society with separation of powers must not be subverted by any sort of constitutional gimmickry. My proposals enhance such political values. I hope your panel may do the same.”

Posted in Democracy, India's Constitution, India's constitutional politics, India's Democracy, India's Electorate, India's Judiciary, India's Jurisprudence, India's Lok Sabha, India's Nationalism, India's Parliament, India's Polity, India's Presidency, India's Rajya Sabha, India's Reserve Bank, India's State Finances, International Law, Kesavananda Bharati, Liberalism/Libertarianism, Rajiv Gandhi, Roman Law, Secular governance, The Statesman. Leave a Comment »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers