My article “Haksar, Manmohan and Sonia” appeared today as an op-ed with the New Indian Express http://t.co/bRnQI1hrwy
(1) My 13 Sep 2019 Advice to PM Modi’s Adviser: Let PM address each State Legislature, get all India Govt Accounting & Public Decision Making to have integrity (2) 16 May 2014 Advice from Rajiv Gandhi’s Adviser to Narendra Modi: Do not populate the “Planning Commission” with worthies, scrap it, integrate its assets with the Treasury. And get the nationalised banks & RBI out of the Treasury. Tell them to read my 3 Dec 2012 Delhi lecture with care. Clean Government Accounting & Audit is the Key to Clean Public Finances & a Proper Indian Currency for the First Time Ever
May 16, 2014 — drsubrotoroy13 September 2019
My 13 Sep 2019 Advice to PM Modi’s Adviser: Let PM address each State Legislature, get all India Govt Accounting & Public Decision-Making to have integrity
I recently had a nice chat by email with one of Mr Modi’s economic advisers who knew me from years past. No I do not mean Bibek Debroy who was my stable-mate under Hahn at Cambridge in 1976. This adviser knew me as a colleague briefly in Washington during my American years 1980:1996.
My advice has been as follows:
In 2001 2000 I gave a talk at the RBI on invitation of Bimal Jalan and YV Reddy on the importance of maximum transparency in India’s Union and State Budgets. A Premchand’s *Effective Government Accounting* is really the best book the IMF ever produced, and my aim has been to see it applied to all public budgeting in India, especially in the information age… so any failed BCom or village accountant besides our 4125+ State legislators and all Union legislators and GoI officials can have at hand on demand for free all information about public resources, activities, expenditures, financing thereof etc. Mr Premchand and I met in his offices about 1998 when I last visited America and he thought my work was “light years ahead” of where the Government would reach.
The future PM Narendra Modi came from India to DC in October 1984 where I had been asked by Shekhar Tiwari whom you may know to give a Deendayal lecture, which I did. I recall Modiji well from that time. We have not met since. I should like him to be writing to each State Legislature Speaker seeking to address each State Assembly if they wish to extend an invitation, one by one. The aim of his addressing each State Assembly one by one that wishes to hear him (all will) would be to establish a Union-State link of fiscal cooperation, getting all State Government accounting cleaned up to the Premchand standard, so everyone in the country knows easily or can find out easily what is the state of finance in each State (as well as the Union of course).
It would take a few months plus two dozen rooms and a team of about 40 people to modernize all India Government accounts to the best world standards or even surpass them.
Obviously Planning had to go and I said so publicly in May 2014 as soon as Modiji was elected. At the same time, I said Finance had to be bifurcated, creating a new Ministry of Money and Banking where RBI and all PSU banks could be hived off. Then Finance would be left with doing Budgets, both Union and helping with States, all year round, getting them to the Premchand standard which is, basically, the world standard. Now I see “Corporate Affairs” has been a systemic problem too, because it allows Big Business to have too easy access to the Minister and his/her agenda and the latter never even gets to start normal public finance. Finance without Money and Banking and without Corporate Affairs can and should be handling all Budgets, year round, no lobbying.
You can see in this thread https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1119845358572646400?s=20 up and down what happens as a prototype if the Premchand template gets applied in India.
In the meantime, a monetary disaster is unfolding on the RBI “surplus” issue… there is no surplus… it is a mirage… #RBIMirage. You may see it herein:
https://independentindian.com/2019/08/04/critique-of-monetary-ideas-of-manmohan-modi-the-roy-model-explaining-to-bimal-jalan-nirmala-sitharaman-rbi-etc-what-it-is-they-are-doing-draft-4-august-2019/
I had denounced in 2007 what Manmohan, Montek, Chidambaram had tried which was very similar, and they stopped. Now Modiji, the FM, Bimal Jalan et al have followed suit, even worse. Do tell them.
I completely agree the West, the Russians, etc each have their own agenda (and local agents in Delhi).
The IT revolution has reached everyone in India, working classes especially. Yet worldwide and with us especially public finance and public decision making remain untouched and backward.
It would take 6 months and a small team to apply Premchand to each State’s finances and the Union too. That is not about markets but about govt activities (in the public finance sense) and expenditures, hence political discussion about priorities. All State legislators plus aam janta should become empowered with public finance data. All India is in the States. Hence I would like to see PM address each State legislature one by one… build the fiscal cooperation framework as described. More later…
The root problem is something I started working on in 1993… Hubert Neiss at the IMF asked me “Do you understand the States’ budgets?” because nobody at the Fund or Bank did! I fibbed and said yes, knowing I knew more than they did. 🙂 But seriously
India’s States, the 18 larger of which are as populous as countries,
https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1029412133665169409?s=20
have no control over direct or indirect taxes… hence there is no incentive to either limit expenditure or control incurrence of public debt…
https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1076703533137711104?s=20
Where does all that public debt go? Into banks’ asset sides! Ie all the bad spending decisions of both GoI and States end up as bank assets! So the banks keep sinking!
Where and how PM and this govt must act is to make it the next step that Sardar Patel would have demanded: namely, Sardar gave us the federal democratic set up, he *created* the States, 18 of which are as big as countries (see Table)… Now Sardar would have demanded proper budgeting and spending… *not* garbage “austerity”… but decisions under control and public discussion… civil strife itself will reduce eg in NE… !
Everyone needs to carry forward to the next stage #SardarVallabhaiPatel #StatueOfUnity nation-building: modernization of all gov’t accounts & audit. Everyone in India can & shd know how public resources are being spent & how raised.. exactly..
https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1130661889921433600?s=20
My idea has been #twodozenrooms… in Delhi… joint GoI and State teams… one room each for the 18 larger States https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1029412133665169409 maybe two for UP plus J&K Goa Him Uttarakhand, 7 remaining NE Sisters.. Combined Union & State Finance teams then get all their budgets exactly right.. inc military & railways
getting all govt accounting to the best available world standards… Union, all States, all PSUs, military, railways, everyone
https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1135197723156656128?s=20
a clear head, CAG data, Premchand’s book, 40 desktops and Excel… will take two months 24/7 work… 40 people in each of three shifts…
0700:1500
1500:2300
2300:0700 (graveyard)…
the data are all there with CAG… every activity, every expenditure… every anomaly… gets revealed… who is supposed to discuss spending priorities then? aam janta of course through their 4125+ State level + 800 Union legislators… let there be proper discussion in Assemblies… the State legislatures are dysfunctional, so is Parliament almost! Not because they want to be but because they are uninformed about problems and data!
So a massive change in our public discourse if aam janta and any legislator can access and discuss top quality public finance data… let them decide and talk about what priorities should be… the mind focuses then on **numbers**… which are hard data… It will be top of the world incidentally… no large country has done this, certainly not the USA etc… corruption also crashes as everyone can see everything…
PM starts the process by writing to the State Speakers… yes seeking an invitation… to address State legislators… **nothing partisan** no political meetings…. just PM and State as Constitutional entities… each State taken seriously one by one… Not three four the same day as he does with tours to NE. The process can take a year or more. The Speakers respond with an invitation or not… a scheduling is done… one by one… no political party favouritism… he speaks addressing serious problems… about concrete decision making and processes… no rhetoric is needed… He gives them a template of their Budget/accounts in the best possible world format… they have to then use all that data, decide what they want to do, how much help do they want in making better decisions… Ie it is a change in process….
As for the private sector, first thing is to get “Corporate Affairs” out of the Finance Ministry! That has become the vehicle of entrenched lobbying! It explains Chidambaram and Jaitley and all of them! Yes I have blasted Big Business for (a) their frauds; (b) their attempts to push risk onto the Government whenever possible… there has been systematic elite capital flight and international arbitrage allowed by both Manmohan and the present Govt!
The Government says to the private sector: we are cleaning up all our accounts, Union States Military Railways etc… all… you had better do the same and fast…!
see too https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1197137821523480576?s=20
16 May 2014
Mr Modi’s victory is more amazing and bigger than Reagan’s in 1980 or 1984, or Thatcher’s in 1979 or 1984…One hopes one does not have to make comparisons with any earlier times… The interviews he gave in recent days were excellent in their sobriety, quite unlike his sneering rabble-rousing mass speeches… I have said I do not doubt his commitment to India’s national interest, and I add I do not doubt his managerial competence. What does concern me is the vacuum of commonsense as well as expert reasoning around him although that around Sonia-Manmohan was as bad as well as being more pretentious. If Mr Modi can do anything like what I said in Delhi on 3 December 2012, which Manmohan was too incompetent and bureaucratic to even try, he has my applause. The first task is to ****not**** fill up the so-called Planning Commission with BJP worthies and cronies, and instead ***to declare he is closing it down and integrating its assets with the Finance Ministry***… The second is to remove control of the banks and the RBI from the Finance Ministry and create a different agency or department or even Ministry for Money & Banking. Finance (with Planning under it) does the fiscal budgets and government accounting, for Union and States. Money & Banking seeks to bring some slight semblance of integrity to the currency for the first time ever, both at home and abroad. Don’t ask Montek Ahluwalia, don’t ask Rangarajan, for heavens’ sake don’t ask Manmohan Singh or even his young man Raghuram Rajan… Just do it…
18 May 2014
Mr Modi has a unique chance to change the face of Indian governance for the better — and the chance is now, **before** he announces a Cabinet. Essentially, he is beholden to no one in making his choices, he can bring in the maximum amount of commonsense and expert reasoning right at the start.
My first recommendation has been to *scrap the so-called Planning Commission* rather than populate it with BJP cronies and worthies where it was populated by Congress worthies and cronies before. If you start populating it with your cronies then you have lost the plot immediately, as you are needlessly creating vested interests once more, impossible to get rid of later. Vajpayee-Advani lacked the guts and vision to do this. Modi can do it easily. Montek Ahluwalia and Manmohan Singh got the so-called Deputy Chairman to have a higher rank in the Order of Precedence than elected Chief Ministers of States! Ahluwalia attended Union Cabinet meetings and “GOM” meetings as a member without being elected to anything at all. The Planning Commission’s physical assets should be merged under the Finance Ministry immediately with a one-line Executive Order. At the same time, the RBI and the nationalised banks should be removed from the Finance Ministry’s control completely, if necessary into a new Ministry of Money & Banking.
Finance (& Accounts and Planning) are then tasked to get the budgets right, both Union *and* States — *and including the military and the railways*! That is all they do, that should be their full-time year long occupation, nothing more, not listening to or yielding to lobby groups, not allowing anyone to get even faintly close to them, just getting all the Budgets right. Money & Banking would run the nationalised banks on commercial lines (and that means being ready to battle their fat cat unions), plus there is the RBI with its usual banking supervisory and money creation and balance of payments management roles.
Secondly, change the name of the Defence Ministry to the War Ministry or Forces Ministry, Raksha Mantralaya to Yudh Mantralaya or Fauj Mantralaya. India has never fought an aggressive war and is not going to do so now. Every war it has fought has been defensive, so calling it the Defence Ministry is superfluous and even perverse. Calling it the War Ministry tells it what to do, namely, win any war that is thrust on you, any which way you can and at least cost all around. Simple as that. Why it is perverse to talk of a Defence Ministry is because of its fiscal implications. Fat cat peacetime generals, air marshalls and admirals are prevailed upon by foreign weapons’ salesmen acting through ex-servicemen Noida brokers to waste public moneys endlessly on innumerable things which are utterly unrelated to war-fighting capabilities. And there can be no fiscal responsibility ever in India until the military budgets are brought under control. I have called the military budget the Black Hole of Indian public finance, no one knows what goes in or what comes out. And the preparedness for war itself is unknown as well — as the Mumbai massacres showed. Mr Modi and his putative War Minister should simply get the generals, air marshalls and admirals to tell them what plans they have to win different wars thrust upon them in different scenarios; what are their strategies to win those wars, and what resources do they need for those strategies to prevail; that is how you figure out the military budget. All the rest is fat, which only causes corruption and inflation too.
Thirdly, design a better cabinet on the lines, for example, I would have given to Rajiv Gandhi if he had not been assassinated. Manmohan Singh had 79 Ministers! You only need a dozen senior ones and a dozen junior ones, really…
Don’t set up a committee of worthies to examine all this… Just do it… I will applaud and so will everyone else…
See especially this…
Did Jagdish Bhagwati “originate”, “pioneer”, “intellectually father” India’s 1991 economic reform? Did Manmohan Singh? Or did I, through my encounter with Rajiv Gandhi, just as Siddhartha Shankar Ray told Manmohan & his aides in Sep 1993 in Washington? Judge the evidence for yourself. And why has Amartya Sen misdescribed his work? India’s right path forward today remains what I said in my 3 Dec 2012 Delhi lecture!
August 23, 2013 — drsubrotoroyDid Jagdish Bhagwati “originate”, “pioneer”, “intellectually father” India’s 1991 economic reform? Did Manmohan Singh? Or did I, through my encounter with Rajiv Gandhi, just as Siddhartha Shankar Ray told Manmohan & his aides in Sep 1993 in Washington? Judge the evidence for yourself. And why has Amartya Sen misdescribed his work? India’s right path forward today remains what I said in my 3 Dec 2012 Delhi lecture!
[See also “I’m on my way out”: Siddhartha Shankar Ray (1920-2010)…An Economist’s Tribute”; “Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform”; “Three Memoranda to Rajiv Gandhi 1990-1991″
Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by Subroto Roy & William E James, 1986-1992… pdf copy uploaded 2021
Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, edited by William E James & Subroto Roy, 1986-1993… pdf copy uploaded 2021
Critique of Amartya Sen: A Tragedy of Plagiarism, Fake News, Dissimulation
Contents
Part I: Facts vs Fiction, Flattery, Falsification, etc
1. Problem
2. Rajiv Gandhi, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Milton Friedman & Myself
3. Jagdish Bhagwati & Manmohan Singh? That just don’t fly!
4. Amartya Sen’s Half-Baked Communism: “To each according to his need”?
Part II: India’s Right Road Forward Now: Some Thoughtful Analysis for Grown Ups
5. Transcending a Left-Right/Congress-BJP Divide in Indian Politics
6. Budgeting Military & Foreign Policy
7. Solving the Kashmir Problem & Relations with Pakistan
8. Dealing with Communist China
9. Towards Coherence in Public Accounting, Public Finance & Public Decision-Making
10. India’s Money: Towards Currency Integrity at Home & Abroad
Part I: Facts vs Fiction, Flattery, Falsification, etc
1. Problem
Arvind Panagariya says in the Times of India of 27 July 2013
“…if in 1991 India embraced many of the Track-I reforms, writings by Sen played no role in it… The intellectual origins of the reforms are to be found instead in the writings of Bhagwati, both solely and jointly with Padma Desai and T N Srinivasan….”
Now Amartya Sen has not claimed involvement in the 1991 economic reforms so we are left with Panagariya claiming
“The intellectual origins of the reforms are to be found instead in the writings of Bhagwati…”
Should we suppose Professor Panagariya’s master and co-author Jagdish Bhagwati himself substantially believes and claims the same? Three recent statements from Professor Bhagwati suffice by way of evidence:
(A) Bhagwati said to parliamentarians in the Lok Sabha on 2 December 2010 about the pre-1991 situation:
“This policy framework had been questioned, and its total overhaul advocated, by me and Padma Desai in writings through the late 1960s which culminated in our book, India: Planning for Industrialization (Oxford University Press: 1970) with a huge blowback at the time from virtually all the other leading economists and policymakers who were unable to think outside the box. In the end, our views prevailed and the changes which would transform the economy began, after an external payments crisis in 1991, under the forceful leadership of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who was the Finance Minister at the time….”
(B) Bhagwati said to Economic Times on 28 July 2013:
“When finance minister Manmohan Singh was in New York in 1992, he had a lunch for many big CEOs whom he was trying to seduce to come to India. He also invited me and my wife, Padma Desai, to the lunch. As we came in, the FM introduced us to the invitees and said: ‘These friends of mine wrote almost a quarter century ago [India: Planning for Industrialisation was published in 1970 by Oxford] recommending all the reforms we are now undertaking. If we had accepted the advice then, we would not be having this lunch as you would already be in India’.”
(C) And Bhagwati said in Business Standard of 9 August 2013:
“… I was among the intellectual pioneers of the Track I reforms that transformed our economy and reduced poverty, and witness to that is provided by the Prime Minister’s many pronouncements and by noted economists like Deena Khatkhate.. I believe no one has accused Mr. Sen of being the intellectual father of these reforms. So, the fact is that this huge event in the economic life of India passed him by…”
From these pronouncements it seems fair to conclude Professors Bhagwati and Panagariya are claiming Bhagwati has been the principal author of “the intellectual origins” of India’s 1991 reforms, has been their “intellectual father” or at the very least has been “among the intellectual pioneers” of the reform (“among” his own collaborators and friends, since none else is mentioned). Bhagwati has said too his friend Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister participated in the process while quoting Manmohan as having said Bhagwati was the principal author.
Bhagwati’s opponent in current debate, Amartya Sen, has been in agreement with him that Manmohan, their common friend during college days at Cambridge in the 1950s, was a principal originating the 1991 reforms, saying to Forbes in 2006:
“When Manmohan Singh came to office in the early 1990s as the newly appointed finance minister, in a government led by the Congress Party, he knew these problems well enough, as someone who had been strongly involved in government administration for a long time.”
In my experience, such sorts of claims, even in their weakest form, have been, at best, scientifically sloppy and unscholarly, at worst mendacious suppressio veri/suggestio falsi, and in between these best and worst interpretations, examples of academic self-delusion and mutual flattery. We shall see Bhagwati’s opponent, Amartya Sen, has denied academic paternity of recent policies he has spawned while appearing to claim academic paternity of things he has not! Everyone may have reasonably expected greater self-knowledge, wisdom and scholarly values of such eminent academics. Their current spat has instead seemed to reveal something rather dismal and self-serving.
You can decide for yourself where the truth, ever such an elusive and fragile thing, happens to be and what is best done about it. Here is some evidence.
2. Rajiv Gandhi, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Milton Friedman & Myself
Professor Arvind Panagariya is evidently an American economics professor of Indian national origin who holds the Jagdish Bhagwati Chair of Indian Political Economy at Columbia University. I am afraid I had not known his name until he mentioned my name in Economic Times of 24 October 2001. He said
In mentioning the volume “edited by Subroto Roy and William E James”, Professor Panagariya did not appear to find the normal scientific civility to identify our work by name, date or publisher. So here that is now:
This was a book published in 1992 by the late Tejeshwar Singh for Sage. It resulted from the University of Hawaii Manoa perestroika-for-India project, that I and Ted James created and led between 1986 and 1992/93. (Yes, Hawaii — not Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Columbia or even Penn, whose India-policy programs were Johnny-come-latelies a decade or more later…) There is a sister-volume too on Pakistan, created by a parallel project Ted and I had led at the same time (both now in pdf):
In 2004 from Britain, I wrote to the 9/11 Commission saying if our plan to study Afghanistan after India and Pakistan had not been thwarted by malign local forces among our sponsors themselves, we, a decade before the September 11 2001 attacks on the USA, may just have come up with a pre-emptive academic analysis. It was not to be.
Milton Friedman’s chapter that we published for the first time was a memorandum he wrote in November 1955 for the Government of India which the GoI had effectively suppressed. I came to know of it while a doctoral student at Cambridge under Frank Hahn, when at a conference at Oxford about 1979-1980, Peter Tamas Bauer sat me down beside him and told me the story. Later in Blacksburg about 1981, N. Georgescu-Roegen on a visit from Vanderbilt University told me the same thing. Specifically, Georgescu-Roegen told me that leading Indian academics had almost insulted Milton in public which Milton had borne gamely; that after Milton had given a talk in Delhi to VKRV Rao’s graduate-students, a talk Georgescu-Roegen had been present at, VKRV Rao had addressed the students and told them in all seriousness “You have heard what Professor Friedman has to say, if you repeat what he has said in your exams, you will fail”.
In 1981-1982 my doctoral thesis emerged, titled “On liberty & economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”,
My late great master in economic theory, Frank Hahn (1925-2013), found what I had written to be a “good thesis” bringing “a good knowledge of economics and of philosophy to bear on the literature on economic planning”, saying I had shown “a good knowledge of economic theory” and my “critique of Development Economics was powerful not only on methodological but also on economic theory grounds”.
I myself said about it decades later “My original doctoral topic in 1976 ‘A monetary theory for India’ had to be altered not only due to paucity of monetary data at the time but because the problems of India’s political economy and allocation of resources in the real economy were far more pressing. The thesis that emerged in 1982 … was a full frontal assault from the point of view of microeconomic theory on the “development planning” to which everyone routinely declared their fidelity, from New Delhi’s bureaucrats and Oxford’s “development” school to McNamara’s World Bank with its Indian staffers. Frank Hahn protected my inchoate liberal arguments for India; and when no internal examiner could be found, Cambridge showed its greatness by appointing two externals, Bliss at Oxford and Hutchison at Birmingham, both Cambridge men. “Economic Theory and Development Economics” was presented to the American Economic Association in December 1982 in company of Solow, Chenery, Streeten, and other eminences…” How I landed on that eminent AEA panel in December 1982 was because its convener Professor George Rosen of the University of Illinois recruited me overnight — as a replacement for Jagdish Bhagwati, who had had to return to India suddenly because of a parental death. The results were published in 1983 in World Development.
Soon afterwards, London’s Institute of Economic Affairs published Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India. This slim work (now in pdf) was the first classical liberal critique of post-Mahalonobis Indian economic thought since BR Shenoy’s original criticism decades earlier. It became the subject of The Times’ lead editorial on its day of publication 29 May 1984 — provoking the Indian High Commission in London to send copies to the Finance Ministry in Delhi where it apparently caused a stir, or so I was told years later by Amaresh Bagchi who was a recipient of it at the Ministry.
The Times had said
“When Mr. Dennis Healey in the Commons recently stated that Hongkong, with one per cent of the population of India has twice India’s trade, he was making an important point about Hongkong but an equally important point about India. If Hongkong with one per cent of its population and less than 0.03 per cert of India’s land area (without even water as a natural resource) can so outpace India, there must be something terribly wrong with the way Indian governments have managed their affairs, and there is. A paper by an Indian economist published today (Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India by Subroto Roy, IEA £1.80) shows how Asia’s largest democracy is gradually being stifled by the imposition of economic policies whose woeful effect and rhetorical unreality find their echo all over the Third World. As with many of Britain’s former imperial possessions, the rot set in long before independence. But as with most of the other former dependencies, the instrument of economic regulation and bureaucratic control set up by the British has been used decisively and expansively to consolidate a statist regime which inhibits free enterprise, minimizes economic success and consolidates the power of government in all spheres of the economy. We hear little of this side of things when India rattles the borrowing bowl or denigrates her creditors for want of further munificence. How could Indian officials explain their poor performance relative to Hongkong? Dr Roy has the answers for them. He lists the causes as a large and heavily subsidized public sector, labyrinthine control over private enterprise, forcibly depressed agricultural prices, massive import substitution, government monopoly of foreign exchange transactions, artificially overvalued currency and the extensive politicization of the labour market, not to mention the corruption which is an inevitable side effect of an economy which depends on the arbitrament of bureaucrats. The first Indian government under Nehru took its cue from Nehru’s admiration of the Soviet economy, which led him to believe that the only policy for India was socialism in which there would be “no private property except in a restricted sense and the replacement of the private profit system by a higher ideal of cooperative service.” Consequently, the Indian government has now either a full monopoly or is one of a few oligipolists in banking, insurance, railways, airlines, cement, steel, chemicals, fertilizers, ship-building, breweries, telephones and wrist-watches. No businessman can expand his operation while there is any surplus capacity anywhere in that sector. He needs government approval to modernize, alter his price-structure, or change his labour shift. It is not surprising that a recent study of those developing countries which account for most manufactured exports from the Third World shows that India’s share fell from 65 percent in 1953 to 10 per cent in 1973; nor, with the numerous restrictions on inter-state movement of grains, that India has over the years suffered more from an inability to cope with famine than during the Raj when famine drill was centrally organized and skillfully executed without restriction. Nehru’s attraction for the Soviet model has been inherited by his daughter, Mrs. Gandhi. Her policies have clearly positioned India more towards the Soviet Union than the West. The consequences of this, as Dr Roy states, is that a bias can be seen in “the antipathy and pessimism towards market institutions found among the urban public, and sympathy and optimism to be found for collectivist or statist ones.” All that India has to show for it is the delivery of thousands of tanks in exchange for bartered goods, and the erection of steel mills and other heavy industry which help to perpetuate the unfortunate obsession with industrial performance at the expense of agricultural growth and the relief of rural poverty.”…..
I felt there were inaccuracies in this and so replied dated 4 June which The Times published on 16 June 1984:
Milton and I met for the first time in the Fall of 1984 at the Mont Pelerin Society meetings at Cambridge when I gave him a copy of the IEA monograph, which he came to think extremely well of. I told him I had heard of his 1955 document and asked him for it; he sent me the original blue/purple version of this soon thereafter.
[That original document was, incidentally, in my professorial office among all my books, papers, theses and other academic items including my gown when I was attacked in 2003 by a corrupt gang at IIT Kharagpur — all yet to be returned to me by IIT despite a High Court order during my present ongoing battle against corruption there over a USD 1.9 million scam !… Without having ever wished to, I have had to battle India’s notorious corruption first hand for a decade!]
I published Milton’s document for the first time on 21 May 1989 at the conference of the Hawaii project over the loud objection of assorted leftists…
Amartya Sen, Jagdish Bhagwati, Manmohan Singh or any of their acolytes will not be seen in this group photograph dated 21 May 1989 at the UH President’s House, because they were not there. The Government of India was represented by the Ambassador to Washington, PK Kaul, as well as the Consul General in San Francisco, KS Rana (later Ambassador to Germany), besides the founding head of ICRIER who had invited himself.
Manmohan Singh was not there as he precisely represented the Indian economic policy establishment I had been determined to reform! In any case, he had left India about 1987 on his last assignment before retirement, with Julius Nyerere of Tanzania relating to the “South-South Commission”.
I have said over more than a half dozen years now that there is no evidence whatsoever of Manmohan Singh having been a liberal economist in any sense of that word at any time before 1991, and scant evidence that he originated any liberal economic ideas since. The widespread worldwide notion that he is to be credited for originating a sudden transformation of India from a path of pseudo-socialism to one of pseudo-liberalism has been without basis in evidence — almost entirely a political fiction, though an explicable one and one which has served, as such political fictions do, the purposes of those who invent them.
Jagdish Bhagwati and Amartya Sen were in their mid 50s and were two of the three senior-most Indians in US academic economics at the time. I and Ted James, both in our 30s, decided to invite both Bhagwati and Sen to the Hawaii project-conference as distinguished guests but to do so somewhat insincerely late in the day, predicting they would decline, which is what they did, yet they had come to be formally informed of what we were doing. We had a very serious attitude that was inspired a bit, I might say, by Oppenheimer’s secret “Manhattan project” and we wanted neither press-publicity nor anyone to become the star who ended up hogging the microphone or the limelight.
Besides, and most important of all, neither Bhagwati nor Sen had done work in the areas we were centrally interested in, namely, India’s macroeconomic and foreign trade framework and fiscal and monetary policies.
Bhagwati, after his excellent 1970 work with Padma Desai for the OECD on Indian industry and trade, also co-authored with TN Srinivasan a fine 1975 volume for the NBER Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: India.
TN Srinivasan was the third of the three senior-most Indian economists at the time in US academia; his work made us want to invite him as one of our main economic authors, and we charged him with writing the excellent chapter in Foundations that he came to do titled “Planning and Foreign Trade Reconsidered”.
The other main economist author we had hoped for was Sukhamoy Chakravarty from Delhi University and the Government of India’s Planning Commission, whom I had known since 1977 when I had been given his office at the Delhi School of Economics as a Visiting Assistant Professor while he was on sabbatical; despite my pleading he would not come due to ill health; he strongly recommended C Rangarajan, telling me Rangarajan had been the main author with him of the crucial 1985 RBI report on monetary policy; and he signed and gave me his last personal copy of that report dating it 14 July 1987. Rangarajan said he could not come and recommended the head of the NIPFP, Amaresh Bagchi, promising to write jointly with him the chapter on monetary policy and public finance.
Along with Milton Friedman’s suppressed 1955 memorandum which I was publishing for the first time in 1989, TN Srinivasan and Amaresh Bagchi authored the three main economic policy chapters that we felt we wanted.
Other chapters we commissioned had to do with the state of governance (James Manor), federalism (Bhagwan Dua), Punjab and similar problems (PR Brass), agriculture (K Subbarao, as proposed by CH Hanumantha Rao), health (Anil Deolalikar, through open advertisement), and a historical assessment of the roots of economic policy (BR Tomlinson, as proposed by Anil Seal). On the vital subject of education we failed to agree with the expert we wanted very much (JBG Tilak, as proposed by George Psacharopolous) and so we had to cover the subject cursorily in our introduction mentioning his work. And decades later, I apologised to Professor Dietmar Rothermund of Heidelberg University for having been so blinkered in the Anglo-American tradition at the time as to not having obtained his participation in the project.
[The sister-volume we commissioned in parallel on Pakistan’s political economy had among its authors Francis Robinson, Akbar Ahmed, Shirin Tahir-Kehli, Robert La Porte, Shahid Javed Burki, Mohsin Khan, Mahmood Hasan Khan, Naved Hamid, John Adams and Shahrukh Khan; this book came to be published in Pakistan in 1993 to good reviews but apparently was then lost by its publisher and is yet to be found; the military and religious clergy had been deliberately not invited by us though the name of Pervez Musharraf had I think arisen, and the military and religious clergy in fact came to rule the roost through the 1990s in Pakistan; the volume, two decades old, takes on fresh relevance with the new civilian governments of recent years.] [Postscript 27 November 2015: See my strident critique at Twitter of KM Kasuri, P Musharraf et al e.g. at https://independentindian.com/2011/11/22/pakistans-point-of-view-or-points-of-view-on-kashmir-my-as-yet-undelivered-lahore-lecture-part-i/ passing off ideas they have taken from this volume without acknowledgement, ideas which have in any case become defunct to their author, myself.]
Milton himself said this about his experience with me in his memoirs:
And Milton wrote on my behalf when I came to be attacked, being Indian, at the very University that had sponsored us:
My obituary notice at his passing in 2006 said: “My association with Milton has been the zenith of my engagement with academic economics…. I was a doctoral student of his bitter enemy yet for over two decades he not only treated me with unfailing courtesy and affection, he supported me in lonely righteous battles: doing for me what he said he had never done before, which was to stand as an expert witness in a United States Federal Court. I will miss him much though I know that he, as a man of reason, would not have wished me to….”
In August 1990 in Delhi I came to tell Siddhartha Shankar Ray about the unpublished India-manuscript resulting from the Hawaii project that was in my possession as it headed to its publisher.
Ray was a family-friend whose maternal grandfather CR Das led the Congress Party before MK Gandhi and had been a friend and colleague of my great grandfather SN Roy in Bengal’s politics in the 1920s; Ray had also consented to stand on my behalf as Senior Counsel in a matter in the Supreme Court of India.
Ray was involved in daily political parlays at his Delhi home with other Congress Party personages led by PV Narasimha Rao. These senior regional figures seemed to me to be keeping their national leader, Rajiv Gandhi, aloof in splendid isolation at 10 Jan Path.
Ray told me he and his wife had been in London in May 1984 on the day The Times had written its lead editorial on my work and they had seen it with excitement. Upon hearing of the Hawaii project and the manuscript I had with me, Ray immediately insisted of his own accord that I must meet Rajiv Gandhi, and that he would be arranging a meeting.
Hence it came to be a month later that a copy of the manuscript of the completed Hawaii project was be given by my hand on 18 September 1990 to Rajiv Gandhi, then Leader of the Opposition and Congress President, an encounter I have quite fully described elsewhere. I offered to get a copy to the PM, VP Singh, too but a key aide of his showed no interest in receiving it.
Rajiv made me a senior adviser, and I have claimed principal authorship of the 22 March 1991 draft of the Congress manifesto that actually shook and changed the political thinking of the Congress on economic matters in the direction Rajiv had desired and as I had advised him at our initial 18 September 1990 meeting.
“… He began by talking about how important he felt panchayati raj was, and said he had been on the verge of passing major legislation on it but then lost the election. He asked me if I could spend some time thinking about it, and that he would get the papers sent to me. I said I would and remarked panchayati raj might be seen as decentralized provision of public goods, and gave the economist’s definition of public goods as those essential for the functioning of the market economy, like the Rule of Law, roads, fresh water, and sanitation, but which were unlikely to appear through competitive forces.
I distinguished between federal, state and local levels and said many of the most significant public goods were best provided locally. Rajiv had not heard the term “public goods” before, and he beamed a smile and his eyes lit up as he voiced the words slowly, seeming to like the concept immensely. It occurred to me he had been by choice a pilot of commercial aircraft. Now he seemed intrigued to find there could be systematic ways of thinking about navigating a country’s governance by common pursuit of reasonable judgement. I said the public sector’s wastefulness had drained scarce resources that should have gone instead to provide public goods. Since the public sector was owned by the public, it could be privatised by giving away its shares to the public, preferably to panchayats of the poorest villages. The shares would become tradable, drawing out black money, and inducing a historic redistribution of wealth while at the same time achieving greater efficiency by transferring the public sector to private hands. Rajiv seemed to like that idea too, and said he tried to follow a maxim of Indira Gandhi’s that every policy should be seen in terms of how it affected the common man. I wryly said the common man often spent away his money on alcohol, to which he said at once it might be better to think of the common woman instead. (This remark of Rajiv’s may have influenced the “aam admi” slogan of the 2004 election, as all Congress Lok Sabha MPs of the previous Parliament came to receive a previous version of the present narrative.)
Our project had identified the Congress’s lack of internal elections as a problem; when I raised it, Rajiv spoke of how he, as Congress President, had been trying to tackle the issue of bogus electoral rolls. I said the judiciary seemed to be in a mess due to the backlog of cases; many of which seemed related to land or rent control, and it may be risky to move towards a free economy without a properly functioning judicial system or at least a viable system of contractual enforcement. I said a lot of problems which should be handled by the law in the courts in India were instead getting politicised and decided on the streets. Rajiv had seen the problems of the judiciary and said he had good relations with the Chief Justice’s office, which could be put to use to improve the working of the judiciary.
The project had worked on Pakistan as well, and I went on to say we should solve the problem with Pakistan in a definitive manner. Rajiv spoke of how close his government had been in 1988 to a mutual withdrawal from Siachen. But Zia-ul-Haq was then killed and it became more difficult to implement the same thing with Benazir Bhutto, because, he said, as a democrat, she was playing to anti-Indian sentiments while he had found it somewhat easier to deal with the military. I pressed him on the long-term future relationship between the countries and he agreed a common market was the only real long-term solution. I wondered if he could find himself in a position to make a bold move like offering to go to Pakistan and addressing their Parliament to break the impasse. He did not say anything but seemed to think about the idea. Rajiv mentioned a recent Time magazine cover of Indian naval potential, which had caused an excessive stir in Delhi. He then talked about his visit to China, which seemed to him an important step towards normalization. He said he had not seen (or been shown) any absolute poverty in China of the sort we have in India. He talked about the Gulf situation, saying he did not disagree with the embargo of Iraq except he wished the ships enforcing the embargo had been under the U.N. flag. The meeting seemed to go on and on, and I was embarrassed at perhaps having taken too much time and that he was being too polite to get me to go. V. George had interrupted with news that Sheila Dixit (as I recall) had just been arrested by the U. P. Government, and there were evidently people waiting. Just before we finally stood up I expressed a hope that he was looking to the future of India with an eye to a modern political and economic agenda for the next election, rather than getting bogged down with domestic political events of the moment. That was the kind of hopefulness that had attracted many of my generation in 1985. I said I would happily work in any way to help define a long-term agenda. His eyes lit up and as we shook hands to say goodbye, he said he would be in touch with me again…. The next day I was called and asked to stay in Delhi for a few days, as Mr. Gandhi wanted me to meet some people…..
… That night Krishna Rao dropped me at Tughlak Road where I used to stay with friends. In the car I told him, as he was a military man with heavy security cover for himself as a former Governor of J&K, that it seemed to me Rajiv’s security was being unprofessionally handled, that he was vulnerable to a professional assassin. Krishna Rao asked me if I had seen anything specific by way of vulnerability. With John Kennedy and De Gaulle in mind, I said I feared Rajiv was open to a long-distance sniper, especially when he was on his campaign trips around the country. This was one of several attempts I made since October 1990 to convey my clear impression to whomever I thought might have an effect that Rajiv seemed to me extremely vulnerable. Rajiv had been on sadhbhavana journeys, back and forth into and out of Delhi. I had heard he was fed up with his security apparatus, and I was not surprised given it seemed at the time rather bureaucratized. It would not have been appropriate for me to tell him directly that he seemed to me to be vulnerable, since I was a newcomer and a complete amateur about security issues, and besides if he agreed he might seem to himself to be cowardly or have to get even closer to his security apparatus. Instead I pressed the subject relentlessly with whomever I could. I suggested specifically two things: (a) that the system in place at Rajiv’s residence and on his itineraries be tested, preferably by some internationally recognized specialists in counter-terrorism; (b) that Rajiv be encouraged to announce a shadow-cabinet. The first would increase the cost of terrorism, the second would reduce the potential political benefit expected by terrorists out to kill him. On the former, it was pleaded that security was a matter being run by the V. P. Singh and then Chandrashekhar Governments at the time. On the latter, it was said that appointing a shadow cabinet might give the appointees the wrong idea, and lead to a challenge to Rajiv’s leadership. This seemed to me wrong, as there was nothing to fear from healthy internal contests for power so long as they were conducted in a structured democratic framework. I pressed to know how public Rajiv’s itinerary was when he travelled. I was told it was known to everyone and that was the only way it could be since Rajiv wanted to be close to the people waiting to see him and had been criticized for being too aloof. This seemed to me totally wrong and I suggested that if Rajiv wanted to be seen as meeting the crowds waiting for him then that should be done by planning to make random stops on the road that his entourage would take. This would at least add some confusion to the planning of potential terrorists out to kill him. When I pressed relentlessly, it was said I should probably speak to “Madame”, i.e. to Mrs. Rajiv Gandhi. That seemed to me highly inappropriate, as I could not be said to be known to her and I should not want to unduly concern her in the event it was I who was completely wrong in my assessment of the danger. The response that it was not in Congress’s hands, that it was the responsibility of the VP Singh and later the Chandrashekhar Governments, seemed to me completely irrelevant since Congress in its own interests had a grave responsibility to protect Rajiv Gandhi irrespective of what the Government’s security people were doing or not doing. Rajiv was at the apex of the power structure of the party, and a key symbol of secularism and progress for the entire country. Losing him would be quite irreparable to the party and the country. It shocked me that the assumption was not being made that there were almost certainly professional killers actively out to kill Rajiv Gandhi — this loving family man and hapless pilot of India’s ship of state who did not seem to have wished to make enemies among India’s terrorists but whom the fates had conspired to make a target. The most bizarre and frustrating response I got from several respondents was that I should not mention the matter at all as otherwise the threat would become enlarged and the prospect made more likely! This I later realized was a primitive superstitious response of the same sort as wearing amulets and believing in Ptolemaic astrological charts that assume the Sun goes around the Earth — centuries after Kepler and Copernicus. Perhaps the entry of scientific causality and rationality is where we must begin in the reform of India’s governance and economy. What was especially repugnant after Rajiv’s assassination was to hear it said by his enemies that it marked an end to “dynastic” politics in India. This struck me as being devoid of all sense because the unanswerable reason for protecting Rajiv Gandhi was that we in India, if we are to have any pretensions at all to being a civilized and open democratic society, cannot tolerate terrorism and assassination as means of political change. Either we are constitutional democrats willing to fight for the privileges of a liberal social order, or ours is truly a primitive and savage anarchy concealed beneath a veneer of fake Westernization….. Proceedings began when Rajiv arrived. This elite audience mobbed him just as the farmers had mobbed him earlier. He saw me and beamed a smile in recognition, and I smiled back but made no attempt to draw near him in the crush. He gave a short very apt speech on the role the United Nations might have in the new post-Gulf War world. Then he launched the book, and left for an investiture at Rashtrapati Bhavan. We waited for our meeting with him, which finally happened in the afternoon. Rajiv was plainly at the point of exhaustion and still hard-pressed for time. He seemed pleased to see me and apologized for not talking in the morning. Regarding the March 22 draft, he said he had not read it but that he would be doing so. He said he expected the central focus of the manifesto to be on economic reform, and an economic point of view in foreign policy, and in addition an emphasis on justice and the law courts. I remembered our September 18 conversation and had tried to put in justice and the courts into our draft but had been over-ruled by others. I now said the social returns of investment in the judiciary were high but was drowned out again. Rajiv was clearly agitated that day by the BJP and blurted out he did not really feel he understood what on earth they were on about. He said about his own family, “We’re not religious or anything like that, we don’t pray every day.” I felt again what I had felt before, that here was a tragic hero of India who had not really wished to be more than a happy family man until he reluctantly was made into a national leader against his will. We were with him for an hour or so. As we were leaving, he said quickly at the end of the meeting he wished to see me on my own and would be arranging a meeting. One of our group was staying back to ask him a favour. Just before we left, I managed to say to him what I felt was imperative: “The Iraq situation isn’t as it seems, it’s a lot deeper than it’s been made out to be.” He looked at me with a serious look and said “Yes I know, I know.” It was decided Pitroda would be in touch with each of us in the next 24 hours. During this time Narasimha Rao’s manifesto committee would read the draft and any questions they had would be sent to us. We were supposed to be on call for 24 hours. The call never came. Given the near total lack of system and organization I had seen over the months, I was not surprised. Krishna Rao and I waited another 48 hours, and then each of us left Delhi. Before going I dropped by to see Krishnamurty, and we talked at length. He talked especially about the lack of the idea of teamwork in India. Krishnamurty said he had read everything I had written for the group and learned a lot. I said that managing the economic reform would be a critical job and the difference between success and failure was thin….”
“… I got the afternoon train to Calcutta and before long left for America to bring my son home for his summer holidays with me. In Singapore, the news suddenly said Rajiv Gandhi had been killed. All India wept. What killed him was not merely a singular act of criminal terrorism, but the system of humbug, incompetence and sycophancy that surrounds politics in India and elsewhere. I was numbed by rage and sorrow, and did not return to Delhi….”
In December 1991, I visited Rajiv’s widow at 10 Jan Path to express my condolences, the only time I have met her, and I gave her for her records a taped copy of Rajiv’s long-distance telephone conversations with me during the Gulf War earlier that year. She seemed an extremely shy taciturn figure in deep mourning, and I do not think the little I said to her about her late husband’s relationship with me was comprehended. Nor was it the time or place for more to be said.
In September 1993, at a special luncheon at the Indian Ambassador’s Residence in Washington, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, then the Ambassador to Washington, pointed at me and declared to Manmohan Singh, then Finance Minister, in presence of Manmohan’s key aides accompanying him including MS Ahluwalia, NK Singh, C Rangarajan and others,
“Congress manifesto was written on his computer”.
This was accurate enough to the extent that the 22 March 1991 draft as asked for by Rajiv and that came to explicitly affect policy had been and remains on my then-new NEC laptop.
At the Ambassador’s luncheon, I gave Manmohan Singh a copy of the Foundations book as a gift. My father who knew him in the early 1970s through MG Kaul, ICS, had sent him a copy of my 1984 IEA monograph which Manmohan had acknowledged. And back in 1973, he had visited our then-home at 14 Rue Eugene Manuel in Paris to advise me about economics at my father’s request, and he and I had ended up in a fierce private debate for about forty minutes over the demerits (as I saw them) and merits (as he saw them) of the Soviet influence on Indian economic policy-making. But in 1993 we had both forgotten the 1973 meeting.
In May 2002, the Congress passed an official party resolution moved by Digvijay Singh in presence of PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh that the 1991 reforms had originated with Rajiv Gandhi and not with either Narasimha Rao or Manmohan; no one dissented. It was intended to flatter Sonia Gandhi as the Congress President, but there was truth in it too which all Congress MPs of the 13th Lok Sabha had come to know in a publication of mine they had received from me at IIT Kharagpur where since 1996 I had become Professor.
Manmohan Singh himself, to his credit, has not at any point, except once during his failed Lok Sabha bid, claimed the reforms as his own invention and has said always he had followed what his Prime Minister had told him. However, he has not been averse to being attributed with all the credit by his flatterers, by the media, by businessmen and many many others around the world, and certainly he did not respond to Ambassador Siddhartha Shankar Ray telling him and his key aides how the Congress-led reform had come about through my work except to tell me at the 1993 luncheon that when Arjun Singh criticised the reforms in Cabinet, he, Manmohan, would mention the manifesto.
On 28 December 2009, Rajiv’s widow in an official Congress Party statement finally declared her late husband
“left his personal imprint on the (Congress) party’s manifesto of 1991.″
How Sonia Gandhi, who has never had pretensions to knowledge of economics or political economy or political science or governance or history, came to place Manmohan Singh as her prime ministerial candidate and the font of economic and political wisdom along with Pranab Mukherjee, when both men hardly had been favourites of her late husband, would be a story in its own right. And how Amartya Sen’s European-origin naturalised Indian co-author Jean Drèze later came to have policy influence from a different direction upon Sonia Gandhi, also a naturalised Indian of European origin, may be yet another story in its own right, perhaps best told by themselves.
I would surmise the same elderly behind-the-scenes figure, now in his late 80s, had a hand in setting up both sets of influences — directly in the first case (from back in 1990-1991), and indirectly in the second case (starting in 2004) . This was a man who in a November 2007 newspaper article literally erased my name and inserted that of Manmohan Singh as part of the group that Rajiv created on 25 September following his 18 September meeting with me! Reluctantly, I had to call this very elderly man a liar; he has not denied it and knows he has not been libeled.
One should never forget the two traditional powers interested in the subcontinent, Russia and Britain, have been never far from influence in Delhi. In 1990-1991 what worried vested bureaucratic and business interests and foreign powers through their friends and agents was that they could see change was coming to India but they wanted to be able to control it themselves to their advantage, which they then broadly proceeded to do over the next two decades. The foreign weapons’ contracts had to be preserved, as did other big-ticket imports that India ends up buying needlessly on credit it hardly has in world markets. There are similarities to what happened in Russia and Eastern Europe where many apparatchiks and fellow-travellers became freedom-loving liberals overnight; in the Indian case more than one badly compromised pro-USSR senior bureaucrat promptly exported his children and savings to America and wrapped themselves in the American flag.
The stubborn unalterable fact remains that Manmohan Singh was not physically present in India and was still with the Nyerere project on 18 September 1990 when I met Rajiv for the first time and gave him the unpublished results of the UH-Manoa project. This simple straightforward fact is something the Congress Party, given its own myths and self-deception and disinformation, has not been able to cope with in its recently published history. For myself, I have remained loyal to my memory of my encounter with Rajiv Gandhi, and my understanding of him. The Rajiv Gandhi I knew had been enthused by me in 1990-1991 carrying the UH-Manoa perestroika-for-India project that I had led since 1986, and he had loved my advice to him on 18 September 1990 that he needed to modernise the party by preparing a coherent agenda (as other successful reformers had done) while still in Opposition waiting for elections, and to base that agenda on commitments to improving the judiciary and rule of law, stopping the debauching of money, and focusing on the provision of public goods instead. Rajiv I am sure wanted a modern and modern-minded Congress — not one which depended on him let aside his family, but one which reduced that dependence and let him and his family alone.
As for Manmohan Singh being a liberal or liberalising economist, there is no evidence publicly available of that being so from his years before or during the Nyerere project, or after he returned and joined the Chandrashekhar PMO and the UGC until becoming, to his own surprise as he told Mark Tully, PV Narasimha Rao’s Finance Minister. Some of his actions qua Finance Minister were liberalising in nature but he did not originate any basic idea of a change in a liberal direction of economic policy, and he has, with utmost honesty honestly, not claimed otherwise. Innumerable flatterers and other self-interested parties have made out differently, creating what they have found to be a politically useful fiction; he has yet to deny them.
Siddhartha Shankar Ray and I met last in July 2009, when I gave him a copy of this 2005 volume I had created, which pleased him much.
I said to him Bengal’s public finances were in abysmal condition, calling for emergency measures financially, and that Mamata Banerjee seemed to me to be someone who knew how to and would dislodge the Communists from their entrenched misgovernance of decades but she did not seem quite aware that dislodging a bad government politically was not the same thing as knowing how to govern properly oneself. He, again of his own accord, said immediately,
“I will call her and her people to a meeting here so you can meet them and tell them that directly”.
It never transpired. In our last phone conversation I mentioned to him my plans of creating a Public Policy Institute — an idea he immediately and fully endorsed as being essential though adding “I can’t be part of it, I’m on my way out”.
“I’m on my way out”. That was Siddhartha Shankar Ray — always intelligent, always good-humoured, always public-spirited, always a great Indian, my only friend among politicians other than the late Rajiv Gandhi himself.
In March February 2010, my father and I called upon the new Bengal Governor, MK Narayanan and gave him a copy of the Thatcher volume for the Raj Bhavan Library; I told him the story about my encounter with Rajiv Gandhi thanks to Siddhartha Shankar Ray and its result; Narayanan within a few days made a visit to Ray’s hospital-bed, and when he emerged after several hours he made a statement, which in substance he repeated again when Ray died in November 2010:
“There are few people in post-Independence India who could equal his magnificent contribution to India’s growth and progress”.
To what facts did MK Narayanan, a former Intelligence Bureau chief, mean to refer with this extravagant praise of Ray? Was Narayanan referring to Ray’s politics for Indira Gandhi? To Ray’s Chief Ministership of Bengal? To Ray’s Governorship of Punjab? You will have to ask him but I doubt that was what he meant: I surmise Narayanan’s eulogy could only have resulted after he confirmed with Ray on his hospital-bed the story I had told him, and that he was referring to the economic and political results that followed for the country once Ray had introduced me in September 1990 to Rajiv Gandhi. But I say again, you will have to ask MK Narayanan himself what he and Ray talked about in hospital and what was the factual basis of Narayanan’s precise words of praise. To what facts exactly was MK Narayanan, former intelligence chief, meaning to refer when he stated Siddhartha Shankar Ray had made a “magnificent contribution to India’s growth and progress”?
3. Jagdish Bhagwati & Manmohan Singh? That just don’t fly!
Now returning to the apparent desire of Professor Panagariya, the Jagdish Bhagwati Professor of Indian Political Economy at Columbia, to attribute to Jagdish Bhagwati momentous change for the better in India as of 1991, even if Panagariya had not the scientific curiosity to look into our 1992 book titled Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s or into Milton Friedman’s own 1998 memoirs, we may have expected him to at least turn to his co-author and Columbia colleague, Jagdish Bhagwati himself, and ask, “Master, have you heard of this fellow Subroto Roy by any chance?”
Jagdish would have had to say yes, since not only had he received a copy of the proofs of my 1984 IEA work Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India, he was kind enough to write in a letter dated 15 May 1984 that I had
“done an excellent job of setting out the problems afflicting our economic policies, unfortunately government-made problems!”
Also Jagdish may or may not have remembered our only meeting, when he and I had had a long conversation on the sofas in the foyer of the IMF in Washington when I was a consultant there in 1993 and he had come to meet someone; he was surprisingly knowledgeable about my personal 1990 matter in the Supreme Court of India which astonished me until he told me his brother the Supreme Court judge had mentioned the case to him!
Now my 1984 work was amply scientific and scholarly in fully crediting a large number of works in the necessary bibliography, including Bhagwati’s important work with his co-authors. Specifically, Footnote 1 listed the literature saying:
“The early studies notably include: B. R. Shenoy, `A note of dissent’, Papers relating to the formulation of the Second Five-Year Plan, Government of India Planning Commission, Delhi, 1955; Indian Planning and Economic Development, Asia Publishing, Bombay, 1963, especially pp. 17-53; P. T. Bauer, Indian Economic Policy and Development, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1961; M. Friedman, unpublished memorandum to the Government of India, November 1955 (referred to in Bauer, op. cit., p. 59 ff.); and, some years later, Sudha Shenoy, India : Progress or Poverty?, Research Monograph 27, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1971. Some of the most relevant contemporary studies are: B. Balassa, `Reforming the system of incentives in World Development, 3 (1975), pp. 365-82; `Export incentives and export performance in developing countries: a comparative analysis’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 114 (1978), pp. 24-61; The process of industrial development and alternative development strategies, Essays in International Finance No. 141, Princeton University, 1980; J. N. Bhagwati & P. Desai, India: Planning for Industrialisation, OECD, Paris : Oxford University Press, 1970; `Socialism and Indian Economic Policy’, World Development, 3 (1975), pp. 213-21; J. N. Bhagwati & T. N. Srinivasan, Foreign-trade Regimes and Economic Development: India, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1975; Anne O. Krueger, `Indian planning experience’, in T. Morgan et al. (eds.), Readings in Economic Development, Wadsworth, California, 1963, pp. 403-20; `The political economy of the rent-seeking society, American Economic Review, 64 (June 1974); The Benefits and Costs of Import-Substitution in India: a Microeconomic Study, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1975; Growth, distortions and patterns of trade among many countries, Studies in International Finance, Princeton University, 1977; Uma Lele, Food grain marketing in India : private performance and public policy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1971; T. W. Schultz (ed.), Distortions in agricultural incentives, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1978; V. Sukhatme, “The utilization of high-yielding rice and wheat varieties in India: an economic assessment”, University of Chicago PhD thesis, 1977….”
There were two specific references to Bhagwati’s work with Srinivasan:
“Jagdish Bhagwati and T. N. Srinivasan put it as follows : `The allocation of foreign exchange among alternative claimants and users in a direct control system . . .would presumably be with reference to a well-defined set of principles and criteria based on a system of priorities. In point of fact, however, there seem to have been few such criteria, if any, followed in practice.’”
and
“But as Bhagwati and Srinivasan report, `. . . the sheer weight of numbers made any meaningful listing of priorities extremely difficult. The problem was Orwellian: all industries had priority and how was each sponsoring authority to argue that some industries had more priority than others? It is not surprising, therefore, that the agencies involved in determining allocations by industry fell back on vague notions of “fairness”, implying pro rata allocations with reference to capacity installed or employment, or shares defined by past import allocations or similar rules of thumb’”
and one to Bhagwati and Desai:
“The best descriptions of Indian industrial policy are still to be found in Bhagwati and Desai (1970)…”
Professors Bhagwati and Panagriya have not apparently referred to anything beyond these joint works of Bhagwati’s dated 1970 with Padma Desai and 1975 with TN Srinivasan. They have not claimed Bhagwati did anything by way of either publication or political activity in relation to India’s economic policy between May 1984, when he read my soon-to-be-published-work and found I had
“done an excellent job of setting out the problems afflicting our economic policies, unfortunately government-made problems”,
and September 1990 when I gave Rajiv the University of Hawaii perestroika-for-India project results developed since 1986, which came to politically spark the 1991 reform in the Congress’s highest echelons from months before Rajiv’s assassination.
There may have been no such claim made by Bhagwati and Panagariya because there may be no such evidence. Between 1984 and 1990, Professor Bhagwati’s research interests were away from Indian economic policy while his work on India through 1970 and 1975 had been fully and reasonably accounted for as of 1984 by myself.
What is left remaining is Bhagwati’s statement :
“When finance minister Manmohan Singh was in New York in 1992, he had a lunch for many big CEOs whom he was trying to seduce to come to India. He also invited me and my wife, Padma Desai, to the lunch. As we came in, the FM introduced us to the invitees and said: ‘These friends of mine wrote almost a quarter century ago [India: Planning for Industrialisation was published in 1970 by Oxford] recommending all the reforms we are now undertaking. If we had accepted the advice then, we would not be having this lunch as you would already be in India’
Now this light self-deprecating reference by Manmohan at an investors’ lunch in New York “for many big CEOs” was an evident attempt at political humour written by his speech-writer. It was clearly, on its face, not serious history. If we test it as serious history, it falls flat so we may only hope Manmohan Singh, unlike Jagdish Bhagwati, has not himself come to believe his own reported joke as anything more than that.
The Bhagwati-Desai volume being referred to was developed from 1966-1970. India saw critical economic and political events in 1969, in 1970, in 1971, in 1972, in 1975, in 1977, etc.
Those were precisely years during which Manmohan Singh himself moved from being an academic to becoming a Government of India official, working first for MG Kaul, ICS, and then in 1971 coming to the attention of PN Haksar, Indira Gandhi’s most powerful bureaucrat between 1967 and 1974: Haksar himself was Manmohan Singh’s acknowledged mentor in the Government, as Manmohan told Mark Tully in an interview.
After Manmohan visited our Paris home in 1973 to talk to me about economics, my father — who had been himself sent to the Paris Embassy by Haksar in preparation for Indira Gandhi’s visit in November 1971 before the Bangladesh war —
had told me Manmohan was very highly regarded in government circles with economics degrees from both Cambridge and Oxford, and my father had added, to my surprise, what was probably a Haksarian governmental view that Manmohan was expected to be India’s Prime Minister some day. That was 1973.
PN Haksar had been the archetypal Nehruvian Delhi intellectual of a certain era, being both a fierce nationalist and a fierce pro-USSR leftist from long before Independence. I met him once on 23 March 1991, on the lawns of 10 Jan Path at the launch of General V Krishna Rao’s book on Indian defence which Rajiv was releasing, and Haksar gave a speech to introduce Rajiv (as if Rajiv needed introduction on the lawns of his own residence); Haksar was in poor health but he seemed completely delighted to be back in favour with Rajiv, after years of having been treated badly by Indira and her younger son.
Had Manmohan Singh in the early 1970s gone to Haksar — the architect of the nationalisation of India’s banking going on right then — and said “Sir, this OECD study by my friend Bhagwati and his wife says we should be liberalising foreign trade and domestic industry”, Haksar would have been astonished and sent him packing.
There was a war on, plus a massive problem of 10 million refugees, a new country to support called Bangladesh, a railway strike, a bad crop, repressed inflation, shortages, and heaven knows what more, besides Nixon having backed Yahya Khan, Tikka Khan et al.
Then after Bangladesh and the railway strike etc, came the rise of the politically odious younger son of Indira Gandhi and his friends (at least one of whom is today Sonia Gandhi’s gatekeeper) followed by the internal political Emergency, the grave foreign-fueled problem of Sikh separatism and its control, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her own Sikh bodyguards, and the Rajiv Gandhi years as Prime Minister.
Certainly it was Rajiv’s arrival in office and Benazir’s initial return to Pakistan, along with the rise of Michael Gorbachev in the changing USSR, that inspired me in far away Hawaii in 1986 to design with Ted James the perestroika-projects for India and Pakistan which led to our two volumes, and which, thanks to Siddhartha Shankar Ray, came to reach Rajiv Gandhi in Opposition in September 1990 as he sat somewhat forlornly at 10 Jan Path after losing office. “There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune….
My friend and collaborator Ted James died of cancer in Manila in May 2010; earlier that year he came to say publicly
“Seldom are significant reforms imposed successfully by international bureaucracies. Most often they are the result of indigenous actors motivated by domestic imperatives. I believe this was the case in India in 1991. It may have been fortuitous that Dr. Roy gained an audience with a receptive Rajiv Gandhi in 1990 but it was not luck that he was prepared with a well-thought out program; this arose from years of careful thought and debate on the matter.”
Changing the direction of a ship of state is very hard, knowing in which direction it should change and to what degree is even harder; it has rarely been something that can be done without random shocks arising let aside the power of vested interests. Had Rajiv Gandhi lived to form a new Government, I have little doubt I would have led the reform that I had chalked out for him and that he had approved of; Sonia Gandhi would have remained the housewife, mother and grandmother that she had preferred to be and not been made into the Queen of India by the Congress Party; Manmohan Singh had left India in 1987 for the Nyerere project and it had been rumoured at the time that had been slightly to do with him protesting, to the extent that he ever has protested anything, the anti-Sikh pogrom that some of Rajiv’s friends had apparently unleashed after Indira’s killing; he returned in November 1990, joined Chandrashekhar in December 1990, left Chandrashekhar in March 1991 when elections were announced and was biding his time as head of the UGC; had Rajiv Gandhi lived, Manmohan Singh would have had a governor’s career path, becoming the governor of one state after another; he would not have been brought into the economic reform process which he had had nothing to do with originating; and finally Pranab Mukherjee, who left the Congress Party and formed his own when Rajiv took over, would have been likely rehabilitated slowly but would not have come to control the working of the party as he did. I said in my Lok Sabha TV interview on 5 9 December 2012 that there have been many microeconomic improvements arising from technological progress in the last 22 years but the macroeconomic and monetary situation is grim, because at root the fiscal situation remains incoherent and confused. I do not see anyone in Manmohan Singh’s entourage among all his many acolytes and flatterers and apologists who is able to get to these root problems. We shall address these issues in Part II.
What Manmohan Singh said in self-deprecating humour at an investors’ lunch in New York in 1992 is hardly serious history as Jagdish Bhagwati has seemed to wish it to be. Besides, it would have been unlike Manmohan, being the devoted student of Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor as he told Mark Tully, to have taken such a liberalising initiative at all. Furthermore, the 1969 American Economic Review published asurvey of Indian economic policy authored by his Delhi University colleagues Jagdish Bhagwati and Sukhamoy Chakravarty which made little mention of his work, and it would have been unreasonable to expect him to have been won over greatly by theirs. Perhaps there is a generous review from the 1970s by Manmohan Singh of the Bhagwati-Desai volume hidden somewhere but if so we should be told where it is. A list of Manmohan Singh’s publications as an economist do not seem easily available anywhere.
Lastly and perhaps most decisively, the 1970 Bhagwati-Desai volume, excellent study that it was, was hardly the first of its genre by way of liberal criticism of modern Indian economic policy! Bhagwati declared in his 2010 speech to the Lok Sabha
“This policy framework had been questioned, and its total overhaul advocated, by me and Padma Desai in writings through the late 1960s…”
But why has Bhagwati been forever silent about the equally if not more forceful and fundamental criticism of “the policy framework”, and advocacy of its “total overhaul”, by scholars in the 1950s, a decade and more earlier than him, when he and Manmohan and Amartya were still students? Specifically, by BR Shenoy, Milton Friedman, and Peter Bauer? The relevant bibliography from the mid 1950s is given in Footnote 1 of my 1984 work.
Peter Tamas Bauer (1915-2002) played a vital role in all this as had he himself not brought the Friedman 1955 document to my attention I would not have known of it.
As undergraduates at the LSE, we had been petrified of him and I never spoke to him while there, having believed the propaganda that floated around about him; then while a Research Student at Cambridge, I happened to be a speaker with him at a conference at Oxford; he made me sit next to him at a meal and told me for the first time about Milton Friedman’s 1955 memorandum to the Government of India which had been suppressed. I am privileged to say Peter from then on became a friend, and wrote, at my request, what became I am sure the kiss of death for me at the World Bank of 1982:
Later he may have been responsible for the London Times writing its lead editorial of 29 May 1984 on my work.
Now Milton had sent me in 1984, besides the original of his November 1955 memorandum to the Government of India, a confidential 1956 document also which seemed to have been written for US Government consumption. I did not publish this in Hawaii in 1989 as I was having difficulty enough publishing the 1955 memorandum. I gave it to be published on the Internet some years ago, and after Milton’s passing, I had it published in The Statesman on the same day as my obituary of him.
It makes fascinating reading, especially about Mahalanobis and Shenoy, of how what Bhagwati wishes to call “the policy framework” that, he claims, he and Desai called for a “total overhaul” of, came to be what it was in the decade earlier when he and Amartya and Manmohan were still students.
Friedman’s 1956 document said
“I met PC Mahalanobis in 1946 and again at a meeting of the International Statistical Institute in September 1947, and I know him well by reputation. He was absent during most of my stay in New Delhi, but I met him at a meeting of the Indian Planning Commission, of which he is one of the strongest and most able members. Mahalanobis began as a mathematician and is a very able one. Able mathematicians are usually recognized for their ability at a relatively early age. Realizing their own ability as they do and working in a field of absolutes, tends, in my opinion, to make them dangerous when they apply themselves to economic planning. They produce specific and detailed plans in which they have confidence, without perhaps realizing that economic planning is not the absolute science that mathematics is. This general characteristic of mathematicians is true of Mahalanobis but in spite of the tendency he is willing to discuss a problem and listen to a different point of view. Once his decision is reached, however, he has great confidence in it. Mahalanobis was unquestionably extremely influential in drafting the Indian five-year plan. There were four key steps in the plan. The first was the so-called “Plan Frame” drafted by Mahalanobis himself. The second was a tentative plan based on the “Plan Frame”. The third step was a report by a committee of economists on the first two steps, and the fourth was a minority report by BR Shenoy on the economists’ report. The economists had no intention of drafting a definitive proposal but merely meant to comment on certain aspects of the first two steps. Shenoy’s minority report, however, had the effect of making the economists’ report official. The scheme of the Five Year Plan attributed to Mahalanobis faces two problems; one, that India needs heavy industry for economic development; and two, that development of heavy industry uses up large amounts of capital while providing only small employment. Based on these facts, Mahalanobis proposed to concentrate on heavy industry development on the one hand and to subsidize the hand production cottage industries on the other. The latter course would discriminate against the smaller manufacturers. In my opinion, the plan wastes both capital and labour and the Indians get only the worst of both efforts. If left to their own devices under a free enterprise system I believe the Indians would gravitate naturally towards the production of such items as bicycles, sewing machines, and radios. This trend is already apparent without any subsidy. The Indian cottage industry is already cloaked in the same popular sort of mist as is rural life in the US. There is an idea in both places that this life is typical and the backbone of their respective countries. Politically, the Indian cottage industry problem is akin to the American farm problem. Mohandas Gandhi was a proponent of strengthening the cottage industry as a weapon against the British. This reason is now gone but the emotions engendered by Gandhi remain. Any move to strengthen the cottage industry has great political appeal and thus, Mahalanobis’ plan and its pseudo-scientific support for the industry also has great political appeal. I found many supporters for the heavy industry phase of the Plan but almost no one (among the technical Civil Servants) who really believes in the cottage industry aspects, aside from their political appeal. In its initial form, the plan was very large and ambitious with optimistic estimates. My impression is that there is a substantial trend away from this approach, however, and an attempt to cut down. The development of heavy industry has slowed except for steel and iron. I believe that the proposed development of a synthetic petroleum plant has been dropped and probably wisely so. In addition, I believe that the proposed five year plan may be extended to six years. Other than his work on the plan, I am uncertain of Mahalanobis’ influence. The gossip is that he has Nehru’s ear and potentially he could be very influential, simply because of his intellectual ability and powers of persuasion. The question that occurs to me is how much difference Mahalanobis’ plan makes. The plan does not seem the important thing to me. I believe that the new drive and enthusiasm of the Indian nation will surmount any plan, good or bad. Then too, I feel a wide diversity in what is said and what is done. I believe that much of Nehru’s socialistic talk is simply that, just talk. Nehru has been trying to undermine the Socialist Party by this means and apparently the Congress Party’s adoption of a socialistic idea for industry has been successful in this respect. One gets the impression, depending on whom one talks with, either that the Government runs business, or that two or three large businesses run the government. All that appears publicly indicates that the first is true, but a case can also be made for the latter interpretation. Favour and harassment are counterparts in the Indian economic scheme. There is no significant impairment of the willingness of Indian capitalists to invest in their industries, except in the specific industries where nationalization has been announced, but they are not always willing to invest and take the risks inherent in the free enterprise system. They want the Government to support their investment and when it refuses they back out and cry “Socialism”..”
I look forward to seeing a fundamental classical liberal critique from India’s distinguished American friends at Columbia University, Professors Jagdish Bhagwati and Padma Desai and Arvind Panagariya, if and when such a critique arises, of the “policy framework” in India as that evolved from the mid 1950s to become what exists across India in 2013 today. Specifically: Where is the criticism from Bhagwati of Mahalanobis and friends? And where is Bhagwati’s defence of Shenoy, leave aside of Milton Friedman or Peter Bauer? They seem not to exist. The most we get is a footnote again without the civility of any references, in the otherwise cogent 1975 Desai-Bhagwati paper “Socialism and Indian Economic Policy” alleging
” Of these three types of impact of the Soviet example, the Plan-formulation approach was to be enthusiastically received by most commentators and, indeed, to lead to demands on the part of aid agencies for similar efforts by other developing countries. However, the shift to heavy industry was seen as a definite mistake by economic opinion of the Chicago school variety, reflecting their basic unfamiliarity with the structural models of growth and development planning of the Feldman-Mahalanobis variety-an ignorance which probably still persists. The detailed regulation was not quite noticed at the time, except by conservative commentators whose position however was extreme and precluded governmental planning of industrial investments on any scale.”
Desai and Bhagwati naturally found no apparent desire to locate any possible scientific truth or reasonableness among
“conservative commentators”
nor among the unnamed and undescribed
“economic opinion of the Chicago school variety”.
Could Desai and Bhagwati have done anything different after all, even when talking about India to an American audience, without being at risk of losing their East Coast Limousine Liberal credentials? Bhagwati used to routinely declare his “socialist” credentials, and even the other day on Indian TV emphatically declared he was not a “conservative” and scornfully dismissed “Thatcher and Reagan” for their “trickle down economics”…
Jagdish Bhagwati has evidently wanted to have his cake and eat it too…
4. Amartya Sen’s Half-Baked Communism: “To each according to his need”?
If I have been candid or harsh in my assessments of Jagdish Bhagwati and Manmohan Singh as they relate to my personal experience with the change of direction in Indian economic policy originating in 1990-1991, I am afraid I must be equally so with Bhagwati’s current opponent in debate, Amartya Sen. Certainly I have found the current spat between Bhagwati and Sen over India’s political economy to be dismal, unscholarly, unscientific and misleading (or off-base) except for it having allowed a burst of domestic policy-discussion in circumstances when India needs it especially much.
None of this criticism is personal but based on objective experience and the record. My criticism of Professor Bhagwati and Dr Manmohan Singh does not diminish in the slightest my high personal regard for both of them.
Similarly, Amartya Sen and I go back, momentarily, to Hindustan Park in 1964 when there was a faint connection as family friends from World War II (as Naren Deb and Manindranath Roy were friends and neighbours, and we still have the signed copy of a book gifted by the former to the latter), and then he later knew me cursorily when I was an undergraduate at LSE and he was already a famous professor, and I greatly enjoyed his excellent lectures at the LSE on his fine book On Economic Inequality, and a few years later he wrote in tangential support of me at Cambridge for which he was thanked in the preface to my 1989 Philosophy of Economics — even though that book of mine also contained in its Chapter 10 the decisive criticism of his main contribution until that time to what used to be called “social choice theory”. Amartya Sen had also written some splendid handwritten letters, a few pages of which remain with me, which puzzled me at the time due to his expressing his aversion to what is normally called ‘price theory’, namely the Marshallian and/or Walrasian theory of value.
Professor Sen and I met briefly in 1978, and then again in 2006 when I was asked to talk to him in our philosophical conversation which came to be published nicely. In 2006 I told him of my experience with Rajiv Gandhi in initiating what became the 1991 reform on the basis of my giving Rajiv the results of the Hawaii project, and Amartya was kind enough to say that he knew I had been arguing all this “very early on”, referring presumably to the 1984 London Times editorial which he would have seen in his Oxford days before coming to Harvard.
This personal regard on my part or personal affection on his part aside, I have been appalled to find Professor Sen not taking moral and intellectual responsibility for and instead disclaiming paternity of the whole so-called “Food Security” policy which Sonia Gandhi has been prevailed upon over the years by him and his acolytes and friends and admirers to adopt, and she in her ignorance of all political economy and governance has now wished to impose upon the Congress Party and India as a whole:
“Questioner: You are being called the creator of the Food Security Bill.
Amartya Sen: Yes, I don’t know why. That is indeed a paternity suit I’m currently fighting. People are accusing me of being the father”.
Amartya Sen has repeatedly over the years gone on Indian prime-time television and declared things like
“If you don’t agree there’s hunger in the world, there’s something morally wrong with you”
besides over the decades publishing titles like Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Hunger and Public Action, The Political Economy of Hunger etc and ceaselessly using his immense power with the media, with book publishing houses, with US academic departments and the world development economics business, to promote his own and his acolytes’ opinions around the world, no matter how ill-considered or incoherent these may be. A passage from his latest book with Jean Drèze reportedly reads
“If development is about the expansion of freedom, it has to embrace the removal of poverty as well as paying attention to ecology as integral parts of a unified concern, aimed ultimately at the security and advancement of human freedom. Indeed, important components of human freedoms — and crucial ingredients of our quality of life — are thoroughly dependent on the integrity of the environment, involving the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the epidemiological surroundings in which we live….”
Had such a passage reached me in an undergraduate essay, I would have considered it incoherent waffle, and I am afraid I cannot see why merely because it is authored by an eminence at Harvard and his co-author, the evaluation should be any different. I am reminded of my encounter in 1976 with Joan Robinson, the great tutor in 1950s Cambridge of Amartya and Manmohan: “Joan Robinson cornered me once and took me into the office she shared with EAG… She came at me for an hour or so wishing to supervise me, I kept declining politely… saying I was with Frank Hahn and wished to work on money… “What does Frankie know about India?” she said… I said I did not know but he did know about monetary theory and that was what I needed for India; I also said I did not think much about the Indian Marxists she had supervised… and mentioned a prominent name… she said about him, “Yes most of what he does can go straight into the dustbin”…” The Indian Marxist whom I had referred to in this conversation with Joan was not Amartya but someone else much younger, yet her candid “can go straight into the dustbin” still applies to all incoherent waffle, whomsoever may produce it.
Indeed, Amartya Sen, if anyone, really should get down to writing his memoirs, and candidly so in order to explain his own thinking and deeds over the decades to himself and to the world in order that needless confusions do not arise.
Else it becomes impossible to explain how someone who was said to be proud to have been a Communist student on the run from the police in West Bengal, who was Joan Robinson’s star pupil at a time she was extolling Maoist China and who has seemingly nurtured a deep lifelong fascination and affection for Communist China despite all its misdeeds, who was feted by the Communist regime of West Bengal after winning the Bank of Sweden Prize (on the same day that same regime had tossed into jail one unfortunate young Mr Khemkha merely for having been rude to its leaders on the Internet), and who seemed to share some of those winnings on social causes like primary education at the behest of the Communist regime’s ministers, etc, how someone with that noble comradely leftist personal history as an economist allows a flattering interviewer with a Harvard connection to describe him in Business Standard of 25 July 2013 as having been all along really a
“neoclassical economist”
who also happens to be
“the greatest living scholar of the original philosopher of the free market, Adam Smith”!
Amartya Sen a neoclassical economist and a great scholar of Adam Smith? It is hilarious to suppose so. The question arises, Does Sen, having published about Adam Smith recently in a few newspapers and leftist periodicals, agree with such a description by his flattering admirer from Harvard at Business Standard? “Neoclassical” economics originated with men like Jevons, Menger, Walras, Pareto, Marshall, Wicksell, and was marked by the theory of value being explained by a demand-side too, and not, like classical economics, merely by the cost of production alone on the supply side. Indeed a striking thing about the list below published by the Scandinavian Journal of Economics of Amartya’s books following his 1998 Bank of Sweden Prize
is how consistently these works display his avoidance of all neoclassical economics, and the absence of all of what is normally called ‘price theory’, namely the Marshallian and/or Walrasian theory of value. No “neoclassical economics” anywhere here for sure!
It would be fair enough if Professor Sen says he is hardly responsible for an admirer’s ignorant misdescription of his work — except the question still arises why he has himself also evidently misdescribed his own work! For example, in his 13 July 2013 letter to The Economist in response to the criticism of Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, he says he had always been keenly interested in
“the importance of economic growth as a means— not an end”
and that this
“has been one of the themes even in my earliest writings (including “Choice of Techniques” in 1960 and “Growth Economics” in 1970)”.
This is a very peculiar opinion indeed to have been expressed by Professor Sen about his own work because the 1970 volume Growth Economics listed above among his books hardly can be said at all to be one of his own “earliest writings” as he now describes it to have been!
What had happened back then was that Sen, as someone considered a brilliant or promising young Indian economist at the time, had been asked by the editors of the famous Penguin Modern Economics Readings series to edit the specific issue devoted to growth-theory — a compendium of classic already-published essays including those of Roy Harrod, Evsey Domar, Robert Solow and many others, to which young Amartya was given a chance to write an editorial Introduction. Every economist familiar with that literature knows too that the growth-theory contained in that volume and others was considered highly abstract and notoriously divorced from actual historical processes of economic growth in different countries. Everyone also knew that the individual editors in that famous Penguin Modern Economics Series were of relative unimportance as they did not commission new papers but merely collected classics already published and wrote an introduction.
This is significant presently because neither Professor Sen nor Professor Bhagwati may be objectively considered on the evidence of his life’s work as an economist to have been a major scholar of economic growth, either in theory or in historical practice. As of December 1989, Amartya Sen himself described his own interests to the American Economic Association as
“social choice theory, welfare economics, economic development”
and Jagdish Bhagwati described his interests as
“theory of international trade and policy, economic development”.
Neither Sen nor Bhagwati mentioned growth economics or economic history or even general economic theory, microeconomics, macroeconomics, monetary economics, public finance, etc. Furthermore, Sen saying in his letter to The Economist that he has been always interested in economic growth seems to be baseless in light of the list of his books above, other than the Penguin compendium already discussed.
Incidentally in the same American Economic Association volume of 1989, Padma Desai had described her interests as
“Soviet economy and comparative economic systems”;
Arvind Panagariya had described his interests as
“economies of scale and trade; smuggling; parallel markets in planned economies”;
and one Suby Roy described his interests as
“foundations of monetary economics”.
Reflecting on Amartya Sen’s works over the 40 year period that I have known them
[and again, my personal copies of his books and those of Bhagwati and Desai, were all in my professorial office at IIT Kharagpur when I was attacked by a corrupt gang there in 2003; and IIT have been under a High Court order to return them but have not done so],
I wonder in fact if it might be fairly said that Sen has been on his own subjective journey over the decades around the world seeking to reinvent economics and political economy from scratch, and inventing his own terminology like “capabilities”, “functionings” and yes “entitlements” etc. to help him do so, while trying to assiduously avoid mention of canonical works of modern world economics like Marshall’s Principles, Hicks’s Value and Capital, Debreu’s Theory of Value, or Arrow and Hahn’s General Competitive Analysis, all defining the central neoclassical tradition of the modern theory of value.
But no contemporary science, economics and political economy included, is open to be re-invented from scratch, and what Amartya Sen has ended up doing instead is seeming to be continually trying to reinvent the wheel, possibly without having had the self-knowledge to realise this. Wittgenstein once made a paradoxical statement that one may know another’s mind better than one knows one’s own…
Here is a current example. Professor Sen says
“First, unlike the process of development in Japan, China, Korea and other countries, which pursued what Jean Drèze and I have called “Asian economic development” in our book, India has not had enough focus on public spending on school education and basic healthcare, which these other countries have had….”
Does Sen really believes believe he and Drèze have now in 2013 discovered and christened an economic phenomenon named “Asian economic development”? Everyone, from Japan and Bangkok and Manila, to Hawaii and Stanford to the World Bank’s East Asia department, including especially my Hawaii colleague Ted James, and many many others including especially Gerald M Meier at Stanford, were was publishing about all that every month — in the mid 1980s! In fact, our project on India and Pakistan arose in the 1980s from precisely such a Hawaiian wave! Everyone knows all that from back then or even earlier when the Japanese were talking about the “flying geese” model. (And, incidentally, Communist China did not at the time belong in the list.) Where was Amartya Sen in the mid 1980s when all that was happening? Jean Drèze was still a student perhaps. Is Professor Sen seeking to reinvent the wheel again with “Asian Economic Development” being claimed to be invented in 2013 by him and Drèze now? Oh please! That just won’t fly either!
A second example may be taken from the year before Professor Sen was awarded the Bank of Sweden Prize when he gave a lecture on “human capital” theory which was published as a survey titled “Human Capital and Human Capability” in World Development 1997 Vol. 25, No. 12,
Can you see any reference in this 1997 survey to TW Schultz’s 1960 American Economic Association Presidential Address or to Schultz’s classic 1964 book Transforming Traditional Agriculture or to his 1979 Bank of Sweden Prize address? I could not. If one did not know better, one might have thought from Professor Sen’s 1997 survey that there was nothing done worth talking about on the subject of “human capital” from the time of Adam Smith and David Hume until Amartya Sen finally came to the subject himself.
Thirdly, one is told by Sen’s admirer and collaborator, Professor James Foster of George Washington University, that what Sen means by his notion of
“effective freedom”
is that this is something
“enhanced when a marginally nourished family now has the capability to be sufficiently nourished due to public action”…
Are Amartya and his acolytes claiming he has invented or reinvented welfare economics ab initio? That before Amartya Sen, we did not know the importance of the able-bodied members of a community assisting those who are not able-bodied?
Where have they been? Amartya needed merely to have read Marshall’s Principles evenslightly to find Marshall himself, the master of Maynard Keynes and all of Cambridge and modern world economics, declaring without any equivocation at the very start
“….the study of the causes of poverty is the study of the causes of the degradation of a large part of mankind…”
But Marshall was interested in study, serious study, of poverty and its causes and amelioration, which is not something as easy or trivial as pontification on modern television. My 1984 article “Considerations on Utility, Benevolence and Taxation” which also became a chapter of my 1989 Philosophy of Economics surveyed some of Marshall’s opinion.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was a utopian slogan around 1875 from Karl Marx, which generations of passionate undergraduates have found impressive. Amartya Sen deserves to tell us squarely about his engagement with Marx or Marxist thought from his earliest days until now. His commitment in recent decades to democracy and the open and free society is clear; but has he also at the same time all along been committed to a kind of half-baked communist utopia as represented by Marx’s 1875 slogan?
“To each according to his need” sounds to be the underlying premise that is seeing practical manifestation in the Sonia Congress’s imposition of a so-called “right to food”; “from each according to his ability” is its flip side in the so-called “rural employment guarantee”. Leave aside the limitless resource-allocation and incentive and public finance problems created by such naive ideas being made into government policy, there is a grave and fundamental issue that Amartya and other leftists have been too blinkered to see:
Do they suppose the organised business classes have been weakly cooperative and will just allow such massive redistribution to occur without getting the Indian political system to pay them off as well? And how do the organised business classes get paid off? By their getting to take the land of the inhabitants of rural India. And land in an environment of a debauching of money and other paper assets is as good as gold.
So the peasants will lose their land to the government’s businessman friends on the one hand while purportedly getting “guaranteed” employment and food from the government’s bureaucrats on the other! A landless, asset-less slave population, free to join the industrial proletariat! Is that what Amartya wants to see in India? It may become what results within a few decades from his and his acolytes’ words and deeds.
Rajiv Gandhi once gave me his private phone numbers at 10 Jan Path. I used them back in January 1991 during the Gulf war. But I cannot do so now as Rajiv is gone. Amartya can. Let him phone Sonia and prevail upon her to put the brakes on the wild food and employment schemes he and his friends have persuaded her about until he reads and reflects upon what I said in January 2007 in “On Land-Grabbing” and in my July 2007 open letter to him, reproduced below:
“At a business meet on 12 January 2005, Dr Manmohan Singh showered fulsome praise on Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee as “dynamic”, “the Nation’s Best Chief Minister”, whose “wit and wisdom”, “qualities of head and heart”, “courage of conviction and passionate commitment to the cause of the working people of India” he admired, saying “with Buddhadeb Babu at the helm of affairs it appears Bengal is once again forging ahead… If today there is a meeting of minds between Delhi and Kolkata, it is because the ideas that I and Buddhadebji represent have captured the minds of the people of India. This is the idea of growth with equity and social justice, the idea that economic liberalization and modernization have to be mindful of the needs of the poor and the marginalized.”…. Dr Singh returned to the “needs of the poor and the marginalized” at another business meet on 8 January 2007 promising to “unveil a new Rehabilitation Policy in three months to increase the pace of industrialisation” which would be “more progressive, humane and conducive to the long-term welfare of all stakeholders”, while his businessman host pointedly stated about Singur “land for industry must be made available to move the Indian manufacturing sector ahead”. The “meeting of minds between Delhi and Kolkata” seems to be that agriculture allegedly has become a relatively backward slow-growing sector deserving to yield in the purported larger national interest to industry and services: what the PM means by “long-term welfare of all stakeholders” is the same as the new CPI-M party-line that the sons of farmers should not remain farmers (but become automobile technicians or IT workers or restaurant waiters instead). It is a political viewpoint coinciding with interests of organised capital and industrial labour in India today, as represented by business lobbies like CII, FICCI and Assocham on one hand, and unions like CITU and INTUC on the other. Business Standard succinctly (and ominously) advocated this point of view in its lead editorial of 9 January as follows: “it has to be recognised that the world over capitalism has progressed only with the landed becoming landless and getting absorbed in the industrial/service sector labour force ~ indeed it is obvious that if people don’t get off the land, their incomes will rise only slowly”. Land is the first and ultimate means of production, and the attack of the powerful on land-holdings or land-rights of the unorganised or powerless has been a worldwide phenomenon ~ across both capitalism and communism. In the mid-19th Century, white North America decimated hundreds of thousands of natives in the most gargantuan land-grab of history. Defeated, Chief Red Cloud of the Sioux spoke in 1868 for the Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, Iroquois and hundreds of other tribes: “They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept any except one: they promised to take our land, and they took it.” Half a century later, while the collapse of grain prices contributed to the Great Depression and pauperisation of thousands of small farmers in capitalist America in the same lands that had been taken from the native tribes, Stalin’s Russia embarked on the most infamous state-sponsored land-grab in modern history: “The mass collectivisation of Soviet agriculture (was) probably the most warlike operation ever conducted by a state against its own citizens…. Hundreds of thousands and finally millions of peasants… were deported… desperate revolts in the villages were bloodily suppressed by the army and police, and the country sank into chaos, starvation and misery… The object of destroying the peasants’ independence…was to create a population of slaves, the benefit of whose labour would accrue to industry. The immediate effect was to reduce Soviet agriculture to a state of decline from which it has not yet recovered… The destruction of the Soviet peasantry, who formed three quarters of the population, was not only an economic but a moral disaster for the entire country. Tens of millions were driven into semi-servitude, and millions more were employed as executants…” (Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism). Why did Stalin destroy the peasants? Lenin’s wishful “alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry” in reality could lead only to the peasants being pauperised into proletarians. At least five million peasants died and (Stalin told Churchill at Yalta) another ten million in the resultant famine of 1932-1933. “Certainly it involved a struggle ~ but chiefly one between urban Communists and villagers… it enabled the regime to obtain much of the capital desired for industrialization from the defeated village… it was the decisive step in the building of Soviet totalitarianism, for it imposed on the majority of the people a subjection which only force could maintain” (Treadgold, 20th Century Russia). Mr Bhattacharjee’s CPI-M is fond of extolling Chinese communism, and the current New Delhi establishment have made Beijing and Shanghai holiday destinations of choice. Dr Singh’s Government has been eager to create hundreds of “Special Economic Zones” run by organised capital and unionised labour, and economically privileged by the State. In fact, the Singur and Nandigram experiences of police sealing off villages where protests occur are modelled on creation of “Special Economic Zones” in China in recent years. For example, Chinese police on 6 December 2005 cracked down on farmers and fishermen in the seaside village of Dongzhou, 125 miles North East of Hong Kong. Thousands of Dongzhou villagers clashed with troops and armed police protesting confiscation of their lands and corruption among officials. The police immediately sealed off the village and arrested protesters. China’s Public Security Ministry admitted the number of riots over land had risen sharply, reaching more than seventy thousand across China in 2004; police usually suppressed peasant riots without resort to firing but in Dongzhou, police firing killed 20 protesters. Such is the reality of the “emergence” of China, a totalitarian police-state since the Communist takeover in 1949, from its period of mad tyranny until Mao’s death in 1976, followed by its ideological confusion ever since. Modern India’s political economy today remains in the tight grip of metropolitan “Big Business” and “Big Labour”. Ordinary anonymous individual citizens ~ whether housewife, consumer, student, peasant, non-union worker or small businessman ~ have no real voice or representation in Indian politics. We have no normal conservative, liberal or social democratic party in this country, as found in West European democracies where the era of land-grabbing has long-ceased. If our polity had been normal, it would have known that economic development does not require business or government to pauperise the peasantry but instead to define and secure individual property rights and the Rule of Law, and establish proper conditions for the market economy. The Congress and BJP in Delhi and CPI-M in Kolkata would not have been able to distract attention from their macroeconomic misdeeds over the decades ~ indicated, for example, by increasing interest-expenditure paid annually on Government debt as a fraction of tax revenues… This macroeconomic rot originated with the Indira Gandhi-PN Haksar capriciousness and mismanagement, which coincided with the start of Dr Singh’s career as India’s best known economic bureaucrat….”
“Professor Amartya Sen, Harvard University, Dear Professor Sen, Everyone will be delighted that someone of your worldwide stature has joined the debate on Singur and Nandigram; The Telegraph deserves congratulations for having made it possible on July 23. I was sorry to find though that you may have missed the wood for the trees and also some of the trees themselves. Perhaps you have relied on Government statements for the facts. But the Government party in West Bengal represents official Indian communism and has been in power for 30 years at a stretch. It may be unwise to take at face-value what they say about their own deeds on this very grave issue! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there are many candid communists who privately recognise this dismal truth about themselves. To say this is not to be praising those whom you call the “Opposition” ~ after all, Bengal’s politics has seen emasculation of the Congress as an opposition because the Congress and communists are allies in Delhi. It is the Government party that must reform itself from within sua sponte for the good of everyone in the State. The comparisons and mentions of history you have made seem to me surprising. Bengal’s economy now or in the past has little or nothing similar to the economy of Northern England or the whole of England or Britain itself, and certainly Indian agriculture has little to do with agriculture in the new lands of Australia or North America. British economic history was marked by rapid technological innovations in manufacturing and rapid development of social and political institutions in context of being a major naval, maritime and mercantile power for centuries. Britain’s geography and history hardly ever permitted it to be an agricultural country of any importance whereas Bengal, to the contrary, has been among the most agriculturally fertile and hence densely populated regions of the world for millennia. Om Prakash’s brilliant pioneering book The Dutch East India Company and the Economy of Bengal 1630-1720 (Princeton 1985) records all this clearly. He reports the French traveller François Bernier saying in the 1660s “Bengal abounds with every necessary of life”, and a century before him the Italian traveller Verthema saying Bengal “abounds more in grain, flesh of every kind, in great quantity of sugar, also of ginger, and of great abundance of cotton, than any country in the world”. Om Prakash says “The premier industry in the region was the textile industry comprising manufacture from cotton, silk and mixed yarns”. Bengal’s major exports were foodstuffs, textiles, raw silk, opium, sugar and saltpetre; imports notably included metals (as Montesquieu had said would always be the case). Bengal did, as you say, have industries at the time the Europeans came but you have failed to mention these were mostly “agro-based” and, if anything, a clear indicator of our agricultural fecundity and comparative advantage. If “deindustrialization” occurred in 19th Century India, that had nothing to do with the “deindustrialization” in West Bengal from the 1960s onwards due to the influence of official communism. You remind us Fa Hiaen left from Tamralipta which is modern day Tamluk, though he went not to China but to Ceylon. You suggest that because he did so Tamluk effectively “was greater Calcutta”. I cannot see how this can be said of the 5th Century AD when no notion of Calcutta existed. Besides, modern Tamluk at 22º18’N, 87º56’E is more than 50 miles inland from the ancient port due to land-making that has occurred at the mouth of the Hooghly. I am afraid the relevance of the mention of Fa Hiaen to today’s Singur and Nandigram has thus escaped me. You say “In countries like Australia, the US or Canada where agriculture has prospered, only a very tiny population is involved in agriculture. Most people move out to industry. Industry has to be convenient, has to be absorbing”. Last January, a national daily published a similar view: “For India to become a developed country, the area under agriculture has to shrink, urban and industrial land development has to take place, and about 100 million workers have to move out from agriculture into industry and services. This is the only way forward for bringing prosperity to the rural population”. Rice is indeed grown in Arkansas or Texas as it is in Bengal but there is a world of difference between the technological and geographical situation here and that in the vast, sparsely populated New World areas with mechanized farming! Like shoe-making or a hundred other crafts, agriculture can be capital-intensive or labour-intensive ~ ours is relatively labour-intensive, theirs is relatively capital-intensive. Our economy is relatively labour-abundant and capital-scarce; their economies are relatively labour-scarce and capital-abundant (and also land-abundant). Indeed, if anything, the apt comparison is with China, and you doubtless know of the horror stories and civil war conditions erupting across China in recent years as the Communist Party and their businessman friends forcibly take over the land of peasants and agricultural workers, e.g. in Dongzhou. All plans of long-distance social engineering to “move out” 40 per cent of India’s population (at 4 persons per “worker”) from the rural hinterlands must also face FA Hayek’s fundamental question in The Road to Serfdom: “Who plans whom, who directs whom, who assigns to other people their station in life, and who is to have his due allotted by others?” Your late Harvard colleague, Robert Nozick, opened his brilliant 1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia saying: “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)”. You have rightly deplored the violence seen at Singur and Nandigram. But you will agree it is a gross error to equate violence perpetrated by the Government which is supposed to be protecting all people regardless of political affiliation, and the self-defence of poor unorganised peasants seeking to protect their meagre lands and livelihoods from state-sponsored pogroms. Kitchen utensils, pitchforks or rural implements and flintlock guns can hardly match the organised firepower controlled by a modern Government. Fortunately, India is not China and the press, media and civil institutions are not totally in the hands of the ruling party alone. In China, no amount of hue and cry among the peasants could save them from the power of organised big business and the Communist Party. In India, a handful of brave women have managed to single-handedly organise mass movements of protest which the press and media have then broadcast that has shocked the whole nation to its senses. You rightly say the land pricing process has been faulty. Irrelevant historical prices have been averaged when the sum of discounted expected future values in an inflationary economy should have been used. Matters are even worse. “The fear of famine can itself cause famine. The people of Bengal are afraid of a famine. It was repeatedly charged that the famine (of 1943) was man-made.” That is what T. W. Schultz said in 1946 in the India Famine Emergency Committee led by Pearl Buck, concerned that the 1943 Bengal famine should not be repeated following dislocations after World War II. Of course since that time our agriculture has undergone a Green Revolution, at least in wheat if not in rice, and a White Revolution in milk and many other agricultural products. But catastrophic collapses in agricultural incentives may still occur as functioning farmland comes to be taken by government and industry from India’s peasantry using force, fraud or even means nominally sanctioned by law. If new famines come to be provoked because farmers’ incentives collapse, let future historians know where responsibility lay. West Bengal’s real economic problems have to do with its dismal macroeconomic and fiscal position which is what Government economists should be addressing candidly. As for land, the Government’s first task remains improving grossly inadequate systems of land-description and definition, as well as the implementation and recording of property rights. With my most respectful personal regards, I remain, Yours ever, Suby”
How does India, as a state, treat its weakest and most vulnerable citizens? Not very well at all. It is often only because families and society have not collapsed completely, as they have elsewhere, that the weakest survive. Can we solve in the 21st Century, in a practical manner appropriate to our times, the problem Buddha raised before he became the Buddha some twenty six centuries ago? Says Eliot,
“The legend represents him as carefully secluded from all disquieting sights and as learning the existence of old age, sickness and death only by chance encounters which left a profound impression”
It is to this list we add “the poor” too, especially if we want to include a slightly later and equally great reformer some miles west of the Terai in the Levant. I said some years ago “As we as infants and children need to be helped to find courage to face the start of life, we when very elderly can need to be helped to find courage to face life’s end”. Old age carries with it the fear of death, fear of the end of life and what that means, which raises the meaning of life itself, or at least of the individual life, because we can hardly grasp what the end of life is if we haven’t what it is supposed to be the end of in the first place. What the very elderly need, as do the dying and terminally ill, is to find courage within themselves to comprehend all this with as much equanimity as possible. Companionship and camaraderie — or perhaps let us call it love — go towards that courage coming to be found; something similar goes for the sick, whether a sick child missing school or the elderly infirm, courage that they are not alone and that they can and will recover and not have to face death quite yet, that life will indeed resume.
As for the poor, I said in 2009 about the bizarre Indian scheme of “interrogating, measuring, photographing and fingerprinting them against their will” that “the poor have their privacy and their dignity. They are going to refuse to waste their valuable time at the margins of survival volunteering for such gimmickry.”
“What New Delhi’s governing class fails to see is that the masses of India’s poor are not themselves a mass waiting for New Delhi’s handouts: they are individuals, free, rational, thinking individuals who know their own lives and resources and capacities and opportunities, and how to go about living their lives best. What they need is security, absence of state or other tyranny, roads, fresh water, electricity, functioning schools for their children, market opportunities for work, etc, not handouts from a monarch or aristocrats or businessmen….” Or, to put it differently in Kant’s terms, the poor need to be treated as ends in themselves, and not as the means towards the ends of others…
Part II India’s Right Road Forward Now: Some Thoughtful Analysis for Grown Ups
5. Transcending a Left-Right/Congress-BJP Divide in Indian Politics
6. Budgeting Military & Foreign Policy
7. Solving the Kashmir Problem & Relations with Pakistan
8. Dealing with Communist China
9. Towards Coherence in Public Accounting, Public Finance & Public Decision-Making
10. India’s Money: Towards Currency Integrity at Home & Abroad
“I have a student called Suby Roy…”: Reflections on Frank Hahn (1925-2013), my master in economic theory
January 31, 2013 — drsubrotoroy
1. “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…”
2. “Frank Hahn believed in throwing students in at the deep end — or so it seemed to me when, within weeks of my arrival at Cambridge as a 21 year old Research Student, he insisted I present my initial ideas on the foundations of monetary theory at his weekly seminar.
I was petrified but somehow managed to give a half-decent lecture before a standing-room only audience in what used to be called the “Keynes Room” in the Cambridge Economics Department. (It helped that a few months earlier, as a final year undergraduate at the LSE, I had been required to give a lecture at ACL Day’s Seminar on international monetary economics. It is a practice I came to follow with my students in due course, as there may be no substitute in learning how to think while standing up.) I shall try to publish exactly what I said at my Hahn-seminar when I find the document; broadly, it had to do with the crucial problem Hahn had identified a dozen years earlier in Patinkin’s work by asking what was required for the price of money to be positive in a general equilibrium, i.e. why do people everywhere hold and use money when it is intrinsically worthless. Patinkin’s utility function had real money balances appearing along with other goods; Hahn’s “On Some Problems of Proving the Existence of an Equilibrium in a Monetary Economy” in Theory of Interest Rates (1965), was the decisive criticism of this, where he showed that Patinkin’s formulation could not ensure a non-zero price for money in equilibrium. Hence Patinkin’s was a model in which money might not be held and therefore failed a vital requirement of a monetary economy. The announcement of my seminar was scribbled by a young Cambridge lecturer named Oliver Hart, later a distinguished member of MIT and Harvard University.”
3. Then there was Sraffa…I saw him many a time, in the Marshall Library… He would smile very broadly at me and without saying anything indicate with his hand to invite me to his office.. I fled in some fear… It was very stupid of me of course… Joan Robinson cornered me once and took me into the office she shared with EAG… She came at me for an hour or so wishing to supervise me, I kept declining politely… saying I was with Frank Hahn and wished to work on money… “What does Frankie know about India?” she said… I said I did not know but he did know about monetary theory and that was what I needed for India; I also said I did not think much about the Indian Marxists she had supervised… and mentioned a prominent name… she said about him, “Yes most of what he does can go straight into the dustbin”…
4. “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…””
5. “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…” Hahn told me he did not know Buchanan but he did know Hayek well and that his wife Dorothy had been an original member of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947 or 1948. Hence I am amused reading a prominent NYU “American Austrian” say about Frank’s passing “I do think economics would have been better off if the Arrow-Debreu-Hahn approach had not been taken so seriously by the profession. I think it turned out to be an intellectual straight-jacket that prevented the discussion of valuable outside-the-box ideas”, and am tempted to paraphrase the closing lines of Tractatus — “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent/About what one can not speak, one must remain silent” — to read “Of that of which we are ignorant, we should at least try not to gas about…” Hahn and Hayek were friends, from when Hayek taught at the London School of Economics in Robbins’ seminar, and Hahn was Robbins’ doctoral student.
6. “The Hawaii project manuscript contained inter alia a memorandum by Milton Friedman done at the request of the Government of India in November 1955, which had been suppressed for 34 years until I published it in May 1989. Milton and Rose Friedman refer to this in their memoirs Two Lucky People (Chicago 1998). Peter Bauer had told me of the existence of Friedman’s document during my doctoral work at Cambridge under Frank Hahn in the late 1970s, as did N. Georgescu-Roegen in America. Those were years in which Brezhnev still ruled in the Kremlin, Gorbachev was yet to emerge, Indira Gandhi and her pro-Moscow advisers were ensconced in New Delhi, and not even the CIA had imagined the Berlin Wall would fall and the Cold War would be over within a decade. It was academic suicide at the time to argue in favour of classical liberal economics even in the West. As a 22-year-old Visiting Assistant Professor at the Delhi School of Economics in 1977, I was greeted with uproarious laughter of senior professors when I spoke of a possible free market in foreign exchange. Cambridge was a place where Indian economists went to study the exploitation of peasants in Indian agriculture before returning to their friends in the well-known bastions of such matters in Delhi and Calcutta. It was not a place where Indian (let alone Bengali) doctoral students in economics mentioned the unmentionable names of Hayek or Friedman or Buchanan, and insisted upon giving their works a hearing. My original doctoral topic in 1976 “A monetary theory for India” had to be altered not only due to paucity of monetary data at the time but because the problems of India’s political economy and allocation of resources in the real economy were far more pressing. The thesis that emerged in 1982 “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India” was a full frontal assault from the point of view of microeconomic theory on the “development planning” to which everyone routinely declared their fidelity, from New Delhi’s bureaucrats and Oxford’s “development” school to McNamara’s World Bank with its Indian staffers. Frank Hahn protected my inchoate liberal arguments for India; and when no internal examiner could be found, Cambridge showed its greatness by appointing two externals, Bliss at Oxford and Hutchison at Birmingham, both Cambridge men.”
7. “I have a student called Suby Roy…” Frank sends me to America in 1980 to work with Jim Buchanan… One letter from him was all it took…
And then five years later in 1985 he calls me “probably the outstanding young Hayekian”, says I had brought “a good knowledge of economics and of philosophy to bear on the literature on economic planning”, had “a good knowledge of economic theory” and that my “critique of Development Economics was powerful not only on methodological but also on economic theory grounds” — all that to me has been a special source of delight.
We did not meet often after I left Cambridge but he wrote very kindly always, and finally said, hearing of my travails and troubles and adventures, “well you are having an interesting life…”…
In America, I once met Robert M Solow in a hotel elevator as we were on a panel at a conference together; I introduced myself as Hahn’s student… “Aren’t you lucky?” said Solow with a smile…and he was right… I was lucky…
I said of Milton Friedman that he had been “the greatest economist after John Maynard Keynes”; Milton’s critic, Frank Hahn, may have been the greatest economic theorist of modern times.
Frank Hahn (1925-2013)
My Seventy Four Articles, Books (now in pdf 2021), Notes Etc on Kashmir, Pakistan, & of course, India (plus my undelivered Lahore lectures)
October 13, 2011 — drsubrotoroyThe most important of these are in the newspapers and/or at this site too. I will try to have everything reproduced here.
00) https://independentindian.com/2015/03/03/pakistans-indias-illusions-of-power-psychosis-vs-vanity/
0) India-Pakistan Diplomacy During the 1965 War: the MK Roy Files, at this site
1) https://independentindian.com/2011/11/22/pakistans-point-of-view-or-points-of-view-on-kashmir-my-as-yet-undelivered-lahore-lecture-part-i/
2) Law, Justice and Jammu & Kashmir (2006)
https://independentindian.com/2006/07/03/law-justice-and-jk/
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152464726125
Monday, October 5, 2009
3) Solving Kashmir: On an Application of Reason (2005)
https://independentindian.com/2005/12/03/solving-kashmir-on-an-application-of-reason/
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152462776125
Monday, October 5, 2009
4) My (armchair) experience of the 1999 Kargil war (Or, How the Kargil effort got a little help from a desktop)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=388161476125
Thursday, April 29, 2010
5) Understanding Pakistan (2006)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152348161125
Monday, October 5, 2009
6) Pakistan’s Allies (2006)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152345826125
Monday, October 5, 2009
7) History of Jammu & Kashmir
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152343836125
Monday, October 5, 2009
8) from 30 years ago, now in pdf
Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by Subroto Roy & William E James
Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by William E James & Subroto Roy
9) Talking to my student and friend Amir Malik about Pakistan and its problems
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150297082781126
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
10) My thanks to Mr Singh for seeing the optimality of my Kashmir solution
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150271489571126
Sunday, September 4, 2011
11) Zafrullah, my father, and the three frigates: there was no massacre of the Hindu Sindhi refugees in Karachi in 1947
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150265008366126
Saturday, August 27, 2011
12) Conversation with Mr Birinder R Singh about my Kashmir solution
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150259831611126
Saturday, August 20, 2011
13) On the Hurriyat’s falsification of history
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150258949946126
Friday, August 19, 2011
14) Letter from a young Pashtun whose grandfathers were in the 1947 invasion of Kashmir (which the Hurriyat says never happened)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150258851821126
Friday, August 19, 2011
15) More on my solution
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150258100876126
Thursday, August 18, 2011
16 ) A Hurriyat/Taliban Islamist emirate in the Valley subject to an Indian blockade would likely face famine.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150257700231126
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
17) There is no Kashmiri nationality and there never has been in the modern era of international law
https://www.facebook.com/notes/subroto-roy/there-is-no-kashmiri-nationality-and-there-never-has-been-in-the-modern-era-of-i/10150255815456126
Monday, August 15, 2011
18) Of the Flag of Pakistan, and the Union Jack, and the Flag of India — August 14-15 1947
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150255301456126
Sunday, August 14, 2011
19) Talking about Kashmir in 1947 to Ralph Coti
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150254871116126
Saturday, August 13, 2011
20) Conversation with Prof. Bhim Singh about 1947
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150254495896126
Saturday, August 13, 2011
21) The LOC represents the division of ownerless, sovereignless territory won by military conquest by either side…
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150245816611126
Monday, August 1, 2011
22) Talking to Mr Tauseef
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150245521131126
Monday, August 1, 2011
23) J&K had ceased to exist as an entity in international law by August 15 1947, at most by October 22 1947
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150244867021126
Sunday, July 31, 2011
24) Would someone be kind enough to tell me which freedoms Indian Kashmiris are being deprived of?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150243323381126
Friday, July 29, 2011
25) Kunan Poshpora: I would say the evidence reported by the Verghese Committee itself was enough to indicate there had been rape 28 July 2011
https://www.facebook.com/notes/subroto-roy/kunan-poshpora-i-would-say-the-evidence-reported-by-the-verghese-committee-itsel/10150242580476126
26) Talking to Mr Rameez Makhdoomi about Kashmir
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150241973371126
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
27) And, as you well know, General Hasnain is both Muslim and Kashmiri, besides being the Commanding Officer of 15 Corps.
http://www.facebook.com/subyroy?sk=notes&s=40
Friday, July 22, 2011
28) Kashmir needs a Coroner’s Office!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150238284741126
Friday, July 22, 2011
29) A slogan for Kashmir: No exaggerations, no hallucinations, no cover-ups please: Just the plain facts & accountability
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150238136556126
Friday, July 22, 2011
30) Towards a Spatial Model of Kashmir’s Political History
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150234599731126
Sunday, July 17, 2011
31) Why did Allama Iqbal say “India is the greatest Muslim country in the world…”?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150233148866126
Friday, July 15, 2011
32) Conversation with Mr Arif
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150230793806126
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
33) Omar Qayoom Bhat: A Victim of State Repression in J&K
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150229389496126
Monday, July 11, 2011
34) Good and evil in Kashmir over more than a millennium…
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150217168656126
Sunday, June 26, 2011
35) Letter to Mr Zargar (Continued)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150212034496126
June 23, 2011
36) From the Official Indian Army website re Human Rights Violations
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150210741356126
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
37) A Facebook Discussion on Kashmir with the Lahore Oxford & Cambridge Society
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150208871201126
Sunday, June 19, 2011
38) Answering two central questions on the Kashmir Problem
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150202054326126
Friday, June 10, 2011
39) Some articles on Jammu & Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150201498846126
Friday, June 10, 2011
40) Lar ke lenge Pakistan? Khun se lenge Pakistan?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150195065706126
Thursday, June 2, 2011
41) On Pakistan & Questions of the Nature & Jurisprudence of Polities
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150165301016126
Saturday, April 30, 2011
42) On “state involvement” (January 2009)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?
on Friday, April 22, 2011
43) My four main 2005-06 articles on the existence of a unique, stable solution to Kashmir
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150155305266126
Sunday, April 17, 2011
44) On the present state of the Pakistan-India dialogue
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150140448906126
Thursday, March 31, 2011
45) Mixed messages (from a Dec 2008 post on Pakistan just after the Mumbai massacres)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150117696731126
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
46) New Foreign Policy? “Kiss Up, Kick Down”? (October 2006)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150098854806126
Friday, March 4, 2011
47) Conversations with Kashmiris: An Ongoing Facebook Note
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=489267761125
Saturday, January 22, 2011
48) On Pakistan and the Theory & Practice of the Islamic State, 1949, 1954
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=486039761125
Saturday, January 15, 2011
49) A Modern Military (2006)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=483556931125
Monday, January 10, 2011
50) India’s Muslim Voices: Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan (1892-1942), Punjab Prime Minister 1941
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=476020171125
Monday, December 27, 2010
51) Pre-Partition Indian Secularism Case-Study: Fuzlul Huq and Manindranath Roy
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=445015731125
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
52) A Brief Note on Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and the Pashtuns 1971-2010
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=414500306125
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
53) On the Existence of a Unique and Stable Solution to the Jammu & Kashmir Problem that is Lawful, Just and Economically Efficient
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=407478886125
Monday, July 5, 2010
54) Seventy Years Today (Sep 4 2009) Since the British Govt Politically Empowered MA Jinnah
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=407310716125
Monday, July 5, 2010
55) Justice & Afzal (Oct 14 2006)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=393914236125
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
56) A Brief History of Gilgit
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=336081356125
Monday, March 1, 2010
57) India-USA interests: Elements of a serious Indian foreign policy (2007)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=299902341125
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
58) Ambassador Holbrooke’s error of historical fact
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=259713446125
Sunday, January 17, 2010
59) Of a new New Delhi myth & the success of the Univ of Hawaii 1986-1992 Pakistan project (Nov 15 2008)
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=247284116125
Sunday, 10 January 2010
60) Was Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (1905-1982), Lion of Kashmir, the greatest Muslim political leader of the 20th Century?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=244956301125
Friday, January 8, 2010
61) On Indian Nationhood: From Tamils To Kashmiris & Assamese & Mizos To Sikhs & Goans (2007)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=222511821125
Friday, December 25, 2009
62) India has never, not once, initiated hostilities against Pakistan (2009)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=194400926125
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
63) RAND’s study of the Mumbai attacks (Jan 25 2009)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=189261716125
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
64) Memo to the Hon’ble Attorneys General of Pakistan & India (January 16 2009)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=189251816125
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
65) On Hindus and Muslims (2005)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=172649451125
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
66) Iqbal & Jinnah vs Rahmat Ali in Pakistan’s creation (2005)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=171039831125
Saturday, October 31, 2009
67) Have “mixed messages” caused a “double-bind” in the US-Pakistan relationship?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=164051251125
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
68) Pakistan’s Kashmir obsession: Sheikh Abdullah Relied In Politics On The French Constitution, Not Islam (Feb 16 2008)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154064436125
Thursday, October 8, 2009
69) Two cheers for Pakistan! (April 7 2008)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=154062896125
Thursday, October 8, 2009
70) What to tell Musharraf: Peace Is Impossible Without Non-Aggressive Pakistani Intentions (Dec 15 2006)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153985256125
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
71) India’s Muslim Voices (Dec 4 2008)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153977181125
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
72) Saving Pakistan: A Physicist/Political Philosopher May Represent Iqbal’s “Spirit of Modern Times” (2007)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153971996125
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
73) The Greatest Pashtun: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988)
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=153812126125
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
74) 
“Sidney Alexander & I are really the only ones who showed the basic logical contradictions caused by positivism having penetrated economics in the middle of the 20th Century”
July 24, 2011 — drsubrotoroyfrom Is “Cambridge Philosophy” dead, in Cambridge? Can it be resurrected, there? Case Study: Renford Bambrough (& Subroto Roy) preceded by decades Cheryl Misak’s thesis on Wittgenstein being linked with Peirce via Ramsey… October 27, 2017
“3. Now before its publication my book manuscript had been mostly under contract with University of Chicago Press, not Routledge. About 1984 one of Chicago’s half a dozen reviewers hit me with a large surprise: my argument had been anticipated decades earlier in America by MIT’s Sidney Stuart Alexander! I had no idea of this though I knew Alexander’s publications on other subjects the balance of payments.
Alexander, who was Paul Samuelson’s contemporary and Robert Solow’s teacher, was extremely gracious, read my manuscript and immediately declared with great generosity it was clear to him my arguments had been developed independently of his own. Alexander had come at the problem from an American tradition of John Dewey, Peirce’s pupil, I had done so from Wittgenstein through John Wisdom and Renford Bambrough. Alexander and I had arrived at similar conclusions but had done so completely independently!
Before we had met, Alexander wrote in support of my work:
“(This) is a very ambitious work directed at the foundations of normative judgments in economics. The author arrives at some conclusions very closely matching those I arrived at some years ago. It is clear, however, that Dr. Roy arrived at his conclusions completely independently. That is all the more piquant to me in that the philosophical underpinning of his work is the development of philosophy in England from the later Wittgenstein, while mine derives principally from earlier work in the United States by the pragmatists and those who may loosely be called neo-pragmatists. A prominent Cambridge ethical philosopher of the early thirties referred to the United States as the place where moribund English philosophies were to be hailed as the latest thing. Now the most characteristically American philosophy seems to have arrived first by a wide margin at a position gaining wider acceptance in England as well as America.
Dr. Roy reveals a clear understanding of the methodological positivism that invaded economic policy analysis in the thirties and still dominates the literature of economics…. Following Renford Bambrough (Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge) he arrives at a position equivalent to that of the American pragmatists, especially Dewey, who insist that the problematic situation provides the starting point for the analysis of a problem even though there are no ultimate starting points. The methodological implication is the support of inquiry as fundamental, avoiding both scepticism and dogmatism. Roy develops his position with a great deal of attention to the ramifications of the problem both in philosophy and in economics….”
When we did meet, as he drove me around MIT in his car, Alexander joked how it used to be bad form in his time to make comparisons about a trio of pairs: Cambridge vs Cambridge, baseball vs cricket, and “American English” vs (what is now called) “British English”!
I asked whom he had referred to as the “prominent Cambridge ethical philosopher”, he said C D Broad and decades later I found Broad’s condescending passage
“… all good fallacies go to America when they die, and rise again as the latest discoveries of the local professors…” Five Types of Ethical Theory 1930, p. 55.
No wonder Alexander found “piquant” that I had reached via Wittgenstein and Bambrough an equivalent position to his own decades earlier via American pragmatism. [Besides by Alexander, a most perspicacious review of my book is by Karl Georg Zinn.]
Within economics, Alexander and I were pirate ships blowing holes and permanently sinking the positivist Armada of “social choice theory” etc. Amartya Sen arrived at Cambridge in 1953, the year Philosophical Investigations was published, two years after Wittgenstein’s death the year after Wittgenstein died. Professor Sen told me, in 2006, John Wisdom and C D Broad both knew him at the time, all at Trinity College; if anyone, Amartya Sen should have conveyed to Kenneth Arrow in America in the 1960s and 1970s the implications for economic theory of Wittgenstein’s later work. Instead I had to do so in 1989, Arrow graciously admitting when he read my book:
“I shall have to ponder your rejection of the Humean position which has, I suppose, been central in not only my thought but that of most economists. Candidly, I have never understood what late Wittgenstein was saying, but I have not worked very hard at his work, and perhaps your book will give guidance.””
Originally from 2011:
I heard from Mr Scott Peterson of Oregon,
“Dear Professor Roy, I have been reading your book *Philosophy of Economics* and happened to stumble on the following paper:’Public Finance Texts Cannot Justify Government Taxation’ Walter E. Block (Loyola University New Orleans, Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business) has posted Public Finance Texts Cannot Justify Government Taxation: A Critique on SSRN. Here is the abstract: ‘In virtually all economic sub-disciplines, practitioners of the dismal science are exceedingly desirous of avoiding normative concerns, at least in principle. These are seen, and rightly so, as extremely treacherous. Being only human, they do sometimes stray off the path of positive analysis; but when they fall off the wagon in this manner, if at all, it is done relatively cautiously, and infrequently. There is one blatant exception to this general rule, however, and that is the field of public finance. Here, in sharp contrast to the usual practice, not only is normative economics embraced, it is done so with alacrity, and without apology. That is, most textbooks on the subject start off with one or several chapters which attempt to justify taxation on moral, efficiency, and other grounds. This occurs in no other field.’
When I read this I immediately thought of your discussion of the normative vs positive approaches in economics. Perhaps the exception economists make regarding public finance is that most economists’ paychecks come from the public sector.
Regards,
Scott Peterson
Dear Mr Peterson, Yes indeed. Thanks for the observation. Sidney Alexander and I are really the only ones who showed the basic logical contradictions caused by positivism having penetrated economics in the middle of the 20th Century. Are you at Facebook? Feel free to join me. Cordial regards, Suby Roy
“….Meanwhile, my main work within economic theory, the “Principia Economica” manuscript, was being read by the University of Chicago Press’s five or six anonymous referees. One of them pointed out my argument had been anticipated years earlier in the work of MIT’s Sidney Stuart Alexander. I had no idea of this and was surprised; of course I knew Professor Alexander’s work in balance of payments theory but not in this field. I went to visit Professor Alexander in Boston…. Professor Alexander was extremely gracious, and immediately declared with great generosity that it was clear to him my arguments in “Principia Economica” had been developed entirely independently of his work. He had come at the problem from an American philosophical tradition of Dewey, I had done so from a British tradition of Wittgenstein. (CS Peirce was probably the bridge between the two.) He and I had arrived at some similar conclusions but we had done so completely independently.”
Professor Alexander, contemporary of PA Samuelson, tutor of RM Solow and many others, deserves far greater attention, and I will do what I can towards that. He introduced me briefly to his MIT colleague Lester Thurow and I sent an email some time ago to Professor Thurow suggesting MIT should try to remember him better.
Furthermore…. (12 August 2013)… as Karl Georg Zinn observed in his perspicacious review:
“Either all of positive economics is attacked with just as much scepticism as anything in normative economics, or we accept one and reject the other when instead there are reasons to think they share the same ultimate grounds and must be accepted or rejected together”(p.47).
Maynard Keynes on How to Be a Good Economist
April 11, 2011 — drsubrotoroyFrom Facebook, April 11, 2011
Since the name of Keynes is back to being used somewhat in vain around the world, it may be appropriate to recall Maynard Keynes’s description of his own role-model as an economist, his master Alfred Marshall.
“The study of economics does not seem to require any specialised gifts of an unusually high order. Is it not, intellectually regarded, a very easy subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy and pure science? Yet good, or even competent, economists are the rarest of birds. An easy subject , at which very few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare *combination* of gifts. He must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman and philosopher — in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood: as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a politician.”
JM Keynes “Alfred Marshall, 1842-1924” in Memorials of Alfred Marshal, edited by AC Pigou, 1925, p. 12.
Keynes himself was trained as and always thought like a mathematician, though he invariably spoke in words about practical realities. Marshall was his master, and so too, to a lesser extent, was his father, Neville Keynes.
Will the Telangana flare-up awaken New Delhi from its dream-world and into India’s political reality?
December 13, 2009 — drsubrotoroySubroto Roy thinks the flare-up of the Telangana issue has one and only one positive consequence: it brings home to New Delhi’s ruling elite that there are real political questions in India, and not everything can be left to spin-doctors and lobbyists to handle.
“Are Iran’s Revolutionaries now Reactionaries? George Orwell would have understood. A fresh poll may be the only answer” (2009)
June 22, 2009 — drsubrotoroyI was born in Tehran because my parents were Indian diplomats there, and I would love to go back to visit Iran someday. Not right now though as the country seems to be plunging itself into a new Revolution and yesterday’s Revolutionaries are today’s Reactionaries in a way that George Orwell would have understood and might have predicted. (Back in December 1982, at the American Economic Association meetings in New York City, a man looking surprisingly similar to Mr Mohammad Ahmadinajad approached me after I had read a paper “Economic Theory and Development Economics” to a large audience, introducing himself as a member of the UN delegation of the new Islamic Republic, giving me his card which I never kept… a story for another time…)
It would appear to me that the right political course of action would be for the disputed poll to be cancelled — with the consent and indeed at the statesmanlike initiative of its declared winner; to be followed by a short interregnum for normalisation and a calming down of all tempers to occur; and then for fresh polls to occur within, say, two or three months, taking transparent precautions that such an ugly mess not be repeated.
Subroto Roy
see too
https://independentindian.com/2006/04/06/irans-nationalism/
https://independentindian.com/2009/09/14/irans-modern-cinema-a-must-see-for-those-wishing-to-make-war/
https://independentindian.com/2006/02/24/war-or-peace/
Mistaken Macroeconomics: An Open Letter to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh 12 June 2009
June 12, 2009 — drsubrotoroy12 June 2009
The Hon’ble Dr Manmohan Singh, MP, Rajya Sabha
Prime Minister of India
Respected Pradhan Mantriji:
In September 1993 at the residence of the Indian Ambassador to Washington, I had the privilege of being introduced to you by our Ambassador the Hon’ble Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Bar-at-Law. Ambassador Ray was kind enough to introduce me saying the 1991 “Congress manifesto had been written on (my laptop) computer” – a reference to my work as adviser on economic and other policy to the late Rajiv Gandhi in his last months. I presented you a book Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s created and edited by myself and WE James at the University of Hawaii since 1986 — the unpublished manuscript of that book had reached Rajivji by my hand when he and I first met on September 18 1990. Tragically, my pleadings in subsequent months to those around him that he seemed to my layman’s eyes vulnerable to the assassin went unheeded.
When you and I met in 1993, we had both forgotten another meeting twenty years earlier in Paris. My father had been a long-time friend of the late Brahma Kaul, ICS, and the late MG Kaul, ICS, who knew you in your early days in the Government of India. In the late summer of 1973, you had acceded to my father’s request to advise me about economics before I embarked for the London School of Economics as a freshman undergraduate. You visited our then-home in Paris for about 40 minutes despite your busy schedule as part of an Indian delegation to the Aid-India Consortium. We ended up having a tense debate about the merits (as you saw them) and demerits (as I saw them) of the Soviet influence on Indian economic “planning”. You had not expected such controversy from a lad of 18 but you were kindly disposed and offered when departing to write a letter of introduction to Amartya Sen, then teaching at the LSE, which you later sent me and which I was delighted to carry to Professor Sen.
I may add my father, back in 1973 in Paris, had predicted to me that you would become Prime Minister of India one day, and he, now in his 90s, is joined by myself in sending our warm congratulations at the start of your second term in that high office.
The controversy though that you and I had entered that Paris day in 1973 about scientific economics as applied to India, must be renewed afresh!
This is because of your categorical statement on June 9 2009 to the new 15th Lok Sabha:
“I am convinced, since our savings rate is as high as 35%, given the collective will, if all of us work together, we can achieve a growth-rate of 8%-9%, even if the world economy does not do well.” (Statement of Dr Manmohan Singh to the Lok Sabha, June 9 2009)
I am afraid there may be multiple reasons why such a statement is gravely and incorrigibly in error within scientific economics. From your high office as Prime Minister in a second term, faced perhaps with no significant opposition from either within or without your party, it is possible the effects of such an error may spell macroeconomic catastrophe for India.
As it happens, the British Labour Party politician Dr Meghnad Desai made an analogous statement to yours about India when he claimed in 2006 that China
“now has 10.4% growth on a 44 % savings rate… ”
Indeed the idea that China and India have had extremely high economic growth-rates based on purportedly astronomical savings rates has become a commonplace in recent years, repeated endlessly in international and domestic policy circles though perhaps without adequate basis.
1. Germany & Japan
What, at the outset, is supposed to be measured when we speak of “growth”? Indian businessmen and their media friends seem to think “growth” refers to something like nominal earnings before tax for the organised corporate sector, or any unspecified number that can be sold to visiting foreigners to induce them to park their funds in India: “You will get a 10% return if you invest in India” to which the visitor says “Oh that must mean India has 10% growth going on”. Of such nonsense are expensive international conferences in Davos and Delhi often made.
You will doubtless agree the economist at least must define economic growth properly and with care — what is referred to must be annual growth of per capita inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product. (Per capita National Income or Net National Product would be even better if available).
West Germany and Japan had the highest annual per capita real GDP growth-rates in the world economy starting from devastated post-World War II initial conditions. What were their measured rates?
West Germany: 6.6% in 1950-1960, falling to 3.5% by 1960-1970 falling to 2.4% by 1970-1978.
Japan: 6.8 % in 1952-1960 rising to 9.4% in 1960-1970 falling to 3.8 % in 1970-1978.
Thus in recent decadesonly Japan measured a spike in the 1960s of more than 9% annual growth of real per capita GDP. Now India and China are said to be achieving 8%-10 % and more year after year routinely!
Perhaps we are observing an incredible phenomenon of world economic history. Or perhaps it is just something incredible, something false and misleading, like a mirage in the desert.
You may agree that processes of measurement of real income in India both at federal and provincial levels, still remain well short of the world standards described by the UN’s System of National Accounts 1993. The actuality of our real GDP growth may be better than what is being measured or it may be worse than what is being measured – from the point of view of public decision-making we at present simply do not know which it is, and to overly rely on such numbers in national decisions may be unwise. In any event, India’s population is growing at near 2% so even if your Government’s measured number of 8% or 9% is taken at face-value, we have to subtract 2% population growth to get per capita figures.
2. Growth of the aam admi’s consumption-basket
The late Professor Milton Friedman had been an invited adviser in 1955 to the Government of India during the Second Five Year Plan’s formulation. The Government of India suppressed what he had to say and I had to publish it 34 years later in May 1989 during the 1986-1992 perestroika-for-India project that I led at the University of Hawaii in the United States. His November 1955 Memorandum to the Government of India is a chapter in the book Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s that I and WE James created.
At the 1989 project-conference itself, Professor Friedman made the following astute observation about all GNP, GDP etc growth-numbers that speaks for itself:
“I don’t believe the term GNP ought to be used unless it is supplemented by a different statistic: the rate of growth of the average consumption basket consumed by the ordinary individual in the country. I think GNP rates of growth can give very misleading information. For example, you have rapid rates of growth of GNP in the Soviet Union with a declining standard of life for the people. Because GNP includes monuments and includes also other things. I’m not saying that that is the case with India; I’m just saying I would like to see the two figures together.”
You may perhaps agree upon reflection that not only may our national income growth measurements be less robust than we want, it may be better to be measuring something else instead, or as well, as a measure of the economic welfare of India’s people, namely, “the rate of growth of the average consumption basket consumed by the ordinary individual in the country”, i.e., the rate of growth of the average consumption basket consumed by the aam admi.
It would be excellent indeed if you were to instruct your Government’s economists and other spokesmen to do so this as it may be something more reliable as an indicator of our economic realities than all the waffle generated by crude aggregate growth-rates.
3. Logic of your model
Thirdly, the logic needs to be spelled out of the economic model that underlies such statements as yours or Meghnad Desai’s that seek to operationally relate savings rates to aggregate growth rates in India or China. This seems not to have been done publicly in living memory by the Planning Commission or other Government economists. I have had to refer, therefore, to pages 251-253 of my own Cambridge doctoral thesis under Professor Frank Hahn thirty years ago, titled “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”, where the logic of such models as yours was spelled out briefly as follows:
Let
Kt be capital stock
Yt be national output
It be the level of real investment
St be the level of real savings
By definition
It = K t+1 – Kt
By assumption
Kt = k Yt 0 < k < 1
St = sYt 0 < s <1
In equilibrium ex ante investment equals ex ante savings
It = St
Hence in equilibrium
sYt = K t+1 – Kt
Or
s/k = g
where g is defined to be the rate of growth (Y t+1-Yt)/Yt .
The left hand side then defines the “warranted rate of growth” which must maintain the famous “knife-edge” with the right hand side “natural rate of growth”.
Your June 9 2009 Lok Sabha statement that a 35% rate of savings in India may lead to an 8%-9% rate of economic growth in India, or Meghnad Desai’s statement that a 44% rate of savings in China led to a 10.4% growth there, can only be made meaningful in the context of a logical economic model like the one I have given above.
[In the open-economy version of the model, let Mt be imports, Et be exports, Ft net capital inflows.
Assume
Mt = aIt + bYt 0 < a, b < 1
Et = E for all t
Balance of payments is
Bt = Mt – Et – Ft
In equilibrium It = St + Bt
Or
Ft = (s+b) Yt – (1-a) It – E is a kind of “warranted” level of net capital inflow.]
You may perhaps agree upon reflection that building the entire macroeconomic policy of the Government of India merely upon a piece of economic logic as simplistic as the
s/k = g
equation above, may spell an unacceptable risk to the future economic well-being of our vast population. An alternative procedural direction for macroeconomic policy, with more obviously positive and profound consequences, may have been that which I sought to persuade Rajiv Gandhi about with some success in 1990-1991. Namely, to systematically seek to improve towards normalcy the budgets, financial positions and decision-making capacities of the Union and all state and local governments as well as all public institutions, organisations, entities, and projects in general, with the aim of making our domestic money a genuine hard currency of the world again after seven decades, so that any ordinary resident of India may hold and trade precious metals and foreign exchange at his/her local bank just like all those glamorous privileged NRIs have been permitted to do. Such an alternative path has been described in “The Indian Revolution”, “Against Quackery”, “The Dream Team: A Critique”, “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Indian Inflation”, etc.
4. Gross exaggeration of real savings rate by misreading deposit multiplication
Specifically, I am afraid you may have been misled into thinking India’s real savings rate, s, is as high as 35% just as Meghnad Desai may have misled himself into thinking China’s real savings rate is as high as 44%.
Neither of you may have wanted to make such a claim if you had referred to the fact that over the last 25 years, the average savings rate across all OECD countries has been less than 10%. Economic theory always finds claims of discontinuous behaviour to be questionable. If the average OECD citizen has been trying to save 10% of disposable income at best, it appears prima facie odd that India’s PM claims a savings rate as high as 35% for India or a British politician has claimed a savings rate as high as 44% for China. Something may be wrong in the measurement of the allegedly astronomical savings rates of India and China. The late Professor Nicholas Kaldor himself, after all, suggested it was rich people who saved and poor people who did not for the simple reason the former had something left over to save which the latter did not!
And indeed something is wrong in the measurements. What has happened, I believe, is that there has been a misreading of the vast nominal expansion of bank deposits via deposit-multiplication in the Indian banking system, an expansion that has been caused by explosive deficit finance over the last four or five decades. That vast nominal expansion of bank-deposits has been misread as indicating growth of real savings behaviour instead. I have written and spoken about and shown this quite extensively in the last half dozen years since I first discovered it in the case of India. E.g., in a lecture titled “Can India become an economic superpower or will there be a monetary meltdown?” at Cardiff University’s Institute of Applied Macroeconomics and at London’s Institute of Economic Affairs in April 2005, as well as in May 2005 at a monetary economics seminar invited at the RBI by Dr Narendra Jadav. The same may be true of China though I have looked at it much less.
How I described this phenomenon in a 2007 article in The Statesman is this:
“Savings is indeed normally measured by adding financial and non-financial savings. Financial savings include bank-deposits. But India is not a normal country in this. Nor is China. Both have seen massive exponential growth of bank-deposits in the last few decades. Does this mean Indians and Chinese are saving phenomenally high fractions of their incomes by assiduously putting money away into their shaky nationalized banks? Sadly, it does not. What has happened is government deficit-financing has grown explosively in both countries over decades. In a “fractional reserve” banking system (i.e. a system where your bank does not keep the money you deposited there but lends out almost all of it immediately), government expenditure causes bank-lending, and bank-lending causes bank-deposits to expand. Yes there has been massive expansion of bank-deposits in India but it is a nominal paper phenomenon and does not signify superhuman savings behaviour. Indians keep their assets mostly in metals, land, property, cattle, etc., and as cash, not as bank deposits.”
An article of mine in 2008 in Business Standard put it like this:
“India has followed in peacetime over six decades what the US and Britain followed during war. Our vast growth of bank deposits in recent decades has been mostly a paper (or nominal) phenomenon caused by unlimited deficit finance in a fractional reserve banking system. Policy makers have widely misinterpreted it as indicating a real phenomenon of incredibly high savings behaviour. In an inflationary environment, people save their wealth less as paper deposits than as real assets like land, cattle, buildings, machinery, food stocks, jewellery etc.”
If you asked me “What then is India’s real savings rate?” I have little answer to give except to say I know what it is not – it is not what the Government of India says it is. It is certainly unlikely to be anywhere near the 35% you stated it to be in your June 9 2009 Lok Sabha statement. If the OECD’s real savings rate has been something like 10% out of disposable income, I might accept India’s is, say, 15% at a maximum when properly measured – far from the 35% being claimed. What I believe may have been mismeasured by you and Meghnad Desai and many others as indicating high real savings is actually the nominal or paper expansion of bank-deposits in a fractional reserve banking system induced by runaway government deficit-spending in both India and China over the last several decades.
5. Technological progress and the mainsprings of real economic growth
So much for the g and s variables in the s/k = g equation in your economic model. But the assumed constant k is a big problem too!
During the 1989 perestroika-for-India project-conference, Professor Friedman referred to his 1955 experience in India and said this about the assumption of a constant k:
“I think there was an enormously important point… That was the almost universal acceptance at that time of the view that there was a sort of technologically fixed capital output ratio. That if you wanted to develop, you just had to figure out how much capital you needed, used as a statistical technological capital output ratio, and by God the next day you could immediately tell what output you were going to achieve. That was a large part of the motivation behind some of the measures that were taken then.”
The crucial problem of the sort of growth-model from which your formulation relating savings to growth arises is that, with a constant k, you have necessarily neglected the real source of economic growth, which is technological progress!
I said in the 2007 article referred to above:
“Economic growth in India as elsewhere arises not because of what politicians and bureaucrats do in capital cities, but because of spontaneous technological progress, improved productivity and learning-by-doing on part of the general population. Technological progress is a very general notion, and applies to any and every production activity or commercial transaction that now can be accomplished more easily or using fewer inputs than before.”
In “Growth and Government Delusion” published in The Statesman last year, I described the growth process more fully like this:
“The mainsprings of real growth in the wealth of the individual, and so of the nation, are greater practical learning, increases in capital resources and improvements in technology. Deeper skills and improved dexterity cause output produced with fewer inputs than before, i.e. greater productivity. Adam Smith said there is “invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and enable one man to do the work of many”. Consider a real life example. A fresh engineering graduate knows dynamometers are needed in testing and performance-certification of diesel engines. He strips open a meter, finds out how it works, asks engine manufacturers what design improvements they want to see, whether they will buy from him if he can make the improvement. He finds out prices and properties of machine tools needed and wages paid currently to skilled labour, calculates expected revenues and costs, and finally tries to persuade a bank of his production plans, promising to repay loans from his returns. Overcoming restrictions of religion or caste, the secular agent is spurred by expectation of future gains to approach various others with offers of contract, and so organize their efforts into one. If all his offers ~ to creditors, labour, suppliers ~ are accepted he is, for the moment, in business. He may not be for long ~ but if he succeeds his actions will have caused an improvement in design of dynamometers and a reduction in the cost of diesel engines, as well as an increase in the economy’s produced means of production (its capital stock) and in the value of contracts made. His creditors are more confident of his ability to repay, his buyers of his product quality, he himself knows more of his workers’ skills, etc. If these people enter a second and then a third and fourth set of contracts, the increase in mutual trust in coming to agreement will quickly decline in relation to the increased output of capital goods. The first source of increasing returns to scale in production, and hence the mainspring of real economic growth, arises from the successful completion of exchange. Transforming inputs into outputs necessarily takes time, and it is for that time the innovator or entrepreneur or “capitalist” or “adventurer” must persuade his creditors to trust him, whether bankers who have lent him capital or workers who have lent him labour. The essence of the enterprise (or “firm”) he tries to get underway consists of no more than the set of contracts he has entered into with the various others, his position being unique because he is the only one to know who all the others happen to be at the same time. In terms introduced by Professor Frank Hahn, the entrepreneur transforms himself from being “anonymous” to being “named” in the eyes of others, while also finding out qualities attaching to the names of those encountered in commerce. Profits earned are partly a measure of the entrepreneur’s success in this simultaneous process of discovery and advertisement. Another potential entrepreneur, fresh from engineering college, may soon pursue the pioneer’s success and start displacing his product in the market ~ eventually chasers become pioneers and then get chased themselves, and a process of dynamic competition would be underway. As it unfolds, anonymous and obscure graduates from engineering colleges become by dint of their efforts and a little luck, named and reputable firms and perhaps founders of industrial families. Multiply this simple story many times, with a few million different entrepreneurs and hundreds of thousands of different goods and services, and we shall be witnessing India’s actual Industrial Revolution, not the fake promise of it from self-seeking politicians and bureaucrats.”
Technological progress in a myriad of ways and discovery of new resources are important factors contributing to India’s growth today. But while India’s “real” economy does well, the “nominal” paper-money economy controlled by Government does not. Continuous deficit financing for half a century has led to exponential growth of public debt and broad money, and, as noted, the vast growth of nominal bank-deposits has been misinterpreted as indicating unusually high real savings behaviour when it in fact may just signal vast amounts of government debt being held by our nationalised banks. These bank assets may be liquid domestically but are illiquid internationally since our government debt is not held by domestic households as voluntary savings nor has it been a liquid asset held worldwide in foreign portfolios.
What politicians of all parties, especially your own and the BJP and CPI-M since they are the three largest, have been presiding over is exponential growth of our paper money supply, which has even reached 22% per annum. Parliament and the Government should be taking honest responsibility for this because it may certainly portend double-digit inflation (i.e., decline in the value of paper-money) perhaps as high as 14%-15% per annum, something that is certain to affect the aam admi’s economic welfare adversely.
6. Selling Government assets to Big Business is a bad idea in a potentially hyperinflationary economy
Respected PradhanMantriji, the record would show that I, and really I alone, 25 years ago, may have been the first among Indian economists to advocate the privatisation of the public sector. (Viz, “Silver Jubilee of Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India”.) In spite of this, I have to say clearly now that in present circumstances of a potentially hyperinflationary economy created by your Government and its predecessors, I believe your Government’s present plans to sell Government assets may be an exceptionally unwise and imprudent idea. The reasoning is very simple from within monetary economics.
Government every year has produced paper rupees and bank deposits in practically unlimited amounts to pay for its practically unlimited deficit financing, and it has behaved thus over decades. Such has been the nature of the macroeconomic process that all Indian political parties have been part of, whether they are aware of it or not.
Indian Big Business has an acute sense of this long-term nominal/paper expansion of India’s economy, and 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 rupee-denominated assets 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 16 2006 had a lead editorial titled Government’s land-fraud: Cheating peasants in a hyperinflation-prone economy which 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.”
Shortly afterwards the Hon’ble MP for Kolkata Dakshin, Km Mamata Banerjee, started her protest fast, riveting the nation’s attention in the winter of 2006-2007. What goes for 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 your new Government wishes to see real assets of the public sector being sold for paper money, let it seek to value these assets not in inconvertible rupees that Government itself has been producing in unlimited quantities but perhaps in forex or gold-units instead!
In the 2004-2005 volume Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant, edited by myself and Professor John Clarke, there is a chapter by Professor Patrick Minford on Margaret Thatcher’s fiscal and monetary policy (macroeconomics) that was placed ahead of 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 Margaret Thatcher came to power. We need to get our macroeconomic problems sorted before we attempt the microeconomic privatisation of public assets.
It is wonderful that your young party colleague, the Hon’ble MP from Amethi, Shri Rahul Gandhi, has declined to join the present Government and instead wishes to reflect further on the “common man” and “common woman” about whom I had described his late father talking to me on September 18 1990. Certainly the aam admi is not someone to be found among India’s lobbyists of organised Big Business or organised Big Labour who have tended to control government agendas from the big cities.
With my warmest personal regards and respect, I remain,
Cordially yours
Subroto Roy, PhD (Cantab.), BScEcon (London)
see also https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/rajiv-gandhi-and-the-origins-of-indias-1991-economic-reform/did-jagdish-bhagwati-originate-pioneer-intellectually-father-indias-1991-economic-reform-did-manmohan-singh-or-did-i-through-my-e/
Democracy Database for the Largest Electorate Ever Seen in World History
April 12, 2009 — drsubrotoroyIn four days, on April 16 2009, one thousand seven hundred and seven officially recognized candidates, representing 161 political parties and including 770 Independents, are contesting the polls in 124 constituencies (out of a total of 543 constituencies), across 15 States and two Union Territories in Phase 1 of the General Election to India’s 15th Lok Sabha. Between 16 April and 7 May in Phases 2, 3 and 4, that number of candidates contesting India’s General Elections rises to at least 4,637, average age 46.1, from 261 political parties, including 291 women and 2118 Independents across more than 150 further constituencies. By 13 May, Phase 5 will be over and all 543 constituencies shall have been covered. The size of the registered electorate of potential voters under adult franchise is 383,566,479, the largest in human history.
Did you know that? Of course not. None of our juvenile TV stations and only-slightly-less-juvenile newspapers would have been able to give you such numbers even if they had tried to; they would barely know where to begin. Besides, our Election Commission too has become a sclerotic bureaucracy like everything else to do with India’s governance; its website — now updated and improving slightly every day — provides a lot of irrelevancies along with providing the very least modicum of raw data logically necessary for the conduct of the election.
Ten years ago, just prior to the 13th Lok Sabha Elections, I, as part of my academic research as a “full professor” at an “Institution of National Importance”, created an Excel spreadsheet containing every single Lok Sabha constituency at the time. I later sent it on to the EC for its free use and distribution. (Some of my academic colleagues were surprised and suspicious as one of their principal goals in life was to obtain lucrative government “consulting” contracts wherever possible — doing things for free set a worrisome example despite the slogan of being supposedly “dedicated to the service of the nation”!). Nothing happened because the EC in particular and the Government of India in general did not then and have not now appeared keen to know how to use spreadsheets like Excel properly, despite our claims of India being an information-technology powerhouse!
I have now had to re-create that 1999 spreadsheet again for the 15th Lok Sabha Elections because there has been a major parliamentary exercise of what is called “redistricting” in some countries and “delimitation” here in India. Many constituencies have been merged or have disappeared while new ones have appeared. Plus numerous innovative techniques and formulae have had to be used by me with vital free help from Excel Forum users as well as providers of free add-ins around the world, to whom grateful acknowledgment is made.
The processed data below is based entirely on the raw data available from the EC as of April 11 2009. As the EC updates its raw data, so shall I seek to update this processed data. There are definite errors in the EC data (e.g. one Independent candidate has been listed 3 times, while 19 people have been listed as being99 years old; more significantly there seems to be at least one constituency in which there is only one candidate, etc etc.) Whatever errors exist in the raw data must be carried over to these data here, I am afraid. But I will as I have said update this as the EC updates its raw data. If there are errors in my processing, I do not know of them, so please check and recheck against the EC’s data if you wish to use these data operationally. [Update 1800 hours Sunday April 12: the EC has reduced the number of candidates from 4637 to 4631 which presumably means some obvious slight errors have been corrected; it is still far short of having announced all candidates for all 543 constituencies, so the overall number is destined to rise and drastically quite soon — I hope before the first polls open on Thursday!].
The first two indicators are the EC’s way of identifying a constituency; then there is the name of the State or Union Territory in a two-digit code followed by the name of the constituency in capitals, the date that polling is due to take place, and the list of the candidates and their parties. I have made every effort to see no error has been added by me in addition to any errors that might exist in the EC’s data. But please check and double check yourself, and I cannot take responsibility for the accuracy of the information, especially as it is being done in “real time”.
This is being provided as a free public service for India’s ordinary people, citizens, candidates, students, observers etc. Any broadcast or republication or academic use must acknowledge it appeared first at this site in my work: just link to this post or quote “Democracy Database for the Largest Electorate Ever Seen in World History by Dr Subroto Roy”, and use away.
Why do I think it is important for every candidate in every constituency in India’s 2009 General Elections to have his/her name known and to receive due respect and a small salute in HTML even for a brief moment?
Because that is what democracy in a free republic is supposed to be about. India is not a monarchy or a mansabdari of some sort, no matter what the many corrupt people inhabiting our Government and our capital cities might have made themselves believe.
Our juvenile, sensationalist, irresponsible Delhi-centred media might realize someday that there are thousands of real people all over this country that is India contesting these elections seriously and trying to thus participate in the political process as best they can. The Delhi-centred media remain focused on the few dozen fake celebrities that they flatter, cultivate and pander to. (We must wait to see what depths of journalistic depravity our TV stations reach in covering the so-called IPL in South Africa more seriously than they cover India’s 2009 General Elections! What would MK Gandhi, who, a century ago, was still in South Africa, have said about such a twist of India’s fate?)
Here instead are India’s names and India’s lives and India’s places and India’s peoples and India’s political parties for all of us to see and understand and hence see and understand ourselves better.
Here’s a cheer to all those party-political symbols for or against which India’s hundreds of millions of voters will make their decisions:
A lady farmer carrying paddy on her head,
Aeroplane,
Almirah
Arrow
Axe
Balloon
Banana
Basket
Bat
Batsman
Battery Torch
Bead Necklace
Bell
Bicycle
Black Board
Boat
Book
Bow & Arrow
Boy & Girl
Bread
Brick
Bridge
Brief Case
Brush
Bungalow
Bus
Cake
Camera
Candles
Car
Carrot
Cart
Ceiling Fan
Chair
Clock
Coat
Cock
Coconut
Comb
Conch
Cot
Cup & Saucer
Diesel Pump
Dolli
Drum
Ears of Corn And Sickle
Electric Pole
Elephant
Flag with Three Stars
Flowers and Grass
Fork
Frock
Frying Pan
Gas Cylinder
Gas Stove
Glass Tumbler
Haldhar Within Wheel (Chakra Haldhar)
Hammer, Sickle and Star
Hand
Hand Pump
Harmonium
Hat
Hurricane Lamp
Hut
Ice Cream
Ink Pot & Pen
Iron
Jug
Kettle
Kite
Ladder
Lady Purse
Letter Box
Lion
Lock and Key
Lotus
Maize
Nagara
Not Alloted
Pressure Cooker
Railway Engine
Ring
Rising Sun
Road Roller
Saw
Scissors
Sewing Machine
Shuttle
Slate
Spade & Stoker
Spoon
Stool
Table
Table Lamp
Television
Tent
Two Daos Intersecting
Two Leaves
Violin
Walking Stick
Whistle….
Here’s a cheer then to all the thousands of candidates, average age 46.1, including those Independents, and the hundreds of political parties who go to the contest beginning April 16:
Aadivasi Sena Party
A-Chik National Congress(Democratic)
Adarsh Lok Dal
Advait Ishwasyam Congress
Ajeya Bharat Party
AJSU Party
Akhand Bharti
Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena
Akhil Bharatiya Congress Dal (Ambedkar)
Akhil Bharatiya Hind Kranti Party
Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal
Akhil Bhartiya Manavata Paksha
Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Samajwadi Party
Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
All India Forward Bloc
All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen
All India Minorities Front
All India Trinamool Congress
All Jharkhand Students Union
Alpjan Samaj Party
Ambedkar National Congress
Ambedkar Samaj Party
Ambedkarist Republican Party
Amra Bangalee
Apna Dal
Arunachal Congress
Asom Gana Parishad
Assam United Democratic Front
Autonomous State Demand Committee
Awami Party
B. C. United Front
Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K
Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch
Bahujan Samaj Party
Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)
Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)
Bahujan Shakty
Bahujan Uday Manch
Bajjikanchal Vikas Party
Bharat Punarnirman Dal
Bharat Vikas Morcha
Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party
Bharatiya Bahujan Party
Bharatiya Eklavya Party
Bharatiya Grameen Dal
Bharatiya Jagaran Party
Bharatiya Jan Berojgar Chhatra Dal
Bharatiya Jan Shakti
Bharatiya Janata Party
Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal
Bharatiya Lok Kalyan Dal
Bharatiya Loktantrik Party(Gandhi-Lohiawadi)
Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh
Bharatiya Momin Front
Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal
Bharatiya Peoples Party
Bharatiya Pichhra Dal
Bharatiya Praja Paksha
Bharatiya Rashtriya Bahujan Samaj Vikas Party
Bharatiya Republican Paksha
Bharatiya Sadbhawna Samaj Party
Bharatiya Samaj Dal
Bharatiya Samta Samaj Party
Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party
Bharatiya Subhash Sena
Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
Biju Janata Dal
Bira Oriya Party
Bodaland Peoples Front
Buddhiviveki Vikas Party
Chandigarh Vikas Party
Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party
Communist Party of India
Communist Party of India (Marxist)
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
Democratic Party of India
Democratic Secular Party
Dharam Nirpeksh Dal
Duggar Pradesh Party
Eklavya Samaj Party
Gondvana Gantantra Party
Gondwana Mukti Sena
Great India Party
Hill State People’s Democratic Party
Hindustan Janta Party
Indian Christian Secular Party
Indian Justice Party
Indian National Congress
Indian Peace Party
Indian Peoples Forward Block
Indian Union Muslim League
Jaganmay Nari Sangathan
Jago Party
Jai Bharat Samanta Party
Jai Chhattisgarh Party
Jai Vijaya Bharathi Party
Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party
Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party
Jan Samanta Party
Jan Surajya Shakti
Jana Hitkari Party
Janata Dal (Secular)
Janata Dal (United)
Janata Party
Janvadi Party(Socialist)
Jawan Kisan Morcha
Jharkhand Disom Party
Jharkhand Jan Morcha
Jharkhand Janadikhar Manch
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
Jharkhand Party
Jharkhand Party (Naren)
Jharkhand PeopleÂ’S Party
Jharkhand Vikas Dal
Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
Kalinga Sena
Kamtapur Progressive Party
Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha
Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha
Karnataka Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam
Kerala Congress
Kerala Congress (M)
Kosal Kranti Dal
Kosi Vikas Party
Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
Krantikari Samyavadi Party
Krantisena Maharashtra
Laghujan Samaj Vikas Party
Lal Morcha
Lok Bharati
Lok Dal
Lok Jan Shakti Party
Lok Jan Vikas Morcha
Lok Satta Party
Lok Vikas Party
Lokpriya Samaj Party
Loksangram
Loktanrik Sarkar Party
Loktantrik Samajwadi Party
Loktantrik Samata Dal
Mahagujarat Janta Party
Maharashtra Navnirman sena
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak
Mahila Adhikar Party
Mana Party
Manav Mukti Morcha
Manipur People’s Party
Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)
Marxist Co-Ordination
Maulik Adhikar Party
Meghalaya Democratic Party
Moderate Party
Momin Conference
Muslim League Kerala State Committee
Muslim Majlis Uttar Pradesh
Nagaland Peoples Front
National Development Party
National Lokhind Party
National Loktantrik Party
National Secular Party
National Youth Party
Nationalist Congress Party
Navbharat Nirman Party
Nelopa(United)
Orissa Mukti Morcha
Party for Democratic Socialism
Paschim Banga Rajya Muslim League
Peace Party
Peoples Democratic Alliance
Peoples Democratic Forum
People’s Democratic Front
Peoples Guardian
People’s Party of Arunachal
Peoples Republican Party
Prabuddha Republican Party
Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party
Praja Bharath Party
Praja Rajyam Party
Prajatantrik Samadhan Party
Proutist Sarva Samaj
Proutist Sarva Samaj Party
Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal
Pyramid Party of India
Rajyadhikara Party
Rashtra Sewa Dal
Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
Rashtravadi Communist Party
Rashtravadi Janata Party
Rashtrawadi Sena
Rashtriya Agraniye Dal
Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party
Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
Rashtriya Gondvana Party
Rashtriya Janata Dal
Rashtriya Jan-Jagram Morcha
Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)
Rashtriya Kranti Party
Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party
Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
Rashtriya Lok Dal
Rashtriya Lokhit Party
Rashtriya Lokwadi Party
Rashtriya Machhua Samaj Party
Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party
Rashtriya Pragati Party
Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular)
Rashtriya Raksha Dal
Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (United)
Rashtriya Samanta Dal
Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi
Republican Paksha (Khoripa)
Republican Party of India
Republican Party of India (A)
Republican Party of India (Democratic )
Republican Party of India (Khobragade)
Republican Presidium Party of India
Republician Party of India Ektawadi
Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt)
Revolutionary Socialist Party
Samajik Jantantrik Party
Samajtantric Party of India
Samajwadi Jan Parishad
Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
Samajwadi Party
Samata Party
Samruddha Odisha
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Party
Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha
Sarvodaya Party
Savarn Samaj Party
Save Goa Front
Shakti Sena (Bharat Desh)
Shivrajya Party
Shivsena
Shoshit Samaj Dal
Socialist Party (Lohia)
Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
Sunder Samaj Party
Swabhimani Paksha
Swarajya Party Of India
Swatantra Bharat Paksha
Telangana Rashtra Samithi
Telugu Desam
The Humanist Party of India
Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
United Communist Party of India
United Democratic Party
United Goans Democratic Party
United Women Front
Uttar Pradesh Republican Party
Vanchit Jamat Party
Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katch
Vikas Party
Vishva Hindustani Sangathan
Yuva Vikas Party … and many many more….
S01 1 AP ADILABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ADE TUKARAM M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 KOTNAK RAMESH M 39 Indian National Congress
3 RATHOD RAMESH M 43 Telugu Desam
4 RATHOD SADASHIV NAIK M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 MESRAM NAGO RAO M 59 Praja Rajyam Party
6 ATHRAM LAXMAN RAO M 47 Independent
7 GANTA PENTANNA M 36 Independent
8 NETHAVAT RAMDAS M 39 Independent
9 BANKA SAHADEVU M 55 Independent
S01 2 AP PEDDAPALLE 16-Apr-09 1 GAJJELA SWAMY M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 GOMASA SRINIVAS M 41 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
3 MATHANGI NARSIAH M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DR.G.VIVEKANAND M 51 Indian National Congress
5 AREPELLI DAVID RAJU M 36 Praja Rajyam Party
6 KRISHNA SABBALI M 39 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)
7 AMBALA MAHENDAR M 38 Independent
8 A. KAMALAMMA F 36 Independent
9 GORRE RAMESH M 42 Independent
10 NALLALA KANUKAIAH M 39 Independent
11 B. MALLAIAH M 32 Independent
12 K. RAJASWARI F 38 Independent
13 D. RAMULU M 51 Independent
14 G.VINAY KUMAR M 51 Independent
15 S.LAXMAIAH M 33 Independent
S01 3 AP KARIMNAGAR 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDUPATLA JANGA REDDY M 75 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 PONNAM PRABHAKAR M 41 Indian National Congress
3 VINOD KUMAR BOINAPALLY M 49 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
4 VIRESHAM NALIMELA M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 RAGULA RAMULU M 40 Republican Party of India (A)
6 LINGAMPALLI SRINIVAS REDDY M 39 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)
7 VELICHALA RAJENDER RAO M 46 Praja Rajyam Party
8 T. SRIMANNARAYANA M 68 Pyramid Party of India
9 K. PRABHAKAR M 43 Independent
10 KORIVI VENUGOPAL M 46 Independent
11 BARIGE GATTAIAH YADAV M 32 Independent
12 GADDAM RAJI REDDY M 48 Independent
13 PANAKANTI SATISH KUMAR M 46 Independent
14 PEDDI RAVINDER M 29 Independent
15 B. SURESH M 32 Independent
S01 4 AP NIZAMABAD 16-Apr-09 1 DR. BAPU REDDY M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BIGALA GANESH GUPTA M 39 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
3 MADHU YASKHI GOUD M 50 Indian National Congress
4 YEDLA RAMU M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 DUDDEMPUDI SAMBASIVA RAO CHOUDARY M 62 Lok Satta Party
6 P.VINAY KUMAR M 51 Praja Rajyam Party
7 DR. V.SATHYANARAYANA MURTHY M 51 Pyramid Party of India
8 S. SUJATHA F 43 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
9 AARIS MOHAMMED M 46 Independent
10 KANDEM PRABHAKAR M 44 Independent
11 GADDAM SRINIVAS M 47 Independent
12 RAPELLY SRINIVAS M 34 Independent
S01 5 AP ZAHIRABAD 16-Apr-09 1 CHENGAL BAGANNA M 66 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 M.VISHNU MUDIRAJ M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SYED YOUSUF ALI M 54 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
4 SURESH KUMAR SHETKAR M 46 Indian National Congress
5 BENJAMIN RAJU M 39 Indian Justice Party
6 MALKAPURAM SHIVA KUMAR M 43 Praja Rajyam Party
7 MALLESH RAVINDER REDDY M 39 Lok Satta Party
8 CHITTA RAJESHWAR RAO M 45 Independent
9 POWAR SINGH HATTI SINGH M 36 Independent
10 BASAVA RAJ PATIL M 39 Independent
S01 6 AP MEDAK 16-Apr-09 1 NARENDRANATH .C M 45 Indian National Congress
2 P. NIROOP REDDY M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 VIJAYA SHANTHI .M F 43 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
4 Y. SHANKAR GOUD M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 KOVURI PRABHAKAR M 51 Pyramid Party of India
6 KHAJA QUAYUM ANWAR M 43 Praja Rajyam Party
7 D. YADESHWAR M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)
8 K. SUDHEER REDDY M 37 Lok Satta Party
9 KUNDETI RAVI M 32 Independent
S01 7 AP MALKAJGIRI 16-Apr-09 1 NALLU INDRASENA REDDY M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 M.BABU RAO PADMA SALE M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BHEEMSEN.T M 60 Telugu Desam
4 SARVEY SATYANARAYANA M 54 Indian National Congress
5 S.D.KRISHNA MURTHY M 51 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
6 T.DEVENDER GOUD M 56 Praja Rajyam Party
7 NARENDER KUMBALA M 39 Bharat Punarnirman Dal
8 PRATHANI RAMAKRISHNA M 42 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
9 LION C FRANCIS MJF M 56 Samajwadi Party
10 N V RAMA REDDY M 54 Pyramid Party of India
11 DR.LAVU RATHAIAH M 56 Lok Satta Party
12 KANTE KANAKAIAH GANGAPUTHRA M 63 Independent
13 KOYAL KAR BHOJARAJ M 35 Independent
14 CHENURU VENKATA SUBBA RAO M 52 Independent
15 JAJULA BHASKAR M 34 Independent
16 LT.COL. (RETD). DUSERLA PAPARAIDU M 62 Independent
17 MD.MANSOORALI M 31 Independent
18 S.VICTOR M 40 Independent
19 K.SRINIVASA RAJU M 44 Independent
S01 8 AP SECUNDRABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ANJAN KUMAR YADAV M M 47 Indian National Congress
2 BANDARU DATTATREYA M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 M. D. MAHMOOD ALI M 55 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
4 M. VENKATESH M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SRINIVASA SUDHISH RAMBHOTLA M 40 Telugu Desam
6 ABDUS SATTAR MUJAHED M 41 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
7 IMDAD JAH M 64 Ambedkar National Congress
8 P. DAMODER REDDY M 48 Pyramid Party of India
9 DR. DASOJU SRAVAN KUMAR M 41 Praja Rajyam Party
10 S. DEVAIAH M 59 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
11 C.V.L. NARASIMHA RAO M 51 Lok Satta Party
12 DR .POLISHETTY RAM MOHAN M 57 Samata Party
13 MOHD. OSMAN QURESHEE M 35 Ajeya Bharat Party
14 SHIRAZ KHAN F 39 United Women Front
15 ASEERVADAM LELLAPALLI M 51 Independent
16 AMBATI KRISHNA MURTHY M 50 Independent
17 B. GOPALA KRISHNA M 42 Independent
18 DEVI DAS RAO GHODKE M 63 Independent
19 BABER ALI KHAN M 51 Independent
20 M. BHAGYA MATHA F 38 Independent
21 CH. MURAHARI M 49 Independent
22 G. RAJAIAH M 48 Independent
23 K. SRINIVASA CHARI M 49 Independent
S01 9 AP HYDERABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ZAHID ALI KHAN M 66 Telugu Desam
2 P. LAXMAN RAO GOUD M 55 Indian National Congress
3 SATISH AGARWAL M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SAMY MOHAMMED M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ASADUDDIN OWAISI M 41 All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen
6 S. GOPAL SINGH M 34 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
7 TAHER KAMAL KHUNDMIRI M 52 Janata Dal (Secular)
8 FATIMA .A F 41 Praja Rajyam Party
9 P. VENKATESWARA RAO M 58 Pyramid Party of India
10 D. SURENDER M 36 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
11 AL-KASARY MOULLIM MOHSIN HUSSAIN M 33 Independent
12 ALTAF AHMED KHAN M 43 Independent
13 M.A. QUDDUS GHORI M 43 Independent
14 ZAHID ALI KHAN M 26 Independent
15 M.A. BASITH M 55 Independent
16 MD. OSMAN M 43 Independent
17 B. RAVI YADAV M 33 Independent
18 N.L. SRINIVAS M 31 Independent
19 M.A. SATTAR M 29 Independent
20 D. SADANAND M 45 Independent
21 SYED ABDUL GAFFTER M 51 Independent
22 SARDAR SINGH M 62 Independent
23 M.A. HABEEB M 31 Independent
S01 10 AP CHELVELLA 16-Apr-09 1 JAIPAL REDDY SUDINI M 67 Indian National Congress
2 A.P.JITHENDER REDDY M 54 Telugu Desam
3 BADDAM BAL REDDY M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 C.SRINIVAS RAO M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 KASANI GNANESHWAR M 54 Mana Party
6 KUMMARI GIRI M 28 Pyramid Party of India
7 DASARA SARALA DEVI F 39 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)
8 DR.B.RAGHUVEER REDDY M 42 Lok Satta Party
9 SAMA SRINIVASULU M 34 Great India Party
10 S.MALLA REDDY M 43 Independent
11 G.MALLESHAM GOUD M 32 Independent
12 RAMESHWARAM JANGAIAH M 58 Independent
13 LAXMINARAYANA M 27 Independent
14 VENKATRAM NAIK M 27 Independent
15 SAYAMOOLA NARSIMULU M 30 Independent
S01 11 AP MAHBUBNAGAR 16-Apr-09 1 KUCHAKULLA YADAGIRI REDDY M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 K. CHANDRASEKHAR RAO M 55 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
3 DEVARAKONDA VITTAL RAO M 57 Indian National Congress
4 PALEM SUDARSHAN GOUD M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ABDUL KAREEM KHAJA MOHAMMAD M 50 Lok Satta Party
6 ASIRVADAM M 35 Great India Party
7 KOLLA VENKATESH MADIGA M 37 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
8 GUNDALA VIJAYALAKSHMI F 61 Pyramid Party of India
9 B. BALRAJ GOUD M 44 Mana Party
10 MUNISWAMY.C.R M 32 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
11 USHAN SATHYAMMA F 32 Independent
12 USAIN RANGAMMA F 50 Independent
13 YETTI CHINNA YENKAIAH M 47 Independent
14 YETTI LINGAIAH M 52 Independent
15 KANDUR KURMAIAH M 56 Independent
16 KARRE JANGAIAH M 29 Independent
17 GANGAPURI RAVINDAR GOUD M 28 Independent
18 GAJJA NARSIMULU M 35 Independent
19 CHENNAMSETTY DASHARATHA RAMULU HOLEA DASARI M 31 Independent
20 M.A. JABBAR M 39 Independent
21 DEPALLY MAISAIAH M 27 Independent
22 DEPALLY SAYANNA M 47 Independent
23 K. NARSIMULU M 52 Independent
24 NAGENDER REDDY. K M 49 Independent
25 PANDU M 29 Independent
26 BUDIGA JANGAM LAXMAMMA F 30 Independent
27 MOHAMMAD GHOUSE MOINUDDIN M 76 Independent
28 MALA JANGILAMMA F 50 Independent
29 RAJESH NAIK M 29 Independent
30 RAIKANTI RAMADAS MADIGA M 40 Independent
31 V. VENKATESHWARLU M 32 Independent
32 B. SEENAIAH GOUD M 62 Independent
S01 12 AP NAGARKURNOOL 16-Apr-09 1 GUVVALA BALARAJU M 31 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
2 TANGIRALA PARAMJOTHI M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DR. MANDA JAGANNATH M 57 Indian National Congress
4 DR. T. RATNAKARA M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DEVANI SATYANARAYANA M 39 Praja Rajyam Party
6 S.P.FERRY ROY M 27 Pyramid Party of India
7 G. VIDYASAGAR M 60 Lok Satta Party
8 ANAPOSALA VENKATESH M 27 Independent
9 N. KURUMAIAH M 27 Independent
10 BUDDULA SRINIVAS M 35 Independent
11 A.V. SHIVA KUMAR M 42 Independent
12 SIRIGIRI MANNEM M 36 Independent
13 HANUMANTHU M 28 Independent
S01 13 AP NALGONDA 16-Apr-09 1 GUTHA SUKENDER REDDY M 55 Indian National Congress
2 NAZEERUDDIN M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 VEDIRE SRIRAM REDDY M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SURAVARAM SUDHAKAR REDDY M 67 Communist Party of India
5 A. NAGESHWAR RAO M 59 Pyramid Party of India
6 PADURI KARUNA F 58 Praja Rajyam Party
7 DAIDA LINGAIAH M 51 Independent
8 MD. NAZEEMUDDIN M 40 Independent
9 BOLUSANI KRISHNAIAH M 45 Independent
10 BOLLA KARUNAKAR M 33 Independent
11 MARRY NEHEMIAH M 55 Independent
12 YALAGANDULA RAMU M 41 Independent
13 K.V.SRINIVASA CHARYULU M 30 Independent
14 SHAIK AHMED M 57 Independent
S01 14 AP BHONGIR 16-Apr-09 1 KOMATIREDDY RAJ GOPAL REDDY M 41 Indian National Congress
2 CHINTHA SAMBA MURTHY M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 NOMULA NARSIMHAIAH M 49 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
4 SIDDHARTHA PHOOLEY M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 CHANDRA MOULI GANDAM M 48 Praja Rajyam Party
6 PALLA PRABHAKAR REDDY M 64 Pyramid Party of India
7 RACHA SUBHADRA REDDY F 59 Lok Satta Party
8 GUMMI BAKKA REDDY M 75 Independent
9 POOSA BALA KISHAN BESTA M 35 Independent
10 PERUKA ANJAIAH M 46 Independent
11 MAMIDIGALLA JOHN BABU M 40 Independent
12 MEDI NARSIMHA M 31 Independent
13 RUPANI RAMESH VADDERA M 31 Independent
14 SANGU MALLAYYA M 66 Independent
15 SIRUPANGI RAMULU M 55 Independent
S01 15 AP WARANGAL 16-Apr-09 1 JAYAPAL. V M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DOMMATI SAMBAIAH M 45 Telugu Desam
3 RAJAIAH SIRICILLA M 55 Indian National Congress
4 RAMAGALLA PARAMESHWAR M 55 Telangana Rashtra Samithi
5 LALAIAH P M 65 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 ONTELA MONDAIAH M 58 Pyramid Party of India
7 DR. CHANDRAGIRI RAJAMOULY M 49 Praja Rajyam Party
8 BALLEPU VENKAT NARSINGA RAO M 37 Lok Satta Party
9 KANNAM VENKANNA M 32 Independent
10 KRISHNADHI SRILATHA F 33 Independent
11 SOMAIAH GANAPURAM M 39 Independent
12 DAMERA MOGILI M 34 Independent
13 DUBASI NARSING M 46 Independent
14 PAKALA DEVADANAM M 74 Independent
15 D. SREEDHAR RAO M 37 Independent
S01 16 AP MAHABUBABAD 16-Apr-09 1 KUNJA SRINIVASA RAO M 31 Communist Party of India
2 GUMMADI PULLAIAH M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 B. DILIP M 35 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 P. BALRAM M 45 Indian National Congress
5 D.T. NAIK M 61 Praja Rajyam Party
6 PODEM SAMMAIAH M 31 Pyramid Party of India
7 BANOTH MOLCHAND M 60 Lok Satta Party
8 KALTHI VEERASWAMY M 52 Independent
9 KECHELA RANGA REDDY M 44 Independent
10 DATLA NAGESWAR RAO M 42 Independent
11 PADIGA YERRAIAH M 64 Independent
12 P. SATYANARAYANA M 32 Independent
S01 17 AP KHAMMAM 16-Apr-09 1 KAPILAVAI RAVINDER M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 THONDAPU VENKATESWARA RAO M 30 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 NAMA NAGESWARA RAO M 50 Telugu Desam
4 RENUKA CHOWDHURY F 54 Indian National Congress
5 JALAGAM HEMAMALINI F 40 Praja Rajyam Party
6 JUPELLI SATYANARAYANA M 61 Lok Satta Party
7 MANUKONDA RAGHURAM PRASAD M 55 Pyramid Party of India
8 SHAIK MADAR SAHEB M 40 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
9 AVULA VENKATESWARLU M 45 Independent
10 CHANDA LINGAIAH M 58 Independent
11 DANDA LINGAIAH M 59 Independent
12 BANOTH LAXMA NAIK M 52 Independent
13 MALLAVARAPU JEREMIAH M 63 Independent
S01 18 AP ARUKU 16-Apr-09 1 KISHORE CHANDRA SURYANARAYANA DEO VYRICHERLA M 62 Indian National Congress
2 KURUSA BOJJAIAH M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 GADUGU BALLAYYA DORA M 38 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 MIDIYAM BABU RAO M 58 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 LAKE RAJA RAO M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 MEENAKA SIMHACHALAM M 43 Praja Rajyam Party
7 VADIGALA PENTAYYA M 56 Lok Satta Party
8 APPA RAO KINJEDI M 48 Independent
9 ARIKA GUMPA SWAMY M 60 Independent
10 ILLA RAMI REDDY M 54 Independent
11 JAYALAKSHMI SHAMBUDU F 39 Independent
S01 19 AP SRIKAKULAM 16-Apr-09 1 YERRNNAIDU KINJARAPU M 50 Telugu Desam
2 KILLI KRUPA RANI F 47 Indian National Congress
3 TANKALA SUDHAKARA RAO M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 DUPPALA RAVINDARA BABU M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KALYANI VARUDU F 29 Praja Rajyam Party
6 NANDA PRASADA RAO M 37 Pyramid Party of India
S01 20 AP VIZIANAGARAM 16-Apr-09 1 APPALA NAIDU KONDAPALLI M 41 Telugu Desam
2 GOTTAPU CHINAMNAIDU M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 JHANSI LAXMI BOTCHA F 45 Indian National Congress
4 SANYASI RAJU PAKALAPATI M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KIMIDI GANAPATHI RAO M 52 Praja Rajyam Party
6 LUNKARAN JAIN M 60 Pyramid Party of India
7 DATTLA SATYA APPALA SIVANANDA RAJU M 34 Lok Satta Party
8 VENKATA SATYA NARAYANA RAGHUMANDA M 28 Bharatiya Sadbhawna Samaj Party
9 MAHESWARA RAO VARRI M 35 Independent
S01 21 AP VISAKHAPATNAM 16-Apr-09 1 I.M.AHMED M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 DAGGUBATI PURANDESWARI F 49 Indian National Congress
3 DR.M.V.V.S.MURTHI M 70 Telugu Desam
4 D.V.SUBBARAO M 76 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 PALLA SRINIVASA RAO M 40 Praja Rajyam Party
6 BETHALA KEGIYA RANI F 26 Bahujan Samaj Party(Ambedkar-Phule)
7 D.BHARATHI F 53 Pyramid Party of India
8 D.V.RAMANA (VASU MASTER) M 37 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
9 RAMESH LANKA M 49 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party
10 M.T.VENKATESWARALU M 42 Lok Satta Party
11 APPARAO GOLAGANA M 46 Independent
12 BANDAM VENKATA RAO YADAV M 32 Independent
13 YADDANAPUDI RANGARAO M 78 Independent
14 YALAMANCHILI PRASAD M 54 Independent
15 RANGARAJU KALIDINDI M 46 Independent
S01 22 AP ANAKAPALLI 16-Apr-09 1 APPA RAO KIRLA M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 NOOKARAPU SURYA PRAKASA RAO M 50 Telugu Desam
3 BHEEMISETTI NAGESWARARAO M 41 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 VENKATA RAMANA BABU PILLA M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SABBAM HARI M 55 Indian National Congress
6 ALLU ARAVIND M 62 Praja Rajyam Party
7 PULAMARASETTI VENKATA RAMANA M 28 Pyramid Party of India
8 BOYINA NAGESWARA RAO M 52 Janata Dal (United)
9 NANDA GOPAL GANDHAM M 60 Independent
10 PATHALA SATYA RAO M 46 Independent
S02 1 AR ARUNACHAL WEST 16-Apr-09 1 KIREN RIJIJU M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 TAKAM SANJOY M 42 Indian National Congress
3 TABA TAKU M 25 Lok Bharati
4 SUBU KECHI M 36 Independent
S02 2 AR ARUNACHAL EAST 16-Apr-09 1 LOWANGCHA WANGLAT M 66 Arunachal Congress
2 NINONG ERING M 50 Indian National Congress
3 TAPIR GAO M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DR. SAMSON BORANG M 33 People’s Party of Arunachal
S03 1 AS KARIMGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 RAJESH MALLAH M 43 Assam United Democratic Front
2 LALIT MOHAN SUKLABAIDYA M 68 Indian National Congress
3 SUDHANGSHU DAS M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 UTTAM NOMOSUDRA M 34 Independent
5 JOY DAS M 37 Independent
6 DEBASISH DAS M 36 Independent
7 PROBHASH CH. SARKAR M 36 Independent
8 BIJON ROY M 35 Independent
9 BIJOY MALAKAR M 42 Independent
10 MALATI ROY F 42 Independent
11 MILON SINGHA M 42 Independent
12 RANJAN NAMASUDRA M 41 Independent
13 RAJESH CHANDRA ROY M 29 Independent
14 SITAL PRASAD DUSAD M 55 Independent
15 HIMANGSHU KUMAR DAS M 28 Independent
S03 2 AS SILCHAR 16-Apr-09 1 KABINDRA PURKAYASTHA M 74 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DIPAK BHATTACHARJEE M 69 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 BADRUDDIN AJMAL M 54 Assam United Democratic Front
4 SONTOSH MOHAN DEV M 75 Indian National Congress
5 KANTIMOY DEB M 60 Independent
6 CHANDAN RABIDAS M 34 Independent
7 JAYANTA MALLICK M 36 Independent
8 JOY SUNDAR DAS M 38 Independent
9 NAGENDRA CHANDRA DAS M 28 Independent
10 NAZRUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYAN M 36 Independent
11 NABADWIP DAS M 58 Independent
12 PIJUSH KANTI DAS M 38 Independent
13 MANISH BHATTACHARJEE M 62 Independent
14 YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH M 40 Independent
15 SUBIR DEB M 41 Independent
16 SUMIT ROY M 33 Independent
S03 3 AS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT 16-Apr-09 1 KULENDRA DAULAGUPU M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BIREN SINGH ENGTI M 64 Indian National Congress
3 HIDDHINATH RONGPI M 45 Nationalist Congress Party
4 ELWIN TERON M 48 Autonomous State Demand Committee
5 DR. JAYANTA RONGPI M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 KABON TIMUNGPI F 56 Independent
S04 17 BR GOPALGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 ANIL KUMAR M 41 Rashtriya Janata Dal
2 JANAK RAM M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 PURNMASI RAM M 52 Janata Dal (United)
4 RAMAI RAM M 66 Indian National Congress
5 MADHU BHARTI F 39 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 RAM KUMAR MANJHI M 30 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
7 RAMASHANKAR RAM M 43 Rashtriya Jan-Jagram Morcha
8 SATYADEO RAM M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
9 ASHA DEVI F 46 Independent
10 DINANATH MANJHI M 31 Independent
11 DHARMENDRA KUMAR HAZRA M 41 Independent
12 BANITHA BAITHA F 25 Independent
13 RAJESH KUMAR RAM M 28 Independent
14 RAM SURAT RAM M 42 Independent
15 SHAMBHU DOM M 41 Independent
16 SURENDRA PASWAN M 28 Independent
S04 18 BR SIWAN 16-Apr-09 1 PARASH NATH PATHAK M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BRISHIN PATEL M 60 Janata Dal (United)
3 VIJAY SHANKER DUBEY M 60 Indian National Congress
4 HENA SHAHAB F 36 Rashtriya Janata Dal
5 AMAR NATH YADAV M 44 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 ASWANI KR. VERMA M 28 Indian Justice Party
7 MADHURI PANDAY F 35 Samajik Jantantrik Party
8 LAL BABU TIWARI M 55 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
9 UMESH TIWARY M 30 Independent
10 OM PRAKASH YADAV M 43 Independent
11 NIDHI KIRTI F 26 Independent
12 PRABHU NATH MALI M 26 Independent
13 DR. MUNESHWAR PRASAD M 68 Independent
14 RAJENDRA KUMAR M 36 Independent
15 SHAMBHU NATH PRASAD M 60 Independent
S04 19 BR MAHARAJGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 UMA SHANAKER SINGH M 61 Rashtriya Janata Dal
2 TARKESHWAR SINGH M 51 Indian National Congress
3 PRABHU NATH SINGH M 56 Janata Dal (United)
4 RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 RAMESH SINGH KUSHWAHA M 59 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 SATYENDRA KR. SAHANI M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 GAUTAM PRASAD M 30 Independent
8 DHURENDRA RAM M 47 Independent
9 NAYAN PRASAD M 53 Independent
10 PRADEEP MANJHI M 32 Independent
11 BANKE BIHARI SINGH M 25 Independent
12 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH M 26 Independent
13 BREENDA PATHAK M 63 Independent
S04 20 BR SARAN 16-Apr-09 1 RAJIV PRATAP RUDY M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 LALU PRASAD M 60 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 SALIM PERWEZ M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SANTOSH PATEL M 39 Loktantrik Samata Dal
5 SOHEL AKHATAR M 33 Bharatiya Momin Front
6 KUMAR BALRAM SINGH M 56 Independent
7 DHUPENDRA SINGH M 33 Independent
8 RAJKUMAR RAI M 33 Independent
9 RAJAN HRISHIKESH CHANDRA M 25 Independent
10 RAJARAM SAHANI M 49 Independent
11 LAL BABU RAY M 46 Independent
12 SHEO DAS SINGH M 74 Independent
S04 32 BR ARRAH 16-Apr-09 1 MEENA SINGH F 44 Janata Dal (United)
2 RAMA KISHORE SINGH M 46 Lok Jan Shakti Party
3 REETA SINGH F 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 HARIDWAR PRASAD SINGH M 64 Indian National Congress
5 AJIT PRASAD MEHTA M 43 Jawan Kisan Morcha
6 ARUN SINGH M 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 BHARAT BHUSAN PANDEY M 35 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
8 RAMADHAR SINGH M 48 Shivsena
9 SAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA M 57 All India Forward Bloc
10 SANTOSH KUMAR M 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
11 SATYA NARAYAN YADAV M 67 Rashtra Sewa Dal
12 SAIYAD GANIUDDIN HAIDER M 42 Ambedkar National Congress
13 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH M 38 Independent
14 BHARAT SINGH SAHYOGI M 45 Independent
15 MAHESH RAM M 45 Independent
16 SOBH NATH SINGH M 39 Independent
S04 33 BR BUXAR 16-Apr-09 1 KAMLA KANT TIWARY M 67 Indian National Congress
2 JAGADA NAND SINGH M 65 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 LAL MUNI CHOUBEY M 71 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SHYAM LAL SINGH KUSHWAHA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 MOKARRAM HUSSAIN M 57 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
6 MOHAN SAH M 33 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal
7 RAJENDRA SINGH MAURYA M 32 Loktantrik Samata Dal
8 DR. VIJENDRA NATH UPADHYAY M 37 Shivsena
9 SHYAM BIHARI BIND M 46 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
10 SATYENDRA OJHA M 27 Apna Dal
11 SUDAMA PRASAD M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
12 SURESH WADEKAR M 38 Republican Party of India
13 KAMLESH CHOUDHARY M 35 Independent
14 JAI SINGH YADAV M 34 Independent
15 DADAN SINGH M 45 Independent
16 PRATIBHA DEVI F 40 Independent
17 PHULAN PANDIT M 44 Independent
18 RAJENDRA PASWAN M 33 Independent
19 LALLAN RUPNARAIN PATHAK M 65 Independent
20 SHIV CHARAN YADAV M 55 Independent
21 SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY M 32 Independent
22 SURENDRA KUMAR BHARTI M 38 Independent
S04 34 BR SASARAM 16-Apr-09 1 GANDHI AZAD M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 MEIRA KUMAR F 63 Indian National Congress
3 MUNI LAL M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 LALAN PASWAN M 45 Rashtriya Janata Dal
5 DUKHI RAM M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 BABBAN CHAUDHARY M 39 Loktantrik Samata Dal
7 BALIRAM RAM M 43 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party
8 BHOLA PRASAD M 38 Indian Justice Party
9 RADHA DEBI F 28 Apna Dal
10 RAM NAGINA RAM M 41 Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party
11 RAM YADI RAM M 72 Republican Party of India
12 PRAMOD KUMAR M 26 Independent
13 BHARAT RAM M 33 Independent
14 MUNIYA DEBI F 41 Independent
15 RAM PRAVESH RAM M 47 Independent
16 SURENDRA RAM M 39 Independent
S04 35 BR KARAKAT 16-Apr-09 1 AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH M 53 Indian National Congress
2 UPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 KANTI SINGH F 54 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 MAHABALI SINGH M 54 Janata Dal (United)
5 AJAY KUMAR M 32 Republican Party of India (A)
6 JYOTI RASHMI F 30 Rashtra Sewa Dal
7 MUDREEKA YADAV M 59 Apna Dal
8 RAJ KISHOR MISRA M 30 Alpjan Samaj Party
9 RAJA RAM SINGH M 53 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
10 MD.SHAMIULLAH MANSOORI M 62 Shoshit Samaj Dal
11 ER.ABDUL SATAR M 62 Independent
12 AMAVAS RAM M 50 Independent
13 PRO. KAMTA PRASAD YADAV M 46 Independent
14 GIRISH NARAYAN SINGH M 48 Independent
15 SATISH PANDEY M 27 Independent
16 HARI PRASAD SINGH M 63 Independent
S04 36 BR JAHANABAD 16-Apr-09 1 DR. ARUN KUMAR M 49 Indian National Congress
2 JAGDISH SHARMA M 58 Janata Dal (United)
3 RAMADHAR SHARMA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV M 51 Rashtriya Janata Dal
5 AYASHA KHATUN F 28 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 PROF. JAI RAM PRASAD SINGH M 70 Shoshit Samaj Dal
7 TARA GUPTA F 62 Rashtriya Pragati Party
8 MAHANAND PRASAD M 41 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
9 RAMASRAY PRASAD SINGH M 83 Rashtriya Lok Dal
10 MD. SAHABUDDIN JAHAN M 36 Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party
11 SHRAVAN KUMAR M 32 Lal Morcha
12 SADHU SINHA M 68 All India Forward Bloc
13 SYED AKBAR IMAM M 49 Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena
14 AJAY KUMAR VERMA M 41 Independent
15 ABHAY KUMAR ANIL M 41 Independent
16 DR. ARBIND KUMAR M 52 Independent
17 ARVIND PRASAD SINGH M 43 Independent
18 UPENDRA PRASAD M 31 Independent
19 JAGDISH YADAV M 40 Independent
20 PRIKSHIT SINGH M 36 Independent
21 PRABHAT KUMAR RANJAN M 32 Independent
22 RANJIT SHARMA M 28 Independent
23 RAKESHWAR KISHOR M 35 Independent
24 SIYA RAM PRASAD M 40 Independent
25 SUMIRAK SINGH M 50 Independent
S04 37 BR AURANGABAD 16-Apr-09 1 ARCHANA CHANDRA F 32 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 NIKHIL KUMAR M 67 Indian National Congress
3 SHAKIL AHMAD KHAN M 61 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH M 43 Janata Dal (United)
5 ANIL KUMAR SINGH M 36 Rashtra Sewa Dal
6 AMERIKA MAHTO M 48 Shoshit Samaj Dal
7 RAM KUMAR MEHTA M 37 Loktantrik Samata Dal
8 VIJAY PASWAN M 48 Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party
9 ASLAM ANSARI M 38 Independent
10 INDRA DEO RAM M 58 Independent
11 UDAY PASWAN M 41 Independent
12 PUNA DAS M 34 Independent
13 RANJEET KUMAR M 48 Independent
14 RAJENDRA YADAV M 42 Independent
15 RAMSWARUP PRASAD YADAV M 72 Independent
16 SANTOSH KUMAR M 40 Independent
S04 38 BR GAYA 16-Apr-09 1 KALAWATI DEVI F 27 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 RAMJI MANJHI M 49 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 SANJIV PRASAD TONI M 52 Indian National Congress
4 HARI MANJHI M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DILIP PASWAN M 41 Navbharat Nirman Party
6 NIRANJAN KUMAR M 35 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 RAJESH KUMAR M 27 Loktantrik Samata Dal
8 RAMDEV ARYA PAAN M 67 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
9 AMAR NATH PRASAD M 35 Independent
10 KRISHNA CHOUDHARY M 26 Independent
11 KAIL DAS M 66 Independent
12 DIPAK PASWAN M 27 Independent
13 RAM KISHORE PASWAN M 36 Independent
14 RAMU PASWAN M 29 Independent
15 SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR M 33 Independent
16 SHYAM LAL MANJHI M 50 Independent
S04 39 BR NAWADA 16-Apr-09 1 GANESH SHANKAR VIDYARTHI M 85 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 BHOLA SINGH M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MASIH UDDIN M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 VEENA DEVI F 36 Lok Jan Shakti Party
5 SUNILA DEVI F 38 Indian National Congress
6 UMAKANT RAHI M 37 Shoshit Samaj Dal
7 KAILASH PAL M 48 Bharatiya Sarvodaya Kranti Party
8 VIDHYAPATI SINGH M 46 Loktantrik Samata Dal
9 SURENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY M 45 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
10 AKHILESH SINGH M 38 Independent
11 ANIL MEHTA M 36 Independent
12 KAUSHAL YADAV M 39 Independent
13 CHANCHALA DEVI F 33 Independent
14 DURGA PRASAD DHAR M 29 Independent
15 NAVIN KUMAR VERMA M 38 Independent
16 RAJ KISHOR RAJ M 43 Independent
17 RAJ BALLABH PRASAD M 46 Independent
18 RAJENDRA VISHAL M 44 Independent
19 RAJENDRA SINGH M 60 Independent
20 SHAMBHU PRASAD M 41 Independent
21 SUNIL KUMAR M 28 Independent
S04 40 BR JAMUI 16-Apr-09 1 ASHOK CHOUDHARY M 42 Indian National Congress
2 GAJADHAR RAJAK M 63 Communist Party of India
3 BHAGWAN DAS M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 BHUDEO CHOUDHARY M 46 Janata Dal (United)
5 SHYAM RAJAK M 56 Rashtriya Janata Dal
6 ARJUN MANJHI M 45 Jago Party
7 UPENDRA RAVIDAS M 30 Samata Party
8 OM PRAKASH PASWAN M 62 Loktantrik Samata Dal
9 GULAB CHANDRA PASWAN M 58 Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party
10 NUNDEO MANJHI M 54 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
11 PRASADI PASWAN M 37 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
12 SUBHASH PASWAN M 36 Samajtantric Party of India
13 KAPILDEO DAS M 55 Independent
14 JAY SEKHAR MANJHI M 48 Independent
15 PAPPU RAJAK M 40 Independent
16 YOGENDRA PASWAN M 37 Independent
17 VIJAY PASWAN M 29 Independent
18 BILAKSHAN RAVIDAS M 51 Independent
19 SARYUG PASWAN M 65 Independent
S09 6 JK JAMMU 16-Apr-09 1 S.TARLOK SINGH M 59 Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party
2 HUSSAIN ALI M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 LILA KARAN SHARMA M 68 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 MADAN LAL SHARMA M 56 Indian National Congress
5 UDAY CHAND M 55 Duggar Pradesh Party
6 SURJIT SINGH ‘G’ SITARA M 58 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
7 SANT RAM M 73 Bharatiya Bahujan Party
8 SANJEEV KUMAR MANMOTRA M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party
9 QARI ZAHIR ABBAS BHATTI M 39 All India Forward Bloc
10 ABDUL MAJEED MALIK M 37 Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K
11 ASHOK KUMAR M 45 Independent
12 BALWAN SINGH M 35 Independent
13 PARAS RAM POONCHI M 56 Independent
14 RAMESH CHANDER SHARMA M 36 Independent
15 SATISH POONCHI M 60 Independent
16 SANJAY KUMAR M 39 Independent
17 SHAKEELA BANO F 32 Independent
18 LABHA RAM GANDHI M 46 Independent
19 CH. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN CHOUHAN M 38 Independent
20 NARESH DOGRA M 40 Independent
21 HILAL AHMED BAIG M 29 Independent
S11 1 KL KASARAGOD 16-Apr-09 1 P KARUNAKARAN M 64 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 K.H.MADHAVI F 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SHAHIDA KAMAL F 40 Indian National Congress
4 K. SURENDRAN M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ABBAS MUTHALAPPARA M 47 Independent
6 MOHAN NAYAK M 73 Independent
7 P.K. RAMAN M 48 Independent
S11 2 KL KANNUR 16-Apr-09 1 P.P KARUNAKARAN MASTER M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 K.K BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 K.K RAGESH M 38 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
4 K. SUDHAKARAN M 60 Indian National Congress
5 P.I. CHANDRASEKHARAN M 53 The Humanist Party of India
6 JOHNSON ALIAS SUNNY AMBATT M 48 Independent
7 K. RAGESH S/O. JANARDHANAN M 33 Independent
8 PATTATHIL RAGHAVAN M 82 Independent
9 K. SUDHAKARAN KAVINTE ARIKATH M 39 Independent
S11 3 KL VADAKARA 16-Apr-09 1 ADV.K. NOORUDHEEN MUSALIAR M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 MULLAPPALLY RAMACHANDRAN M 64 Indian National Congress
3 K.P SREESAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 ADV. P. SATHEEDEVI F 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 T.P CHANDRASEKHARAN M 47 Independent
6 NAROTH RAMACHANDRAN M 58 Independent
7 P.SATHIDEVI PALLIKKAL F 36 Independent
8 SATHEEDEVI F 42 Independent
S11 4 KL WAYANAD 16-Apr-09 1 K. MURALEEDHARAN M 51 Nationalist Congress Party
2 RAJEEV JOSEPH M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 C. VASUDEVAN MASTER M 65 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 M.I. SHANAVAS M 57 Indian National Congress
5 ADVOCATE. M. RAHMATHULLA M 48 Communist Party of India
6 KALLANGODAN ABDUL LATHEEF M 46 Independent
7 CLETUS M 52 Independent
8 DR. NALLA THAMPY THERA M 75 Independent
9 ADVOCATE. SHANAVAS MALAPPURAM M 36 Independent
10 SHANAVAS MANAKULANGARA PARAMBIL M 29 Independent
11 SUNNY PONNAMATTOM M 58 Independent
12 M.P. RAHMATH M 30 Independent
13 RAHMATHULLA POOLADAN M 36 Independent
S11 5 KL KOZHIKODE 16-Apr-09 1 A.K. ABDUL NASAR M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ADV. P.A. MOHAMED RIYAS M 33 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 V. MURALEEDHARAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 M.K. RAGHAVAN M 57 Indian National Congress
5 ADV. P. KUMARANKUTTY M 64 Independent
6 K. MUHAMMED RIYAS M 27 Independent
7 P. MUHAMMED RIYAS M 28 Independent
8 P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS M 37 Independent
9 MUDOOR MUHAMMED HAJI M 44 Independent
10 K. RAGHAVAN M 44 Independent
11 P. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR M 63 Independent
12 M. RAGHAVAN M 65 Independent
13 VINOD K. M 33 Independent
14 ADV. SABI JOSEPH M 60 Independent
15 DR. D.SURENDRANATH M 60 Independent
16 RIYAS M 31 Independent
S11 6 KL MALAPPURAM 16-Apr-09 1 ADV.E.A. ABOOBACKER M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ADV. N. ARAVINDAN M 43 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 E. AHAMED M 70 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
4 T.K. HAMSA M 71 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
S11 7 KL PONNANI 16-Apr-09 1 K. JANACHANDRAN MASTER M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 P.K. MUHAMMED M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 E.T. MUHAMMED BASHEER M 62 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
4 ABDUREHMAN M 32 Independent
5 DR. AZAD M 45 Independent
6 PULLANI GOVINDAN M 64 Independent
7 DR. HUSSAIN RANTATHANI M 51 Independent
8 HUSSAIN EDAYATH M 29 Independent
9 HUSSAIN KADAIKKAL M 37 Independent
10 HUSSAIN PERICHAYIL M 42 Independent
11 HUSSAIN M 29 Independent
12 DR. HUSSAIN M 40 Independent
13 K. SADANANDAN M 62 Independent
S11 8 KL PALAKKAD 16-Apr-09 1 ABDUL RAZAK MOULAVI M 47 Nationalist Congress Party
2 CHANDRAN. V M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 C.K. PADMANABHAN M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 M.B. RAJESH M 34 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 SATHEESAN PACHENI M 41 Indian National Congress
6 A. AROKIASAMY M 61 Independent
7 M.R. MURALI M 43 Independent
8 N.V. RAJESH M 35 Independent
9 VIJAYAN AMBALAKKAD M 42 Independent
10 SATHEESAN. E.V M 37 Independent
S11 9 KL ALATHUR 16-Apr-09 1 P.K BIJU M 34 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 M. BINDU TEACHER F 35 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 DR. G SUDEVAN M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 N.K SUDHEER M 44 Indian National Congress
5 K. GOPALAKRISHNAN M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 BIJU K.K M 38 Independent
7 P.C BIJU M 36 Independent
8 C.K RAMAKRISHNAN M 43 Independent
9 K.K SUDHIR M 44 Independent
S11 10 KL THRISSUR 16-Apr-09 1 P C CHACKO M 62 Indian National Congress
2 C N JAYADEVAN M 58 Communist Party of India
3 ADV. JOSHY THARAKAN M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 REMA REGUNANDAN F 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 AJAYAN KUTTIKAT M 36 Janata Dal (United)
6 K ARUN KUMAR M 39 Independent
7 KUNJAN PULAYAN M 52 Independent
8 E A JOSEPH M 49 Independent
9 N K RAVI M 46 Independent
10 P C SAJU M 35 Independent
11 ADV. N HARIHARAN NAIR M 63 Independent
S11 11 KL CHALAKUDY 16-Apr-09 1 ADV. U.P JOSEPH M 45 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 K.P. DHANAPALAN M 59 Indian National Congress
3 MUTTAM ABDULLA M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 ADV.K.V. SABU M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 HAMSA KALAPARAMBATH M 47 Lok Jan Shakti Party
6 JOHNNY K CHEEKU M 47 Independent
7 JOSE MAVELI M 58 Independent
8 U.P JOSE M 45 Independent
9 DR. P.S. BABU M 42 Independent
10 T.S NARAYANAN MASTER M 67 Independent
11 C.A. HASEENA F 36 Independent
S11 12 KL ERNAKULAM 16-Apr-09 1 PROF. K V THOMAS M 61 Indian National Congress
2 A.N. RADHAKRISHNAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SHERIF MOHAMMED M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SINDHU JOY F 32 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 SAJU THOMAS M 43 Lok Jan Shakti Party
6 MARY FRANCIS MOOLAMPILLY F 59 Independent
7 VISWAMBARAN M 59 Independent
8 SAJI THURUTHIKUNNEL M 37 Independent
9 SINDHU K.S F 36 Independent
10 SINDHU JAYAN F 38 Independent
S11 13 KL IDUKKI 16-Apr-09 1 ADV. P.T THOMAS M 59 Indian National Congress
2 ADV. K. FRANCIS GEORGE M 54 Kerala Congress
3 ADV. BIJU M JOHN M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SREENAGARI RAJAN M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 VASUDEVAN M 39 Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katch
6 ADV. CHITTOOR RAJAMANNAR M 50 Independent
7 JOSE KUTTIYANY M 69 Independent
8 KANCHIYAR PEETHAMBARAN M 45 Independent
9 BABY M 51 Independent
10 M A SOOSAI M 45 Independent
S11 14 KL KOTTAYAM 16-Apr-09 1 JOSE K.MANI M 44 Kerala Congress (M)
2 ADV. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 ADV. SURESH KURUP M 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
4 SPENCER MARKS M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ADV. JAIMON THANKACHAN M 39 Samajwadi Jan Parishad
6 ANTO P JOHN M 41 Independent
7 JUNO JOHN BABY M 34 Independent
8 JOSE M 45 Independent
9 JOSE MATHEW M 32 Independent
10 JOSE K. MANI M 32 Independent
11 BABU M 41 Independent
12 K.T MATHEW M 50 Independent
13 MINI K PHILIP F 41 Independent
14 M.S RAVEENDRAN M 49 Independent
15 K. RAJAPPAN M 57 Independent
16 SASIKUTTAN VAKATHANAM M 53 Independent
17 SURESH N.B KURUP M 26 Independent
18 SURESHKUMAR K M 33 Independent
19 SURESHKUMAR T.R M 36 Independent
20 SURESH KURUMBAN M 36 Independent
S11 15 KL ALAPPUZHA 16-Apr-09 1 DR. K.S MANOJ M 43 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 K.C VENUGOPAL M 46 Indian National Congress
3 K.S PRASAD M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 P.J KURIAN M 63 Janata Dal (United)
5 S. SEETHILAL M 45 Independent
6 SONY J. KALYANKUMAR M 51 Independent
S11 16 KL MAVELIKKARA 16-Apr-09 1 R.S ANIL M 34 Communist Party of India
2 KODIKKUNNIL SURESH M 46 Indian National Congress
3 DR. N.D MOHAN M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 P.M VELAYUDHAN M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ANIL KUMAR M 26 Independent
6 K.S SASIKALA F 40 Independent
7 SOORANAD SUKUMARAN M 60 Independent
S11 17 KL PATHANAMTHITTA 16-Apr-09 1 ANANTHA GOPAN M 61 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 ANTO ANTONY M 52 Indian National Congress
3 KARUNAKARAN NAIR M 78 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 MANI C.KAPPEN M 51 Nationalist Congress Party
5 RADHAKRISHNA MENON M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 KUNJU PILLAI M 60 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 ANTO M 33 Independent
8 JYOTHISH M.R M 37 Independent
9 THAMBI M 40 Independent
10 NIRANAM RAJAN M 47 Independent
11 PUSHPANGADAN M 40 Independent
12 MATHEW PAREY M 26 Independent
S11 18 KL KOLLAM 16-Apr-09 1 ADVT. K M JAYANANDAN M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 N.PEETHAMBARAKURUP M 66 Indian National Congress
3 VAYAKKAL MADHU M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 P.RAJENDRAN M 58 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 ADV.ANU SASI M 28 Independent
6 KRISHNAMMAL F 59 Independent
7 K A JOHN M 55 Independent
8 N.PEETHAMBARAKURUP M 61 Independent
9 S.PRADEEP KUMAR M 30 Independent
10 S.RADHAKRISHNAN M 47 Independent
11 R.ZAKIEER HUSSAIN M 37 Independent
S11 19 KL ATTINGAL 16-Apr-09 1 PROF.G BALACHANDRAN M 63 Indian National Congress
2 THOTTAKKADU SASI M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 ADV. A SAMPATH M 46 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
4 J SUDHAKARAN M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SREENATH M 53 Shivsena
6 JAYAKUMAR M 56 Independent
7 BALACHANDRAN M 51 Independent
8 BALACHNDRAN C P M 59 Independent
9 MURALI KUMAR M 43 Independent
10 J VIJAYAKUMAR M 49 Independent
11 VIVEKANANDAN M 59 Independent
12 SHAMSUDEEN M 56 Independent
13 SAJIMON M 25 Independent
14 SAIFUDEEN M M 55 Independent
S11 20 KL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 16-Apr-09 1 P K KRISHNA DAS M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 M.P.GANGADHARAN M 74 Nationalist Congress Party
3 DR.A NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 ADV. P RAMACHANDRAN NAIR M 57 Communist Party of India
5 SHASHI THAROOR M 53 Indian National Congress
6 AJITHKUMAR.K M 41 All India Trinamool Congress
7 JAIN WILSON M 41 Bahujan Shakty
8 G ASHOKAN M 47 Independent
9 T.GEORGE M 40 Independent
10 DILEEP M 28 Independent
11 U.NAHURMIRAN PEERU MOHAMMED M 49 Independent
12 PRATHAPAN M 54 Independent
13 MOHANAN JOSHWA M 49 Independent
14 SASI – JANAKI SADAN M 39 Independent
15 SASI – KALAPURAKKAL M 51 Independent
16 SHAJAR KHAN M 38 Independent
S13 5 MH BULDHANA 16-Apr-09 1 JADHAV PRATAPRAO GANPATRAO M 49 Shivsena
2 DANDGE VASANTRAO SUGDEO M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SHINGNE DR.RAJENDRA BHASKARRAO M 48 Nationalist Congress Party
4 AMARDEEP BALASAHEB DESHMUKH M 27 Krantisena Maharashtra
5 QURRASHI SK.SIKANDAR SK. SHAUKAT M 33 Democratic Secular Party
6 GAJANAN RAJARAM SIRSAT M 27 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 DHOKNE RAVINDRA TULSHRAMJI M 44 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
8 FERAN CHADRAHAS JAGDEO M 54 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
9 GANESH ARJUN ZORE M 25 Independent
10 TAYDE VITTHAL PANDHARI M 56 Independent
11 DEVIDAS PIRAJI SARKATE M 35 Independent
12 SY. BILAL SY. USMAN M 38 Independent
13 BHARAT PUNJAJI SHINGANE M 40 Independent
14 RAJESH NIKANTHRAO TATHE M 52 Independent
15 RATHOD CHHAGAN BABULAL M 29 Independent
S13 6 MH AKOLA 16-Apr-09 1 DHOTRE SANJAY SHAMRAO M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BABASAHEB DHABEKAR M 78 Indian National Congress
3 ATIK AHAMAD GU. JILANI M 34 Democratic Secular Party
4 AMBEDKAR PRAKASH YASHWANT M 56 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 GANESH TULSHIRAM TATHE M 49 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
6 DIPAK SHRIRAM TIRAKE M 33 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 AJABRAO UTTAMRAO BHONGADE M 36 Independent
8 THAKURDAS GOVIND CHOUDHARI M 39 Independent
9 MUJAHID KHAN CHAND KHAN M 42 Independent
10 RAUT DEVIDAS ANANDRAO M 45 Independent
11 WASUDEORAO KHADE GURUJI M 68 Independent
S13 7 MH AMRAVATI 16-Apr-09 1 ADSUL ANANDRAO VITHOBA M 61 Shivsena
2 GANGADHAR GADE M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 UGLE SUNIL NAMDEV M 32 Peoples Republican Party
4 UBALE SHRIKRISHNA CHAMPATRAO M 62 Ambedkarist Republican Party
5 KESHAV DASHARATH WANKHADE M 38 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
6 GAWAI RAJENDRA RAMKRUSHNA M 46 Republican Party of India
7 PRINCIPAL GOPICHAND SURYABHAN MESHRAM M 52 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)
8 BARSE MANOHAR DAULATRAO M 53 Indian Union Muslim League
9 SAU MAMATA VINAYAK KANDALKAR F 31 Assam United Democratic Front
10 DR. HEMANTKUMAR RAMBHAU MAHURE M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
11 AMOL DEVIDASRAO JADHAV M 25 Independent
12 UMAK SHRIKRUSHNA SHYAMRAO M 57 Independent
13 BANDU SAMPATRAO SANE (BANDYA L.S.) M 43 Independent
14 BHAURAO SHRIRAM CHHAPANE M 38 Independent
15 MITHUN HIRAMAN GAIKWAD M 51 Independent
16 PROF. MUKUND VITTHALRAO KHAIRE M 51 Independent
17 DR. RAJIV GULABRAO JAMTHE M 53 Independent
18 RAJU MAHADEVRAO SONONE M 38 Independent
19 VISHWANATH GOTUJI JAMNEKAR M 60 Independent
20 SUDHAKAR VYANKAT RAMTEKE (MAJI SAINIK) M 25 Independent
21 ADV. SUDHIR HIRAMAN TAYADE M 42 Independent
22 SUNIL PRABHU RAMTEKE M 37 Independent
S13 8 MH WARDHA 16-Apr-09 1 KANGALE BIPIN BABASAHEB M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 DATTA MEGHE M 72 Indian National Congress
3 SURESH GANPATRAO WAGHMARE M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DIWATE RAMESH MADHAORAO M 46 Krantisena Maharashtra
5 NARAYANRAO RAMJI CHIDAM M 68 Gondvana Gantantra Party
6 DR. NITIN KESHORAO CHAVAN M 46 Peoples Republican Party
7 PYARE SAHAB SHEIKH KARIM M 41 Democratic Secular Party
8 BHOSE KAILAS VISHWASRAO M 36 Gondwana Mukti Sena
9 ADV. SURESH SHINDE M 42 Indian Justice Party
10 SANGITA SUNIL ALIAS SONU KAMBLE F 33 Ambedkarist Republican Party
11 ISHWARKUMAR SHANKARRAO GHARPURE M 50 Independent
12 GUNWANT TUKARAMJI DAWANDE M 70 Independent
13 JAGANNATH NILKANTHRAO RAUT M 54 Independent
14 TAGADE VISHWESHWAR AWADHUTRAO M 47 Independent
15 RAMTEKE PRAKASH BAKARAM M 60 Independent
16 SARANG PRAKASHRAO YAWALKAR M 31 Independent
S13 9 MH RAMTEK 16-Apr-09 1 TUMANE KRUPAL BALAJI M 43 Shivsena
2 PRAKASHBHAU KISHAN TEMBHURNE M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 WASNIK MUKUL BALKRISHNA M 49 Indian National Congress
4 KUMBHARE SULEKHA NARAYAN F 49 Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch
5 DESHPANDE SANJAY SAOJI M 44 Hindustan Janta Party
6 NAGARKAR PRASHANT HANSRAJ M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
7 NANDKISHOR SADHUJI DONGRE M 34 Gondvana Gantantra Party
8 BAGDE SUJEET WASUDEORAO M 43 Janata Dal (Secular)
9 PROF. BORKAR PRADIP DARYAV M 48 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)
10 MAYATAI CHAWRE (UTWAL) F 37 Samajwadi Party
11 VISKAS RAJARAM DAMLE M 41 Republican Party of India (Khobragade)
12 SEEMA JEEVAN RAMTEKE F 36 Democratic Secular Party
13 SANDIP SHESHRAO GAJBHIYE M 36 Gondwana Mukti Sena
14 ASHISH ARUN NAGARARE M 28 Independent
15 KHUSHAL UDARAMJI TUMANE M 53 Independent
16 DHONE ANIL M 43 Independent
17 ADV. DUPARE ULHAS SHALIKRAM M 42 Independent
18 BARWE MADHUKAR DOMAJI M 43 Independent
19 ADV. YUVRAJ ANANDRAOJI BAGDE M 34 Independent
20 RURESH MANGALDAS BORKAR M 33 Independent
S13 10 MH NAGPUR 16-Apr-09 1 PUROHIT BANWARILAL BHAGWANDAS M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 ENGINEER MANIKRAO VAIDYA M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 MUTTEMWAR VILASRAO BABURAOJI M 60 Indian National Congress
4 ARUN SHAMRAO JOSHI M 58 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
5 KUMBHARE SULEKHA NARAYAN F 49 Bahujan Republican Ekta Manch
6 ADV. GAJANAN SADASHIV KAWALE M 51 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)
7 DILIP MANGAL MADAVI M 44 Gondvana Gantantra Party
8 MEHMOOD KHAN RAHEEM KHAN M 27 Democratic Secular Party
9 DR. YASHWANT MANOHAR M 66 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
10 RAUT RAMESHCHANDRA M 56 Prabuddha Republican Party
11 RAJESH SUKHDEV GAIKWAD M 32 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
12 ADV. VASANTA UMRE M 50 Democratic Party of India
13 SOMKUWAR VIJAY SITARAM M 41 Ambedkarist Republican Party
14 AZIZUR REHMAN SHEIKH M 46 Independent
15 ASHISH ARUN NAGRARE M 28 Independent
16 ADV. UPASHA BANSI TAYWADE M 67 Independent
17 JAGDISH RAGHUNATH AMBADE M 44 Independent
18 PRATIBHA UDAY KHAPARDE F 35 Independent
19 PREMDAS RAMCHANDRA RAMTEKE M 48 Independent
20 BARPATRE CHANDRABHAN SOMAJI M 48 Independent
21 BLASAHEB ALIAS PRAMOD RAMAJI SHAMBHARKAR M 40 Independent
22 MOHAMAD HABIB REEZAVI M 50 Independent
23 RAJESHKUMAR MOHANLAL PUGALIA M 37 Independent
24 RAHUL MADHUKAR DESHMUKH M 34 Independent
25 VIJAY DEVRAO DHAKATE M 26 Independent
26 SUNIL GAYAPRASAD MISHRA M 41 Independent
27 PROF. DNYANESH WAKUDKAR M 52 Independent
S13 11 MH BHANDARA – GONDIYA 16-Apr-09 1 GANVIR SHIVKUMAR NAGARCHI M 56 Communist Party of India
2 JAISWAL VIRENDRAKUMAR KASTURCHAND M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 PATLE SHISHUPAL NATTHUJI M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 PATEL PRAFUL MANOHARBHAI M 52 Nationalist Congress Party
5 UNDIRWADE HEMANT JAGIVAN M 45 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 JAMAIWAR SUNIL PARASRAM M 38 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 PATHAN MUSHTAK LATIF M 32 Democratic Secular Party
8 PRATIBHA VASANT PIMPALKAR F 38 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
9 WASNIK SUNIL MANIRAM M 38 Republican Paksha (Khoripa)
10 UKEY CHINDHUJI LAKHAJI M 50 Independent
11 GAJBHIYE BRAMHASWARUP BABURAO M 33 Independent
12 GAJBHIYE RAJENDRA MAHADEO M 35 Independent
13 ADV. DHANANJAY SHAMLALJI RAJABHOJ M 50 Independent
14 NANABHAU FALGUNRAO PATOLE M 47 Independent
15 PATLE AKARSING SITARAM M 36 Independent
16 PROF. DR. BHASKARRAO MAHADEORAO JIBHAKATE M 63 Independent
17 MIRZA WAHIDBEG AHAMADBEG M 33 Independent
18 YELE GANESHRAM SUKHRAM M 54 Independent
19 RAHANGADALE MULCHAND OLGAN M 56 Independent
20 DR. RAMSAJIVAN KAWDU LILHARE M 60 Independent
21 SADANAND SHRAWANJI GANVIR M 40 Independent
S13 12 MH GADCHIROLI-CHIMUR 16-Apr-09 1 ASHOK MAHADEORAO NETE M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 ATRAM RAJE SATYAWANRAO M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 KOWASE MAROTRAO SAINUJI M 59 Indian National Congress
4 NAMDEO ANANDRAO KANNAKE M 50 Communist Party of India
5 PROFFESOR KHANDALE KAWDU TULSHIRAM M 69 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
6 ADV. DADMAL PRABHAKAR MAHAGUJI M 54 Peoples Republican Party
7 PENDAM DIWAKAR GULAB M 38 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
8 PENDAM PURUSHOTTAM ZITUJI M 35 Democratic Secular Party
9 VIJAY SURAJSING MADAVI M 39 Gondvana Gantantra Party
10 JAMBHULE NARAYAN DINABAJI M 54 Independent
11 DINESH TUKARAM MADAVI M 28 Independent
S13 13 MH CHANDRAPUR 16-Apr-09 1 AHIR HANSARAJ GANGARAM M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 PUGALIA NARESH M 60 Indian National Congress
3 ADV. HAZARE DATTABHAU KRUSHNARAO M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 KHARTAD LOMESH MAROTI M 55 Rashtrawadi Sena
5 KHOBRAGADE DESHAK GIRISHBABU M 38 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 CHATAP WAMAN SADASHIVRAO M 58 Swatantra Bharat Paksha
7 JAWED ABDUL KURESHI ALIAS PROF. JAWED PASHA M 47 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
8 JITENDRA ADAKU RAUT M 32 Akhil Bhartiya Manavata Paksha
9 DANGE NATTHU BHAURAO M 41 Ambedkarist Republican Party
10 PATHAN A. RAZZAK KHAN HAYAT KHAN M 44 Samajwadi Party
11 MASRAM NIRANJAN SHIVRAM M 42 Gondvana Gantantra Party
12 KALE DAMODHAR LAXMAN M 85 Independent
13 QURESHI IKHALAQ MOHD. YUSUF M 51 Independent
14 GODE NARAYAN SHAHUJI M 42 Independent
15 DEKATE BHASKAR PARASHRAM M 55 Independent
16 MADHUKAR VITTHALRAO NISTANE M 43 Independent
17 MESHRAM CHARANDAS JANGLUJI M 65 Independent
18 RAMESH RAGHOBAJI TAJNE M 45 Independent
19 VINOD DINANATH MESHRAM M 34 Independent
20 VIRENDRA TARACHANDJI PUGLIA M 53 Independent
21 SHATRUGHN VYANKATRAO SONPIMPLE M 37 Independent
22 SANJAY NILKANTH GAWANDE M 45 Independent
23 HIWARKAR SUDHIR MOTIRAMJI M 43 Independent
S13 14 MH YAVATMAL-WASHIM 16-Apr-09 1 YEDATKAR DILIP LAXMANRAO M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BHAVANA GAWALI (PATIL) F 36 Shivsena
3 HARISING RATHOD M 54 Indian National Congress
4 UTTAM BHAGAJI KAMBLE M 41 Prabuddha Republican Party
5 KURESHI SK. MEHBUB SK.FATTU M 44 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 KWAJA NASIRODDINE KHAN M 29 Democratic Secular Party
7 GAJANAN KASHIRAM PATIL (HEMBADE) M 26 Krantisena Maharashtra
8 DHAGE VITTHAL MAHADEV M 45 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
9 MANIYAR YUNUS MAHMOOD ZAHMI M 50 Assam United Democratic Front
10 MOHMMAD KHAN AZIZ KHAN M 43 Samajwadi Party
11 ATHAWALE SADANAND PRALHADRAO M 39 Independent
12 GAJANAN BURMAL DODWADE M 36 Independent
13 NETAJI SITARAMJI KINAKE M 58 Independent
14 NANDKISHOR NARAYANRAO THAKARE M 34 Independent
15 PAWAR RAMESH GORSING M 53 Independent
16 PURUSHOTTAM DOMAJI BHAJGAWRE M 48 Independent
17 MADHUKAR SHIVDASPPA GORATE M 67 Independent
18 MANOJ JANARDAN PATIL M 38 Independent
19 MUKHADE SAU. LALITARAI SUBHASHRAO F 32 Independent
20 MESHRAM BANDU GANPAT M 40 Independent
21 MOHD. INAMURRAHIM MOHD. MUSA M 51 Independent
22 RAVINDRA ALIAS RAVIPAL MADHUKARRAO GANDHE M 32 Independent
23 RAJKUMAR NARAYAN BHUJADALE M 35 Independent
24 RATHOD DEVISING RAMA M 56 Independent
25 SD. VHIDODDIN SD. KRIMODDIN M 44 Independent
26 VISHNU KASINATH TAWKAR M 47 Independent
27 SURESH BABAN PEDEKAR M 33 Independent
28 SURESH BHIVA TARAL M 29 Independent
S13 15 MH HINGOLI 16-Apr-09 1 DR. B.D. CHAVHAN M 45 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 SUBHASH BAPURAO WANDHEDE M 46 Shivsena
3 SURYAKANTA JAIWANTRAO PATIL F 63 Nationalist Congress Party
4 UTTAMRAO DAGADUJI BHAGAT M 65 Prabuddha Republican Party
5 AJAS NOORMINYA M 32 Democratic Secular Party
6 NAIK MADHAVRAO BAHENARAO M 65 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
7 VINAYAK SHRIRAM BHISE M 27 Krantisena Maharashtra
8 GUNDEKAR SANJAY ADELU M 35 Independent
9 PATHAN SATTAR KASIMKHAN M 38 Independent
10 PACHPUTE RAMPRASAD KISHANRAO M 41 Independent
11 MD. A. MUJIM ANSARI A. M 33 Independent
S13 16 MH NANDED 16-Apr-09 1 KHATGAONK PATIL BHASKARRAO BAPURAO M 65 Indian National Congress
2 MD. MAKBUL SALIM HAJI MD. KHAJA M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SAMBHAJI PAWAR M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 ALTAF AHMAD EAKBAL AHMAD M 43 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 KHADE SANJAY WAMANRAO M 29 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 TIWARI RAMA BHAGIRAT F 40 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 ADV. C.S. BAHETI M 56 Janata Party
8 MORE RAJESH EKNATHRAO M 34 Krantisena Maharashtra
9 A. RAEES A. JABBAR M 36 Ambedkar National Congress
10 SHINDE PREETI MADHUKAR F 27 Jan Surajya Shakti
11 SHUDHIR YASHWANT SURVE M 40 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
12 COM. ASHOK NAGORAO GHAYALE M 40 Independent
13 ANAND JADHAV HOTALKAR M 42 Independent
14 KOREWAR BALAJI NARSING M 38 Independent
15 JADHAV VISHNU MAROTI M 35 Independent
16 NAVGHARE ANAND PANDURANG M 48 Independent
17 NARAYAN SURYAVANSHI DOANGONKAR M 63 Independent
18 PATHAN ZAFAR ALI KHAN MAHEMUD ALI KHAN M 63 Independent
19 ‘AIDS MAN’ PRAKASH TATERAO LANDGE M 40 Independent
20 BHARANDE RAMCHANDRA GANGARAM M 31 Independent
21 ADV. RAMRAO PANDURANG WAGHMARE M 52 Independent
22 HANMANTE VIJAY CHANDRAO M 35 Independent
S13 17 MH PARBHANI 16-Apr-09 1 ADV. DUDHGAONKAR GANESHRAO NAGORAO M 64 Shivsena
2 RAJSHRI BABASAHEB JAMAGE F 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 WARPUDKAR SURESH AMBADASRAO M 60 Nationalist Congress Party
4 AJIM AHMED KHAN AJIJ KHAN M 32 Democratic Secular Party
5 ASHOKRAO BABARAO AMBHORE M 46 Ambedkar National Congress
6 KACHOLE MANAVENDRA SAWALARAM M 65 Swatantra Bharat Paksha
7 KALE VYANKATRAO BHIMRAO M 31 Krantisena Maharashtra
8 NAMDEV LIMBAJI KACHAVE M 68 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
9 BHAND GANGADHAR SAKHARAM M 70 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
10 MULE BABAN DATTARAO M 41 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
11 RUMALE TUKARAM DHONDIBA M 51 Prabuddha Republican Party
12 SAYYAD EKRAMODDIN SAYYAD MUNIRODDIN M 58 Lok Vikas Party
13 ASAD BIN ABDULLAHA BIN M 43 Independent
14 JAMEEL AHMED SK. AHMED M 44 Independent
15 DR. DESHMUKH KISHANRAO JANARDHANRAO (EX-SERVICEMAN) M 74 Independent
16 RATHOD RAMRAO DHANSING SIR M 58 Independent
17 SHINDE LAXMAN EKANATH M 36 Independent
18 SAMAR GORAKHNATH PAWAR M 41 Independent
19 SALVE SUDHAKAR UMAJI M 47 Independent
S14 2 MN OUTER MANIPUR 16-Apr-09 1 THANGSO BAITE M 56 Indian National Congress
2 D. LOLI ADANEE M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 L.B. SONA M 58 Nationalist Congress Party
4 M. JAMKHONGAM @ M. YAMKHONGAM HAOKIP M 49 Rashtriya Janata Dal
5 THANGKHANGIN M 53 Lok Jan Shakti Party
6 MANI CHARENAMEI M 50 Peoples Democratic Alliance
7 VALLEY ROSE HUNGYO F 53 Independent
8 MANGSHI (ROSE MANGSHI HAOKIP) F 63 Independent
9 LAMLALMOI GANGTE M 33 Independent
S15 1 ML SHILLONG 16-Apr-09 1 DALINGTON DYMPEP M 78 Communist Party of India
2 JOHN FILMORE KHARSHIING M 46 United Democratic Party
3 VINCENT H PALA M 41 Indian National Congress
4 P. B. M. BASAIAWMOIT M 60 Hill State People’s Democratic Party
5 MARTLE N.MUKHIM M 59 Meghalaya Democratic Party
6 DENIS SIANGSHAI M 44 Independent
7 TIEROD PASSAH M 45 Independent
S15 2 ML TURA 16-Apr-09 1 AGATHA K. SANGMA F 28 Nationalist Congress Party
2 DEBORA C. MARAK F 43 Indian National Congress
3 BOSTON MARAK M 28 A-Chik National Congress(Democratic)
4 ARLENE N. SANGMA F 53 Independent
S16 1 MZ MIZORAM 16-Apr-09 1 LALAWMPUIA CHHANGTE M 42 Nationalist Congress Party
2 C.L.RUALA M 72 Indian National Congress
3 DR. H. LALLUNGMUANA M 65 Independent
4 RUALPAWLA M 54 Independent
S17 1 NL NAGALAND 16-Apr-09 1 K. ASUNGBA SANGTAM M 62 Indian National Congress
2 C.M. CHANG M 65 Nagaland Peoples Front
3 DR. RILANTHUNG ODYUO M 39 All India Trinamool Congress
S18 1 OR BARGARH 16-Apr-09 1 RADHARANI PANDA F 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 SANJAY BHOI M 35 Indian National Congress
3 SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 DR. HAMID HUSSAIN M 54 Biju Janata Dal
5 NILADRI BEHARI PANDA M 29 Kosal Kranti Dal
6 SURENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL M 37 Independent
S18 2 OR SUNDARGARH 16-Apr-09 1 JUAL ORAM M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 JEROM DUNGDUNG M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 LIVNUS KINDO M 64 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
4 SALOMI MINZ F 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 HEMANANDA BISWAL M 67 Indian National Congress
6 RAMA CHANDRA EKKA M 61 Jharkhand Disom Party
7 SAGAR SING MANKEE M 60 Kosal Kranti Dal
8 DALESWAR MAJHI M 58 Independent
9 MANSID EKKA M 63 Independent
S18 3 OR SAMBALPUR 16-Apr-09 1 AMARNATH PRADHAN M 51 Indian National Congress
2 GOBINDA RAM AGARWAL M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 ROHIT PUJARI M 35 Biju Janata Dal
4 SURENDRA LATH M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ASHOK KUMAR NAIK M 53 Kosal Kranti Dal
6 BIJAYA KUMAR MAHANANDA M 35 Republican Party of India
7 MD. ALI HUSSAIN M 37 Independent
S18 10 OR BOLANGIR 16-Apr-09 1 KALIKESH NARAYAN SINGH DEO M 34 Biju Janata Dal
2 NARASINGHA MISHRA M 68 Indian National Congress
3 BALHAN SAGAR M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SANGITA KUMARI SINGH DEO F 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DINGAR KUMBHAR M 41 Samruddha Odisha
S18 11 OR KALAHANDI 16-Apr-09 1 NAKULA MAJHI M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BIKRAM KESHARI DEO M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 BHAKTA CHARAN DAS M 52 Indian National Congress
4 SUBASH CHANDRA NAYAK M 62 Biju Janata Dal
5 PARAMESWAR KAND M 47 Samajwadi Party
6 BALARAM HOTA M 33 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 DAMBARUDHARA SUNANI M 34 Independent
8 MAHESWAR BHOI M 36 Independent
S18 12 OR NABARANGPUR 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDRADHWAJ MAJHI M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 DOMBURU MAJHI M 68 Biju Janata Dal
3 PARSURAM MAJHI M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 PRADEEP KUMAR MAJHI M 33 Indian National Congress
S18 13 OR KANDHAMAL 16-Apr-09 1 ASHOK SAHU M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 PAULA BALIARSING M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 RUDRAMADHAB RAY M 71 Biju Janata Dal
4 SUZIT KUMAR PADHI M 49 Indian National Congress
5 NAKUL NAYAK M 46 Samajwadi Party
6 AJIT KUMAR NAYAK M 26 Independent
7 KAMALA KANTA PANDEY M 64 Independent
8 GHORABANA BEHERA M 42 Independent
9 DEENABANDHU NAIK M 45 Independent
S18 19 OR ASKA 16-Apr-09 1 NITYANANDA PRADHAN M 65 Biju Janata Dal
2 RAMACHANDRA RATH M 63 Indian National Congress
3 SHANTI DEVI F 71 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 KRISHNA DALABEHERA M 43 Kalinga Sena
5 BIJAYA KUMAR MAHAPATRO M 56 Revolutionary Socialist Party
6 SURJYA NARAYAN SAHU M 37 Samruddha Odisha
7 KALICHARAN NAYAK M 53 Independent
8 DEBASIS MISRA M 48 Independent
9 K. SHYAM BABU SUBUDHI M 73 Independent
S18 20 OR BERHAMPUR 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA SEKHAR SAHU M 58 Indian National Congress
2 PABITRA GAMANGO M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BHARAT PAIK M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SIDHANT MAHAPATRA M 42 Biju Janata Dal
5 NIRAKAR BEHERA M 35 Kalinga Sena
6 ALI RAZA ZIADI M 30 Independent
7 KISHORE CHANDRA MAHARANA M 61 Independent
8 A. RAGHUNATH VARMA M 71 Independent
9 K. SHYAM BABU SUBUDHI M 73 Independent
S18 21 OR KORAPUT 16-Apr-09 1 UPENDRA MAJHI M 29 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 GIRIDHAR GAMANG M 56 Indian National Congress
3 JAYARAM PANGI M 53 Biju Janata Dal
4 PAPANNA MUTIKA M 65 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 KUMUDINI DISARI F 34 Samruddha Odisha
6 MEGHANADA SABAR M 40 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
S24 63 UP MAHARAJGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 AJEET MANI M 41 Samajwadi Party
2 GANESH SHANKER PANDEY M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 PANKAJ CHAUDHARY M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 HARSH VARDHAN M 61 Indian National Congress
5 ABDWURRUF ANSARI M 45 National Lokhind Party
6 PAWAN KUMAR M 39 Republican Party of India (A)
7 RAM KISHUN NISHAD M 52 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
8 SATYA NARAYAN URF SATNARAYAN M 58 Bharatiya Eklavya Party
9 OMPRAKASH CHATURVEDI M 63 Independent
10 DILIP KUMAR M 28 Independent
11 RAM NIVAS M 37 Independent
12 LAL BIHARI M 42 Independent
13 CHAUDHARY SANJAY SINGH PATEL M 29 Independent
14 SHYAM SUNDER DAS CHAURASIA M 28 Independent
15 HANUMAN M 51 Independent
S24 64 UP GORAKHPUR 16-Apr-09 1 ADITYANATH M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 MANOJ TIWARI MRIDUL M 39 Samajwadi Party
3 LALCHAND NISHAD M 67 Indian National Congress
4 VINAY SHANKAR TIWARI M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 AMAN M 35 Ambedkar Samaj Party
6 JOKHAN PRASAD M 46 Eklavya Samaj Party
7 DAYASHANKAR NISHAD M 38 Apna Dal
8 RAJBAHADUR M 28 Indian Justice Party
9 RAJMANI M 46 Bharatiya Eklavya Party
10 RAJESH SAHANI M 44 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
11 SRINATH M 29 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
12 AJAY KUMAR M 40 Independent
13 AWADHESH SINGH M 32 Independent
14 OMPRAKASH SINGH M 43 Independent
15 GOVIND M 43 Independent
16 CHHEDILAL M 59 Independent
17 NIRANJAN PRASAD M 35 Independent
18 NEERAJ YADAV M 31 Independent
19 DR. BRIJESH MANI TRIPATHI M 44 Independent
20 MANOJ TIWARI M 30 Independent
21 RAKESH KUMAR M 38 Independent
22 RAJAN YADAV M.B.A. M 31 Independent
23 RAMHIT NISHAD M 53 Independent
24 LAL BAHADUR M 68 Independent
25 VINOD SHUKLA M 29 Independent
26 HARISHCHANDRA M 42 Independent
S24 65 UP KUSHI NAGAR 16-Apr-09 1 BRAMHA SHANKER M 56 Samajwadi Party
2 KU. RATANJEET PRATAP NARAYAN SINGH M 45 Indian National Congress
3 VIJAY DUBEY M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SWAMI PRASAD MAURYA M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ANIL M 43 Republican Party of India (A)
6 KISHOR KUMAR M 40 Indian Peace Party
7 K KUMAR M 56 Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal
8 JANGI M 55 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
9 DHEERAJ SHEKHAR SHRIWASTAWA M 49 Rashtriya Lokwadi Party
10 BABU LAL M 40 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
11 MATIULLAH M 43 National Lokhind Party
12 MADAN LAL M 46 Maulik Adhikar Party
13 AMEERUDDIN M 31 Independent
14 JAGDISH M 57 Independent
15 JAI GOVIND M 35 Independent
16 DAROGA M 37 Independent
17 RAMESH M 35 Independent
18 RAM BRIKSH M 54 Independent
S24 66 UP DEORIA 16-Apr-09 1 GORAKH PRASAD JAISWAL M 72 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BALESHWAR YADAV M 55 Indian National Congress
3 MOHAN SINGH M 58 Samajwadi Party
4 SHRI PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 GANGA PRASAD KUSHWAHA M 70 Purvanchal Rajya Banao Dal
6 JAGDISH KUMAR VERMA M 36 Lokpriya Samaj Party
7 DHARMENDRA KUMAR M 33 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
8 MOTI LAL KUSHWAHA SHASTRI M 59 Rashtriya Samanta Dal
9 SAFAYAT ALI M 51 Peace Party
10 SARITA F 27 Ambedkar Samaj Party
11 RAM KISHOR YADAV ALIAS VIDHAYAK M 51 Independent
12 VIJAY JUAATHA M 42 Independent
S24 67 UP BANSGAON 16-Apr-09 1 KAMLESH PASWAN M 33 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 MAHA BEER PRASAD M 66 Indian National Congress
3 SHARADA DEVI F 59 Samajwadi Party
4 SHREE NATH JI M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 CHANDRIKA M 29 Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)
6 RAMA SHANKER M 37 Peace Party
7 RAM PRAVESH PRASAD M 37 Eklavya Samaj Party
8 HARILAL M 32 Bahujan Uday Manch
9 KU. KUNJAWATI F 36 Independent
10 MANOJ KUMAR M 29 Independent
11 RADHEYSHYAM M 35 Independent
12 RAMKAWAL M 56 Independent
13 RAMSAKAL M 32 Independent
14 RAMA PASWAN M 33 Independent
15 VINAI KUMAR M 33 Independent
S24 68 UP LALGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 DAROGA PRASAD SAROJ M 60 Samajwadi Party
2 NEELAM SONKAR F 33 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 DR. BALIRAM M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 HAREE PRASAD SONKER M 50 Communist Party of India
5 MANBHAWAN M 32 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
6 RAM DAYAL ALIAS MOHAN M 32 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
7 ACHCHHELAL M 42 Independent
8 URMILA DEVI F 27 Independent
9 CHANDRA RAM ALIAS CHANDU SAROJ M 36 Independent
10 DHARMRAJ M 55 Independent
11 SUKHNAYAN M 29 Independent
S24 69 UP AZAMGARH 16-Apr-09 1 AKBAR AHMAD DUMPY M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ARUN KUMAR SINGH M 63 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 DURGA PRASAD YADAV M 56 Samajwadi Party
4 RAMAKANT YADAV M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH M 49 Indian National Congress
6 JAI JAI RAM PRAJAPATI M 36 Lokpriya Samaj Party
7 RAM BHAROS M 34 Bahujan Uday Manch
8 VINOD M 33 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
9 USMANA FARUQEE F 27 Independent
10 KEDAR NATH GIRI M 49 Independent
11 KHAIRUL BASHAR M 56 Independent
12 DR. JAVED AKHTAR M 54 Independent
13 DAAN BAHADUR YADAV M 54 Independent
14 YADUNATH M 31 Independent
15 RAM UJAGIR M 45 Independent
16 RAM SINGH M 35 Independent
S24 70 UP GHOSI 16-Apr-09 1 ATUL KUMAR SINGH ANJAN M 55 Communist Party of India
2 ARSHAD JAMAL ANSARI M 43 Samajwadi Party
3 DARA SINGH CHAUHAN M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RAM IQBAL M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 SUDHA RAI F 54 Indian National Congress
6 AKHILESH M 43 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
7 KAILASH YADAV M 46 Peace Party
8 RAMESH ALIAS RAJU SINGH M 41 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
9 RAM BADAN KAUL M 60 Bahujan Shakty
10 LALJI RAJBHAR M 44 Bharatiya Samaj Dal
11 HARISH CHANDRA M 62 Rashtriya Jan-vadi Party (Krantikari)
12 ASHOK KUMAR M 27 Independent
13 ZAKIR HUSSAIN M 45 Independent
14 PALAKDHARI M 41 Independent
15 RAKESH M 34 Independent
16 SUJIT KUMAR M 34 Independent
S24 71 UP SALEMPUR 16-Apr-09 1 DR. BHOLA PANDEY M 55 Indian National Congress
2 RAMASHANKAR RAJBHAR M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 HARIKEWAL M 71 Samajwadi Party
4 IZHAR M 48 Peace Party
5 ZUBAIR M 39 Nelopa(United)
6 JANG BAHADUR M 50 Bharatiya Samaj Dal
7 FATE BAHADUR M 35 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
8 RAVISHANKAR SINGH “PAPPU” M 38 Janata Dal (United)
9 RAMCHARAN M 72 People’s Democratic Front
10 RAMDAYAL M 57 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
11 RAMNAWAMI YADAV M 37 Samajwadi Jan Parishad
12 RAMASHRAY CHAUHAN M 55 Moderate Party
13 SRIRAM M 50 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
14 HARISHCHAND M 48 Eklavya Samaj Party
15 AMEER M 53 Independent
16 PARASURAM M 56 Independent
17 FULENDRA M 40 Independent
18 MAN JI M 50 Independent
19 MAHESH M 70 Independent
20 RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJAN M 33 Independent
21 VINDHACHAL M 44 Independent
22 SHAILENDRA M 36 Independent
23 SATISH M 37 Independent
24 SARVDAMAN M 26 Independent
25 SANJAY M 36 Independent
S24 72 UP BALLIA 16-Apr-09 1 NEERAJ SHEKHAR M 40 Samajwadi Party
2 MANOJ SINHA M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SANGRAM SINGH YADAV M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 ARVIND KUMAR GOND M 30 Gondvana Gantantra Party
5 KANHAIYA PRAJAPATI M 44 Rashtriya Samanta Dal
6 NARAYAN RAJBHAR M 32 Bharatiya Samaj Dal
7 RAJESH M 40 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
8 RAMSAKAL M 48 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
9 ANANT M 36 Independent
10 GANGADYAL M 48 Independent
11 DIWAKAR M 38 Independent
12 RAMJI M 49 Independent
13 LALBABU M 36 Independent
14 SHESHNATH M 40 Independent
15 SHANKER RAM RAWAT M 43 Independent
16 HARIHAR M 73 Independent
S24 74 UP MACHHLISHAHR 16-Apr-09 1 KAMLA KANT GAUTAM (K.K. GAUTAM) M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 TUFANI SAROJ M 48 Samajwadi Party
3 RAJ BAHADUR M 66 Indian National Congress
4 VIDYASAGAR SONKER M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KRISHNA SEWAK SONKER M 48 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
6 RAM CHARITRA M 41 Apna Dal
7 VIJAYEE RAM M 38 Ambedkar Samaj Party
8 SHEOMURAT RAM M 71 Gondvana Gantantra Party
9 SUKHRAJ DINKAR M 51 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
10 SUSHMA F 29 Rashtriya Agraniye Dal
11 DINESH KUMAR M 31 Independent
12 BALJIT M 59 Independent
13 RAM DAWAR GAUTAM M 41 Independent
14 VINOD KUMAR M 40 Independent
15 SHYAM BIHARI KANNAUJIYA M 39 Independent
16 SOHAN M 46 Independent
S24 75 UP GHAZIPUR 16-Apr-09 1 AFZAL ANSARI M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PRABHUNATH M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RADHEY MOHAN SINGH M 43 Samajwadi Party
4 SURAJ RAM BAGI M 52 Communist Party of India
5 ISHWARI PRASAD KUSHAWAHA M 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 DINESH M 42 Rashtriya Samanta Dal
7 NANDLAL M 67 Ambedkar Samaj Party
8 SHYAM NARAYAN M 54 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
9 SATISH SHANKAR JAISAWAL M 28 National Lokhind Party
10 SARAJU M 67 Lok Dal
11 SURENDRA M 43 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
12 ANIL M 32 Independent
13 ASHOK (DR.ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) M 54 Independent
14 BRAJENDRA NATH URF BIJENDRA M 66 Independent
15 RAJESH M 37 Independent
S24 76 UP CHANDAULI 16-Apr-09 1 KAILASH NATH SINGH YADAV M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 JAWAHAR LAL JAISAWAL M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAMKISHUN M 49 Samajwadi Party
4 SHAILENDRA KUMAR M 40 Indian National Congress
5 CHANDRASHEKHAR M 34 Republican Party of India
6 JAWAHIR M 48 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party
7 JOKHU M 45 Peoples Democratic Forum
8 TULASI M 42 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
9 RAJNATH M 35 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
10 RAJESH SINGH M 27 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
11 RAMAWATAR SHARMA ADVOCATE M 38 Maulik Adhikar Party
12 RAMSEWAK YADAV M 46 Rashtriya Lokhit Party
13 LALLAN M 49 Indian Justice Party
14 SURENDRA PRATAP M 36 Jai Bharat Samanta Party
15 DEVAROO M 40 Independent
16 MUNNI LAL M 66 Independent
17 SURAFARAJ AHMAD M 29 Independent
18 HARI LAL M 52 Independent
S24 77 UP VARANASI 16-Apr-09 1 AJAY RAI M 36 Samajwadi Party
2 MUKHTAR ANSARI M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DR. MURLI MANOHAR JOSHI M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DR. RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA M 48 Indian National Congress
5 AWADHESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA M 43 Rashtriya Samanta Dal
6 USHA SINGH F 45 Rashtriya Agraniye Dal
7 KISHUN LAL M 59 Indian Justice Party
8 VIJAY PRAKASH JAISWAL M 43 Apna Dal
9 ER. SHYAM LAL VISHWAKARMA M 61 Maulik Adhikar Party
10 ANAND KUMAR AMBASTHA M 36 Independent
11 NARENDRA NATH DUBEY ADIG M 36 Independent
12 PARVEZ QUADIR KHAN M 38 Independent
13 PUSHP RAJ SAHU M 47 Independent
14 RAJESH BHARTI M 33 Independent
15 SATYA PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA M 37 Independent
S24 79 UP MIRZAPUR 16-Apr-09 1 ANIL KUMAR MAURYA M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ANURAG SINGH M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 BAL KUMAR PATEL M 48 Samajwadi Party
4 RAMESH DUBEY M 66 Indian National Congress
5 AJAY SHANKER M 33 Gondwana Mukti Sena
6 KAILASH M 48 Bahujan Shakty
7 KHELADI M 58 Gondvana Gantantra Party
8 JAGDISH M 49 Apna Dal
9 PREM CHAND M 45 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party
10 RADHE SHYAM M 58 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
11 LALJI M 48 Rashtriya Agraniye Dal
12 LALTI DEVI F 54 Vikas Party
13 SHANKAR M 38 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
14 SHYAM LAL M 41 Eklavya Samaj Party
15 MOHD. SAGIR M 41 National Loktantrik Party
16 TRILOK NATH VERMA M 61 Indian Justice Party
17 ANOOP KUMAR M 34 Independent
18 KRISHNA CHAND M 40 Independent
19 KRISHNA CHAND SHUKLA M 40 Independent
20 CHHABEELE M 41 Independent
21 DANGAR M 52 Independent
22 DULARI F 61 Independent
23 MANIK CHAND M 37 Independent
24 MUNNA LAL M 34 Independent
25 RAM GOPAL M 53 Independent
26 RAM RAJ M 37 Independent
27 HANS KUMAR M 37 Independent
S24 80 UP ROBERTSGANJ 16-Apr-09 1 PAKAURI LAL M 57 Samajwadi Party
2 RAM ADHAR JOSEPH M 43 Indian National Congress
3 RAM CHANDRA TYAGI M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RAM SHAKAL M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 GULAB M 31 Peoples Democratic Forum
6 CHANDRA SHEKHAR M 34 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
7 MUNNI DEVI F 42 Rashtriya Samanta Dal
8 RAMESH KUMAR M 31 Apna Dal
9 SHRAWAN KUMAR M 41 Rashtrawadi Sena
10 RAMBRIKSHA M 39 Independent
S26 1 CG SARGUJA 16-Apr-09 1 DHAN SINGH DHURVE M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BAL SINGH M 38 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 BHANU PRATAP SINGH M 42 Indian National Congress
4 MURARILAL SINGH M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ANOOP MINJ M 28 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
6 KUMAIT B.D.O. M 64 Janata Dal (United)
7 BHUPNATH SINGH MARAVI M 43 Gondvana Gantantra Party
8 RAMDEO LAKRA M 32 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
9 RAMNATH CHERWA M 36 Shoshit Samaj Dal
10 SOMNATH BHAGAT M 46 Lok Jan Shakti Party
11 AMRIT SINGH MARAVI M 35 Independent
12 JUGESHWAR M 29 Independent
13 DHANESHWAR SINGH M 39 Independent
14 SARJU XESS ORANW M 43 Independent
15 SUNIL KUMAR SINGH KANHARE M 27 Independent
16 SURAJ DEO SINGH KHAIRWAR M 35 Independent
S26 2 CG RAIGARH 16-Apr-09 1 BAHADUR SINGH RATHIA M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 VISHNU DEO SAI M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 HRIDAYARAM RATHIYA M 43 Indian National Congress
4 DARSHAN SIDAR M 32 Gondvana Gantantra Party
5 MEERA DEVI SINGH TIRKEY F 39 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
6 SHIRACHAND EKKA M 29 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
7 AMRIT TIRKEY M 30 Independent
8 KAMRISH SINGH GOND M 59 Independent
9 SANJAY TIRKEY M 29 Independent
10 HALDHAR RAM SIDAR M 42 Independent
S26 3 CG JANJGIR-CHAMPA 16-Apr-09 1 SHRIMATI KAMLA DEVI PATLE F 43 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DAURAM RATNAKAR M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DR.SHIVKUMAR DAHARIYA M 45 Indian National Congress
4 B.R. CHAUHAN M 59 Republican Party of India (A)
5 NEELKANTH WARE M 59 Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party
6 PREM SHANKAR MAHILANGE URF PREM INDIA M 39 Lok Jan Shakti Party
7 SANJEEV KUMAR KHARE M 26 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
8 ANANDRAM GILHARE M 35 Independent
9 CHAITRAM SURYAVANSHI M 62 Independent
10 DR.CHHAVILAL RATRE M 55 Independent
11 MAYARAM NAT M 50 Independent
12 RAMCHARAN PRADHAN ADHIWAKTA M 51 Independent
S26 4 CG KORBA 16-Apr-09 1 KARUNA SHUKLA F 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 CHARANDAS MAHANT M 54 Indian National Congress
3 VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA F 41 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 KEDARNATH RAJWADE M 28 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
5 CHAITI DEVI MAHANT F 49 Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party
6 BUDHWAR SINGH UIKEY M 34 Rashtriya Gondvana Party
7 DR. VIPIN SINHA M 40 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
8 SANGEETA NIRMALKAR F 32 Bharatiya Pichhra Dal
9 HIRASINGH MARKAAM M 74 Gondvana Gantantra Party
10 GEND DAS MAHANT M 35 Independent
11 CHARAN DAS M 25 Independent
12 PAWAN KUMAR M 38 Independent
13 FULESHWAR PRASAD SURJAIHA M 75 Independent
14 RAMDAYAL ORAON M 49 Independent
15 RAMLAKHAN KASHI M 68 Independent
16 SHAMBHU PRASAD SHARMA ADHIWAKTA M 62 Independent
17 SATRUPA F 37 Independent
18 SANTOSH BANJARE M 25 Independent
S26 5 CG BILASPUR 16-Apr-09 1 DILIP SINGH JUDEV M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 ADVOCATE T.R.NIRALA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DR.RENU JOGI F 56 Indian National Congress
4 UTTAM PRASAD DANSENA M 27 Sunder Samaj Party
5 DR.GOJU PAUL M 40 Republican Party of India (A)
6 DR.BALMUKUND SINGH MARAVI M 41 Gondvana Gantantra Party
7 BALARAM SAHU M 46 Bharatiya Pichhra Dal
8 MUKESH KUMAR SAHU M 32 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
9 SAPNA CHAKRABORTY F 37 Lok Jan Shakti Party
10 ARJUN SHRIVAS GANGUAA M 63 Independent
11 ANUJ DHRITLAHRE M 34 Independent
12 ABDUL HAMID SIDDIQUE M 43 Independent
13 ASHOK SHRIVASTAVA M 37 Independent
14 UMESH SINGH M 31 Independent
15 TUKLAL GARG M 40 Independent
16 DAYA DAS LAHRE M 65 Independent
17 DR.DAYA RAM DAYAL M 60 Independent
18 DILIP KUMAR M 30 Independent
19 DILIP GUPTA M 38 Independent
20 DILIP SINGH M 41 Independent
21 MANOJ KUMAR BIRKO M 34 Independent
22 RAMESH AHUJA M 43 Independent
23 RAMESH KUMAR LAHARE M 36 Independent
24 RAJENDRA SAHU M 29 Independent
25 RAJESH PRATAP M 32 Independent
26 RAMBILAS SHARMA M 52 Independent
27 B.P.VISWAKARMA M 57 Independent
28 SHYAM BIHARI TRIVEDI M 56 Independent
S26 6 CG RAJNANDGAON 16-Apr-09 1 DEVWRAT SINGH M 39 Indian National Congress
2 PRADHUMAN NETAM M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 MADHUSUDAN YADAV M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 GANGARAM NISHAD M 48 Eklavya Samaj Party
5 NARAD KHOTHALIYA M 48 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
6 AJAY JAISWAL M 35 Independent
7 AJAY PALI M 32 Independent
8 JALAL MOHAMMAD QURESHI M 45 Independent
9 DERHARAM LODHI M 37 Independent
10 DILIP RATHOR SAMPADAK M 40 Independent
11 BHAG CHAND VAIDHYA M 48 Independent
12 MADAN YADAV M 34 Independent
13 MANGAL DAS BANGARE M 52 Independent
14 D.R.YADAV PRACHARYA M 66 Independent
S26 7 CG DURG 16-Apr-09 1 PRADEEP CHOUBEY M 55 Indian National Congress
2 RAGHUNANDAN SAHU M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SAROJ PANDEY F 40 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DEVIDAS KURRE M 43 Chandigarh Vikas Party
5 DR. PANKAJ GOSOMI (PANDIT) M 37 Republican Party of India
6 ANAND GAUTAM M 35 Independent
7 TARACHAND SAHU M 30 Independent
8 TARACHAND SAHU M 66 Independent
9 TARACHAND SAHU M 62 Independent
10 MASOOD KHAN M 43 Independent
11 RATAN KUMAR KSHETRAPAL M 61 Independent
12 RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU M 38 Independent
13 LAXMAN PRASAD M 31 Independent
14 GURU DADA LOKESH MAHARAJ M 56 Independent
15 SHITKARAN MHILWAR M 40 Independent
S26 8 CG RAIPUR 16-Apr-09 1 BHUPESH BAGHEL M 47 Indian National Congress
2 RAMESH BAIS M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 VIDHYADEVI SAHU F 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 ER. ASHOK TAMRAKAR M 56 Jai Chhattisgarh Party
5 IMRRAN PASHA M 33 Loktantrik Samajwadi Party
6 P.R. KHUNTE M 54 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
7 MADHUSUDAN MISHRA M 49 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
8 SHAILENDRA BANJARE (SHAKTIPUTRA) M 34 Shakti Sena (Bharat Desh)
9 SHANKAR LAL VARANDANI M 45 Pyramid Party of India
10 HARGUN MEGHWANI M 56 Akhil Bhartiya Sindhu Samajwadi Party
11 ARUN HARPAL M 35 Independent
12 JAFAR HUSSAIN, BABABHAI (PURVA MUTVALLI) M 57 Independent
13 MOH. JILANI ALIAS TANI M 30 Independent
14 NAND KISHOR DEEP M 48 Independent
15 NARESH BHISHMDEV DHIDHI M 31 Independent
16 NAVIN GUPTA M 35 Independent
17 NARAD NISHAD M 33 Independent
18 PRAVEEN JAIN M 44 Independent
19 BHARAT BHUSHAN PANDEY M 45 Independent
20 MATHURA PRASAD TANDON M 42 Independent
21 YASHWANT SAHU M 35 Independent
22 RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHU M 38 Independent
23 RAJENDRA SINGH THAKUR (ADVOCATE) M 34 Independent
24 RAMKRISHNA VERMA M 49 Independent
25 RAMCHARAN YADAV M 33 Independent
26 SHOBHARAM GILHARE M 38 Independent
27 SIYARAM DHRITLAHARE M 34 Independent
28 SMT. SUSIL BAI BANJARE F 36 Independent
29 SYED RASHID ALI M 62 Independent
30 SANJAY BAGHEL M 29 Independent
31 HAIDAR BHATI M 38 Independent
32 SHRIKANT KASER M 41 Independent
S26 9 CG MAHASAMUND 16-Apr-09 1 CHANDULAL SAHU (CHANDU BHAIYA) M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 MOTILAL M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 MOTILAL SAHU M 44 Indian National Congress
4 DR. ANAND MATAWALE (GURUJI) M 38 Lok Bharati
5 KIRAN KUMAR DHRUW M 44 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
6 BAUDDH KUMAR KAUSHIK M 37 Chhattisgarh Vikas Party
7 DR. LATA MARKAM F 26 Republican Party of India (A)
8 SHRIDHAR CHANDRAKAR (PATEL) M 40 Apna Dal
9 KHEDUBHARTI “SATYESH” M 33 Independent
10 CHAMPA LAL PATEL M 43 Independent
11 NARENDRA BHISHMDEV DHIDHI M 34 Independent
12 NARAYANDAS INQALAB GANDHI M 63 Independent
13 BHARAT DIWAN M 29 Independent
14 RAMPRASAD CHAUHAN M 46 Independent
15 SULTANSINGH SATNAM M 58 Independent
S26 10 CG BASTAR 16-Apr-09 1 AYTU RAM MANDAVI M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BALIRAM KASHYAP M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MANISH KUNJAM M 42 Communist Party of India
4 SHANKAR SODI M 44 Indian National Congress
5 CHANDRA SHEKHAR DHRUV (SHEKHAR) M 42 Independent
6 MAYARAM NETAM ALIAS (FULSING SILADAR) M 60 Independent
7 SUBHASH CHANDRA MOURYA M 35 Independent
S26 11 CG KANKER 16-Apr-09 1 SMT. PHOOLO DEVI NETAM F 35 Indian National Congress
2 MIRA SALAM F 32 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SOHAN POTAI M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 JALSINGH SHORI M 30 Chhattisgarhi Samaj Party
5 N. R. BHUARYA M 50 Gondwana Mukti Sena
6 BHOM LAL M 59 Apna Dal
7 MAYARAM NAGWANSHI M 48 Gondvana Gantantra Party
8 G. R. RANA M 62 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
9 DEVCHAND MATLAM M 31 Independent
10 PRAFUL MANDAVI M 35 Independent
11 MAYARAM NETAM (FULSINGH SILEDAR) M 60 Independent
S27 4 JH CHATRA 16-Apr-09 1 ARUN KUMAR YADAV M 41 Janata Dal (United)
2 DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU M 50 Indian National Congress
3 NAGMANI M 46 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 SUGAN MAHTO M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 KESHWAR YADAV M 47 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 PARAS NATH MANJHI M 58 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal
7 K.P. SHARMA M 62 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
8 SURENDRA YADAV M 36 Jharkhand Party
9 INDER SINGH NAMDHARI M 62 Independent
10 DHIRENDRA AGRAWAL M 53 Independent
11 RATNESH KUMAR GUPTA M 47 Independent
S27 5 JH KODARMA 16-Apr-09 1 TILAKDHARI PD. SINGH M 65 Indian National Congress
2 PRANAV KUMAR VERMA M 29 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 LAXAMAN SAWARNKAR M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 BISHNU PRASAD BHAIYA M 47 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
5 SABHAPATI KUSHWAHA M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 UMESH CHANDRA TRIVEDI M 41 Jharkhand Party
7 PRAMESHWAR YADAV M 49 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
8 BABULAL MARANDI M 51 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
9 RAJKISHOR PRASAD MODI M 54 Jharkhand Vikas Dal
10 RAJ KUMAR YADAV M 37 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
11 HADTAL DAS M 43 Bahujan Shakty
12 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA M 35 Independent
13 KAMAL DAS M 35 Independent
14 CHANDRA DHARI MAHTO M 28 Independent
15 MANJOOR ALAM ANSARI M 45 Independent
16 LAXAMAN DAS M 37 Independent
S27 11 JH KHUNTI 16-Apr-09 1 KARIYA MUNDA M 72 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 NEIL TIRKEY M 55 Indian National Congress
3 MARSHAL BARLA M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 THEODORE KIRO M 58 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
5 NITIMA BODRA BARI F 41 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
6 NISHIKANT HORO M 55 Jharkhand Party
7 ANAND KUJUR M 27 Independent
8 UMBULAN TOPNO M 49 Independent
9 KARLUS BHENGRA M 41 Independent
S27 12 JH LOHARDAGA 16-Apr-09 1 JOKHAN BHAGAT M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 RAMESHWAR ORAON M 63 Indian National Congress
3 SUDARSHAN BHAGAT M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DEOSHARAN BHAGAT M 45 All Jharkhand Students Union
5 BAHURA EKKA M 61 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
6 BHUNESHWAR LOHRA M 42 Lok Jan Vikas Morcha
7 RAMA KHALKHO F 38 Jharkhand Janadikhar Manch
8 ARJUN BHAGAT M 60 Independent
9 ETWA ORAON M 45 Independent
10 GOPAL ORAON M 56 Independent
11 CHAMRA LINDA M 39 Independent
12 JAI PRAKASH BHAGAT M 36 Independent
13 NAWAL KISHOR SINGH M 51 Independent
14 PADMA BARAIK F 25 Independent
15 SUKHDEO LOHRA M 69 Independent
S27 13 JH PALAMAU 16-Apr-09 1 KAMESHWAR BAITHA M 56 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
2 GHURAN RAM M 42 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 RADHA KRISHNA KISHORE M 52 Janata Dal (United)
4 HIRA RAM TUPHANI M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 GANESH RAM M 56 Jharkhand Party
6 JAWAHAR PASWAN M 48 AJSU Party
7 NANDDEV RAM M 70 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
8 PARVATI DEVI F 34 Manav Mukti Morcha
9 PRABHAT KUMAR M 31 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
10 RAJU GUIDE MAJHI M 30 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal
11 RAM NARESH RAM M 36 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
12 BIRBAL RAM M 28 Rashtriya Lok Dal
13 SATYENDRA KUMAR PASWAN M 30 Bharatiya Samta Samaj Party
14 SUSHMA MEHTA F 31 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
15 JITENDRA RAM M 31 Independent
16 NARESH KUMAR PASWAN M 29 Independent
17 BRAJMOHAN RAM M 48 Independent
18 BHOLA RAM M 32 Independent
19 MUNESHWAR RAM M 58 Independent
20 RAM PRASAD RAM M 58 Independent
21 SUNESHWAR BAITHA M 54 Independent
S27 14 JH HAZARIBAGH 16-Apr-09 1 KISHOR KUMAR PANDEY M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD MEHTA M 64 Communist Party of India
3 YASHWANT SINHA M 71 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SHIVLAL MAHTO M 34 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
5 SAURABH NARAIN SINGH M 34 Indian National Congress
6 CHANDRA PRAKASH CHOUDHARY M 40 All Jharkhand Students Union
7 DIGAMBER KU. MEHTA M 42 Samajwadi Party
8 BRAJ KISHORE JAISWAL M 67 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
9 DEONATH MAHTO M 29 Independent
10 MAHENDRA KISHORE MEHTA M 38 Independent
11 MD. MOINUDDIN AHMED M 32 Independent
12 LALAN PRASAD M 34 Independent
13 SNEHLATA DEVI F 49 Independent
U01 1 AN ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS 16-Apr-09 1 SMTI. R. S. UMA BHARATHY F 44 Nationalist Congress Party
2 SHRI. KULDEEP RAI SHARMA M 41 Indian National Congress
3 SHRI. P. R. GANESHAN M 71 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 SHRI TAPAN KUMAR BEPARI M 51 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 SHRI. BISHNU PADA RAY M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 SHRI. M. S. MOHAN M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
7 SHRI. N. K. P. NAIR M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
8 SHRI. PRADEEP KUMAR EKKA M 37 Jharkhand Disom Party
9 SHRI. T. ALI M 37 Independent
10 DR. THANKACHAN M 50 Independent
11 SHRI. VAKIATH VALAPPIL KHALID M 40 Independent
U06 1 LD LAKSHADWEEP 16-Apr-09 1 MUHAMMED HAMDULLA SAYEED A.B M 26 Indian National Congress
2 DR. P. POOKUNHIKOYA M 60 Nationalist Congress Party
3 DR. K P MUTHUKOYA M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 LUKMANUL HAKEEM M 32 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
S14 1 MN INNER MANIPUR 22-Apr-09 1 DR. THOKCHOM MEINYA M 58 Indian National Congress
2 THOUNAOJAM CHAOBA M 70 Manipur People’s Party
3 MOIRANGTHEM NARA M 58 Communist Party of India
4 WAHENGBAM NIPAMACHA SINGH M 78 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 L. KSHETRANI DEVI F 50 Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party
6 ABDUL RAHMAN M 58 Independent
7 NONGMAITHEM HOMENDRO SINGH M 45 Independent
S01 23 AP KAKINADA 23-Apr-09 1 DOMMETI SUDHAKAR M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 M.M.PALLAMRAJU M 46 Indian National Congress
3 BIKKINA VISWESWARA RAO M 34 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 VASAMSETTY SATYA M 44 Telugu Desam
5 ALURI VIJAYA LAKSHMI F 64 Lok Satta Party
6 UDAYA KUMAR KONDEPUDI M 36 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
7 GALI SATYAVATHI F 40 Republican Party of India
8 GIDLA SIMHACHALAM M 50 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
9 CHALAMALASETTY SUNIL M 39 Praja Rajyam Party
10 NAMALA SATYANARAYANA M 45 Rajyadhikara Party
11 N.PALLAMRAJU M 52 Ajeya Bharat Party
12 BUGATHA BANGARRAO M 48 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
13 AKAY SURYANARAYANA M 50 Independent
14 CHAGANTI SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY M 44 Independent
15 DANAM LAZAR BABU M 42 Independent
16 BADAMPUDI BABURAO M 51 Independent
S01 24 AP AMALAPURAM 23-Apr-09 1 KOMMABATTULA UMA MAHESWARA RAO M 65 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 GEDDAM SAMPADA RAO M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DOCTOR GEDELA VARALAKSHMI F 55 Telugu Desam
4 G.V.HARSHA KUMAR M 50 Indian National Congress
5 AKUMARTHI SURYANARAYANA M 50 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
6 KIRAN KUMAR BINEPE M 43 Praja Bharath Party
7 P.V.CHAKRAVARTHI M 54 Republican Party of India (Khobragade)
8 POTHULA PRAMEELA DEVI F 55 Praja Rajyam Party
9 BHEEMARAO RAMJI MUTHABATHULA M 39 Pyramid Party of India
10 MASA RAMADASU M 46 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
11 YALANGI RAMESH M 45 Independent
S01 25 AP RAJAHMUNDRY 23-Apr-09 1 ARUNA KUMAR VUNDAVALLI M 54 Indian National Congress
2 M. MURALI MOHAN M 68 Telugu Desam
3 VAJRAPU KOTESWARA RAO M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SOMU VEERRAJU M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 UPPALAPATI VENKATA KRISHNAM RAJU M 69 Praja Rajyam Party
6 DATLA RAYA JAGAPATHI RAJU M 50 Pyramid Party of India
7 DR. PALADUGU CHANDRA MOULI M 69 Lok Satta Party
8 MEDAPATI PAPIREDDY M 30 Trilinga Praja Pragati Party
9 MEDA SRINIVAS M 39 Rashtriya Praja Congress (Secular)
10 PARAMATA GANESWARA RAO M 46 Independent
11 MUSHINI RAMAKRISHNA RAO M 51 Independent
12 VASAMSETTY NAGESWARA RAO M 46 Independent
13 SANABOINA SUBHALAKSHMI F 44 Independent
S01 26 AP NARSAPURAM 23-Apr-09 1 KALIDINDI VISWANADHA RAJU M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 THOTA SITA RAMA LAKSHMI F 59 Telugu Desam
3 BAPIRAJU KANUMURU M 61 Indian National Congress
4 BHUPATHIRAJU SRINIVASA VARMA M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ALLURI YUGANDHARA RAJU M 44 Pyramid Party of India
6 GUBBALA TAMMAIAH M 61 Praja Rajyam Party
7 NAVUNDRU RAJENDRA PRASAD M 44 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party
8 MANORAMA SANKU F 62 Lok Satta Party
9 M V R RAJU M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
10 KALIDINDI BHIMARAJU M 73 Independent
S01 27 AP ELURU 23-Apr-09 1 KAVURI SAMBASIVA RAO M 65 Indian National Congress
2 KODURI VENKATA SUBBA RAJU M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 PILLELLLI SUNIL M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 MAGANTI VENKATESWARA RAO(BABU) M 49 Telugu Desam
5 Y.V.S.V. PRASADA RAO (YERNENI PRASADA RAO) M 61 Pyramid Party of India
6 KOLUSU PEDA REDDAIAH YADAV M 67 Praja Rajyam Party
7 SAVANAPUDI NAGARAJU M 48 Marxist Communist Party of India (S.S. Srivastava)
8 SIRIKI SRINIVAS M 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
9 KASI NAIDU KAMMILI M 39 Independent
10 TANUKU SEKHAR M 45 Independent
11 DODDA KAMESWARA RAO M 54 Independent
12 DOWLURI GOVARDHAN M 32 Independent
S01 28 AP MACHILIPATNAM 23-Apr-09 1 KONAKALLA NARAYANA RAO M 59 Telugu Desam
2 CHIGURUPATI RAMALINGESWARA RAO M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BADIGA RAMAKRISHNA M 66 Indian National Congress
4 BHOGADI RAMA DEVI F 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KOPPULA VENKATESWARA RAO M 45 Lok Satta Party
6 CHENNAMSETTI RAMACHANDRAIAH M 60 Praja Rajyam Party
7 YARLAGADDA RAMAMOHANA RAO M 44 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party
8 VARA LAKSHMI KONERU F 59 Pyramid Party of India
9 G.V. NAGESWARA RAO M 25 Independent
10 YENDURI SUBRAMANYESWA RAO ( MANI ) M 50 Independent
S01 29 AP VIJAYAWADA 23-Apr-09 1 LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL M 45 Indian National Congress
2 LAKA VENGALA RAO M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 VAMSI MOHAN VALLABHANENI M 38 Telugu Desam
4 SISTLA NARASIMHA MURTHY M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 DEVINENI KISHORE KUMAR M 59 Lok Satta Party
6 RAGHAVA RAO JAKKA M 60 Pyramid Party of India
7 RAJIV CHANUMOLU M 43 Praja Rajyam Party
8 APPIKATLA JAWAHAR M 44 Independent
9 KRISHNA MURTHY SUNKARA M 46 Independent
10 JAKKA TARAKA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO M 42 Independent
11 DEVERASETTY RAVINDRA BABU M 35 Independent
12 DEVIREDDY RAVINDRANATHA REDDY M 36 Independent
13 PERUPOGU VENKATESWARA RAO M 41 Independent
14 BAIPUDI NAGESWARA RAO M 30 Independent
15 BOPPA VENKATESWARA RAO M 42 Independent
16 BOLISETTY HARIBABU M 46 Independent
17 VEERLA SANJEEVA RAO M 44 Independent
18 VENKATA RAO P. M 44 Independent
19 SENAPATHI CHIRANJEEVI M 36 Independent
20 SHAIK MASTAN M 28 Independent
S01 30 AP GUNTUR 23-Apr-09 1 MALLELA BABU RAO M 61 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 YADLAPATI SWARUPARANI F 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 RAJENDRA MADALA M 42 Telugu Desam
7 SAMBASIVA RAO RAYAPATI M 65 Indian National Congress
8 AMANULLA KHAN M 37 Lok Satta Party
9 KOMMANABOINA LAKSHMAIAH M 39 Rajyadhikara Party
11 THOTA CHANDRA SEKHAR M 47 Praja Rajyam Party
12 YARRAKULA TULASI RAM YADAV M 29 Samajwadi Party
13 VELAGAPUDI LAKSHMANA RAO M 59 Pyramid Party of India
14 SRINIVASA RAO THOTAKURA M 34 Ajeya Bharat Party
S01 31 AP NARASARAOPET 23-Apr-09 1 BALASHOWRY VALLABHANENI M 43 Indian National Congress
2 BEJJAM RATNAKARA RAO M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 VALLEPU KRUPA RAO M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 VENUGOPALA REDDY MODUGULA M 42 Telugu Desam
7 GANUGAPENTA UTTAMA REDDY M 30 Lok Satta Party
8 S.G. MASTAN VALI M 31 Pyramid Party of India
9 RAMADUGU VENKATA SUBBA RAO M 45 Samajwadi Party
11 SHAIK SYED SAHEB M 65 Praja Rajyam Party
13 SAI PRASAD EDARA M 42 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party
14 ATCHALA NARASIMHA RAO M 39 Independent
15 ANNAMRAJU VENUGOPALA MADHAVA RAO M 37 Independent
17 KATAMARAJU NALAGORLA M 61 Independent
19 YAMPATI VEERANJANEYA REDDY M 38 Independent
21 SRINIVASA REDDY KESARI M 40 Independent
S01 32 AP BAPATLA 23-Apr-09 1 DARA SAMBAIAH M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PANABAKA LAKSHMI F 50 Indian National Congress
3 BATTULA ROSAYYA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 MALYADRI SRIRAM M 55 Telugu Desam
5 GARIKAPATI SUDHAKAR M 37 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
6 NUTHAKKI RAMA RAO M 61 Praja Rajyam Party
7 GUDIPALLI SATHYA BABUJI M 40 Independent
8 GORREMUCHU CHINNA RAO M 42 Independent
9 GOLLA BABU RAO M 34 Independent
10 DEVARAPALLI BUJJI BABU M 34 Independent
S01 33 AP ONGOLE 23-Apr-09 1 MANDAVA VASUDEVA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 MADDULURI MALAKONDAIAH YADAV M 47 Telugu Desam
3 MAGUNTA SRINIVASULU REDDY M 55 Indian National Congress
4 CHALUVADI SRINIVASARAO M 38 Pyramid Party of India
5 DR,NARAYANAM RADHA DEVI F 57 Lok Satta Party
6 PIDATHALA SAI KALPANA F 50 Praja Rajyam Party
7 SHAIK SHAJAHAN M 49 United Women Front
8 GARRE RAMAKRISHNA M 34 Independent
9 DAMA MOHANA RAO M 53 Independent
10 NALAMALAPU LAKSHMINARASAREDDY M 40 Independent
11 YATHAPU KONDAREDDY M 28 Independent
S01 34 AP NANDYAL 23-Apr-09 1 NASYAM MOHAMMED FAROOK M 57 Telugu Desam
2 S.MOHAMMED ISMAIL M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 S.P.Y.REDDY M 59 Indian National Congress
4 ABDUL SATTAR . G M 26 B. C. United Front
5 PICHHIKE NARENDRA DEV M 39 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
6 BHUMA VENKATA NAGI REDDY M 45 Praja Rajyam Party
7 RAMA JAGANNADHA REDDY TAMIDELA M 34 Lok Satta Party
8 SADHU VEERA VENKATA RAMANAIAH M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
9 AMBATI RAMESWARA REDDY M 35 Independent
10 K.ARTHER PANCHARATNAM M 44 Independent
11 B.P.KAMBAGIRI SWAMY M 36 Independent
12 GALI RAMA SUBBA REDDY M 33 Independent
13 A.U.FAROOQ M 25 Independent
14 G.BALASWAMY M 37 Independent
15 T.MAHESH NAIDU M 28 Independent
16 B.V.RAMI REDDY M 47 Independent
17 B.R.L.REDDY M 40 Independent
18 VENNUPUSA VENKATESHWARA REDDY M 35 Independent
19 SINGAM VENKATESHWARA REDDY M 35 Independent
20 T.SRINUVASULU M 38 Independent
21 V.SESHI REDDY M 33 Independent
S01 35 AP KURNOOL 23-Apr-09 1 KOTLA JAYA SURYA PRAKASH REDDY M 57 Indian National Congress
2 GADDAM RAMAKRISHNA M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 B.T.NAIDU M 36 Telugu Desam
4 RAVI SUBRAMANYAM K.A. M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 JALLI VENKATESH M 38 Lok Satta Party
6 DR.DANDIYA KHAJA PEERA M 55 Praja Rajyam Party
7 B.NAGA JAYA CHANDRA REDDY M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
8 DR.P.R.PARAMESWAR REDDY M 36 Pyramid Party of India
9 DEVI RAMALINGAPPA M 44 Independent
10 V.V. RAMANA M 38 Independent
11 RAJU M 45 Independent
S01 36 AP ANANTAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTHA VENKATA RAMI REDDY M 52 Indian National Congress
2 AMBATI RAMA KRISHNA REDDY M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 KALAVA SRINIVASULU M 44 Telugu Desam
4 GADDALA NAGABHUSHANAM M 45 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 AMARNATH M 32 Lok Satta Party
6 KRUSHNAPURAM GAYATHRI DEVI F 36 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
7 MANSOOR M 56 Praja Rajyam Party
8 G HARI M 29 Pyramid Party of India
9 T CHANDRA SEKHAR M 30 Independent
10 DEVELLA MURALI M 44 Independent
11 K P NARAYANA SWAMY M 41 Independent
12 J C RAMANUJULA REDDY M 52 Independent
S01 37 AP HINDUPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KRISTAPPA NIMMALA M 52 Telugu Desam
2 P KHASIM KHAN M 53 Indian National Congress
3 NARESH CINE ACTOR M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 B.S.P.SREERAMULU M 30 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 KADAPALA SREEKANTA REDDY M 56 Praja Rajyam Party
6 NIRANJAN BABU. K M 30 Lok Satta Party
7 S. MUSKIN VALI M 26 Pyramid Party of India
8 K. JAKEER M 40 Independent
9 B. NAGABHUSHANA RAO M 76 Independent
10 P. PRASAD (PEETLA PRASAD) M 32 Independent
S01 38 AP KADAPA 23-Apr-09 1 JAMBAPURAM MUNI REDDY M 31 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 Y.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY M 36 Indian National Congress
3 PALEM SRIKANTH REDDY M 45 Telugu Desam
4 VANGALA SHASHI BHUSHAN REDDY M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KASIBHATLA SAINATH SARMA M 38 Rajyadhikara Party
6 N. KISHORE KUMAR REDDY M 38 Janata Dal (Secular)
7 KUNCHAM VENKATA SUBBA REDDY M 42 Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi
8 DR. KHALEEL BASHA M 60 Praja Rajyam Party
9 GAJJALA RAMA SUBBA REDDY M 57 Pyramid Party of India
10 GUDIPATI. PRASANNA KUMAR M 55 Lok Satta Party
11 C. GOPI NARASIMHA REDDY M 31 Janata Dal (United)
12 CHINNAPA REDDY KOMMA M 41 Bharatiya Jan Shakti
13 Y. SEKHARA REDDY M 47 Republican Party of India (A)
14 S. ALI SHER M 47 Independent
15 THIMMAPPAGARI VENKATA SIVA REDDY M 47 Independent
16 V. NARENDRA M 39 Independent
17 S. RAJA MADIGA M 46 Independent
18 YELLIPALAM RAMESH REDDY M 35 Independent
19 SIVANARAYANA REDDY CHADIPIRALLA M 39 Independent
20 J. SUBBARAYUDU M 51 Independent
S01 39 AP NELLORE 23-Apr-09 1 S. PADMA NAGESWARA RAO M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BATHINA NARASIMHA RAO M 65 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MEKAPATI RAJAMOHAN REDDY M 64 Indian National Congress
4 VANTERU VENU GOPALA REDDY M 59 Telugu Desam
5 JANA RAMACHANDRAIAH M 56 Praja Rajyam Party
6 VEMURI BHASKARA RAO M 36 Lok Satta Party
7 SIDDIRAJU SATYANARAYANA M 43 Pyramid Party of India
8 KARIMULLA M 42 Independent
9 MUCHAKALA CHANDRA SEKHAR YADAV M 40 Independent
10 VENKATA BHASKAR REDDY DIRISALA M 37 Independent
11 SYED HAMZA HUSSAINY M 46 Independent
S01 40 AP TIRUPATI 23-Apr-09 1 CHINTA MOHAN M 54 Indian National Congress
2 VARLA RAMAIAH M 57 Telugu Desam
3 N.VENKATASWAMY M 77 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 JUVVIGUNTA VENKATESWARLU M 37 Lok Satta Party
5 DEGALA SURYANARAYANA M 34 Pyramid Party of India
6 DHANASEKHAR GUNDLURU M 41 Republican Party of India (A)
7 VARAPRASADA RAO. V M 55 Praja Rajyam Party
8 OREPALLI VENKATA KRISHNA PRASAD M 43 Independent
9 KATTAMANCHI PRABAKHAR M 40 Independent
10 YALAVADI MUNIKRISHNAIAH M 64 Independent
S01 41 AP RAJAMPET 23-Apr-09 1 ANNAYYAGARI SAI PRATHAP M 64 Indian National Congress
2 ALLAPUREDDY. HARINATHA REDDY M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAMESH KUMAR REDDY REDDAPPAGARI M 44 Telugu Desam
4 SUNKARA SREENIVAS M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 DR. ARAVA. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY M 38 Pyramid Party of India
6 ADI NARAYANA REDDY .V M 40 Bharatheeya Sadharma Samsthapana Party
7 NAGESWARA RAO EDAGOTTU M 38 Lok Satta Party
8 D.A. SRINIVAS M 36 Praja Rajyam Party
9 SHAIK AMEEN PEERAN M 39 Ambedkar National Congress
10 ASADI VENKATADRI M 41 Independent
11 INDRA PRAKASH M 32 Independent
12 KASTHURI OBAIAH NAIDU M 55 Independent
13 B. KRISHNAPPA M 32 Independent
14 PULA RAGHU M 44 Independent
15 HAJI MOHAMMAD AZAM M 82 Independent
S01 42 AP CHITTOOR 23-Apr-09 1 JAYARAM DUGGANI M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 THIPPESWAMY M M 55 Indian National Congress
3 NARAMALLI SIVAPRASAD M 57 Telugu Desam
4 B.SIVAKUMAR M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 A. AMARNADH M 37 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
6 TALARI MANOHAR M 54 Praja Rajyam Party
7 G. VENKATACHALAM M 29 Lok Satta Party
S03 4 AS DHUBRI 23-Apr-09 1 ANWAR HUSSAIN M 62 Indian National Congress
2 BADRUDDIN AJMAL M 54 Assam United Democratic Front
3 ARUN DAS M 39 Rashtrawadi Sena
4 ALOK SEN M 37 Samajwadi Party
5 SOLEMAN ALI M 45 Independent
6 SHAHJAHAN ALI M 39 Independent
7 SOLEMAN KHANDAKER M 53 Independent
8 TRIPTI KANA MAZUMDAR CHOUDHURY F 45 Independent
9 NUR MAHAMMAD M 61 Independent
10 MINHAR ALI MANDAL M 61 Independent
S03 5 AS KOKRAJHAR 23-Apr-09 1 SABDA RAM RABHA M 39 Asom Gana Parishad
2 SANSUMA KHUNGGUR BWISWMUTHIARY M 49 Bodaland Peoples Front
3 URKHAO GWRA BRAHMA M 45 Independent
S03 6 AS BARPETA 23-Apr-09 1 ABDUS SAMAD AHMED M 41 Assam United Democratic Front
2 MD. AMIR ALI M 42 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 ISMAIL HUSSAIN M 55 Indian National Congress
4 DURGESWAR DEKA M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 BHUPEN RAY M 49 Asom Gana Parishad
6 ABU CHAND MAHMMAD M 63 Republican Party of India (A)
7 ABDUL KADDUS M 35 Samajwadi Party
8 KANDARPA LAHKAR M 53 Rashtravadi Janata Party
9 MD. DILIR KHAN M 42 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
10 MUIJ UDDIN MAHMUD M 51 Lok Jan Shakti Party
11 ABDUL KADER M 41 Independent
12 GOLAP HUSSAIN MAZUMDER M 35 Independent
13 DEWAN JOYNAL ABEDIN M 65 Independent
14 BHADRESWAR DAS M 40 Independent
S03 7 AS GAUHATI 23-Apr-09 1 AKSHAY RAJKHOWA M 49 Nationalist Congress Party
2 BIJOYA CHAKRAVARTY F 70 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 CAPT. ROBIN BORDOLOI M 67 Indian National Congress
4 SONABOR ALI M 58 Assam United Democratic Front
5 AMBU BORA M 78 Revolutionary Communist Party of India (Rasik Bhatt)
6 DEEPAK KALITA M 34 Samajwadi Party
7 SHIMANTA BRAHMA M 48 Rashtrawadi Sena
8 AMIT BARUA M 42 Independent
9 KAZI NEKIB AHMED M 51 Independent
10 DEVA KANTA RAMCHIARY M 46 Independent
11 BRIJESH ROY M 30 Independent
12 RINA GAYARY DAS F 41 Independent
S03 8 AS MANGALDOI 23-Apr-09 1 BADIUJ ZAMAL M 33 Assam United Democratic Front
2 MADHAB RAJBANGSHI M 53 Indian National Congress
3 RAMEN DEKA M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DINA NATH DAS M 65 Bodaland Peoples Front
5 PARVEEN SULTANA F 42 All India Minorities Front
6 RABINDRA NATH HAZARIKA M 72 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
7 RATUL KUMAR CHOUDHURY M 38 Samajwadi Party
8 LANKESWAR ACHARJYA M 45 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
9 LUCYMAI BASUMATARI F 58 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
10 AROON BAROOA M 53 Independent
11 PRODEEP KUMAR DAIMARY M 42 Independent
12 BHUPENDRA NATH KAKATI M 62 Independent
13 MANOJ KUMAR DEKA M 55 Independent
S03 9 AS TEZPUR 23-Apr-09 1 JITEN SUNDI M 64 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 DEBA ORANG M 54 Assam United Democratic Front
3 MONI KUMAR SUBBA M 51 Indian National Congress
4 JOSEPH TOPPO M 60 Asom Gana Parishad
5 ARUN KUMAR MURMOO M 33 Bharat Vikas Morcha
6 PARASHMONI SINHA M 33 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
7 JUGANANDA HAZARIKA M 42 Samajwadi Party
8 RUBUL SARMA M 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
9 REGINOLD V. JOHNSON M 45 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
10 KALYAN KUMAR DEORI BHARALI M 69 Independent
11 DANIEL DAVID JESUDAS M 66 Independent
12 MD. NAZIR AHMED M 56 Independent
13 DR. PRANAB KR. DAS M 41 Independent
14 PRASANTA BORO M 32 Independent
15 RUDRA PARAJULI M 52 Independent
S03 10 AS NOWGONG 23-Apr-09 1 ANIL RAJA M 51 Indian National Congress
2 RAJEN GOHAIN M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SIRAJ UDDIN AJMAL M 52 Assam United Democratic Front
4 PHEIROIJAM IBOMCHA SINGH M 60 All India Forward Bloc
5 BIPIN SAIKIA M 55 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
6 BIREN DAS M 48 Rashtrawadi Sena
7 BHUPEN CHANDRA MUDOI M 55 Republican Party of India (A)
8 LIAQAT HUSSAIN M 40 Lok Jan Shakti Party
9 ASHIT DUTTA M 47 Independent
10 NAZRUL HAQUE MAZARBHUIYAN M 55 Independent
11 PUSPA KANTA BORA M 49 Independent
12 BIMALA PRASAD TALUKDAR M 46 Independent
13 HERAMBA MOHAN PANDIT M 45 Independent
S03 11 AS KALIABOR 23-Apr-09 1 GUNIN HAZARIKA M 61 Asom Gana Parishad
2 DIP GOGOI M 57 Indian National Congress
3 SIRAJ UDDIN AJMAL M 52 Assam United Democratic Front
4 KAMAL HAZARIKA M 48 Independent
5 PAUL NAYAK M 40 Independent
6 PRADEEP DUTTA M 42 Independent
7 BINOD GOGOI M 38 Independent
8 MRIDUL BARUAH M 37 Independent
S03 12 AS JORHAT 23-Apr-09 1 KAMAKHYA TASA M 34 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DRUPAD BORGOHAIN M 68 Communist Party of India
3 BIJOY KRISHNA HANDIQUE M 77 Indian National Congress
4 ABINASH KISHORE BORAH M 30 Rashtrawadi Sena
5 BIREN NANDA M 48 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
6 NAVAPROKASH SONOWAL M 36 Independent
7 RAJ KUMAR DOWARAH M 43 Independent
8 SUJIT SAHU M 38 Independent
S03 13 AS DIBRUGARH 23-Apr-09 1 SRI PABAN SINGH GHATOWAR M 60 Indian National Congress
2 SRI ROMEN CH. BORTHAKUR M 48 Nationalist Congress Party
3 SRI RATUL GOGOI M 31 Communist Party of India
4 SRI SARBANANDA SONOWAL M 47 Asom Gana Parishad
5 SRI GONGARAM KAUL M 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 NIHARIKA BORPATRA GOHAIN GOGOI F 30 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
7 IMTIAZ HUSSAIN M 31 Independent
8 FRANCIS DHAN M 40 Independent
9 LAKHI CHARAN SWANSI M 34 Independent
10 SIMA GHOSH F 40 Independent
S03 14 AS LAKHIMPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DR. ARUN KR. SARMA M 52 Asom Gana Parishad
2 BHOGESWAR DUTTA M 63 Communist Party of India
3 RANEE NARAH F 45 Indian National Congress
4 GANGADHAR DUTTA M 39 Shivsena
5 DEBNATH MAJHI M 30 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
6 PRAN JYOTI BORPATRA GOHAIN M 26 Rashtrawadi Sena
7 MINU BURAGOHAIN F 50 Samajwadi Party
8 RATNESWAR GOGOI M 63 All India Forward Bloc
9 LALIT MILI M 53 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
10 SONAMONI DAS M 39 Lok Jan Shakti Party
11 ASAP SUNDIGURIA M 62 Independent
12 PRASHANTA GOGOI M 35 Independent
13 BHUMIDHAR HAZARIKA M 38 Independent
14 RANOJ PEGU M 45 Independent
15 RABIN DEKA M 54 Independent
S04 1 BR VALMIKI NAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 DILIP VERMA M 52 Nationalist Congress Party
2 BAIDYANATH PRASAD MAHTO M 51 Janata Dal (United)
3 MANAN MISHRA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 MOHAMMAD SHAMIM AKHTAR M 37 Indian National Congress
5 RAGHUNATH JHA M 63 Rashtriya Janata Dal
6 BIRENDRA PRASAD GUPTA M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 SHAILENDRA KUMAR GARHWAL M 38 Loktantrik Samata Dal
8 AMBIKA SINGH M 53 Independent
9 UMESH M 36 Independent
10 DEORAJ RAM M 31 Independent
11 FAKHRUDDIN M 37 Independent
12 MAGISTER YADAV M 42 Independent
13 MANOHAR MANOJ M 40 Independent
14 RAMASHANKAR PRASAD M 35 Independent
15 RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY M 51 Independent
16 SATYANARAIN YADAV M 28 Independent
S04 2 BR PASCHIM CHAMPARAN 23-Apr-09 1 ANIRUDH PRASAD ALIAS SADHU YADAV M 46 Indian National Congress
2 PRAKASH JHA M 55 Lok Jan Shakti Party
3 RAMASHRAY SINGH M 65 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
4 SHAMBHU PRASAD GUPTA M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 DR. SANJAY JAISWAL M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 FAIYAZUL AZAM M 71 Janata Dal (Secular)
7 MANOJ KUMAR M 44 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
8 SYED SHAMIM AKHTAR M 48 Loktantrik Samata Dal
9 NAFIS AHAMAD M 35 Independent
10 SHRIMAN MISHRA M 41 Independent
11 SYED IRSHAD AKHTER M 32 Independent
S04 3 BR PURVI CHAMPARAN 23-Apr-09 1 AKHILESH PD. SINGH M 40 Rashtriya Janata Dal
2 ARVIND KR. GUPTA M 29 Indian National Congress
3 GAGANDEO YADAV M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RADHA MOHAN SINGH M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 RAMCHANDRA PD. M 51 Communist Party of India
6 UMESH KR. SINGH M 43 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
7 NAGENDRA SAHANI M 33 Loktantrik Samata Dal
8 SURESH KR. RAJAK M 45 Indian Justice Party
9 SURESH KR. RAI M 41 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party
10 JHAGARU MAHATO M 48 Independent
11 PARASNATH PANDEY M 48 Independent
12 MD. MURTAZA ANSARI(DR. LAL) M 40 Independent
S04 4 BR SHEOHAR 23-Apr-09 1 MD. ANWARUL HAQUE M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 MD. TANVEER ZAFER M 33 Communist Party of India
3 RAMA DEVI F 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 LOVELY ANAND M 35 Indian National Congress
5 SITARAM SINGH M 60 Rashtriya Janata Dal
6 ARUN SAH M 30 Bharatiya Loktantrik Party(Gandhi-Lohiawadi)
7 BASDEO SAH M 36 Indian Justice Party
8 SHATRUGHANA SAHU M 38 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal
9 AJAY KUMAR PANDEY M 36 Independent
10 CHANDRIKA PRASAD M 34 Independent
11 MOHAMMAD FIROZ AHAMAD M 28 Independent
12 MOHSIN M 29 Independent
13 YOGENDRA RAM M 38 Independent
14 RAM ASHISH, MAHTO M 64 Independent
15 SUNIL SINGH M 44 Independent
S04 5 BR SITAMARHI 23-Apr-09 1 ARJUN ROY M 37 Janata Dal (United)
2 MAYA SHANKAR SHARAN M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SAMIR KUMAR MAHASETH M 49 Indian National Congress
4 SITARAM YADAV M 61 Rashtriya Janata Dal
5 S. ABU DAUJANA M 41 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 CHITARANJAN GIRI M 42 Rashtriya Pragati Party
7 MOHAMMAD AFZAL PAINTHER M 44 Ambedkar National Congress
8 SHANKAR SINHA M 51 Revolutionary Socialist Party
9 CHANDRIKA PRASAD M 34 Independent
10 ZAHID M 30 Independent
11 DINESH PRASAD M 40 Independent
12 PAPPU KUMAR MISHRA M 30 Independent
13 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA M 39 Independent
14 RAVINDRA KUMAR M 36 Independent
15 RAM KISHORE PRASAD M 71 Independent
16 SONE LAL SAH M 61 Independent
S04 6 BR MADHUBANI 23-Apr-09 1 ABDULBARI SIDDIKI M 62 Rashtriya Janata Dal
2 LAXMANKANT MISHRA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DR SHAKEEL AHAMAD M 52 Indian National Congress
4 HUKM DEO NARAYAN YADAV M 72 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DR HEMCHANDRA JHA M 48 Communist Party of India
6 MINTU KUMAR SINGH M 30 Jago Party
7 MISHRI LAL YADAV M 39 Rashtriya Krantikari Janata Party
8 RAMCHANDRA YADAV M 65 Krantikari Samyavadi Party
9 RAM SAGAR SAHANI M 51 Indian Justice Party
10 MD ZINNUR M 47 Independent
11 RAVINDRA THAKUR M 40 Independent
12 RAJESHWAR YADAV M 37 Independent
13 SANJAY KUMAR MAHTO M 36 Independent
14 HARIBHUSHAN THAKUR “BACHOL” M 44 Independent
S04 7 BR JHANJHARPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KRIPANATH PATHAK M 65 Indian National Congress
2 GAURI SHANKAR YADAV M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV M 53 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 MANGANI LAL MANDAL M 60 Janata Dal (United)
5 DR KIRTAN PRASAD SINGH M 50 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 YOGNATH MANDAL M 36 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 OM PRAKASH M 27 Independent
8 NATHUNI YADAV M 57 Independent
9 FIROZ ALAM M 38 Independent
10 VIVEKA NAND JHA M 33 Independent
11 SHANKAR PRASAD M 26 Independent
S04 14 BR DARBHANGA 23-Apr-09 1 AJAY KUMAR JALAN M 49 Indian National Congress
2 MD. ALI ASHRAF FATMI M 53 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 KIRTI AZAD M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 YUGESHWAR SAHNI M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 KUMARI SURESHWARI F 60 Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party
6 MD. KHURSHID ALAM M 46 Apna Dal
7 DURGANAND MAHAVIR NAYAK M 37 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal
8 MD. NIZAMUDDIN M 36 Indian Justice Party
9 SATYANARAYAN MUKHIA M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
10 ABDUR RAHIM M 49 Independent
11 GOVIND ACHARAY M 27 Independent
12 BHARAT YADAV M 54 Independent
13 LALBAHADUR YADAV M 35 Independent
14 PROF. HARERAM ACHARAY M 49 Independent
S04 15 BR MUZAFFARPUR 23-Apr-09 1 CAPTAIN JAI NARAYAN PRASAD NISHAD M 78 Janata Dal (United)
2 BHAGWANLAL SAHNI M 57 Lok Jan Shakti Party
3 VINITA VIJAY F 41 Indian National Congress
4 SAMEER KUMAR M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 JITENDRA YADAV M 35 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 DINESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA M 32 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
7 DEVENDRA RAKESH M 49 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party
8 NEELU SINGH F 36 Proutist Sarva Samaj
9 MAHENDRA PRASAD M 63 Rashtriya Pragati Party
10 MITHILESH KUMAR M 40 Rashtra Sewa Dal
11 MOHAMMAD SHAMIM M 31 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
12 MD. RAHAMTULLAHA M 37 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
13 RAM DAYAL RAM M 48 All India Forward Bloc
14 REYAJ AHMAD ATISH M 62 Jago Party
15 MD. SALEEM M 36 Rashtravadi Janata Party
16 ASHOK KUMAR LALAN M 37 Independent
17 AHMAD RAZA M 31 Independent
18 GEORGE FERNANDES M 78 Independent
19 TARKESHWAR PASWAN M 38 Independent
20 VIJENDRA CHAUDHARY M 42 Independent
21 VINOD PASWAN M 35 Independent
22 SHAMBHU SAHNI M 37 Independent
23 SADANAND KISHORE THAKUR M 38 Independent
24 SYED ALAMDAR HUSSAIN M 27 Independent
S04 16 BR VAISHALI 23-Apr-09 1 RAGHUVANSH PRASAD SINGH M 62 Rashtriya Janata Dal
2 VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA M 38 Janata Dal (United)
3 SHANKAR MAHTO M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 HIND KESRI YADAV M 58 Indian National Congress
5 PUNAMRI DEVI F 37 United Women Front
6 PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA M 27 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party
7 BADRI PASWAN M 39 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
8 BALAK NATH SAHANI M 39 Indian Justice Party
9 LALJI KUMAR RAKESH M 35 Rashtra Sewa Dal
10 BINOD PANDIT M 29 Lokpriya Samaj Party
11 INDARDEO RAI M 46 Independent
12 JITENDRA PRASAD M 34 Independent
S04 21 BR HAJIPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DASAI CHOWDHARY M 52 Indian National Congress
2 MAHESHWAR DAS M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 RAM VILAS PASWAN M 61 Lok Jan Shakti Party
4 RAM SUNDAR DAS M 88 Janata Dal (United)
5 DINESH CHANDRA BHUSHAN M 36 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 NAND LAL PASWAN M 47 Independent
7 PRATIMA KUMARI F 33 Independent
8 RAJENDRA KUMAR PASWAN M 54 Independent
9 RAM TIRTH PASWAN M 59 Independent
10 VISHWA VIJAY KUMAR VIDHYARTHI M 30 Independent
11 SANJAY PASHWAN M 30 Independent
S04 22 BR UJIARPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ASWAMEDH DEVI F 40 Janata Dal (United)
2 ALOK KUMAR MEHTA M 40 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 RAMDEO VERMA M 62 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
4 VIJAYWANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SHEEL KUMAR ROY M 40 Indian National Congress
6 CHANDRA DEO ROY M 48 Socialist Party (Lohia)
7 JAI NARAYAN SAH M 53 Bajjikanchal Vikas Party
8 JITENDRA KUMAR ROY M 32 Shivsena
9 TOSHAN SAH M 62 Rashtriya Pragati Party
10 MD. TAUKIR M 40 Samata Party
11 MASSOD HASSAN M 29 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
12 RAMNATH SINGH M 36 Rashtra Sewa Dal
13 ARJUN SAHNI M 28 Independent
14 PRADEEP KUMAR M 41 Independent
15 BRAJESH KUMAR NIRALA M 51 Independent
16 MANSOOR M 42 Independent
17 MOHAN PAUL M 47 Independent
18 MOHAMMAD KURBAN M 43 Independent
19 RATAN SAHNI M 46 Independent
20 RAM SAGAR MAHTO M 45 Independent
21 SANJAY KUMAR JHA M 36 Independent
22 SUJIT KUMAR BHAGAT M 29 Independent
S04 23 BR SAMASTIPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DR. ASHOK KUMAR M 54 Indian National Congress
2 MAHESWER HAZARI M 38 Janata Dal (United)
3 RAM CHANDRA PASWAN M 47 Lok Jan Shakti Party
4 BINDESHWAR PASWAN M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 UPENDRA PASWAN M 42 Loktantrik Samata Dal
6 JEEBACHH PASWAN M 41 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 RANDHIR PASWAN M 27 Independent
8 RAJA RAM DAS M 56 Independent
9 REKHA KUMARI F 29 Independent
10 SHIVCHANDRA PASWAN M 31 Independent
11 SATISH MAHTO M 33 Independent
S05 1 GA NORTH GOA 23-Apr-09 1 CHRISTOPHER FONSECA M 55 Communist Party of India
2 JITENDRA RAGHURAJ DESHPRABHU M 53 Nationalist Congress Party
3 RAUT PANDURANG DATTARAM M 62 Maharashtrawadi Gomantak
4 SHRIPAD YESSO NAIK M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 UPENDRA CHANDRU GAONKAR M 48 Shivsena
6 NARACINVA SURYA SALGAONKAR M 51 Independent
7 MARTHA D’ SOUZA F 55 Independent
S05 2 GA SOUTH GOA 23-Apr-09 1 COSME FRANCISCO CAITANO SARDINHA M 62 Indian National Congress
2 ADV. NARENDRA KESHAV SAWAIKAR M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 ADV. RAJU MANGESHKAR ALIAS RAJENDRA NAIK M 52 Communist Party of India
4 ROHIDAS HARICHANDRA BORKAR M 63 Save Goa Front
5 MATANHY SALDANHA M 60 United Goans Democratic Party
6 DIAS JAWAHAR M 53 Independent
7 DERICK DIAS M 41 Independent
8 FRANCISCO ANTONIO JOAO DE PHILOMENO FERNANDES M 66 Independent
9 MULLA SALIM M 25 Independent
10 SALUNKE SMITA PRAVEEN F 38 Independent
11 HAMZA KHAN M 57 Independent
S09 5 JK UDHAMPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ADREES AHMAD TABBASUM M 45 Communist Party of India
2 BALBIR SINGH M 53 Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party
3 PROF. BHIM SINGH M 69 Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party
4 RAKESH WAZIR M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 CH. LAL SINGH M 50 Indian National Congress
6 DR. NIRMAL SINGH M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
7 BODH RAJ M 42 Backward Classes Democratic Party, J&K
8 RAJESH MANCHANDA M 40 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
9 KANCHAN SHARMA F 40 Bharatiya Bahujan Party
10 MASTER WILLIAM GILL M 60 All India Forward Bloc
11 ATUL SHARMA M 30 Independent
12 DEV RAJ M 57 Independent
13 MOHD. YOUSUF M 46 Independent
14 NARESH DOGRA M 40 Independent
S10 1 KA CHIKKODI 23-Apr-09 1 KATTI RAMESH VISHWANATH M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 PRAKASH BABANNA HUKKERI M 62 Indian National Congress
3 SHIVANAND WANTAMURI SIDDAMALLAPPA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 BANASHANKARI BHIMAPPA ITTAPPA M 32 Independent
5 MALLAPPA MARUTI KHATANVE M 60 Independent
6 YASHWANT MANOHAR SUTAR M 32 Independent
7 SHAILA SURESH KOLI F 37 Independent
S10 2 KA BELGAUM 23-Apr-09 1 AMARSINH VASANTRAO PATIL M 49 Indian National Congress
2 ANGADI SURESH CHANNABASAPPA M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 A. B. PATIL M 56 Janata Dal (Secular)
4 RAMANAGOUDA SIDDANGOUDA PATIL M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ALLAPPA RAMAPPA PATIL M 31 Independent
6 KASTURI BASANAGOUDA BHAVI F 40 Independent
7 MOHAN. H. GADIWADDAR M 29 Independent
8 RAMCHANDRA MAREPPA TORGAL(CHALAWADI) M 66 Independent
9 VIJAYKUMAR JEENDATTA UPADHYE M 47 Independent
10 HANAJI ASHOK PANDU M 28 Independent
S10 4 KA BIJAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ALMELKAR VILASABABU BASALINGAPPA M 46 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 KANAMADI SUDHAKAR MALLESH M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 PRAKASH KUBASING RATHOD M 48 Indian National Congress
4 RAMESH CHANDAPPA JIGAJINAGI M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 NARASAPPA TIPPANNA BANDIWADDAR M 48 Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha
6 LAMANI CHANDRAKANT RUPASING M 38 Lok Jan Shakti Party
7 ARAKERI NIRMALA SRINIVAS F 35 Independent
8 CHALAWADI RAMANNA M 54 Independent
9 SEVALAL SOMASHEKAR PURAPPA M 46 Independent
10 HARIJAN AMBANNA TUKARAM M 33 Independent
S10 5 KA GULBARGA 23-Apr-09 1 BABU HONNA NAIK M 55 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 MALLIKARJUN KHARGE M 67 Indian National Congress
3 MAHADEV. B. DHANNI M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 REVUNAIK BELAMGI M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DR. K. T. PALUSKAR M 53 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 RAVIKUMAR SHALIMANI SEDAM M 34 Ambedkar National Congress
7 SHANKER KODLA M 73 Janata Dal (United)
8 SHANKAR JADHAV M 48 Bharatiya Peoples Party
9 H.V. DIWAKAR M 46 Independent
10 SHIVAKUMAR . KOLLUR M 44 Independent
S10 6 KA RAICHUR 23-Apr-09 1 K.DEVANNA NAIK M 56 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 PAKKIRAPPA.S. M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAJA VENKATAPPA NAIK M 52 Indian National Congress
4 SHIVAKUMAR M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 COM II. V.H.MASTER M 73 Independent
6 COMRADE V.MUDUKAPPA NAYAK M 36 Independent
7 R.MUDUKAPPA NAYAK M 44 Independent
8 K.SOMASHEKHAR M 43 Independent
S10 7 KA BIDAR 23-Apr-09 1 GURUPADAPPA NAGMARPALLI M 25 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 JAGANNATH.R.JAMADAR M 25 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 N.DHARAM SINGH M 25 Indian National Congress
4 SUBHASH TIPPANNA NELGE M 25 Janata Dal (Secular)
5 ADVOCATE MOULVI ZAMEERUDDIN M 25 National Development Party
6 BHASKAR BABU PATERPALLI M 25 Indian Christian Secular Party
7 SHRAVAN SANGONDA BHANDE M 25 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
8 SUBHASH CHANDRA G.KHAPATE M 25 Laghujan Samaj Vikas Party
9 AMRUTHAPPA.M.D M 25 Independent
10 MD ARSHAD AHMED ANSARI M 25 Independent
11 KHAJA SAMEEUDDIN KHAJA MOINUDDIN M 25 Independent
12 JADHAV VENKAT RAO GYANOBA RAO M 25 Independent
13 DONGAPURE SHANT KUMAR M 25 Independent
14 DEVENDRAPPA SANGRAMAPPA PATIL M 25 Independent
15 NARSAPPA MUTHANGI M 25 Independent
16 PARMESHWAR RAMCHANDRA M 25 Independent
17 PASHAMIYA ESMAIL SAB M 25 Independent
18 BASWARAJ PAILWAN OKALLI M 25 Independent
19 MANJILE MIYYA PEER SAB QURESH M 25 Independent
20 MD OSMAN ALI LAKHPATI M 25 Independent
21 MUFTI SHAIKH ABDUL GAFFAR QASMI M 25 Independent
22 YEVATE PATIL SHRIMANT M 25 Independent
23 YASHWANTH NARSING M 25 Independent
24 SHIVARAJ TIMMANNA BOKKE M 25 Independent
25 SAMEEUDDIN BANDELI M 25 Independent
26 SURESH SWAMY TALGHATKER M 25 Independent
27 SYED QUBUL ULLA HUSSIANI SAJID M 25 Independent
S10 8 KA KOPPAL 23-Apr-09 1 ANSARI IQBAL M 50 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 BASAVARAJ RAYAREDDY M 53 Indian National Congress
3 SHIVAPUTRAPPA GUMAGERA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SHIVARAMAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ZAKEER M 30 Lok Jan Shakti Party
6 BASAVARAJ KARADI WADDARAHATTI M 27 Janata Dal (United)
7 BHARADWAJ M 63 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
8 ISHWARAPPA J M 52 Independent
9 UPPARA HANUMANTAPPA M 33 Independent
10 GOUSIA BEGUM F 31 Independent
11 CHAKRAVARTI NAYAK T M 70 Independent
12 CHANDRASHEKAR M 37 Independent
13 NAJEER HUSAIN M 41 Independent
14 PUJAR D.H M 42 Independent
15 MAREMMA YANKAPPA F 40 Independent
16 SHARABHAYYA HIREMATH M 27 Independent
17 SHIVAKUMAR NAVALI SIDDAPPA TONTAPUR M 44 Independent
18 HANDI RAFIQSAB M 53 Independent
S10 9 KA BELLARY 23-Apr-09 1 T. NAGENDRA M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 J. SHANTHA F 35 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 N.Y. HANUMANTHAPPA M 69 Indian National Congress
4 CHOWDAPPA M 29 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
5 D. GANGANNA M 59 Independent
6 B. RAMAIAH M 60 Independent
7 A. RAMANJANAPPA M 41 Independent
S10 12 KA UTTARA KANNADA 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTKUMAR HEGDE M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 ALVA MARGARET F 67 Indian National Congress
3 HADAPAD BASAVARAJ DUNDAPPA M 28 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 V D HEGADE M 68 Janata Dal (Secular)
5 ELISH KOTIYAL M 44 Janata Dal (United)
6 D M GURAV M 49 Shivsena
7 ABDUL RASHEED SHAIKH M 44 Independent
8 UDAY BABU KHALVADEKAR M 57 Independent
9 KHAZI RAHMATULLA ABDUL WAHAB M 60 Independent
10 L P M NAIK M 39 Independent
11 YASHWANT TIMMANNA NIPPANIKAR M 58 Independent
S10 18 KA CHITRADURGA 23-Apr-09 1 JANARDHANA SWAMY M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 M JAYANNA M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DR. B THIPPESWAMY M 37 Indian National Congress
4 M RATHNAKAR M 42 Janata Dal (Secular)
5 SHASHISHEKAR NAIK M 46 Rashtriya Janata Dal
6 M KUMBAIAH M 56 Independent
7 GANESHA M 48 Independent
8 K H DURGASIMHA M 61 Independent
9 RAMACHANDRA M 49 Independent
10 B SUJATHA F 33 Independent
11 HANUMANTHAPPA TEGNOOR M 59 Independent
S10 19 KA TUMKUR 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 P. KODANDARAMAIAH M 69 Indian National Congress
3 G.S. BASAVARAJU M 67 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 S.P. MUDDAHANUMEGOWDA M 55 Janata Dal (Secular)
5 SREE GOWRISHANKARA SWAMIGALU M 63 Samajwadi Party
6 D.R. NAGARAJA M 53 Independent
7 G. NAGENDRA M 34 Independent
8 NIRANJANA C.S M 29 Independent
9 MOHAMED KHASIM M 47 Independent
10 SHASIBHUSHANA M 34 Independent
S10 23 KA BANGALORE RURAL 23-Apr-09 1 H.D.KUMARASWAMY M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 TEJASVINI GOWDA F 42 Indian National Congress
3 MOHAMED HAFEEZ ULLAH M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 C. P. YOGEESHWARA M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 C.THOPAIAH M 56 Janata Dal (United)
6 I VENKATESWARA REDDY M 55 Pyramid Party of India
7 AGNISHREENIVAS M 30 Independent
8 D.KUMARASWAMY M 43 Independent
9 KUMARASWAMY C M 28 Independent
10 KRISHNAPPA M 46 Independent
11 Y.CHINNAPPA M 33 Independent
12 A CHOWRAPPA M 44 Independent
13 DR. K PADMARAJAN M 50 Independent
14 K.PUTTAMADEGOWDA M 40 Independent
15 T.M.MANCHEGOWDA M 62 Independent
S10 24 KA BANGALORE NORTH 23-Apr-09 1 D. B. CHANDRE GOWDA M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 C. K. JAFFER SHARIEF M 75 Indian National Congress
3 PADMAA K. BHAT F 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 R. SURENDRA BABU M 48 Janata Dal (Secular)
5 M. TIPPUVARDHAN M 39 Bharatiya Praja Paksha
6 ANCHAN KHANNA M 34 Independent
7 KANYA KUMAR M 36 Independent
8 G S KUMAR M 68 Independent
9 C. KRISHNAMURTHY M 45 Independent
10 B K CHANDRA M 38 Independent
11 T. R. CHANDRAHASA M 45 Independent
12 ABDUL JALEEL M 39 Independent
13 ZAFER MOHIUDDIN M 48 Independent
14 JOSEPH SOLOMON M 39 Independent
15 L. NAGARAJ M 52 Independent
16 V. PRASANNA KUMAR M 38 Independent
17 H. PILLAIAH M 46 Independent
18 T. B. MADWARAJA M 33 Independent
19 MEER LAYAQ HUSSAIN M 42 Independent
20 K. A. MOHAN M 51 Independent
21 S. M. RAJU M 52 Independent
22 L. LAKSHMAIAH M 64 Independent
23 MU. VENKATESHAIAH M 50 Independent
24 VENKATESA SETTY M 63 Independent
25 H. A. SHIVAKUMAR M 30 Independent
26 K. SATHYANARAYANA M 57 Independent
27 SYED AKBAR BASHA M 50 Independent
28 N. HARISH GOWDA M 33 Independent
S10 25 KA BANGALORE CENTRAL 23-Apr-09 1 ZAMEER AHMED KHAN. B.Z M 43 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 P. C. MOHAN M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 VIJAY RAJA SINGH M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 H.T.SANGLIANA M 67 Indian National Congress
5 IFTHAQUAR ALI BHUTTO M 37 Ambedkar National Congress
6 J.D.ELANGOVAN M 64 Indian Justice Party
7 S M KRISHNA M 44 Bharatiya Praja Paksha
8 B KRISHNA PRASAD M 55 Proutist Sarva Samaj Party
9 A.S. PAUL M 60 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
10 D.C. PRAKASH M 41 Karnataka Thamizhar Munnetra Kazhagam
11 K.PRABHAKARA REDDY M 61 Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha
12 T.K.PREMKUMAR M 45 Pyramid Party of India
13 ABHIMANI NARENDRA M 50 Independent
14 M.A. ASHWATHA NARAYANA SETTY M 64 Independent
15 K UMA F 46 Independent
16 UMASHANKAR M 42 Independent
17 K.S.S.IYENGAR M 77 Independent
18 B.M.KRISHNAREDDY M 64 Independent
19 S.KODANDARAM M 50 Independent
20 C.V.GIDDAPPA M 55 Independent
21 A.CHANDRASHEKAR M 45 Independent
22 JAYARAMA M 60 Independent
23 K.NARASIMHA M 38 Independent
24 B.K NARAYANA SWAMY M 52 Independent
25 P.PARTHIBAN M 34 Independent
26 MEER LAYAQ HUSSAIN M 42 Independent
27 B.MOHAN VELU M 39 Independent
28 R. RAJ M 49 Independent
29 E. RAMAKRISHNAIAH M 50 Independent
30 K.H.RAMALINGAREDDY M 41 Independent
31 VIJAYA BHASKAR N M 61 Independent
32 DR.D. R.VENKATESH GOWDA M 82 Independent
33 SHAFFI AHMED M 50 Independent
34 S.N. SHARMA M 67 Independent
35 SHASHIKUMAR A.R M 43 Independent
36 K.SHIVARAMANNA M 55 Independent
37 SHAIK BAHADUR M 54 Independent
S10 26 KA BANGALORE SOUTH 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTH KUMAR M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 KRISHNA BYRE GOWDA M 36 Indian National Congress
3 NAHEEDA SALMA S F 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 PROF.RADHAKRISHNA M 63 Janata Dal (Secular)
5 B.M.GOVINDRAJ NAIK M 38 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
6 P.JOHNBASCO M 37 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
7 VATAL NAGARAJ M 60 Kannada Chalavali Vatal Paksha
8 B.SHIVARAMAPPA M 62 Pyramid Party of India
9 ABHIMAANI NARENDRA M 50 Independent
10 KHADER ALI KHAN M 39 Independent
11 GANESH HANUMANTARAO MOKHASHI M 58 Independent
12 CAPT. G.R. GOPINATH M 57 Independent
13 K.C.JANARDHAN M 46 Independent
14 DR.JAYALAKSHMI.H.G. F 48 Independent
15 K.M.NARAYANA M 54 Independent
16 MADESH.C M 40 Independent
17 MURALIDHARA.D.J. M 44 Independent
18 RAVI KUMARA.T. M 26 Independent
19 SUGANDHARAJE URS M 59 Independent
20 SANTHOSH MIN.B M 33 Independent
S10 27 KA CHIKKBALLAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 C.ASWATHANARAYANA M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 C.R.MANOHAR M 29 Janata Dal (Secular)
3 M.VEERAPPA MOILY M 69 Indian National Congress
4 HENNURU LAKSHMINARAYANA M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH M 40 Pyramid Party of India
6 M.VENKATESH M 55 Bharatiya Praja Paksha
7 H.R.SHIVAKUMAR M 39 Lok Jan Shakti Party
8 KRISHNAMURTHY .T M 70 Independent
9 K.S.CHANDRASHEKARA RAO (AZAD) M 54 Independent
10 L.NAGARAJ M 52 Independent
11 G.NARAYANAPPA M 62 Independent
12 A.N.BACHEGOWDA M 50 Independent
13 G.B.MUTHUKUMAR M 62 Independent
14 M.MUNIVENKATAIAH M 64 Independent
15 M.RAMESH M 30 Independent
16 RAVI GOKRE M 32 Independent
17 G.N. RAVI M 45 Independent
18 K.VENKATAREDDY M 36 Independent
19 B.SHIVARAJA M 40 Independent
20 Y.A.SIDDALINGEGOWDA M 42 Independent
S10 28 KA KOLAR 23-Apr-09 1 G.CHANDRANNA M 56 Janata Dal (Secular)
2 K.H.MUNIYAPPA M 61 Indian National Congress
3 N.MUNISWAMY M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 LAKSHMI SHANMUGAM F 56 Nationalist Congress Party
5 D.S.VEERAIAH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 K.R.DEVARAJA M 51 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
7 B.M.KRISHNAPPA M 59 Independent
8 M.R.GANTAPPA M 46 Independent
9 P.V.CHANGALARAYAPPA M 38 Independent
10 P.CHANDRAPPA M 42 Independent
11 V.JAYARAMA M 59 Independent
12 JAYARAMAPPA M 45 Independent
13 NAGARATHNA M. F 47 Independent
14 M.NAGARAJA M 35 Independent
15 NARAYANASWAMY M 49 Independent
16 K.NARAYANASWAMY M 37 Independent
17 C.K.MUNIYAPPA M 43 Independent
18 M.RAVI KUMAR M 36 Independent
19 M.VENKATASWAMY M 55 Independent
20 K.VENKATESH M 40 Independent
21 SRINIVASA T.O. M 37 Independent
22 SRINIVASA P. M 42 Independent
S12 8 MP KHAJURAHO 23-Apr-09 1 JAYAWANT SINGH M 49 Samajwadi Party
2 JEETENDRA SINGH M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAJA PATERYA M 49 Indian National Congress
4 SEWA LAL PATEL M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 M. SHAKIL M 38 Gondwana Mukti Sena
6 SAROJ BACHCHAN NAYAK F 56 Janata Dal (United)
7 SURYA BHAN SINGH ‘YADAV GURUJI’ M 75 All India Forward Bloc
8 AKEEL KHAN M 43 Independent
9 AKANCHHA JAIN F 34 Independent
10 KRISHNA SHARAN SINGH (RAJA BHAIYA) M 36 Independent
11 NARENDRA KUMAR M 54 Independent
12 RAJENDRA AHIRWAR M 43 Independent
13 RAM NATH LODHI M 41 Independent
14 SHABNAM (MAUSI) F 48 Independent
15 SHUKL SITARAM M 48 Independent
S12 9 MP SATNA 23-Apr-09 1 GANESH SINGH M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 PT. RAJARAM TRIPATHI M 56 Samajwadi Party
3 SUKHLAL KUSHWAHA M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SUDHIR SINGH TOMAR M 41 Indian National Congress
5 ONKAR SINGH M 56 Akhil Bharatiya Hind Kranti Party
6 GIRJA SINGH PATEL M 49 Apna Dal
7 CHHOTELAL SINGH GOND M 65 Gondwana Mukti Sena
8 PRAMILA F 43 Republican Party of India (A)
9 B BALLABH CHARYA M 38 Advait Ishwasyam Congress
10 RAJESH SINGH BAGHEL M 41 Gondvana Gantantra Party
11 SHOBHNATH SEN M 29 Lok Jan Shakti Party
12 SUNDERLAL CHAUDHARI M 64 Indian Justice Party
13 ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAHA M 33 Independent
14 ASHOK KUSHWAHA M 28 Independent
15 CHHOTELAL M 59 Independent
16 BHAIYALAL URMALIYA M 62 Independent
17 MANISH KUMAR JAIN M 31 Independent
18 MUNNI KRANTI F 44 Independent
19 RAMVISHWAS BASORE M 38 Independent
20 RAM SAJIVAN M 46 Independent
21 RAMAYAN CHAUDHARI M 39 Independent
S12 10 MP REWA 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA MANI TRIPATHI M 62 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DEORAJ SINGH PATEL M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 PUSHPRAJ SINGH M 48 Samajwadi Party
4 SUNDER LAL TIWARI M 51 Indian National Congress
5 BADRI PRASAD KUSHWAHA M 47 Apna Dal
6 RAMKISHAN NIRAT (SAKET) M 32 Republican Party of India (A)
7 RAMAYAN PRASAD PATEL M 42 Yuva Vikas Party
8 VIMALA SONDHIA F 53 Lok Jan Shakti Party
9 SALMA F 33 All India Forward Bloc
10 MD. AKEEL KHAN (BACHCHA BHAI) M 34 Independent
11 JAIKARAN SAKET M 48 Independent
12 BRAHMDUTTMISHRA ALIAS CHHOTE MURAITHA M 46 Independent
13 SUKHENDRA PRATAP M 44 Independent
14 SUNDAR LAL M 37 Independent
15 HIRALAL VISHWAKARMA M 56 Independent
S12 11 MP SIDHI 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK KUMAR SHAH M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 INDRAJEET KUMAR M 61 Indian National Congress
3 GOVIND PRASAD MISHRA M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 MANIK SINGH M 43 Samajwadi Party
5 LOLAR SINGH URETI M 29 Gondwana Mukti Sena
6 VEENA SINGH NETI F 34 Gondvana Gantantra Party
7 BABOOLAL JAISWAL M 39 Independent
8 MADAN MOHAN JAISWAL (ADVOCATE) M 36 Independent
9 MAHENDRA BHAIYA (DIKSHIT) M 42 Independent
10 RAMAKANT PANDEY MALAIHNA M 63 Independent
11 VEENA SINGH (VEENA DIDI) F 56 Independent
S12 12 MP SHAHDOL 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA PRATAP SINGH (BABA SAHAB) M 51 Samajwadi Party
2 NARENDRA SINGH MARAVI M 29 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MANOHAR SINGH MARAVI M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RAJESH NANDINI SINGH F 52 Indian National Congress
5 SADAN SINGH BHARIA M 39 Communist Party of India
6 KRISHN PAL SINGH PAVEL M 29 Lok Jan Shakti Party
7 GANPAT GOND M 38 Gondwana Mukti Sena
8 RAM RATAN SINGH PAVLE M 28 Gondvana Gantantra Party
S12 13 MP JABALPUR 23-Apr-09 1 AZIZ QURESHI M 64 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA M 40 Samajwadi Party
3 RAKESH SINGH M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 ADVOCATE RAMESHWAR NEEKHRA M 61 Indian National Congress
5 MEERCHAND PATEL (KACHHVAHA) M 63 Republican Party of India
6 RAVI MAHOBIA (KUNDAM) M 29 Gondvana Gantantra Party
7 RAJKUMARI SINGH F 40 Lok Jan Shakti Party
8 HARI SINGH MARAVI M 36 Gondwana Mukti Sena
9 DR. MUKESH MEHROTRA M 57 Independent
10 RAKESH SONKAR (PRAMUKH DHAI AKSHAR) M 39 Independent
11 SUNIL PATEL M 38 Independent
S12 14 MP MANDLA 23-Apr-09 1 JALSO DHURWEY F 25 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 FAGGAN SINGH KULASTE M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 BASORI SINGH MASRAM M 59 Indian National Congress
4 UDAL SINGH DHURWEY M 35 Loktanrik Sarkar Party
5 JHANK SINGH KUSHRE M 37 Gondvana Gantantra Party
6 PREM SINGH MARAVI M 35 Gondwana Mukti Sena
7 BHAGAT SINGH VARKEDE M 45 Lok Jan Shakti Party
8 MANESHWARI NAIK F 65 Republican Party of India (A)
9 SUNITA NETI F 33 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
10 CHANDRA SHEKHAR DHURWEY M 46 Independent
11 CHAMBAL SING MARAWEE M 62 Independent
12 DEV SINGH BHALAVI M 25 Independent
13 SHIVCHARAN UIKEY M 26 Independent
14 SAHDEO PRASAD MARAVI M 43 Independent
S12 15 MP BALAGHAT 23-Apr-09 1 AJAB LAL M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 KISHOR SAMRITE M 42 Samajwadi Party
3 KANKAR MUNJARE M 52 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 K. D. DESHMUKH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 VISHVESHWAR BHAGAT M 57 Indian National Congress
6 KALPANA GOPAL WASNIK F 38 Republican Party of India (A)
7 DARBU SINGH UIKEY M 37 Gondwana Mukti Sena
8 BHAIYA BALKRISHNA M 53 Gondvana Gantantra Party
9 ADVOCATE AZHAR UL ALIM M 58 Independent
10 ANJU ASHOK UIKEY F 34 Independent
11 GOVARDHAN PATLE URF HITLAR M 75 Independent
12 JITENDRA MESHRAM M 37 Independent
13 DHANESHWAR LILHARE M 40 Independent
14 NYAZMIR KHAN M 32 Independent
15 POORANLAL LODHI M 37 Independent
16 MANSINGH BISEN M 59 Independent
17 SANDEEP SANTRAM M 31 Independent
18 SHRIRAM THAKUR M 58 Independent
S12 16 MP CHHINDWARA 23-Apr-09 1 KAMAL NATH M 62 Indian National Congress
2 MAROT RAO KHAVASE M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAO SAHEB SHINDE M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 JOGILAL IRPACHI M 48 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
5 PARDHESHI HARTAPSAH TIRKAM M 40 Gondwana Mukti Sena
6 BALVEER SINGH YADAV M 30 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
7 RAMKISHAN PAL M 62 Republican Party of India (A)
8 SATAP SHA UIKEY M 35 Gondvana Gantantra Party
9 ABDUL SHAMAD KHAN M 45 Independent
10 AMRITLAL PATHAK RAGHUVAR M 70 Independent
11 ASHARAM DEHARIYA M 33 Independent
12 KAMALNATH (MAYAWADI-PARASIA) M 31 Independent
13 GANARAM UIKEY M 53 Independent
14 AZAD CHANDRASHEKHER PANDOLE SAMAJ SEVAK M 42 Independent
15 JAGDISH BAIS M 35 Independent
16 TULSIRAM SURYAWANSHI M 62 Independent
17 DUARAM UIKEY M 40 Independent
18 DHANPAL BHALAVI M 35 Independent
19 DHANRAJ JAMBHATKAR M 37 Independent
20 NARESH KUMAR YUVNATI M 33 Independent
21 NIKHILESH DHURVEY M 30 Independent
22 PITRAM UIKEY M 48 Independent
23 PRAVINDRA NAURATI M 37 Independent
24 MANMOHAN SHAH BATTI M 46 Independent
25 R.K. MARKAM M 28 Independent
26 SHOAIB KHAN M 44 Independent
27 SUKMAN INVATI M 42 Independent
28 SUBHASH SHUKLA M 40 Independent
S12 17 MP HOSHANGABAD 23-Apr-09 1 UDAY PRATAP SINGH M 44 Indian National Congress
2 ADV.B.M.KAUSHIK M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 HAJAEE SYID MUEEN UDDIN M 47 Samajwadi Party
4 RAMPAL SINGH M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DINESH KUMAR AHIRWAR M 42 Independent
6 BHARAT KUMAR CHOUREY M 29 Independent
7 MOHAMMD ABDULLA M 54 Independent
8 RAKHI GUPTA F 31 Independent
9 RAMPAL M 62 Independent
10 SUDAMA PRASAD M 55 Independent
S12 18 MP VIDISHA 23-Apr-09 1 DR.PREMSHANKAR SHARMA M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 CHOUDHARY MUNABBAR SALIM M 50 Samajwadi Party
3 SUSHMA SWARAJ F 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 BHAI MUNSHILAL SILAWAT M 25 Republican Party of India (A)
5 RAMGOPAL MALVIYA M 35 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
6 HARBHAJAN JANGRE M 33 Lok Jan Shakti Party
7 GANESHRAM LODHI M 44 Independent
8 RAJESHWAR SINGH YADAV (RAO) M 39 Independent
S12 19 MP BHOPAL 23-Apr-09 1 ER. ASHOK NARAYAN SINGH M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 KAILASH JOSHI M 79 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MHOD. MUNAWAR KHAN KAUSAR M 44 Samajwadi Party
4 SURENDRA SINGH THAKUR M 55 Indian National Congress
5 ASHOK PAWAR M 47 Prajatantrik Samadhan Party
6 AHIRWAR LAKHANLAL PURVI M 42 Republican Party of India (A)
7 KARAN KUMAR KAROSIA URF KARAN JEEJA M 41 Gondvana Gantantra Party
8 RADHESHYAM KULASTE M 38 Gondwana Mukti Sena
9 RAMDAS GHOSLE M 54 Republican Party of India (Democratic )
10 SANJEEV SINGHAL M 42 Savarn Samaj Party
11 ANIL SINGH M 30 Independent
12 AMAR SINGH M 72 Independent
13 KAPIL DUBEY M 37 Independent
14 D. C. GUJARKAR M 52 Independent
15 DARSHAN SINGH RATHORE M 53 Independent
16 BRAJENDRA CHATURVEDI URF GAPPU CHATURVEDI M 35 Independent
17 DR. MAHESH YADAV ‘AMAN GANDHI’ M 40 Independent
18 MUKESH SEN M 32 Independent
19 MEHDI SIR M 30 Independent
20 RAJESH KUMAR YADAV M 42 Independent
21 RAM SAHAY YATRI (SHRIVASTAVA) URF RASHTRAVADI YATRI M 79 Independent
22 SHAHNAWAZ M 59 Independent
23 SHIV NARAYAN SINGH BAGWARE M 60 Independent
S12 29 MP BETUL 23-Apr-09 1 OJHARAM EVANE M 54 Indian National Congress
2 JYOTI DHURVE F 43 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAMA KAKODIA M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 DR. SUKHDEV SINGH CHOUHAN M 42 Samajwadi Party
5 KALLUSINGH UIKEY M 59 Gondwana Mukti Sena
6 KADMU SINGH KUMARE (K.S.KUMARE) M 59 Gondvana Gantantra Party
7 GULABRAV M 53 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
8 MANGAL SINGH LOKHANDE M 51 Samajwadi Jan Parishad
9 SUSHILKUMAR ALIS BALUBHAIYYA M 39 Republican Party of India (A)
10 IMRATLAL MARKAM M 58 Independent
11 KAMAL SING M 45 Independent
12 KADAKSHING VADIVA M 27 Independent
13 KRISHNA GOPAL PARTE M 35 Independent
14 MOTIRAM MAVASE M 48 Independent
15 ADHIVAKTA SHANKAR PENDAM M 66 Independent
16 SUNIL KUMAR KAWADE M 27 Independent
S13 1 MH NANDURBAR 23-Apr-09 1 GAVIT MANIKRAO HODLYA M 75 Indian National Congress
2 NATAWADKAR SUHAS JYANT M 48 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 PADVI BABITA KARMSINGH F 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 KOKANI MANJULABAI SAKHARAM F 59 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 GAVIT SHARAD KRUSHNRAO M 46 Samajwadi Party
6 ABHIJIT AATYA VASAVE M 30 Independent
7 KOLI RAJU RAMDAS M 34 Independent
S13 2 MH DHULE 23-Apr-09 1 AMARISHBHAI RASIKLAL PATEL M 56 Indian National Congress
2 RIZWAN MO.AKBAR M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SONAWANE PRATAP NARAYANRAO M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 ANIL ANNA GOTE M 61 Loksangram
5 ANSARI MOHD. ISMAIL MOHD. IBRAHIM M 37 Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh
6 ARIF AHMED SHAIKH JAFHAR M 99 Navbharat Nirman Party
7 KAVAYATRI-SONKANYA THAKUR RAJANI BAGWAN F 49 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
8 NIHAL AHMED MOLVI. MOHAMMED USMAN M 81 Janata Dal (Secular)
9 MD. ISMAIL JUMMAN M 49 Independent
10 KISHOR PITAMBAR AHIRE M 28 Independent
11 GAZI ATEZAD AHMED MUBEEN AHMED KHAN M 57 Independent
12 GAIKWAD PATIL BHUSHAN BAJIRAO M 28 Independent
13 DADASO. PANDITRAO PATIL KOKALEKAR M 55 Independent
14 SHEVALE PATIL SANDEEP JIBHAU M 31 Independent
15 SONAWANE PANDIT UTTAMRAO M 42 Independent
S13 3 MH JALGAON 23-Apr-09 1 A.T. NANA PATIL M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 ADV. MATIN AHMED M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 ADV. VASANTRAO JIVANRAO MORE M 63 Nationalist Congress Party
4 ATMARAM SURSING JADHAV (ENGG.) M 33 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
5 JADHAV NATTHU SHANKAR M 56 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 JANGALU DEVRAM SHIRSATH M 65 Hindustan Janta Party
7 NANNAWARE CHAITANYA PANDIT M 33 Prabuddha Republican Party
8 LAXMAN SHIVAJI SHIRSATH (PATIL) M 42 Krantisena Maharashtra
9 ANIL PITAMBAR WAGH (SIR) M 38 Independent
10 KANTILAL CHHAGAN NAIK (BANJARA) M 39 Independent
11 WAGH SUDHAKAR ATMARAM M 26 Independent
12 SHALIGRAM SHIVRAM MAHAJAN (DEORE) M 49 Independent
13 SALIMODDIN ISAMODDIN SHE.(MISTARI) M 56 Independent
S13 4 MH RAVER 23-Apr-09 1 PATIL SURESH CHINDHU M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ADV. RAVINDRA PRALHADRAO PATIL M 54 Nationalist Congress Party
3 HARIBHAU MADHAV JAWALE M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 TELI SHAIKH ISMAIL HAJI HASAN M 57 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 BAPU SAHEBRAO SONAWANE M 45 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 MARATHE BHIMRAO PARBAT M 51 Krantisena Maharashtra
7 SHIVAVEER DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL AMALE URPH AMALE SARKAR M 26 Shivrajya Party
8 IQBAL ALAUDDIN TADVI M 41 Independent
9 UTTAM KASHIRAM INGALE M 36 Independent
10 KOLI SANTOSH GOKUL M 25 Independent
11 FIRKE SURESH KACHARU EX ACP (CRPF) M 58 Independent
12 MAKBUL FARID SK. M 36 Independent
13 MOHD. MUNAWWAR MOHD. HANIF M 45 Independent
14 MORE HIRAMAN BHONAJI M 41 Independent
15 D.D. WANI (PHOTOGRAPHER) (DYNESHWAR DIWAKAR WANI) M 43 Independent
16 VIVEK SHARAD PATIL M 41 Independent
17 SHAIKH RAMJAN SHAIKH KARIM M 40 Independent
18 SUJATA IBRAHIM TADAVI F 45 Independent
19 SANJAY PRALADH KANDELKAR M 34 Independent
S13 18 MH JALNA 23-Apr-09 1 DR. KALE KALYAN VAIJINATHRAO M 46 Indian National Congress
2 DANVE RAOSAHEB DADARAO M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RATHOD RAJPALSINH GABRUSINH M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 AAPPASAHEB RADHAKISAN KUDHEKAR M 29 Krantisena Maharashtra
5 KISAN BALVANTA BORDE M 61 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 KHARAT ASHOK RAMRAO M 51 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
7 TAWAR KAILAS BHAUSAHEB M 45 Swatantra Bharat Paksha
8 DR. DILAWAR MIRZA BAIG M 29 Indian Union Muslim League
9 BHOJNE BABASAHEB SANGAM M 37 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
10 MISAL TUKARAM BABURAOJI M 48 Samajwadi Party
11 RATNAPARKHE ARCHANA SUDHAKAR F 31 Republician Party of India Ektawadi
12 SUBHASH FAKIRA SALVE M 43 Ambedkar National Congress
13 SAYYAD MAKSUD NOOR M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party
14 KOLTE MANOJ NEMINATH M 26 Independent
15 KHANDU HARISHCHANDRA LAGHANE M 30 Independent
16 NADE DNYANESHWAR DAGDU M 41 Independent
17 BABASAHEB PATIL SHINDE M 53 Independent
18 SONWANE ASHOK VITTHAL M 45 Independent
19 S. HUSAIN AHEMAD M 37 Independent
S13 19 MH AURANGABAD 23-Apr-09 1 UTTAMSINGH RAJDHARSINGH PAWAR M 58 Indian National Congress
2 CHANDRAKANT KHAIRE M 57 Shivsena
3 SAYYED SALIM SAYYED YUSUF M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 JAHAGIRDAR MOHMAD AYUB GULAM M 55 Samajwadi Party
5 JYOTI RAMCHANDRA UPADHAYAY F 35 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 PANDURANG WAMANRAO NARWADE M 39 Prabuddha Republican Party
7 BHIMSEN RAMBHAU KAMBLE M 44 Republician Party of India Ektawadi
8 MANIK RAMU SHINDE M 34 Krantisena Maharashtra
9 SHAIKH HARUN MALIK SAHEB M 50 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
10 UTTAM MANIK KIRTIKAR M 30 Independent
11 EJAZ KHAN BISMILLAH KHAN M 33 Independent
12 KAZI MUSHIRODDIN TAJODDIN M 63 Independent
13 KRISHNA DEVIDAS JADHAV M 25 Independent
14 JADHAV TOTARAM GANPAT M 51 Independent
15 JADHAV VISHNU SURYABHAN M 50 Independent
16 JADHAV SUBHASH RUPCHAND M 33 Independent
17 BANKAR MILIND RANUJI M 38 Independent
18 SHANTIGIRIJI MOUNGIRIJI MAHARAJ M 50 Independent
19 SHAIKH RAFIQ SHAIKH RAZZAK M 30 Independent
20 SHAIKH SALIM PATEL WAHEGAONKAR M 38 Independent
21 SAYYED RAUF SAYYED ZAMIR M 54 Independent
22 SUBHASH KISANRAO PATIL (JADHAV) M 47 Independent
S13 20 MH DINDORI 23-Apr-09 1 GAVIT JEEVA PANDU M 60 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 GANGURDE DIPAK SHANKAR M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 CHAVAN HARISHCHANDRA DEORAM M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 ZIRWAL NARHARI SITARAM M 50 Nationalist Congress Party
5 PAWAR SAMPAT WAMAN M 30 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 GANGURDE BALU KISAN M 37 Independent
7 BHIKA HARISING BARDE M 75 Independent
8 VIJAY NAMDEO PAWAR M 45 Independent
9 SHANKAR DEORAM GANGUDE M 51 Independent
S13 21 MH NASHIK 23-Apr-09 1 GAIKWAD DATTA NAMDEO M 47 Shivsena
2 SAMEER BHUJBAL M 35 Nationalist Congress Party
3 SHRIMAHANT SUDHIRDAS MAHARAJ M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 KAILAS MADHUKAR CHAVAN M 28 Indian Justice Party
5 GODSE HEMANT TUKARAM M 38 Maharashtra Navnirman sena
6 JADHAV NAMDEO BHIKAJI M 57 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
7 RAYATE VIJAY SAKHARAM ( RAYATE SIR) M 52 Hindustan Janta Party
8 AD. GULVE RAMNATH SANTUJI M 42 Independent
9 DATTU GONYA GAIKWAD M 50 Independent
10 PRAVINCHANDRA DATTARAM DETHE M 42 Independent
11 BHARAT HIRMAN PARDESHI M 37 Independent
12 RAJENDRA SAMPATRAO KADU M 35 Independent
S13 32 MH RAIGAD 23-Apr-09 1 ANANT GEETE M 58 Shivsena
2 BARRISTER A.R. ANTULAY M 80 Indian National Congress
3 MOHITE KIRAN BABURAO M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 EKANATH ARJUN PATIL M 48 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
5 ADV. PRAVIN MADHUKAR THAKUR M 39 Independent
6 DR. SIDDHARTH PATIL M 54 Independent
7 SUNIL BHASKAR NAIK M 51 Independent
S13 33 MH MAVAL 23-Apr-09 1 PANSARE AZAM FAKEERBHAI M 48 Nationalist Congress Party
2 BABAR GAJANAN DHARMSHI M 66 Shivsena
3 MISHRA UMAKANT RAMESHWAR M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 AYU. DEEPALI NIVRUTTI CHAVAN F 35 Prabuddha Republican Party
5 PRADIP PANDURANG KOCHAREKAR M 49 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
6 ADV.SHIVSHANKAR DATTATRAY SHINDE M 31 Krantisena Maharashtra
7 ISHWAR DATTATRAY JADHAV M 46 Independent
8 JAGANNATH PANDURANG KHARGE M 38 Independent
9 DOLE BHIMRAJ NIVRUTTI M 38 Independent
10 ADVOCATE TUKARAM WAMANRAO BANSODE M 64 Independent
11 TANTARPALE GOPAL YASHWANTRAO M 43 Independent
12 ADVOCATE PRAMOD MAHADEV GORE M 56 Independent
13 BHAPKAR MARUTI SAHEBRAO M 38 Independent
14 MAHENDRA PRABHAKAR TIWARI M 41 Independent
15 BRO. MANUAL DESOZA M 45 Independent
16 YASHWANT NARAYAN DESAI M 42 Independent
17 SHAKEEL RAJBHAI SHAIKH M 38 Independent
18 HARIBHAU DADAJI SHINDE M 70 Independent
S13 34 MH PUNE 23-Apr-09 1 ANIL SHIROLE M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 KALMADI SURESH M 64 Indian National Congress
3 D S K ALIAS D.S.KULKARNI M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 ARUN BHATIA M 66 Peoples Guardian
5 GULAB TATYA WAGHMODE M 47 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 BAGBAN JAVED KASIM M 26 Indian Union Muslim League
7 VIKRAMADITYA OMPRAKASH DHIMAN M 40 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
8 VINOD ANAND SINH M 55 Proutist Sarva Samaj Party
9 SHIROLE RANJEET SHRIKANT M 32 Maharashtra Navnirman sena
10 SAVITA HAJARE F 46 Pyramid Party of India
11 SANGHARSH ARUN APTE M 28 Prabuddha Republican Party
12 AJAY VASANT PAITHANKAR M 49 Independent
13 ADAGALE BHAUSAHEB RAMCHANDRA M 48 Independent
14 ASHOK GANPAT PALKHE ALIAS SUTAR M 45 Independent
15 KAMTAM ISWAR SAMBHAYYA M 67 Independent
16 KULKARNI KAUSTUBH SHASHIKANT M 26 Independent
17 KHAN AMANULLA MOHMOD AL M 55 Independent
18 KHAN NISSAR TAJ AHMAD M 44 Independent
19 P. K. CHAVAN M 80 Independent
20 CHOUDHARI SUNIL GULABRAO M 41 Independent
21 CHOURE VILAS CHINTAMAN M 45 Independent
22 TATYA ALIAS NARAYAN SHANKAR WAMBHIRE M 51 Independent
23 TAMBOLI SHABBIR SAJJANBHAI M 52 Independent
24 DATTATRAYA GANESH TALGERI M 61 Independent
25 BAGADE SACHIN MARUTI M 29 Independent
26 BALU ALIAS ANIL SHIROLE M 28 Independent
27 BHARAT MANOHAR GAVALI M 65 Independent
28 BHAGWAT RAGHUNATH KAMBLE M 35 Independent
29 RAJENDRA BHAGAT ALIAS JITU BHAI M 29 Independent
30 VIKRAM NARENDRA BOKE M 53 Independent
31 SHINDE RAJENDRA BABURAO M 44 Independent
32 SHAIKH ALTAF KARIM M 48 Independent
33 SHRIKANT MADHUSUDAN JAGTAP M 33 Independent
34 SARDESAI KISHORKUMAR RAGHUNATH M 42 Independent
35 ADV.SUBHASH NARHAR GODSE M 59 Independent
36 SANTOSH ALIAS SOMNATH KALU PAWAR M 38 Independent
S13 35 MH BARAMATI 23-Apr-09 1 KUDALEPATIL VIVEK ANANT M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 KANTA JAYSING NALAWADE F 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SUPRIYA SULE F 39 Nationalist Congress Party
4 MAYAWATI AMAR CHITRE F 31 Bharatiya Minorities Suraksha Mahasangh
5 SHELAR SANGEETA PANDURANG F 33 Krantisena Maharashtra
6 SACHIN VITTHAL AHIRE M 29 Prabuddha Republican Party
7 SAMPAT MARUTI TAKALE M 54 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
8 GHORPADE SAVEETA ASHOK F 29 Independent
9 TATYA ALIAS NARAYAN SHANKAR WAMBHIRE M 51 Independent
10 TANTARPALE GOPAL YESHWANTRAO M 43 Independent
11 DEEPAK SHANKAR BHAPKAR M 26 Independent
12 BHIMA ANNA KADALE M 31 Independent
13 MRUNALEENI JAYRAJ KAKADE F 34 Independent
14 YOGESH SONABA RANDHEER M 39 Independent
15 SHIVAJI JAYSING KOKARE M 58 Independent
16 SURESH BABURAO VEER M 62 Independent
17 SANGITA SHRIMAN BHUMKAR F 30 Independent
S13 36 MH SHIRUR 23-Apr-09 1 ADHALRAO SHIVAJI DATTATRAY M 52 Shivsena
2 ZAGADE YASHWANT SITARAM M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 VILAS VITHOBA LANDE M 47 Nationalist Congress Party
4 PALLAVI MOHAN HARSHE F 27 Prabuddha Republican Party
5 SHELAR DNYANOBA SHRIPATI M 57 Republican Presidium Party of India
6 SURESH MULCHAND KANKARIA (MAMA) M 57 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 ABHANG KONDIBHAU BHIMAJI M 48 Independent
8 KARANDE CHANGDEO NAMDEO M 43 Independent
9 KALURAM RAGHUNATH TAPKIR M 52 Independent
10 RAM DHARMA DAMBALE M 37 Independent
11 LANDE VILAS MHATARBA M 37 Independent
S13 37 MH AHMADNAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 KARDILE SHIVAJI BHANUDAS M 50 Nationalist Congress Party
2 KARBHARI WAMAN SHIRSAT ALIAS K.V. SHIRSAT M 65 Communist Party of India
3 GADAKH TUKARAM GANGADHAR M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 GANDHI DILIPKUMAR MANSUKHLAL M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KAZI SAJID MUJIR M 41 Republician Party of India Ektawadi
6 HAKE BHANUDAS KISAN M 55 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 HOLE BHANUDAS NAMDEO M 48 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
8 ARUN KAHAR M 45 Independent
9 AVINASH MALHARRAO GHODAKE M 40 Independent
10 KHAIRE ARJUN DEORAO M 39 Independent
11 GAIKWAD BALASAHEB RAMCHANDRA M 35 Independent
12 NAUSHAD ANSAR SHAIKH F 39 Independent
13 PROF. MAHENDRA DADA SHINDE M 29 Independent
14 RAUT EKNATH BABASAHEB M 56 Independent
15 RAJIV APPASAHEB RAJALE M 39 Independent
S13 38 MH SHIRDI 23-Apr-09 1 KACHARU NAGU WAGHMARE M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 WAKCHOURE BHAUSAHEB RAJARAM M 59 Shivsena
3 ATHAWALE RAMDAS BANDU M 52 Republican Party of India
4 DHOTRE SUCHIT CHINTAMANI M 25 Krantisena Maharashtra
5 SATISH BALASAHEB PALGHADMAL M 26 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 ADHAGALE RAJENDRA NAMDEV M 39 Independent
7 KAMBALE RAMESH ANKUSH M 32 Independent
8 GAIKWAD APPASAHEB GANGADHAR M 64 Independent
9 BAGUL BALU DASHARATH M 34 Independent
10 MEDHE PRAFULLAKUMAR MURLIDHAR M 46 Independent
11 RAKSHE ANNASAHEB EKNATH M 43 Independent
12 RUPWATE PREMANAND DAMODHAR M 65 Independent
13 LODHE SHARAD LAXAMAN M 42 Independent
14 WAGH GANGADHAR RADHAJI M 60 Independent
15 VAIRAGHAR SUDHIR NATHA M 38 Independent
16 SABALE ANIL DAMODHAR M 40 Independent
17 SANDIP BHASKAR GOLAP M 29 Independent
S13 39 MH BEED 23-Apr-09 1 KOKATE RAMESH BABURAO (ADASKAR) M 42 Nationalist Congress Party
2 MASKE MACHHINDRA BABURAO M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 MUNDE GOPINATHRAO PANDURANG M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 KHALGE KACHRU SANTRAMJI M 48 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 GURAV KALYAN BHANUDAS M 62 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
6 TATE ASHOK SANTRAM M 50 Ambedkarist Republican Party
7 NIKALJE SHEELATAI MAHENDRA F 34 Prabuddha Republican Party
8 PRAMOD ALIAS PARMESHWAR SAKHARAM MOTE M 32 Krantisena Maharashtra
9 BABURAO NARAYANRAO KAGADE M 63 Ambedkar National Congress
10 DR. SHIVAJIRAO KISANRAO SHENDGE M 39 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
11 KAMAL KONDIRAM NIMBALKAR F 39 Independent
12 KAMBLE DEEPAK DYANOBA M 32 Independent
13 KHAN SIKANDAR KHAN HUSSAIN KHAN M 58 Independent
14 GUJAR KHAN MIRZA KHAN M 28 Independent
15 ADV.NATKAR RAMRAO SHESHRAO M 61 Independent
16 PATHAN GAFARKHAN JABBARKHAN M 42 Independent
17 MAHAMMAD AKARAM MAHAMMAD SALIMUDDIN BAGWAN M 34 Independent
18 RAMESH VISHVANATH KOKATE M 32 Independent
19 SAYYED MINHAJ ALI WAJED ALI (PENDKHJUR WALE) M 34 Independent
20 SAYYED SALIM FATTU M 47 Independent
21 SARDAR KHAN SULTANABABA M 26 Independent
S13 40 MH OSMANABAD 23-Apr-09 1 GAIKWAD RAVINDRA VISHWANATH M 49 Shivsena
2 DIVAKAR YASHWANT NAKADE M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 PATIL PADAMSINHA BAJIRAO M 68 Nationalist Congress Party
4 JAGTAP BHAGWAN DADARAO M 70 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 TARKASE DHANANJAY MURLIDHAR M 34 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
6 TAWADE PRAKASH TANAJIRAO M 28 Krantisena Maharashtra
7 BANSODE GUNDERAO SHIVRAM M 73 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
8 BABA FAIJODDIN SHAIKH M 28 Nelopa(United)
9 BHOSLE REVAN VISHWANATH M 45 Janata Dal (Secular)
10 MUJAWAR SHAHABUDDIN NABIRASUL M 37 Prabuddha Republican Party
11 RAJENDRA RANDITRAO HIPPERGEKAR M 38 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
12 ANGARSHA SALIM BABULAL M 62 Independent
13 GAIKWAD UMAJI PANDURANG M 39 Independent
14 CHAVAN BABU VITHOBA M 40 Independent
15 CHANDANE PINTU PANDURANG M 35 Independent
16 DADASAHEB SHANKARRAO JETITHOR M 50 Independent
17 NITURE ARUN BHAURAO M 38 Independent
18 PATEL HASHAM ISMAIL M 55 Independent
19 PAWAR HARIDAS MANIKRAO M 35 Independent
20 PATIL MAHADEO DNYANDEO M 50 Independent
21 BALAJI BAPURAO TUPSUNDARE M 37 Independent
22 ADV. BHAUSAHEB ANIL BELURE (BEMBLIKAR) M 29 Independent
23 MUNDHE PATRIL PADAMSINHA VIJAYSINHA M 29 Independent
24 YEVATE-PATIL SHRIMANT M 55 Independent
25 SANDIPAN RAMA ZOMBADE M 41 Independent
S13 41 MH LATUR 23-Apr-09 1 AAWALE JAYWANT GANGARAM M 99 Indian National Congress
2 GAIKWAD SUNIL BALIRAM M 99 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 ADV. BABASAHEB SADSHIVRAO GAIKWAD M 99 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 ARAK ASHOK VIKRAM M 99 Krantisena Maharashtra
5 V.K. ACHARYA M 99 Prabuddha Republican Party
6 T.M. KAMBLE M 99 Republican Party of India (Democratic )
7 GANNE TUKARAM RAMBHAU M 99 Jan Surajya Shakti
8 BANSODE RAGHUNATH WAGHOJI M 99 Peoples Republican Party
9 BABURAO SATYAWAN POTHHARE M 99 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
10 RAMKUMAR RAIWADIKAR M 99 Samajwadi Jan Parishad
11 SHRIKANT RAMRAO JEDHE M 99 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
12 SUSANE ATUL GANGARAM M 99 Ambedkarist Republican Party
13 SAHEBRAO HARIBHAU WAGHMARE M 99 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
14 AAWCHARE VIJAYKUMAR BABRUWAN M 99 Independent
15 KAMBLE BANSILAL RAMCHANDRA M 99 Independent
16 NILANGAEKAR AVINASH MADHUKARRAO M 99 Independent
17 MANE GAJANAN PANDURANG M 99 Independent
18 SANJAY KABIRDAS GAIKWAD M 99 Independent
S13 42 MH SOLAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 GAIKWAD PRAMOD RAMCHANDRA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ADV. BANSODE SHARAD MARUTI M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SHINDE SUSHILKUMAR SAMBHAJIRAO M 67 Indian National Congress
4 ADV. KASABEKAR SHRIDHAR LIMBAJI M 59 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
5 RAJGURU NARAYAN YEDU M 60 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 LAXMIKANT CHANDRAKANT GAIKWAD M 37 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
7 NARAYANKAR RAJENDRA BABURAO M 44 Independent
8 NITINKUMAR RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE ALIAS NITIN BANPURKAR M 37 Independent
9 BANSODE UTTAM BHIMSHA M 50 Independent
10 BANSODE RAHUL DATTU M 33 Independent
11 MILIND MAREPPA MULE M 49 Independent
12 VIKRAM UTTAM KASABE M 33 Independent
13 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGWANRAO UGHADE M 38 Independent
S13 43 MH MADHA 23-Apr-09 1 DESHMUKH SUBHASH SURESHCHANDRA M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 PAWAR SHARADCHANDRA GOVINDRAO M 68 Nationalist Congress Party
3 RAHUL VITTHAL SARWADE M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 AYU GAIKWAD SATISH SUGRAV M 28 Prabuddha Republican Party
5 CHAVAN SUBHASH VITTHAL M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
6 MAHADEO JAGANNATH JANKAR M 40 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
7 RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN KACCHAVE M 40 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
8 SASTE KAKASAHEB MAHADEO M 48 Krantisena Maharashtra
9 SOU. NAGMANI KISAN JAKKAN F 45 Independent
10 DR.M. D. PATIL M 50 Independent
11 BANSODE BALVEER DAGADU M 42 Independent
12 BHANUDAS BHAGAWAN DEVAKATE M 70 Independent
13 DR. MAHADEO ABAJI POL M 56 Independent
14 SURESH SHAMRAO GHADGE M 36 Independent
15 DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL AMALE M 26 Independent
S13 44 MH SANGLI 23-Apr-09 1 PATEL M.JAVED M. YUSUF M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PRATIK PRAKASHBAPU PATIL M 35 Indian National Congress
3 ASHOK DNYANU MANE(BHAU) M 37 Swatantra Bharat Paksha
4 MANOHAR BALKRISHNA KHEDKAR M 58 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 MAHADEV ANNA WAGHAMARE M 65 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
6 AJITRAO SHANKARRAO GHORPADE M 56 Independent
7 ANSARI SHABBIR AHEMED M 61 Independent
8 GANPATI TUKARAM KAMBLE ALIAS G.T. KAMBLE M 70 Independent
9 PANDHARE DATTATRAYA PANDURANG M 51 Independent
10 KAVTHEKAR PRAVIN BHAGWAN KAVTHEKAR ALIAS JIVA MAHALE M 47 Independent
11 MULANI BALEKHAN USMAN M 46 Independent
12 VAGARE MARUTI MURA M 34 Independent
13 SHAMRAO PIRAJI KADAM M 64 Independent
14 SIDDESHWAR SHIVAPPA BHOSALE M 36 Independent
S13 45 MH SATARA 23-Apr-09 1 CHAVAN PRASHANT VASANT M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PURUSHOTTAM BAJIRAO JADHAV M 45 Shivsena
3 BHONSLE SHRIMANT CHH. UDYANRAJE PRATAPSINH M 43 Nationalist Congress Party
4 BHAUSAHEB GANGARAM WAGH M 51 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
5 ALNKRITA ABHIJIT AWADE-BICHUKALE F 29 Independent
S13 46 MH RATNAGIRI – SINDHUDURG 23-Apr-09 1 DR.NILESH NARAYAN RANE M 28 Indian National Congress
2 PARULEKAR JAYENDRA SHRIPAD M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SURESH PRABHAKAR PRABHU M 55 Shivsena
4 AJAY ALIAS AABA DADA JADHAV M 28 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
5 RAJESH PUSUSHOTTAM SURVE M 41 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
6 VILASRAO KHANVILKAR M 54 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
7 SIRAJ ABDULLA KAUCHALI M 60 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
8 KHALAPE AKBAR MAHAMMAD M 55 Independent
9 SURENDRA BORKAR M 62 Independent
S13 47 MH KOLHAPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KAMBLE SUHAS NIVRUTI M 41 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 CHHATRPATI SAMBHAJIRAJE SHAHU M 38 Nationalist Congress Party
3 DEVANE VIJAY SHAMRAO M 50 Shivsena
4 KAMBLE MARUTI RAVELU M 34 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
5 CHOUGULE BHAI P.T. M 64 Independent
6 DR. NEELAMBARI RAMESH MANDAPE F 49 Independent
7 S.R. TATYA PATIL M 70 Independent
8 BAJRANG KRISHNA PATIL M 39 Independent
9 MAHAMMADGOUS GULAB NADAF M 57 Independent
10 SADASHIVRAO MANDLIK DADOBA M 74 Independent
S13 48 MH HATKANANGLE 23-Apr-09 1 KANADE ANILKUMAR MAHADEV M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 MANE NIVEDITA SAMBHAJIRAO F 45 Nationalist Congress Party
3 RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA PATIL M 58 Shivsena
4 PATIL UDAY PANDHARINATH M 39 Krantisena Maharashtra
5 BABURAO OMANNA KAMBLE M 61 Rashtriya Samaj Paksha
6 MANE ARVIND BHIVA M 43 Bharipa Bahujan Mahasangha
7 SHETTI RAJU ALIAS DEVAPPA ANNA M 41 Swabhimani Paksha
8 ARUN ALIAS SHAM BAJARNAG BUCHADE M 28 Independent
9 THORAT ANANDRAO TUKARAM M 46 Independent
10 SURNIKE ANANDRAO VASANTRAO (FOUJI BAPU) M 48 Independent
S18 4 OR KEONJHAR 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTA NAYAK M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DHANURJAYA SIDU M 43 Indian National Congress
3 YASHBANT NARAYAN SINGH LAGURI M 38 Biju Janata Dal
4 LACHHAMAN MAJHI M 42 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
5 DR SUDARSHAN LOHAR M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 CHITTA RANJAN MUNDA M 37 Independent
7 DR. FAKIR MOHAN NAIK M 34 Independent
S18 5 OR MAYURBHANJ 23-Apr-09 1 GAMHA SINGH M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 DROUPADI MURMU F 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 LAXMAN TUDU M 47 Biju Janata Dal
4 LAXMAN MAJHI M 62 Indian National Congress
5 SUDAM MARNDI M 43 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
6 LAXMISWAR TAMUDIA M 68 Samajwadi Party
7 SUNDAR MOHAN MAJHI M 65 Jharkhand Disom Party
8 DEVI PRASANNA BESRA M 61 Independent
9 NARENDRA HANSDA M 26 Independent
10 RAMESWAR MAJHI M 29 Independent
S18 6 OR BALASORE 23-Apr-09 1 ARUN JENA M 47 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
2 ARUN DEY M 63 Nationalist Congress Party
3 MAHAMEGHA BAHAN AIRA KHARABELA SWAIN M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SHRADHANJALI PRADHAN F 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SRIKANTA KUMAR JENA M 58 Indian National Congress
6 DEBASISH RANJAN DASH M 37 Samruddha Odisha
7 RAKESH RANJAN PATRA M 27 Jana Hitkari Party
8 GHASIRAM MOHANTA M 66 Independent
9 LAXIMIKANTA BEHERA M 51 Independent
S18 7 OR BHADRAK 23-Apr-09 1 ANANTA PRASAD SETHI M 58 Indian National Congress
2 ARJUN CHARAN SETHI M 68 Biju Janata Dal
3 NITYANANDA JENA M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RATH DAS M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 GOLAK PRASAD MALLIK M 60 Independent
6 SUSANTA KUMAR JENA M 31 Independent
S18 8 OR JAJPUR 23-Apr-09 1 AMIYA KANTA MALLIK M 50 Indian National Congress
2 PARAMESWAR SETHI M 40 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MOHAN JENA M 52 Biju Janata Dal
4 AJIT KUMAR JENA M 42 Samruddha Odisha
5 BABULI MALLIK M 36 Orissa Mukti Morcha
6 BHIMSEN BEHERA M 44 Jana Hitkari Party
7 UDAYA NATH JENA M 29 Independent
8 KALANDI MALLIK M 28 Independent
S18 9 OR DHENKANAL 23-Apr-09 1 KRISHNA CHANDRA SAHOO M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 CHANDRA SEKHAR TRIPATHY M 60 Indian National Congress
3 TATHAGATA SATPATHY M 53 Biju Janata Dal
4 RUDRANARAYAN PANY M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 PRIYABRATA GARNAIK M 28 Kalinga Sena
S18 14 OR CUTTACK 23-Apr-09 1 ANADI SAHU M 68 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 GOPAL CHANDRA KAR M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BIBHUTI BHUSAN MISHRA M 57 Indian National Congress
4 BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB M 51 Biju Janata Dal
5 KAPILA CHARAN MALL M 72 Bira Oriya Party
6 PRADIP ROUTRAY M 40 Kalinga Sena
7 DEBANANDA SINGH M 33 Independent
S18 15 OR KENDRAPARA 23-Apr-09 1 JNANDEV BEURA M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 RANJIB BISWAL M 38 Indian National Congress
3 LENIN LENKA M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 BAIJAYANT PANDA M 45 Biju Janata Dal
5 PRATAP CHANDRA JENA M 60 Samruddha Odisha
6 PRAVAKAR NAYAK M 48 Kalinga Sena
7 RAMA KRUSHNA DASH M 44 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
8 SARAT CHANDRA SWAIN M 49 Independent
S18 16 OR JAGATSINGHPUR 23-Apr-09 1 BAIDHAR MALLICK M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BIBHU PRASAD TARAI M 42 Communist Party of India
3 BIBHUTI BHUSAN MAJHI M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RABINDRA KUMAR SETHY M 54 Indian National Congress
5 AKSHAYA KUMAR SETHI M 25 Samruddha Odisha
S18 17 OR PURI 23-Apr-09 1 JITENDRA KUMAR SAHOO M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 DEBENDRA NATH MANSINGH M 59 Indian National Congress
3 PINAKI MISRA M 49 Biju Janata Dal
4 BRAJA KISHORE TRIPATHY M 62 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 KSHITISH BISWAL M 80 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
6 SABYASACHI MOHAPATRA M 35 Kalinga Sena
7 PRABHAT KUMAR BADAPANDA M 42 Independent
S18 18 OR BHUBANESWAR 23-Apr-09 1 AKSHAYA KUMAR MOHANTY M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ARCHANA NAYAK F 43 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 PRASANNA KUMAR PATASANI M 66 Biju Janata Dal
4 SANTOSH MOHANTY M 58 Indian National Congress
5 UMA CHARANA MISHRA M 60 Jana Hitkari Party
6 NABAGHAN PARIDA M 66 Bira Oriya Party
7 PRAFUL KUMAR SAHOO M 38 Republican Party of India (A)
8 BASANTA KUMAR BEHERA M 47 Kalinga Sena
9 BIJAYANANDA MISHRA M 51 Lok Jan Shakti Party
10 JAGANNATH PRASAD LENKA M 75 Independent
11 DHIRENDRA SATAPATHY M 67 Independent
12 PRAMILA BEHERA F 33 Independent
13 SASTHI PRASAD SETHI M 47 Independent
S23 1 TR TRIPURA WEST 23-Apr-09 1 NILMANI DEB M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 KHAGEN DAS M 71 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 SUDIP ROY BARMAN M 45 Indian National Congress
4 SANJIB DEY M 32 Nationalist Congress Party
5 ARUN CHANDRA BHOWMIK M 63 All India Trinamool Congress
6 RAKHAL RAJ DATTA M 60 Amra Bangalee
7 PARTHA KARMAKAR M 40 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
8 TITU SAHA M 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
9 BINOY DEB BARMA M 49 Independent
10 SUBRATA BHOWMIK M 58 Independent
S23 2 TR TRIPURA EAST 23-Apr-09 1 PULIN BEHARI DEWAN M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BAJU BAN RIYAN M 67 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 DIBA CHANDRA HRANGKHWAL M 52 Indian National Congress
4 RITA RANI DEBBARMA F 51 All India Trinamool Congress
5 KARNA DHAN CHAKMA M 37 Amra Bangalee
6 FALGUNI TRIPURA M 42 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
7 RAJESH DEB BARMA M 34 Independent
8 BINOY REANG M 34 Independent
9 MEVAR KUMAR JAMATIA M 40 Independent
S24 37 UP AMETHI 23-Apr-09 1 ASHEESH SHUKLA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAHUL GANDHI M 38 Indian National Congress
4 BHUWAL M 56 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
5 MOHD.HASAN LAHARI M 35 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
6 SUNITA F 26 Mahila Adhikar Party
7 SURYABHAN MAURYA M 45 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
8 AAVID HUSSAIN M 31 Independent
9 OMKAR M 46 Independent
10 KAPIL DEO M 30 Independent
11 DILIP M 36 Independent
12 MIHILAL M 52 Independent
13 MEET SINGH M 65 Independent
14 RAMESH CHANDRA M 30 Independent
15 RAM SHANKER M 43 Independent
16 SWAMI NATH M 25 Independent
S24 38 UP SULTANPUR 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK PANDEY M 58 Samajwadi Party
2 MOHD.TAHIR M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SURYA BHAN SINGH M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DR.SANJAY SINGH M 55 Indian National Congress
5 ANIL M 35 Republican Party of India (A)
6 CHOTELAL MAURYA M 40 Apna Dal
7 MOHD.UMAR M 42 Peace Party
8 RAKESH M 25 National Youth Party
9 RAJKUMAR PANDEY M 36 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
10 TRIVENI PRASAD BHEEM M 52 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
11 ARVIND KUMAR M 46 Independent
12 AWADHESH KUMAR M 30 Independent
13 KRISHNA NARAYAN M 33 Independent
14 JHINKURAM VISHWAKARMA M 33 Independent
15 PRAKASH CHANDRA M 35 Independent
16 HARI NARAYAN M 70 Independent
S24 39 UP PRATAPGARH 23-Apr-09 1 KUNWAR AKSHAYA PRATAP SINGH ‘GOPAL JI’ M 41 Samajwadi Party
2 RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH F 49 Indian National Congress
3 LAKSHMI NARAIN PANDEY ‘GURU JI’ M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 PROF. SHIVAKANT OJHA M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ATIQ AHAMAD M 46 Apna Dal
6 ARUN KUMAR M 48 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
7 A. RASHID ANSARI M 54 Momin Conference
8 RAJESH M 36 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
9 ATUL DWIVEDI M 29 Independent
10 UDHAV RAM M 53 Independent
11 CHHANGALAL M 56 Independent
12 JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH M 40 Independent
13 DINESH PANDEY ALIAS D.K. PANDEY M 34 Independent
14 BADRI PRASAD M 48 Independent
15 MUNEESHWAR SINGH M 65 Independent
16 RAMESH KUMAR M 31 Independent
17 RAVINDRA SINGH M 33 Independent
18 RANI PAL F 58 Independent
19 RAMMURTI MISHRA M 36 Independent
20 RAM SAMUJH M 60 Independent
21 VINOD M 29 Independent
22 SHIVRAM M 51 Independent
23 SATRAM M 42 Independent
S24 48 UP BANDA 23-Apr-09 1 AMITA BAJPAI F 39 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BHAGAWAN DEEN GARG M 47 Indian National Congress
3 BHAIRON PRASAD MISHRA M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SANTOSH KUMAR M 54 Communist Party of India
5 R. K. SINGH PATEL M 49 Samajwadi Party
6 ASHOK KUMAR M 40 Indian Justice Party
7 ANAND YADAV M 45 United Communist Party of India
8 PARASHU RAM NISHAD M 45 Apna Dal
9 LALIT KUMAR M 37 Ambedkar Samaj Party
10 ANSH DHARI M 29 Independent
11 JAGAN NATH SINGH M 62 Independent
12 PRAKASH NARAYAN M 32 Independent
13 BALENDRA NATH M 38 Independent
14 MANOJ KUMAR M 30 Independent
15 SHIV KUMAR M 43 Independent
S24 50 UP KAUSHAMBI 23-Apr-09 1 GIRISH CHANDRA PASI M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 GAUTAM CHAUDHARY M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAM NIHOR RAKESH M 64 Indian National Congress
4 SHAILENDRA KUMAR M 51 Samajwadi Party
5 UMESH CHANDRA PASI M 40 Apna Dal
6 GULAB SONKAR M 45 Indian Justice Party
7 GULAB CHANDRA M 39 Independent
8 JAGDEO M 53 Independent
9 MAN SINGH M 28 Independent
10 RAM SARAN M 56 Independent
S24 51 UP PHULPUR 23-Apr-09 1 KAPIL MUNI KARWARIYA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 KARAN SINGH PATEL M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 DHARMARAJ SINGH PATEL M 50 Indian National Congress
4 SHYAMA CHARAN GUPTA M 63 Samajwadi Party
5 CHANDRAJEET M 28 Lok Dal
6 DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH M 38 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
7 PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA M 49 Apna Dal
8 LALLAN SINGH M 35 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
9 VIJAY KUMAR M 56 Gondwana Mukti Sena
10 SATISH YADAV M 34 Indian Justice Party
11 SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA M 30 Yuva Vikas Party
12 KRISHNA KUMAR M 33 Independent
13 DR. NEERAJ M 43 Independent
14 BHARAT LAL M 52 Independent
15 DR. MILAN MUKHERJEE M 67 Independent
16 MUNISHWAR SINGH MAURYA M 65 Independent
17 RADHIKA PAL F 34 Independent
18 RADHESHYAM SINGH YADAV M 72 Independent
19 RAM JANM YADAV M 31 Independent
20 RAMSHANKAR M 47 Independent
21 VIRENDRA PAL SINGH M 66 Independent
22 SHAILENDRA KUMAR PRAJAPATI M 40 Independent
23 SAMAR BAHADUR SHARMA M 40 Independent
24 DR. SONE LAL PATEL M 59 Independent
S24 52 UP ALLAHABAD 23-Apr-09 1 ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI M 58 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 YOGESH SHUKLA M 39 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 KUNWAR REWATI RAMAN SINGH ALIAS MANI JI M 65 Samajwadi Party
4 SHYAM KRISHNA PANDEY M 65 Indian National Congress
5 OM PRAKASH M 41 Rashtriya Machhua Samaj Party
6 GULAB GRAMEEN M 47 Lok Dal
7 BIHARI LAL SHARMA M 54 Apna Dal
8 BAIJAL KUMAR M 48 Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)
9 RAMA KANT M 47 Indian Justice Party
10 RAJESH PASI M 32 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
11 RAM PARIKHAN SINGH M 59 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
12 VIJAY SHANKAR M 45 Bahujan Shakty
13 SARFUDDIN M 32 Nelopa(United)
14 AKBAL MOHAMMD M 34 Independent
15 AJUG NARAIN M 33 Independent
16 ABHAY SRIVASTAVA M 31 Independent
17 KM. KUSUM KUMARI AD F 45 Independent
18 GOPAL SWROOP JOSHI M 62 Independent
19 NARENDRA KUMAR TEWARI M 47 Independent
20 BAJRANG DUTT M 36 Independent
21 MUNNU PRASAD M 44 Independent
22 RAVI PRAKASH M 41 Independent
23 RAKESH KUMAR M 47 Independent
24 RAJ BALI M 51 Independent
25 RAM GOVIND M 46 Independent
26 RAM JEET M 38 Independent
27 RAM LAL M 46 Independent
28 KM. SHASHI PANDEY F 45 Independent
29 DR. MOHD. SALMAN RASHIDI M 57 Independent
30 SADHNA AGARWAL F 47 Independent
31 HIRA LAL M 54 Independent
S24 54 UP FAIZABAD 23-Apr-09 1 NIRMAL KHATRI M 58 Indian National Congress
2 BIMLENDRA MOHAN PRATAP MISRA “PAPPU BHAIYA” M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 MITRASEN M 76 Samajwadi Party
4 LALLU SINGH M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 AJAY KUMAR M 25 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
6 ATUL KUMAR PANDEY M 39 The Humanist Party of India
7 AMAR NATH JAISWAL M 44 Rashtriya Kranti Party
8 GIRISH CHANDRA VERMA M 32 Apna Dal
9 GULAM SABIR M 42 Navbharat Nirman Party
10 CHANDRASHEKHAR SINGH M 36 Bharat Punarnirman Dal
11 NUSRAT QUDDUSI ALIAS BABLOO M 41 Peace Party
12 MANISH KUMAR PANDEY M 35 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
13 SAIYYAD MUSHEER AHMED M 55 Awami Party
14 RAMESH KUMAR RAWAT M 42 Maulik Adhikar Party
15 SUSHIL KUMAR M 45 Bharatiya Lok Kalyan Dal
16 ATAURR RAHMAN ANSARI M 52 Independent
17 AMARNATH VERMA M 36 Independent
18 DINA NATH PANDEY M 35 Independent
19 NASREEN BANO F 38 Independent
20 BALAK RAM ALIAS SHIV BALAK PASI M 34 Independent
21 RAM DHIRAJ M 46 Independent
22 SWAMI NATH M 29 Independent
23 SIYARAM KORI M 50 Independent
S24 55 UP AMBEDKAR NAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 RAKESH PANDEY M 55 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 VINAY KATIYAR M 49 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SHANKHLAL MAJHI M 54 Samajwadi Party
4 DINESH KUMAR RAJBHAR M 33 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
5 BASANT LAL M 53 Peace Party
6 BAL MUKUND DHURIYA M 31 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
7 BHARTHARI M 44 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
8 MANSHARAM M 40 Maulik Adhikar Party
9 LALMAN M 34 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
10 VIJAY KUMAR MAURYA M 38 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
11 SANTOSH KUMAR M 50 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
12 IFTEKHAR AHMAD M 37 Independent
13 KAILASH KUMAR SHUKLA M 60 Independent
14 GAYADEEN M 43 Independent
15 CHANDRA BHUSHAN M 61 Independent
16 DEO PRASAD MISHRA M 42 Independent
17 NABAB ALI M 55 Independent
18 PARASHU RAM M 49 Independent
19 PATANJALI JAITALI M 58 Independent
20 RAM SUKH SAHOO M 50 Independent
21 DR. LAL BAHADUR M 42 Independent
22 SRIRAM AMBESH M 61 Independent
S24 57 UP KAISERGANJ 23-Apr-09 1 MOHD ALEEM M 46 Indian National Congress
2 BRIJBHUSHAN SARAN SINGH M 52 Samajwadi Party
3 DR LALTA PRASAD MISHRA ALIS DR L P MISHRA M 59 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 SURENDRA NATH AWASTHI M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 ZAMEER AHAMAD M 53 Ambedkar National Congress
6 DAYA RAM M 41 Peoples Democratic Forum
7 MANOJ KUMAR M 33 Lok Dal
8 RAM PRAKSH M 39 Republican Party of India (A)
9 RAMENDER DEV PATHAK M 60 Peace Party
10 HAFEEZ M 47 Apna Dal
11 ANOKHI LAL M 49 Independent
12 OM PRAKASH M 35 Independent
13 UDAI RAJ M 52 Independent
14 CHANDRA BHAN M 42 Independent
15 JAGDISH M 40 Independent
16 JAGDISH PRASAD M 38 Independent
17 JITENDRA BAHADUR M 57 Independent
18 PARAMHANS SINGH M 33 Independent
19 RAJ KISHORE SINGH M 38 Independent
20 RADHEYSHYAM BOAT M 62 Independent
21 RAMFEER ALIS CHUNTI M 59 Independent
22 VINESH KUMAR M 32 Independent
23 VIMAL VERMA M 30 Independent
S24 58 UP SHRAWASTI 23-Apr-09 1 RIZVAN ZAHEER M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 RUBAB SAIDA F 58 Samajwadi Party
3 VINAY KUMAR ALIAS VINNU M 45 Indian National Congress
4 SATYA DEO SINGH M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 ARUN KUMAR M 33 Ambedkar National Congress
6 KULDEEP M 44 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
7 RAJESHWAR MISHRA M 28 Peace Party
8 RAM ADHAR M 62 Republican Party of India (A)
9 TEJ BAHADUR M 32 Independent
10 RAM SUDHI M 38 Independent
11 VINOD KUMAR PANDEY M 27 Independent
S24 59 UP GONDA 23-Apr-09 1 DR ACHUTANANDDUBE M 64 Nationalist Congress Party
2 KIRTI VARDHAN SINGH RAJA BAIYA M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BENI PRASAD VERMA M 68 Indian National Congress
4 RAM PRATAP SINGH M 58 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 VINOD KUMAR SINGH ALIAS PANDIT SINGH M 42 Samajwadi Party
6 ASHIQ ALI M 46 Peace Party
7 OM PRAKASH SINGH M 54 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
8 PREM KUMAR M 26 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
9 RAJENDRA PRASAD1 M 55 Ambedkar National Congress
10 RAM KEWAL M 41 Vanchit Jamat Party
11 RAM LOCHAN M 46 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
12 VIDYA SAGAR M 36 Apna Dal
13 HARSH VARDHAN PANDEY M 33 Lok Dal
14 AKILENDRA KUMAR PATHAK M 34 Independent
15 ANURADHA PATEL F 42 Independent
16 OM PRAKASH M 47 Independent
17 GAGNGA DHAR SHUKLA M 38 Independent
18 DEEPAK M 31 Independent
19 NARENDRA SINGH M 34 Independent
20 BAIJNATH M 30 Independent
21 RAJENDRA PRASAD M 28 Independent
22 RADHEY SHYAM M 59 Independent
23 RAM PRASAD M 61 Independent
24 RAM LAKHAN M 54 Independent
25 SATYA PRAKASH M 39 Independent
S24 60 UP DOMARIYAGANJ 23-Apr-09 1 JAGDAMBIKA PAL M 59 Indian National Congress
2 JAI PRATAP SINGH M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MATA PRASAD PANDEY M 72 Samajwadi Party
4 MOHD. MUQUEEM M 59 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 INAMULLAH CHAUDHARY M 66 Peace Party
6 JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH M 46 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
7 PINGAL PRASAD M 41 Republican Party of India
8 BALKRISHNA M 39 Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)
9 MUKHDEV M 41 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
10 RAJDEV M 35 Bharatiya Eklavya Party
11 RAM SAMUJH M 41 Bharatiya Jan Berojgar Chhatra Dal
12 RAHUL SANGH PRIYA BHARTI M 36 Indian Justice Party
13 HARISHANKAR M 45 Lok Jan Shakti Party
14 MOTILAL VIDHYARTHI M 59 Independent
15 RAM KRIPAL M 58 Independent
16 SIRAJ AHAMAD M 26 Independent
S24 61 UP BASTI 23-Apr-09 1 ARVIND KUMAR CHAUDHARY M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 BASANT CHAUDHARY M 43 Indian National Congress
3 RAJ KISHOR SINGH M 38 Samajwadi Party
4 DR. Y. D. SINGH M 64 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 OM PRAKASH M 40 Vanchit Jamat Party
6 DAYASHANKAR PATWA M 57 Peace Party
7 DALBAG SINGH M 50 Bahujan Sangharsh Party (Kanshiram)
8 RAM NAYAN PATEL M 49 Apna Dal
9 VINOD KUMAR RAJBHAR M 33 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
10 SHIVDAS M 50 Shoshit Samaj Dal
11 SANJEEV KUMAR NISHAD M 27 Bahujan Uday Manch
12 SITARAM NISHAD M 63 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
13 RAM LALAN YADAV M 36 Independent
14 SHIV POOJAN ARYA M 52 Independent
15 SATYADEV OJHA M 70 Independent
16 SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA M 40 Independent
S24 62 UP SANT KABIR NAGAR 23-Apr-09 1 KAMLA KANT CHAUDHARY M 41 Communist Party of India
2 FAZLEY MAHAMOOD M 41 Indian National Congress
3 BHAL CHANDRA YADAV M 42 Samajwadi Party
4 BHISMA SHANKAR ALIAS KUSHAL TIWARI M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SHARAD TRIPATHI M 35 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 INDRA KUMAR M 37 Bahujan Uday Manch
7 KRISHNA NAND MISHRA M 38 All India Minorities Front
8 KHELADI M 35 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
9 JANTRI LAL M 37 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
10 PANCHOO BELDAR M 48 Ambedkar Samaj Party
11 RAJESH SINGH M 37 Peace Party
12 RAM ACHAL M 34 Maulik Adhikar Party
13 RAM AVADH NISHAD M 62 Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party
14 LOTAN ALIAS LAUTAN PRASAD M 47 Shoshit Samaj Dal
15 VINOD RAI M 38 National Lokhind Party
16 ANJU F 28 Independent
17 JOOGESH YADAV M 35 Independent
18 NITYANAND MANI TRIPATHI M 35 Independent
19 PHOOLDEO M 49 Independent
20 RAMESH M 26 Independent
21 VINAY PANDEY M 31 Independent
22 SHRI BABA RAM CHANDRA M 52 Independent
23 SUSHILA JIGYASU F 29 Independent
24 HARISH CHANDRA M 32 Independent
S24 73 UP JAUNPUR 23-Apr-09 1 DHANANJAY SINGH M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PARAS NATH YADAVA M 54 Samajwadi Party
3 SEEMA F 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 ACHHEYLAL NISHAD M 61 Nelopa(United)
5 GIRAJA SHANKAR YADAVA M 49 Gondvana Gantantra Party
6 GEETA SINGH F 46 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
7 BAHADUR SONKAR M 48 Indian Justice Party
8 RAVI SHANKAR M 38 Lok Jan Shakti Party
9 RAJKISHUN M 26 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
10 RAJESH S/O RAMESHCHANDRA M 30 Apna Dal
11 RAJESH S/O RAMYAGYA M 32 Eklavya Samaj Party
12 RAMCHANDAR M 52 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
13 SHEETALA PRASAD M 51 Revolutionary Socialist Party
14 AJAY KASYAP – GUDDU M 26 Independent
15 JAGDISH CHANDRA ASTHANA M 62 Independent
16 TASLEEM AHMED REHMANI M 45 Independent
S24 78 UP BHADOHI 23-Apr-09 1 DR. AKHILESH KUMAR DWIVEDI M 41 Nationalist Congress Party
2 GORAKHNATH M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 CHHOTELAL BIND M 53 Samajwadi Party
4 DR. MAHENDRA NATH PANDEY M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 SURYMANI TIWARI M 60 Indian National Congress
6 JAJ LAL M 47 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
7 NANDLAL M 56 Vikas Party
8 RAMRATEE BIND M 74 Apna Dal
9 THAKUR SANTOSH KUMAR M 27 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
10 SHAHID M 42 Pragatisheel Manav Samaj Party
11 GAURISHANKAR M 38 Independent
12 JEETENDRA M 30 Independent
13 TEJ BAHADUR YADAV ADVOCATE M 56 Independent
S27 1 JH RAJMAHAL 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 JYOTIN SOREN M 59 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 THOMAS HASDA M 58 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 DEVIDHAN BESRA M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 HEMLAL MURMU M 54 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
6 AAMELIYA HANSDA F 29 Revolutionary Socialist Party
7 CHARAN MURMU M 33 Shivsena
8 DAUD MARANDI M 25 Samajwadi Party
9 SUKHWA URAON M 33 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
10 SUNDAR TUDU M 45 Bharatiya Jagaran Party
11 SOM MARANDI M 44 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
12 STIPHEN MARANDI M 55 Jharkhand Jan Morcha
S27 2 JH DUMKA 23-Apr-09 1 CHURKA TUDU M 44 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 PASHUPATI KOL M 29 Communist Party of India
3 RAMESH TUDU M 34 Rashtriya Janata Dal
4 SHIBU SOREN M 64 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
5 SUNIL SOREN M 30 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 ARJUN PUJHAR M 33 Samajwadi Party
7 NIRMALA MURMU F 33 Revolutionary Socialist Party
8 PHATIK CHANDRA HEMBRAM M 64 All Jharkhand Students Union
9 BITIYA MANJHI F 53 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
10 RAMESH HEMBROM M 39 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
11 RAMJIVAN DEHRI M 35 Samata Party
12 KALESHWAR SOREN M 38 Independent
13 CHARLES MURMU M 27 Independent
14 NANDLAL SOREN M 55 Independent
15 PULICE HEMRAM M 31 Independent
16 BIVISAN PUJHAR M 50 Independent
17 CYRIL HANSDA M 63 Independent
18 SONA MURMU F 56 Independent
19 HOPNA BASKI M 57 Independent
S27 3 JH GODDA 23-Apr-09 1 IQBAL DURRANI M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 DURGA SOREN M 39 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
3 NISHIKANT DUBEY M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 FURKAN ANSARI M 61 Indian National Congress
5 ASHOK SHARMA M 39 Jharkhand Party
6 GEETA MANDAL F 39 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 GOVIND LAL MARANDI M 39 Revolutionary Socialist Party
8 JAWAHAR LAL YADAV M 31 Lok Jan Shakti Party
9 NANDLAL YADAV M 39 Samajwadi Party
10 NIRANJAN PRASAD YADAV M 33 Rashtrawadi Sena
11 PRADEEP YADAV M 42 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
12 PRADEEP YADAV M 25 Samata Party
13 BINOD MEHARIA M 56 Bahujan Shakty
14 RAJ NARAYAN KHAWADE M 42 AJSU Party
15 SANTOSH KUMAR RAY M 26 All India Trinamool Congress
16 SURAJ MANDAL M 61 Jharkhand Vikas Dal
17 JAYSWAL MANJHI M 38 Independent
18 JAHIR MUSTAKIM M 35 Independent
19 MANOJ KUMAR MANDAL M 35 Independent
20 MITHILESH PASWAN M 38 Independent
21 MD. MOAJJAM ALI CHANCHAL M 38 Independent
22 SHANKAR PRASAD KESHARI M 39 Independent
23 SANJEEV KUMAR M 27 Independent
S27 6 JH GIRIDIH 23-Apr-09 1 AKLU RAM MAHTO M 65 Communist Party of India
2 TEKLAL MAHTO M 57 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
3 BIJAY SINGH M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 MD. HIMAYUN ANSARI M 72 Rashtriya Janata Dal
6 MRINAL KANTI DEV M 61 Socialist Party (Lohia)
7 RAVINDER MAHTO M 43 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
8 SHIVA MAHTO M 75 Marxist Co-Ordination
9 SABA AHMAD M 62 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
10 INDRA DEV MAHTO M 45 Independent
11 UMESH RISHI M 43 Independent
12 NAND KISHOR PRASAD M 64 Independent
13 BUDDHI NATH TIWARY M 41 Independent
14 MAHAVIR PRASAD M 36 Independent
15 MASOOM RAJA ANSARI M 27 Independent
16 LALOO KEWAT M 46 Independent
17 SHANKAR RAJAK M 38 Independent
S27 7 JH DHANBAD 23-Apr-09 1 CHANDRASHEKHAR DUBEY M 66 Indian National Congress
2 PASHUPATI NATH SINGH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SAMARESH SINGH M 68 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 INDU SINGH F 32 Samata Party
5 JANARDAN PANDEY M 56 All India Forward Bloc
6 DIN BANDHU SINGH M 56 Socialist Party (Lohia)
7 PAWAN KUMAR JHA M 28 Janata Dal (Secular)
8 PHUL CHAND MANDAL M 66 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
9 M.K.MANDAL M 62 Amra Bangalee
10 A.K. ROY M 72 Marxist Co-Ordination
11 VIDESHI MAHATO M 54 Jharkhand Vikas Dal
12 VIRENDRA PRADHAN M 44 Lok Jan Shakti Party
13 SUNIL KUMAR M 38 Indian Justice Party
14 MD. SULTAN M 57 Jharkhand Party
15 HAFFIZUDDIN ANSARI M 51 Samajwadi Party
16 ABDUL MUSTAFA M 32 Independent
17 KARTIK MAHATO M 44 Independent
18 JAI PRAKASH SINGH M 39 Independent
19 JAIRAM SINGH M 31 Independent
20 JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH M 36 Independent
21 PHUL CHAND MAHATO M 40 Independent
22 BAMA PADA BAURI M 35 Independent
23 MADHUSUDAN RAJHANS M 44 Independent
24 MANILAL MAHATO M 27 Independent
25 MANOJ GANDHI M 29 Independent
26 MANOJ PANDEY M 29 Independent
27 MUNSI HEMBRAM M 56 Independent
28 RAVI RANJAN SINHA M 34 Independent
29 SHANKAR RAWANI M 42 Independent
30 SALIM KHAN M 42 Independent
31 SADHUSHARAN GOPE M 46 Independent
32 SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH M 57 Independent
S27 8 JH RANCHI 23-Apr-09 1 RAJENDRA SINGH MUNDA M 74 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 RAM TAHAL CHAUDHARY M 66 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 MD. SARFUDDIN M 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SUBODH KANT SAHAY M 57 Indian National Congress
5 AKHTAR ANSARI M 53 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
6 AFSAR EMAM M 48 Jharkhand PeopleÂ’S Party
7 MD. AJAD ANSARI M 47 National Lokhind Party
8 JIPALAL SINGH MUNDA M 45 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
9 DAYANAND GUPTA M 39 Jharkhand Vikas Dal
10 SURENDRA KUMAR SUMAN M 36 Samata Party
11 ANJANI PANDEY M 51 Independent
12 AGAM LAL MAHTO M 34 Independent
13 AFTAB ALAM M 42 Independent
14 ARTI BEHRA F 32 Independent
15 UPENDRA PD. SRIVASTAVA M 65 Independent
16 KESHAV NARAYAN BHAGAT M 49 Independent
17 KAILASH PAHAN M 40 Independent
18 JANARDAN TIWARI M 42 Independent
19 JITENDRA MAHTO M 27 Independent
20 DEVENDRA THAKUR M 48 Independent
21 BIRSA HEMBRAM M 31 Independent
22 RANJEET MAHTO M 49 Independent
23 RAMPODO MAHTO M 37 Independent
24 ROSHAN LAL MAHTO M 28 Independent
25 ROSAN PRASAD M 25 Independent
26 LAL BABA MASANI M 65 Independent
S27 9 JH JAMSHEDPUR 23-Apr-09 1 AJEET KUMAR M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 ARJUN MUNDA M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SUMAN MAHTO F 44 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
4 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH M 47 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
5 ASHOK TRIPATHI M 44 Samajwadi Party
6 KINKAR GOUR M 41 Rashtravadi Aarthik Swatantrata Dal
7 KRISHN MURARI MISHRA M 47 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
8 PARIKSHIT MAHATO M 43 Lok Jan Shakti Party
9 MUBIN KHAN M 50 Bahujan Shakty
10 RAJ KAPOOR MAHATO M 35 Jharkhand Vikas Dal
11 SHARAT MAHATO M 36 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
12 SHAILENDRA MAHTO M 55 All Jharkhand Students Union
13 SHYAM NARAYAN SINGH M 50 All India Trinamool Congress
14 SANDIP PAUL M 43 Jharkhand Party
15 DR. SUNARAM HANSDA M 41 Jharkhand Disom Party
16 HEMANT SINGH M 37 Amra Bangalee
17 KRISHNA PRASAD M 40 Independent
18 JOSAI MARDI M 31 Independent
19 DILIP KALINDI M 44 Independent
20 DILIP TUDU M 41 Independent
21 PARAS NATH PRASAD M 56 Independent
22 RAKESH KUMAR M 30 Independent
23 RAJIV CHANDRA MAHATO M 27 Independent
24 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD GUPTA M 49 Independent
25 VICTOR A. LAZARUS M 60 Independent
26 SITARAM TUDU M 61 Independent
S27 10 JH SINGHBHUM 23-Apr-09 1 BARKUWAR GAGRAI M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BAGUN SUMBRUI M 82 Indian National Congress
3 HIKIM CHANDRA TUDU M 39 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 PREM SINGH MUNDRI M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
5 MANGAL SINGH BOBONGA M 42 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
6 SUKH RAM JONKO M 62 Jharkhand Disom Party
7 ASHOK KUMAR TIU M 47 Independent
8 MADHU KORA M 38 Independent
9 HIKIM SOREN M 46 Independent
S04 11 BR KATIHAR 30-Apr-09 1 NIKHIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 MUNNI DEVI F 35 Independent
3 SHAH TARIQ ANWAR M 58 Nationalist Congress Party
4 MADAN MOHAN NISHAD M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 MANOJ PARASAR M 44 Jan Samanta Party
6 PHOOLO DEVI F 40 Independent
7 AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM M 53 Lok Jan Shakti Party
8 SUNIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 39 Independent
9 MOHAMMAD HAMID MUBARAK M 33 Independent
10 SHOBHA DEVI F 40 Independent
11 MAHBOOB ALAM M 52 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
12 HIMRAJ SINGH M 49 Independent
13 RAJESH GURNANI M 38 Loktantrik Samata Dal
14 RAJGIRI SINGH M 53 Independent
15 OM PRAKASH PODDAR M 38 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal
16 MANENDRA KUMAR M 38 Independent
17 BHOLA NATH KEWAT M 60 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
18 CHANDU MURMU M 43 Jharkhand Disom Party
19 SHIV PUJAN PASWAN M 31 Buddhiviveki Vikas Party
20 SHAMBHU ROY M 38 Independent
21 NITESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY M 31 Independent
22 BABU LAL MARANDI M 33 Independent
23 KISHAN LAL AGRAWAL M 32 Independent
S04 13 BR MADHEPURA 30-Apr-09 1 VINOD KUMAR JHA M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 OM PRAKASH NARAYAN M 44 Communist Party of India
3 TARA NAND SADA M 52 Indian National Congress
4 PROF RAVINDRA CHARAN YADAV M 49 Rashtriya Janata Dal
5 SHARAD YADAV M 61 Janata Dal (United)
6 RAJO SAH M 30 Loktantrik Samata Dal
7 DHANOJ KUMAR M 26 Rashtravadi Janata Party
8 RAVINDRA KUMAR M 33 Rashtra Sewa Dal
9 NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH M 66 Samata Party
10 SAKAR SURESH YADAV M 32 Independent
11 KISHOR KUMAR M 33 Independent
12 BALWANT GADHWAL M 29 Independent
13 TIRO SHARMA M 59 Independent
14 KARPOORI RISHIDEO M 29 Independent
15 AMIT ACHARYA M 26 Independent
16 PRASANNA KUMAR M 54 Independent
17 DHRUWA KUMAR M 43 Independent
18 MAHADEV YADAV M 55 Independent
19 PARMESHWARI PRASAD NIRALA M 68 Independent
S04 25 BR KHAGARIA 30-Apr-09 1 SATYA NARAYAN SINGH M 66 Communist Party of India
2 PRADUMAN KUMAR M 31 Independent
3 DINESHCHANDRA YADAV M 50 Janata Dal (United)
4 HARI NANDAN SINGH M 61 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
5 GULABRAJ M 31 Independent
6 ASARFI PRASAD MEHTA M 63 Bahujan Samaj Party
7 SIKANDAR PRASAD SHARMA M 56 Independent
8 SANGRAM KUMAR M 27 Independent
9 SURESH PODDAR M 47 Bharatiya Jantantrik Janta Dal
10 SANJAY YADAV M 41 Independent
11 NEHA CHAUHAN F 27 Independent
12 MANJU KUMARI F 31 Rashtra Sewa Dal
13 CHAUDHRY MEHBOOB ALI KAISER M 42 Indian National Congress
14 BHARAT KUMAR YADAV M 52 Kosi Vikas Party
15 RAM NANDAN YADAV M 45 Independent
16 NAYEEMUDDIN4 M 42 Independent
17 LAL BAHADUR HIMALAYA M 38 Independent
18 BABULU PASWAN M 35 Navbharat Nirman Party
19 PAWAN KUMAR “SUMAN” M 33 Independent
20 RAVINDRA KU. RANA M 62 Rashtriya Janata Dal
S04 27 BR BANKA 30-Apr-09 1 GRIDHARI YADAV M 44 Indian National Congress
2 JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV M 55 Rashtriya Janata Dal
3 DAMODAR RAWAT M 47 Janata Dal (United)
4 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH M 45 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 SANJAY KUMAR M 45 Communist Party of India
6 ANIL KUMAR ALIAS ANIL GUPTA M 40 Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (Prajatantrik)
7 AMRESHWAR KUMAR M 29 Jago Party
8 ARBIND KUMAR SAH M 42 Rashtriya Pragati Party
9 KEDAR PRASAD SINGH M 61 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
10 MAHABUB ALAM ANSARI M 50 Bharatiya Momin Front
11 RAJENDRA PANDIT NETAJI M 57 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Ulgulan)
S06 1 GJ KACHCHH 30-Apr-09 1 JAT POONAMBEN VELJIBHAI F 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 DANICHA VALJIBHAI PUNAMCHANDRA M 54 Indian National Congress
3 NAMORI MOHANBHAI LADHABHAI M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 CHAUHAN MOTILAL DEVJIBHA M 49 Lokpriya Samaj Party
5 DR. TINA MAGANBHAI PARMAR F 26 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal
6 DUNGARIYA BHARMALBHAI NARANBHAI M 45 Samajwadi Party
7 PARMAR MUKESHBHAI MANDANBHAI M 44 Indian Justice Party
8 BADIYA RAMESH GANGJI M 44 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
9 KANJI ABHABHAI MAHESHWARI M 55 Independent
10 GARVA ASMAL THAKARSHI M 44 Independent
11 GOVIND JIVABHAI DAFADA M 50 Independent
12 BADIA GANGJI FAKIRA M 55 Independent
13 MAHESHWARI GANGJI DAYABHAI M 55 Independent
14 MAHESHWARI DHANJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 51 Independent
15 MUNSHI BHURALAL KHIMJIBHAI M 40 Independent
16 MANGALIYA LILBAI JIVANBHAI F 42 Independent
17 VANZARA HIRABEN DALPATBHAI F 35 Independent
18 SARESA NANJI BHANJIBHAI M 42 Independent
S06 2 GJ BANASKANTHA 30-Apr-09 1 GADHVI MUKESHKUMAR BHERAVDANJI M 47 Indian National Congress
2 CHETANBHAI KALABHAI SOLANKI M 28 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 CHAUDHARI HARIBHAI PARTHIBHAI M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 AMRUTBHAI LAKHUBHAI PATEL(FOSI) M 49 Mahagujarat Janta Party
5 KATARIYA HASMUKHBHAI RAVJIBHAI M 34 Akhand Bharti
6 NAGORI JHUBERKHAN LIYAKATKHAN M 33 Adarsh Lok Dal
7 LODHA ISHVARBHAI MAHADEVBHAI M 57 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
8 SAVJIBHAI PATHUBHAI RAJGOR M 34 Vishva Hindustani Sangathan
9 KARNAVAT YOGESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI M 31 Independent
10 PATEL NAGJIBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 43 Independent
11 PARSANI MAHMAD SIKANDAR JALALBHAI M 30 Independent
12 PUROHIT ASHOKBHAI CHHAGANBHAI M 32 Independent
13 PANSAL KALABHAI PUNMABHAI M 49 Independent
14 MAJIRANA BHOPAJI AASHAJI M 68 Independent
15 MALI JAGDISHKUMAR HASTAJI M 30 Independent
16 ROOTHAR LEBUJI PARBATJI M 32 Independent
17 SHARDABEN BHIKHABHAI PARMAR F 45 Independent
18 SIPAI AAIYUBBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 35 Independent
19 SHRIMALI ASHOKBHAI BALCHANDBHAI M 40 Independent
S06 3 GJ PATAN 30-Apr-09 1 KHOKHAR MAHEBOOBKHAN RAHEMATKHAN M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 JAGDISH THAKOR M 51 Indian National Congress
3 BAROT SANJAYBHAI MAGANBHAI M 50 Nationalist Congress Party
4 RATHOD BHAVSINHBHAI DAHYABHAI M 68 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 PATAVAT MAHAMMADBHAI SHARIFBHAI M 50 Independent
6 PATEL NARANBHAI PRAGDASBHAI M 55 Mahagujarat Janta Party
7 KANUBHAI BHURABHAI MAHESHVARI M 60 Independent
8 CHAUDHARY KIRTIKUMAR JESANGBHAI M 30 Independent
9 CHAUDHARY MANSINHBHAI MANABHAI M 32 Independent
10 JUDAL GANESHBHAI MEGHRAJBHAI M 35 Independent
11 THAKOR NATUJI HALAJI M 48 Independent
12 THAKOR BHUPATSINH KANTIJI M 29 Independent
13 DIVAN YASIN AHMAD MAHAMADSHAH M 47 Independent
14 PATEL KALPESHBHAI SHANKARLAL M 27 Independent
15 PATEL KIRITKUMAR CHIMANLAL M 38 Independent
16 PATEL DILIPKUMAR LILACHAND M 31 Independent
17 PATEL MANORBHAI VIRAMDAS M 68 Independent
18 PATEL RAMESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI M 45 Independent
19 BRAHMKSHATRIYA NIRUPABEN NATVARLAL F 35 Independent
20 BRAHMKSHATRIYA BHAGVATIBEN KHETSINH F 55 Independent
21 RABARI BABUBHAI LALLUBHAI M 56 Independent
22 RAJPUT JAGATSINH SAMANTSANG M 29 Independent
23 RAVAL BHURABHAI MOTIBHAI M 45 Independent
24 VAGHELA SHIVUBHA RAMSING M 53 Independent
25 SUNSARA AAMINBHAI USMANBHAI M 35 Independent
S06 9 GJ SURENDRANAGAR 30-Apr-09 1 BHATIYA NARANBHAI KEHARBHAI M 45 Independent
2 VAGHELA SATUBHA KANUBHA M 75 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
3 BHARATBHAI RAMNIKLAL MAKWANA M 43 Independent
4 KOLI PATEL SOMABHAI M 68 Indian National Congress
5 DEVJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI FATEPARA M 51 Indian National Congress
6 MER LALJIBHAI CHATURBHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
7 SONI PRAKASHBHAI GOVINDBHAI M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
8 KORDIA ALTAFBHAI VALIBHAI M 25 Independent
9 PATEL MOHANBHAI DAHYABHAI M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
10 TUNDIYA PREMJIBHAI VIRJIBHAI M 53 Independent
11 NAYAKPRA HITSH BHAGVANGIBHAI M 40 Independent
12 DABHI MOHANBHAI TULSHIBHAI M 63 Independent
13 DERVALIA MEDHABHAI KALABHAI M 51 Independent
14 PATEL KHEMABHAI ISHVARBHAI M 43 Independent
15 RABA HARSURBHAI RAMBHAI M 63 Independent
16 JADAV BHAGWANBHAI MATHURBHAI M 56 Independent
17 UKABHAI AMARABHAI MAKWANA M 40 Independent
18 JAGRUTIBEN BABULAL GADA (SHAH) F 39 Mahagujarat Janta Party
19 PATADIYA KHIMJIBHAI HARAJIVANBHAI M 52 Kranti Kari Jai Hind Sena
20 SOLANKI KARSHANBHAI JIVABHAI M 38 Independent
21 PATEL ASHOKKUMAR CHIMANLAL M 54 Independent
22 DHAVANIYA BACHUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI M 58 Lokpriya Samaj Party
23 CHAVDA ASHOKBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party
24 SAVUKIYA LALJIBHAI MOHANLAL M 50 Independent
25 MER MAVJIBHAI KUKABHAI M 63 Independent
S06 10 GJ RAJKOT 30-Apr-09 1 MULTANI SUBHANBHAI POPATBHAI M 52 Independent
2 GOKALBHAI KHODABHAI PARMAR M 53 Lokpriya Samaj Party
3 KIRANKUMAR VALJIBHAI BHALODIA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 DHANSUKHBHAI CHUNIBHAI BHANDERI M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 DR. ZAKIRHUSEN MATHAKIYA M 38 Samajwadi Party
6 ARVINDBHAI JADAVJIBHAI RATHOD M 42 Independent
7 KUBAVAT BABUDAS CHHAGANDAS M 63 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
8 PRAVINBHAI MEGHJIBHAI DENGADA M 46 Independent
9 KUVARJIBHAI MOHANBHAI BAVALIA M 54 Indian National Congress
10 JOSHI SUDHIRBHAI REVASHANKAR M 67 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
11 JADEJA SATUBHA AMARSANG M 41 National Secular Party
12 JADEJA NATUBHA AMARSANG M 39 National Secular Party
13 DHEDHI DALEECHANDBHAI LIRABHAI M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
14 KHIMSURIYA BHANUBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
15 NARENDRASINH TAPUBHA JADEJA M 35 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
16 HIRABHAI GORDHANBHAI CHANGELA M 58 Independent
17 HARSODA MAHESH HIRABHAI M 25 Independent
18 BHIKHABHAI KURJIBHAI SADADIYA M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
19 GAR PRAKASH KHIMJIBHAI M 40 Independent
20 DUDHATRA MUKUNDBHAI GOVINDBHAI M 41 Independent
21 SAROLA GEETABEN MANJIBHAI F 32 Independent
22 RABARI MOMAIYABHAI ALABHAI M 60 Independent
23 AJITSINH HARISINH JADEJA M 55 Independent
24 DR.RAJESHKUMAR SHANTIBHIA MANKADIA M 35 Independent
25 RAJGURU INDRANIL SANJAYBHAI M 43 Indian National Congress
26 NAYANBHI HASHMUKHBHAI UPADHYAY M 42 Independent
27 KESHUBHAI DHANJIBHAI VEKARIYA M 30 Independent
28 MATHAKIA USMAN HASAN M 56 Independent
29 BABUBHAI DEVJIBHAI GHAVA M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party
30 PATADIA VINODBHAI KHODABHAI M 45 Independent
31 CHAVDA LAKHMANBHAI DEVJIBHAI M 49 Republican Party of India
32 VEKARIYA PRAGJIBHAI NATHUBHAI M 60 Independent
33 BHIKHABHAI KURJIBHAI SADADIA M 57 Independent
34 VEKARIA ALPESHBHAI KESHUBHAI M 32 Mahagujarat Janta Party
35 JASVANTBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SABHAYA M 38 Samajwadi Party
36 PIPALIA BHARATBHAI SAVJIBHAI M 52 Mahagujarat Janta Party
37 GORI BHARTIBEN MAHENDRABHAI F 26 Independent
S06 13 GJ JUNAGADH 30-Apr-09 1 BARAD JASHUBHAI DHANABHAI M 54 Indian National Congress
2 BHUVA KAMLESHBHAI LALJIBHAI M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 SOLANKI DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 AKHED MAHESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI M 48 Indian Justice Party
5 KUNJADIYA VALLABHBHAI RAMBHAI M 46 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal
6 CHANDULAL BHANUBHAI DHADUK M 42 Mahagujarat Janta Party
7 DANGAR BRIJESH RAMBHAI M 31 Rashtrawadi Sena
S06 15 GJ BHAVNAGAR 30-Apr-09 1 GOHILMAHAVIRSINHBHAGIRATHSINH M 52 Indian National Congress
2 VAGHANI PRAKSHBHAI ARJANBHAI M 38 Indian National Congress
3 RANA RAJENDRASINH GHANSHYAMSINH M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 MANDAVIA MANSUKHBHAI LAXMANBHAI M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 BORICHA VALJIBHAI BAGHABHAI M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 REVAR MANSUKHBHAI KHODIDASBHAI M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
7 ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 54 Mahagujarat Janta Party
8 ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 54 Mahagujarat Janta Party
9 ZADAFIA GORDHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI M 54 Mahagujarat Janta Party
10 YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 67 Samajwadi Party
11 YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 67 Samajwadi Party
12 YADAV TULSHIBHAI RAMJIBHAI M 67 Samajwadi Party
13 SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI M 45 Lokpriya Samaj Party
14 SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI M 45 Lokpriya Samaj Party
15 SAPARIA DINESHBHAI NANUBHAI M 45 Lokpriya Samaj Party
16 PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI M 46 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal
17 PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI M 46 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal
18 PANDYA ATULBHAI HARSHADRAI M 46 Bharatiya Natiional Janta Dal
19 GOHIL NANAJIBHAI MADHABHAI M 38 Republican Party of India (A)
20 GOHIL NANAJIBHAI MADHABHAI M 38 Republican Party of India (A)
21 CHAUHAN PREMJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI M 42 Akhil Bharatiya Congress Dal (Ambedkar)
22 MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL M 37 Independent
23 MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL M 37 Independent
24 MAKWANA HARINBHAI RAMNIKLAL M 37 Independent
25 GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH M 54 Independent
26 GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH M 54 Independent
27 GOHIL KISHORSINH BALAVANTSINH M 54 Independent
28 KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI M 49 Independent
29 KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI M 49 Independent
30 KATARIA ZINABHAI NAGAJIBHAI M 49 Independent
31 PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI M 43 Independent
32 PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI M 43 Independent
33 PUNANI MUKESHBHI MAGANBHAI M 43 Independent
34 CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 39 Independent
35 CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 39 Independent
36 CHAUHAN DHIRUBHAI KARSHANBHAI M 39 Independent
37 SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI M 36 Independent
38 SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI M 36 Independent
39 SONANI NARESHBHAI NANAJIBHAI M 36 Independent
40 CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI M 42 Independent
41 CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI M 42 Independent
42 CHUDASAMA MEPABHAI MAVJIBHAI M 42 Independent
43 SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 50 Independent
44 SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 50 Independent
45 SOLANKI MAHAMADRAFIKBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI M 50 Independent
46 DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI M 29 Independent
47 DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI M 29 Independent
48 DABHI DEVJIBHAI MEGHABHAI M 29 Independent
49 PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI M 30 Independent
50 PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI M 30 Independent
51 PATEL KALPESHBHAI ASHOKBHAI M 30 Independent
S06 18 GJ PANCHMAHAL 30-Apr-09 1 MANSURI MUKHTYAR MOHAMAD M 49 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal
2 VAGHELA SHANKERSINH LAXMANSINH M 68 Indian National Congress
3 PATEL PROSOTTAMBHAI MANGALBHAI M 53 Indian National Congress
4 BAROT PRAKASHKUMAR MANEKLAL M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 CHAUHAN PRABHATSINH PRATAPSINH M 67 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 MALIVAD KALUBHAI HIRABHAI M 58 Bharatiya Janata Party
7 SHAIKH KALIM A.LATIF M 42 Lok Jan Shakti Party
8 SHUKLA ARVINDKUMAR JYANTILAL M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party
9 BHABHOR RASILABEN SAMSUBHAI F 26 Indian Justice Party
S06 19 GJ DAHOD 30-Apr-09 1 KATARA SINGJIBHAI JALJIBHAI M 62 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 KALARA RAMSINGBHAI NANJIBHAI M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 DAMOR SOMJIBHAI PUNJABHAI M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 TAVIYAD DR. PRABHABEN KISHORSINH F 54 Indian National Congress
5 MEDA KALSINGBHAI TAJSINHBHAI M 57 Nationalist Congress Party
6 PARMAR DINESHBHAI NAGJIBHAI M 28 Indian Justice Party
7 BARIYA NAVALSINGBHAI MADIABHAI M 39 Mahagujarat Janta Party
8 MUNIA KAMALSINH CHHAGANBHAI M 61 Samajwadi Party
S06 20 GJ VADODARA 30-Apr-09 1 GAEKWAD SATYAJITSINH DULIPSINH M 46 Indian National Congress
2 PUROHIT VINAYKUMAR RAMANBHAI M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BALKRISHNA KHANDERAO SHUKLA M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 GIRISHBHAI MADHAVLAL BHAVSAR M 42 Independent
5 THAVARDAS AMULRAI CHOITHANI M 63 Independent
6 DASGUPTA TAPANBHAI SHANTIMAY M 45 Independent
7 PARMAR BHARTIBEN KISHORCHANDRA F 36 Independent
8 MALEK MAHEBUBBHAI RAHIMBHAI M 42 Independent
9 VASAVA HARILAL SHANABHAI M 46 Independent
S06 21 GJ CHHOTA UDAIPUR 30-Apr-09 1 RATHWA RAMSINGBHAI PATALBHAI M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 RATHWA NARANBHAI JEMLABHAI M 55 Indian National Congress
3 BHIL PRAKASHBHAI SOMABHAI M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 RATHWA SATISHBHAI RAMANBHAI M 32 Janata Dal (United)
5 VASAVA(BHIL) VITTHALBHAI VENIBHAI M 63 Independent
S06 22 GJ BHARUCH 30-Apr-09 1 PATEL MEHRUNNISHA VALLIBHAI F 40 Lok Jan Shakti Party
2 PATHAN JAHANGIRKHA AHEMADKHA M 69 Indian National Congress
3 PATHAN JAHANGIRKHA AHEMADKHA M 69 Indian National Congress
4 MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress
6 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress
7 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress
8 UGHARATDAR UMARJI AHMED M 64 Indian National Congress
9 MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
10 MANSUKHBHAI DHANJIBHAI VASAVA M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
11 MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
12 MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
13 MORI CHHATRASINH PUJABHAI M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
14 VASAVA SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI M 40 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
15 VASAVA DILIPKUMAR GULSINGBHAI M 32 Independent
16 PANDEY SANATKUMAR RAJARAMBHAI M 32 Bahujan Samaj Party
17 BASHIRBHAI MAHAMEDBHAI FOJDAR M 44 Independent
18 VASAVA CHHOTUBHAI AMARSINHBHAI M 62 Janata Dal (United)
19 BHAGAT ANILKUMAR CHHITUBHAI M 44 Janata Dal (United)
20 LAD MAHIPATBHAI MAGANBHAI M 52 Independent
21 PATEL THAKORBHAI CHANDULAL M 58 Independent
22 HEMANTKUMAR JERAMBHAI GOHIL M 31 Independent
23 MANGROLA KANAKSINH MOHANSINH M 58 Samajwadi Party
24 MANGROLA VIKRAMSINH KANAKSINH M 28 Samajwadi Party
25 PATEL NARESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI M 48 Mahagujarat Janta Party
26 PATEL NARESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI M 48 Mahagujarat Janta Party
27 NARENDRASINH RANDHIRSINH VASHI M 37 Loktantrik Samajwadi Party
28 PARMAR BALVANTSINH VIJAYSINH M 53 Nationalist Congress Party
29 PATHAN NISHARKHAN ZAHIRKHAN M 38 Independent
30 LAKDAWALA SHAKIL AHMED M 43 Independent
31 PATEL USMANBHAI GULAMBHAI M 26 Independent
S06 25 GJ NAVSARI 30-Apr-09 1 NAIK YOGESHKUMAR THAKORBHAI M 54 Nationalist Congress Party
2 C. R. PATIL M 54 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RAJPUT DHANSUKHABHAI BHAGVATIPRASAD M 51 Indian National Congress
4 SHAILESHBHAI BISHESWAR SHRIVASTAV M 37 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 AMULKUMAR DHIRUBHAI DESAI M 46 Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh
6 AAZADKUMAR CHATURBHAI PATEL M 33 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Party
7 YADAV GANGAPRASAD LALANBHAI M 55 Mahagujarat Janta Party
8 KANUBHAI DEVJIBHAI SUKHADIA M 47 Independent
9 JASHAVANTBHAI DALPATBHAI PANCHAL M 48 Independent
10 TARUNBHAI CHAMPAKBHAI PATEL M 39 Independent
11 PATEL PRAVINCHANDRA MANILAL M 52 Independent
12 PRAKASH MANHAR SHAH M 45 Independent
13 PRAVINBHAI RANGILDAS KAPASIYAWALA M 71 Independent
14 YADAV RAJENDRAKUMAR RAMRAJ M 35 Independent
15 RATHOD GOVINDBHAI LAXMANBHAI M 52 Independent
16 VARANKAR KAMALBEN KASHIRAM F 50 Independent
17 SHATRUDHANDAS OMKARDAS SUGAT (BAIRAGI) M 78 Independent
18 SATYAJIT JAYANTILAL SHETH M 41 Independent
S06 26 GJ VALSAD 30-Apr-09 1 DHIRUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 NARESHBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL M 41 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 LAXMANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI VARLI M 51 Independent
4 BHOYE NAYNESHBHAI MADHUBHAI M 31 Samajwadi Party
5 GAVLI CHHAGANBHAI PILUBHAI M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 PATEL PANKAJKUMAR PRABHUBHAI M 40 Aadivasi Sena Party
7 KISHANBHAI VESTABHAI PATEL M 46 Indian National Congress
8 JEETUBHAI HARJIBHAI CHAUDHARI M 45 Indian National Congress
9 RAMBHAI KOYABHAI PATEL M 59 Independent
S10 3 KA BAGALKOT 30-Apr-09 1 SHANKAR TELI M 33 Independent
2 MANOHAR H.AYYANNAVAR M 51 Independent
3 MALAKAJAPPANAVAR BASAYYA M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)
4 KALLAPPA REVANASIDDAPPA KADECHUR M 43 Independent
5 JAGADISH TIMMANAGOUDA PATIL M 59 Indian National Congress
6 BASAVARAJ KALAKAPPA PUJAR M 42 Nationalist Congress Party
7 HULLANAGOUDA CHANDANAGOUDA PATIL M 70 Independent
8 GADDIGOUDAR PARVATGOUDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
9 PATIL JAGADISH M 59 Indian National Congress
10 DANAPPA MALLAPPA ASANGI M 38 Independent
11 CHINCHOLI SANTOSHKUMAR SAHEBGOUDA M 25 Independent
12 GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA M 47 Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha
13 CHANDRASHEKHAR HANAMANT BANDIWADDAR M 29 Akhil Bharatiya Manav Seva Dal
14 PARASHURAM JALAGAR M 48 Pyramid Party of India
15 PARASHURAM JALAGAR M 48 Janata Dal (Secular)
16 KRISHNAGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL M 56 Independent
17 R. RAMESH BABU M 38 Janata Dal (Secular)
18 R.RAMESH BABU M 38 Janata Dal (Secular)
19 BADASHA RAJESAB MUJAWAR M 40 Independent
20 KRISHNAGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL M 56 Independent
21 PATIL VIJAYKUMAR M 46 Janata Dal (Secular)
22 PANDIT BODALI M 33 Independent
23 GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA M 47 Independent
24 GADADANNAVAR RAMANNA BHIMAPPA M 47 Independent
25 R.RAMESH BABU M 38 Independent
26 R.RAMESH BABU M 38 Independent
27 RENUKARADHYA HIREMATH M 29 Independent
28 SANNAGOUDAR GURURAJ SATYAPPAGOUDA M 27 Independent
29 PAKALI FAROOQ M 33 Bahujan Samaj Party
30 SINDHUR GURUBASAVARYA M 48 Janata Dal (Secular)
31 NAZIR DUNDASI M 31 Independent
32 SANGMESH .G. BHAVIKATTI M 29 Independent
S10 10 KA HAVERI 30-Apr-09 1 RAMACHANDRAPPA GUDDAPPA BILLAL M 59 Independent
2 CHANDRAGOUDA HANUMANTA GOUDA PATIL M 29 Independent
3 FAKKIRESH SHAMBHU BIJAPUR M 39 Independent
4 SHIVAKUMAR CHANNABASAPPA UDASI M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 BASAVARAJ SHANKRAPPA DESAI M 38 Independent
6 JAGADEESH YANKAPPA DODDAMANI M 35 Independent
7 RAJESAB RAHAMANSAB SIDNEKOPPA M 65 Independent
8 PRABHU K PATIL M 31 Janata Dal (United)
9 JAVALI ASHOKAPPA MALLAPPA M 43 Nationalist Congress Party
10 RAMACHANDRASA SAHASRARJUNSA HABIB M 26 Independent
11 IGAL DILLPPA KARIYAPPA M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
12 KRISHNAJI RAGHAVENDRARAO OMKAR M 32 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
13 MULLANAVAR ABDULRAJAK MODINSAB M 49 Bahujan Samaj Party
14 MEHABUB KUTUBSAB NADAF M 47 Independent
15 SALEEM AHAMAD M 45 Indian National Congress
16 PATIL SHIVAKUMARGOUDA M 42 Janata Dal (Secular)
17 MANJUNATH KALAVEERAPPA PANCHANAN M 38 Independent
18 DESAI MALLIKARJUN BASAPPA M 61 Independent
19 SALEEM AKBAR NAIK M 30 Independent
20 DAYANAND RAMACHANDRA RATHOD M 35 Independent
21 ALLABAX TIMMAPUR M 34 Independent
22 BADIGER KOTESHWAR M 28 Independent
23 VASTRAD VEERBHADRAYYA KALAKAYYA M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
S10 11 KA DHARWAD 30-Apr-09 1 PRALHAD JOSHI M 46 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 CHANNABASAPPA.S.KUSUGAL M 48 Independent
3 RAJANNA.P.KADDLYANAVARAMATH M 36 Independent
4 KUNNUR MANJUNATH CHANNAPPA M 55 Indian National Congress
5 BAGWAN NASIR PAPULSAB M 51 Janata Dal (Secular)
6 RAMACHANDRA KALINGAPPA MAHAR M 59 Independent
7 TALAKALLAMATH MAHESH GURUPADAYYA M 52 Nationalist Congress Party
8 ASHOK BADDI M 38 Independent
9 KURUBAR BEERAPPA M 38 Independent
10 BABUSAB KASHEEMNAVAR M 61 Janata Dal (Secular)
11 PATIL GURUPADAGOUDA M 62 Independent
12 JANUMALA BASKAR M 39 Independent
13 BASANGOUDA HANSI M 63 Independent
14 PANCH MAHALDAR M 38 Independent
15 NIRJAN HANMANTSA M 40 Janata Dal (United)
16 SHANKRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR M 50 Independent
17 SONDUR RAGHAVENDRA SRINIVAS M 46 Janata Dal (Secular)
18 ALLISAB SANDIMANI M 30 Independent
19 KILLADAR ALLABAKSH M 52 Nationalist Congress Party
20 TAKAPPA KALAL M 59 Independent
21 MULLA KASHIMASAB M 57 Bahujan Samaj Party
22 PREMANATH KASHAPPA CHIKKTUMBAL M 31 Bahujan Samaj Party
23 MARUTI RAMAPPA HANASI M 40 Independent
24 DADAPEER KOPPAL M 50 Ambedkar National Congress
25 KALLIMANI IBRAHIM M 32 Independent
26 IMAMHUSEN KUNDAGOL M 46 Independent
27 GADAGKAR MOHAMMAD YOOSUF M 56 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
28 SHANKRAPPA JINNAKAR M 63 Independent
29 HULLI MOHAMMEDALI M 67 Independent
30 JAMIRAHMEDKHAN M 27 Independent
31 MOHAMMED ISMAIL BHADRAPUR M 28 Independent
32 BIJAPUR JALALSAHEB M 78 Independent
33 BALANNAVAR BASAVARAJ M 30 Independent
34 KASHEEMNAVAR BABUSAB M 61 Independent
35 PATIL GURUPADAGOUDA M 62 Janata Dal (Secular)
S10 13 KA DAVANAGERE 30-Apr-09 1 RAMESH HULI M 35 Independent
2 MUJEEB PATEL M.H.K. M 25 Independent
3 DR. SRIDHARA UDUPA M 56 Independent
4 SUBHAN KHAN M 45 Independent
5 SIDDESWARA G.M. M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 DR.RAJU C. M 44 Independent
7 MALLIKARJUN S.S. M 42 Indian National Congress
8 IDLI RAMAPPA M 46 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
9 NAGARAJA M 30 Independent
10 H K KENCHVEERAPPA M 65 Independent
11 L.H. PATIL M 41 Independent
12 RAJASHEKHARAYYA B. M 62 Independent
13 DR. HIDAYATHUR RAHMAN KHAN M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
14 NINGAPPA A. M 77 Independent
15 MALLIKARJUN L.S. M 39 Independent
16 AMANULLA KHAN J. M 35 Independent
17 JAYANNA ITAGI M 38 Independent
18 ALUR M.G. SWAMY M 62 Independent
19 SATHISH B.M M 45 Independent
20 INAYAT ALI KHAN M 31 Independent
21 YOGESHWARA RAO SINDHE M 42 Independent
22 RAJASHEKAR M 44 Independent
23 HANUMANTHAPPA M 32 Independent
24 MANJUNATH K. M 43 Independent
25 MAHESH Y. M 40 Independent
26 EHSANULLA PATEL H.M. M 53 Independent
27 SUDESH G.M. M 31 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
28 CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S. M 59 Independent
29 VEERESH T. M 35 Independent
30 SIDDESHI G. M 42 Independent
31 MARUTHI H. M 51 Independent
32 GNANA PRAKASH B. M 30 Independent
33 ESWARAPPA H. M 30 Independent
34 NAGARAJAPPA M 46 Independent
35 KALLERUDRESHAPPA K.B. M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)
S10 14 KA SHIMOGA 30-Apr-09 1 UMESHKUMAR S M 38 Janata Dal (United)
2 N DINESH KUMAR M 40 Independent
3 M.P. SRIDHAR. BYNDOOR M 44 Independent
4 AKHIL AHMED M 45 Independent
5 H.S. SHEKARAPPA M 47 Independent
6 J. JAYAPPA M 40 Bahujan Samaj Party
7 S. BANGARAPPA M 76 Indian National Congress
8 D.S. ESHWARAPPA M 41 Independent
9 T. CHAKRAVARTI NAYAKA M 70 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
10 MAINUDDIN.M.S M 35 Independent
11 C. MURUGAN M 29 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
12 B,Y. RAGHAVENDRA M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party
13 Y.H. NAGARAJA M 51 Independent
14 MANJAPPA. S. M 58 Independent
15 RANGANATHA T.L. M 50 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
16 H.G. LOKESHA M 47 Independent
17 V. SHAIK MEHABOOB M 43 Independent
S10 15 KA UDUPI CHIKMAGALUR 30-Apr-09 1 GANAPATHI SHETTIGARA M 58 Independent
2 SRINIVASA M 51 Independent
3 DENIAL FEDRIK RANGER M 35 Independent
4 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress
5 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress
6 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress
7 JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE M 57 Indian National Congress
8 SMT. RADHA F 49 Communist Party of India
9 SMT. RADHA F 49 Communist Party of India
10 SMT. RADHA F 49 Communist Party of India
11 DR. SRIDHAR UDUPA M 56 Independent
12 UMESH KUMARA M 38 Independent
13 B.VINAYAK MALLYA M 26 Independent
14 STEVEN JOHN MENEZES M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
15 STEVEN JOHN MENEZES M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
16 ABDUL RASHEED M 40 Independent
17 ABDUL RASHEED M 40 Independent
18 VENKATRAMANA HEGADE.B M 39 Jai Vijaya Bharathi Party
19 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
20 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
21 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
22 D.V.SADANANDA GOWDA M 56 Bharatiya Janata Party
S10 16 KA HASSAN 30-Apr-09 1 KOVI BABANNA M 47 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
2 B. C. VIJAYAKUMAR M 43 Independent
3 A. P. AHAMED M 66 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 B. SHIVRAMU M 58 Indian National Congress
5 K. H. HANUME GOWDA M 78 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 S. HARISH(S. C. S) M 37 Independent
7 AIJAZ AHAMED FAROOQI M 52 Republican Party of India (A)
8 H. D. DEVEGOWDA M 76 Janata Dal (Secular)
9 KODIHALLI CHANDRASHEKAR M 51 Sarvodaya Karnataka Paksha
10 M. MAHESH URF HARSHA M 38 Independent
11 K. SHANMUKHA M 42 Independent
12 RAJANI NARAYANAGOWDA M 34 Independent
13 K. REVANNA M 34 Independent
14 G. P. SANTHOSH GUPTHA M 28 Independent
15 B. LOHITHGOWDA KUNDURU M 30 Bharatiya Janata Party
16 BOMMEGOWDA M 62 Independent
17 T. R. VIJAYA KUMAR M 33 Independent
18 DEVARAJ. P. B M 26 Independent
19 DYAVEGOWDA M 53 Independent
S10 17 KA DAKSHINA KANNADA 30-Apr-09 1 SUPREETHA KUMAR POOJARY M 31 Independent
2 JANARDHANA POOJARY M 71 Indian National Congress
3 VASUDEVA M P M 49 Independent
4 DR.THIRUMALA RAYA HALEMANE M 55 Independent
5 G.MOHAMMED M 48 Independent
6 K RAMA BHAT URIMAJALU M 78 Independent
7 ABDUL RAZAK M 50 Independent
8 MADHAVA B M 71 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
9 MOHAMMED SALI M 40 Independent
10 GIRISH A RAI M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
11 NALIN KUMAR KATEEL M 42 Bharatiya Janata Party
12 K MONAPPA BHANDARY M 57 Bharatiya Janata Party
13 C AHAMMAD JAMAL M 54 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
14 ANANDA GATTY M 59 Independent
15 SUBRAHMANYA KUMAR KUNTIKANA MATA M 36 Independent
16 DR.U.P.SHIVANANDA M 59 Independent
S10 20 KA MANDYA 30-Apr-09 1 SHAMBHULINGEGOWDA M 48 Independent
2 KOWDLEY CHANNAPPA M 60 Janata Dal (United)
3 K S NANJAPPA M 56 Independent
4 K S PUTTANNAIAH M 60 Sarvodaya Party
5 N NANJUNDAIAH M 57 Independent
6 S B SHIVALINGEGOWDA M 62 Indian National Congress
7 SUMANTH M 60 Independent
8 M KRISHNAMURTHY M 35 Bahujan Samaj Party
9 VENKTESH R M 37 Independent
10 T S ASHRAF M 33 Independent
11 SHIVARAMU M 41 Independent
12 L R SHIVARAMEGOWDA M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
13 SHAKUNTHALA F 29 Independent
14 H S RAMANNA M 45 Independent
15 H R CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH M 43 Independent
16 BALASUBRAMANIAN M 38 Independent
17 CHELUVARAYA SWAMY M 49 Janata Dal (Secular)
18 M H AMARANATH @ AMBAREESH M 57 Indian National Congress
19 CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH M 46 Independent
20 N J RAJESH M 35 Independent
21 KEMPEGOWDA M 36 Independent
22 BOREGOWDA M 57 Independent
23 M P MUNAVAR SHARIF M 50 Independent
24 H V MADEGOWDA M 47 Independent
25 K SHIVANAND M 45 Independent
26 K KEMPEGOWDA M 47 Independent
27 JHONSON CHINNAPPAN M 32 Independent
S10 21 KA MYSORE 30-Apr-09 1 C.H.VIJAYASHANKAR M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 SRINATH-PATHRIKE M 39 Independent
3 M.BASAVANNA M 30 Independent
4 S.P.MAHADEVAPPA M 59 Independent
5 SYED NIZAM ALI M 51 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 P.KARIGOWDA M 63 Independent
7 P.PARASHIVAMURTHY M 41 Rashtriya Krantikari Samajwadi Party
8 ADAGURU H VISHWANATH M 59 Indian National Congress
9 M.ANWARJI M 62 Independent
10 ARHSADULLA SHARIFF M 40 Bharatiya Praja Paksha
11 M.V.SANTHOSHKUMAR M 27 Independent
12 M.S.BALAJI M 51 Ambedkar National Congress
13 SANTHOSH KUMAR.P M 35 Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
14 S.P.GEETHA F 36 United Women Front
15 RAJU M 54 Independent
16 B.A.JIVIJAYA F 71 Janata Dal (Secular)
17 M.LEELAVATHI F 51 Independent
18 RAFEEQ M 27 Independent
19 E.RAJU M 42 Independent
20 M.NAGENDRA M 42 Independent
21 DR.E.KESHAMMA F 32 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
22 K.P.CHIDANANDA M 48 Janata Dal (United)
23 B.D.LINGAPPARAI M 52 Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
S24 33 UP UNNAO 30-Apr-09 1 SHIVSHANKERKUSHWAHA M 46 Akhil Bharatiya Ashok Sena
2 RAMESHKUMARSINGH M 60 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 ANNUTANDON F 51 Indian National Congress
4 DEEPAKKUMAR M 40 Samajwadi Party
5 SUNILKUMAR M 35 Independent
6 RASHIDQAMAR M 28 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
7 BASUDEVVISHARAD M 65 Vikas Party
8 ABHICHHEDILALYADAV M 47 Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (United)
9 RAMASHREY M 36 Independent
10 RAJKISHORESINGH M 36 Rashtravadi Communist Party
11 LALA M 40 Independent
12 UMESHCHANDRA M 25 Apna Dal
13 RAJUKASHYAP M 40 Vanchit Jamat Party
14 RAMAOTAR M 63 Buddhiviveki Vikas Party
15 KRISHNAPALSINGHVAIS M 62 Independent
16 CHANDRASHEKHARTIWARI M 43 Independent
17 ARUNSHANKARSHUKLA M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
18 ASHOKKUMAR M 39 Independent
19 CHHEDILAL M 42 Republican Party of India (A)
20 RAMSEVAK M 44 Ambedkar Samaj Party
21 UDAISHANKERTIWARI M 64 Independent
22 JAVEDRAZA M 39 Janata Dal (United)
23 KAILASHNATHMISHRA M 66 Independent
24 DRCOLPRATAPSHANKARTIWARI M 65 Rashtriya Raksha Dal
S24 34 UP MOHANLALGANJ 30-Apr-09 1 R.K.CHAUDHARY M 50 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
2 ASHA DEVI F 38 Bharatiya Grameen Dal
3 JAI PRAKASH M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 SUSHILA SAROJ F 58 Samajwadi Party
5 JAIPAL PATHIK M 50 Rashtravadi Communist Party
6 NARENDRA KUMAR M 38 Indian National Congress
7 DINESH KUMAR M 38 Independent
8 SATTIDEEN M 53 Uttar Pradesh Republican Party
9 RANJAN M 38 Bharatiya Janata Party
10 RAM DHAN M 42 Independent
11 RAJU SONKAR M 46 Independent
12 AMRESH KUMAR M 27 Rashtravadi Communist Party
13 SATISH SONKAR M 40 Dharam Nirpeksh Dal
14 BINDU DEVI F 33 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
15 SARJU M 52 Independent
S24 35 UP LUCKNOW 30-Apr-09 1 RAVI SHANKAR M 28 Bharat Punarnirman Dal
2 SUKHVEER SINGH M 41 Independent
3 DR. AKHILESHWAR SAHAI M 39 Independent
4 RAVI M 32 Vikas Party
5 AMIT PANDEY M 33 Independent
6 RAJESH KUMAR M 25 Independent
7 PADAM CHANDRA GUPTA M 35 Independent
8 DR. AKHILESH DAS GUPTA M 48 Bahujan Samaj Party
9 SEHNAAZ SIDRAT F 48 Independent
10 NAND KUMAR M 44 Bharatiya Grameen Dal
11 DASHARATH M 36 Rashtriya Mazdoor Ekta Party
12 MOHD. IRSHAD M 40 Navbharat Nirman Party
13 A. HAROON ALI M 48 Independent
14 LAL JI TANDON M 73 Bharatiya Janata Party
15 ANUPAM MISHRA M 37 Swarajya Party Of India
16 ZUBAIR AHMAD M 32 Independent
17 PRAVEEN KUMAR MISHRA M 32 Eklavya Samaj Party
18 RISAV KUMAR SHARMA M 28 Maulik Adhikar Party
19 BAL MUKUND TIWARI M 26 Independent
20 S.MD.AHAMAD M 59 Independent
21 HARJEET SINGH M 48 Independent
22 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY M 60 Independent
23 S.R.DARAPURI M 65 Independent
24 RADHEYSHYAM M 37 Independent
25 NAFISA ALI SODHI F 52 Samajwadi Party
26 DR.KHAN MOHMAD ATIF M 64 Muslim Majlis Uttar Pradesh
27 AMBIKA PRASAD M 49 Independent
28 MANOJ SINGH M 37 Independent
29 VINAY PRAKASH M 36 Independent
30 RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY M 40 All India Trinamool Congress
31 RAJESH KUMAR NAITHANI M 35 Independent
32 CHATURI PRASAD M 56 Independent
33 MURLI PRASAD M 56 Rashtriya Kranti Party
34 ASHOK KUMAR PAL M 31 Rashtriya Swabhimaan Party
35 SITARAM M 38 Uttar Pradesh Republican Party
36 NITIN DWIWEDI M 25 Independent
37 MUSTAQ KHAN M 38 Indian Justice Party
38 RAM KUMAR SHUKLA M 62 Independent
39 SMT. JUGUNU RANJAN F 47 Jaganmay Nari Sangathan
40 LT.COL.(RETD.) KUSH PRASAD MATHUR M 55 Rashtriya Raksha Dal
41 RITA BAHUGUNA JOSHI F 59 Indian National Congress
42 RAJIV RANJAN TIWARI M 29 Independent
43 SUMAN LATA DIXIT F 53 Independent
44 DHEERAJ M 37 Independent
45 AMRESH MISHRA M 43 Independent
46 DEVENDRA M 25 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
47 KEDAR MAL AGRAWAL M 55 Independent
48 AMAR SINGH YADAV M 53 Independent
49 SAYED MOH. LADEL M 45 Independent
50 KAMAL CHANDRA M 39 Gondvana Gantantra Party
51 SHARAD KUMAR CHAUDHARY M 35 Bharatiya Rashtriya Bahujan Samaj Vikas Party
52 GIRISH CHANDRA M 62 Independent
53 C.A. RAJESH RASTOGI M 52 Independent
54 K.C. KARDAM M 65 Independent
55 CHAMAN BIHARI TANDON M 66 Independent
56 LADDAN M 49 Independent
S24 53 UP BARABANKI 30-Apr-09 1 KAMALA PRASAD RAWAT M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 P.L.PUNIA M 64 Indian National Congress
3 RAM NARESH RAWAT M 44 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 RAM SAGAR M 62 Samajwadi Party
5 VED PRAKASH RAWAT M 29 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 JEEVAN M 26 Janvadi Party(Socialist)
7 DESHRAJ M 49 Bharatiya Subhash Sena
8 BABADEEN M 49 Bharatiya Republican Paksha
9 BHAGAUTI M 54 Apna Dal
10 SANTRAM M 40 Navbharat Nirman Party
11 KAMLESH KUMAR M 38 Independent
12 GAYA PRASAD M 50 Independent
13 DEPENDRA KUMAR RAWAT M 25 Independent
14 PREM CHANDRA ARYA M 33 Independent
15 RAM AUTAR M 39 Independent
16 LAJJAWATI KANCHAN F 43 Independent
17 VISHRAM DAS M 67 Independent
S25 1 WB COOCH BEHAR 30-Apr-09 1 ARGHYA ROY PRODHAN M 37 All India Trinamool Congress
2 KRISHNA KANTA BARMAN M 29 Party for Democratic Socialism
3 NIRANJAN BARMAN M 42 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 NRIPENDRA NATH ROY M 49 All India Forward Bloc
5 HITENDRA DAS M 54 Independent
6 HAREKRISHNA SARKAR M 37 Republican Party of India
7 BANGSHI BADAN BARMAN M 41 Independent
8 BHABENDRA NATH BARMAN M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party
9 DALENDRA ROY M 50 Amra Bangalee
10 NUBASH BARMAN M 46 Independent
S25 2 WB ALIPURDUARS 30-Apr-09 1 MANOHAR TIRKEY M 54 Revolutionary Socialist Party
2 ELIAS NARJINARY M 56 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 BILKAN BARA M 62 Samajwadi Jan Parishad
4 JOUCHIM BAXLA M 55 Independent
5 DWIPEN ORAON M 30 Kamtapur Progressive Party
6 KAMAL LAMA M 49 Independent
7 THADDEVS LAKRA M 60 Independent
8 PABAN KUMAR LAKRA M 56 All India Trinamool Congress
9 MANOJ TIGGA M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party
10 PAUL DEXION KHARIYA M 55 Independent
S25 3 WB JALPAIGURI 30-Apr-09 1 MAHENDRA KUMAR ROY M 54 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 PRITHWIRAJ ROY M 36 Independent
3 SHANTI KUMAR SARKAR M 50 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 HARIBHAKTA SARDAR M 54 Independent
5 SATYEN PRASAD ROY M 46 Independent
6 SUKHBILAS BARMA M 64 Indian National Congress
7 PABITRA MOITRA M 58 Amra Bangalee
8 DR. DHIRENDRA NATH DAS M 47 Nationalist Congress Party
9 SRI CHINMAY SARKAR M 30 Independent
10 SRI MUNDRIKA RAM M 51 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
11 SRI DWIPENDRA NATH PRAMANIK M 37 Bharatiya Janata Party
S25 4 WB DARJEELING 30-Apr-09 1 JASWANT SINGH M 70 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 JIBESH SARKAR M 55 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
3 DAWA NARBULA M 73 Indian National Congress
4 SHANTA KUMAR SINGHA M 40 Nationalist Congress Party
5 HARIDAS THAKUR M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 ABHIJIT MAJUMDAR M 48 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
7 TRILOK KUMAR DEWAN M 63 Independent
8 NIRANJAN SAHA M 50 Amra Bangalee
9 BAIDYANATH ROY M 55 Indian Peoples Forward Block
10 ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL M 48 Independent
11 NITU JAI M 35 Independent
12 RAM GANESH BARAIK M 44 Independent
13 HELARIUS EKKA M 50 Independent
S25 5 WB RAIGANJ 30-Apr-09 1 ANIL BISWAS M 49 Independent
2 GOPESH CH. SARKAR M 66 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 SULEMAN HAFIJI M 51 Communist Party of India(Marxist-Leninist)(Liberation)
4 MANAS JANA M 36 Independent
5 UPENDRA NATH DAS M 47 Independent
6 AKHIL RANJAN MONDAL M 62 Bahujan Samaj Party
7 BIRESWAR LAHIRI M 61 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
8 NACHHIR ALI PRAMANIK M 64 Independent
9 ABDUL KARIM CHOUDHURY M 62 Independent
10 DEEPA DASMUNSHI F 48 Indian National Congress
11 MATIUR RAHMAN M 49 Janata Dal (United)
12 FAIZ RAHAMAN M 45 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
S25 6 WB BALURGHAT 30-Apr-09 1 BIPLAB MITRA M 57 All India Trinamool Congress
2 SAMU SOREN M 48 Independent
3 PRASANTA KUMAR MAJUMDAR M 68 Revolutionary Socialist Party
4 GOBINDA HANSDA M 47 Bahujan Samaj Party
5 PRAHALLAD BARMAN M 32 Independent
6 MRIDUL GHOSH. M 30 Assam United Democratic Front
7 SUBHASH CH. BARMAN M 50 Bharatiya Janata Party
8 CHAMRU ORAM M 52 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
S25 7 WB MALDAHA UTTAR 30-Apr-09 1 AMLAN BHADURI M 35 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 BIKASH BISWAS M 54 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 MAUSAM NOOR M 27 Indian National Congress
4 SAILEN SARKAR M 68 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 ATUL CHANDRA MANDAL M 39 Independent
6 MALLIKA SARKAR (NANDY) F 50 Independent
7 MONOWARA BEGAM F 39 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
8 ASIM KUMAR CHOWDHURY M 47 Independent
9 AMINA KHATUN F 29 Independent
S25 8 WB MALDAHA DAKSHIN 30-Apr-09 1 ABDUR RAZZAQUE M 60 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 ABU HASEM KHAN CHOUDHURY M 65 Indian National Congress
3 BHARAT CHANDRA MANDAL M 52 Bahujan Samaj Party
4 DIPAK KUMAR CHOWDHURY M 47 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 MOHAMMAD EJARUDDIN M 74 Muslim League Kerala State Committee
6 MD. KAMAL BASIRUJJAMAN M 32 Independent
7 RUSTAM ALI M 39 Independent
8 MANIRUDDIN SAIKH M 64 Paschim Banga Rajya Muslim League
9 MANJUR ALAHI MUNSHI M 42 Independent
10 SHYAMAL DAS M 38 Independent
S25 32 WB GHATAL 30-Apr-09 1 MATILAL KHATUA M 55 Bharatiya Janata Party
2 NARAYAN CHANDRA SAMAT M 60 Bahujan Samaj Party
3 GURUDAS DASGUPTA M 73 Communist Party of India
4 NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY M 66 All India Trinamool Congress
5 LIYAKAT KHAN M 31 Indian Justice Party
6 ARUN KUMAR DAS M 40 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
7 AHITOSH MAITY M 53 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
S25 33 WB JHARGRAM 30-Apr-09 1 AMRIT HASNDA M 63 Indian National Congress
2 NABENDU MAHALI M 34 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 ADITYA KISKU M 46 Independent
4 PULIN BIHARI BASKE M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
5 SUSIL MANDI M 28 Independent
6 CHUNIBALA HANSDA M 44 Jharkhand Party
7 PANCHANAN HANSDA M 70 Bahujan Samaj Party
8 SUNIL MURMU M 30 Independent
9 DARKU MURMU M 56 Independent
S25 34 WB MEDINIPUR 30-Apr-09 1 DIPAK KUMAR GHOSH M 72 All India Trinamool Congress
2 SANJAY MISHRA M 49 Independent
3 PRADIP PATNAIK M 51 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 PARTHA ADDHYA M 32 Independent
5 SRI AMIT MAITRA M 63 Independent
6 PRABODH PANDA M 63 Communist Party of India
7 ASOK KUMAR GOLDER M 64 Bahujan Samaj Party
9 SUKUMAR DE M 54 Independent
10 JOYNAL ABEDIN SEKH M 52 Independent
11 MUKUL KUMAR MAITY M 33 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
12 NEPAL CHANDRA DAS M 60 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
S25 35 WB PURULIA 30-Apr-09 1 ASIT BARAN MAHATO M 38 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 NILKAMAL MAHATO M 69 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 RENUKA SINGH DEV F 60 Indian National Congress
4 SHANTIRAM MAHATO M 56 Indian National Congress
5 SAYANTAN BASU M 32 Bharatiya Janata Party
6 NARAHARI MAHATO M 54 All India Forward Bloc
7 AJIT PRASAD MAHATO M 56 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
8 ABINASH SAREN M 39 Independent
9 ABHIRAM BESRA M 41 Jharkhand Disom Party
10 AMULYA RATAN MAHATO M 68 Independent
11 UMACHARAN MAHATO M 69 Independent
12 DHIREN CHANDRA MAHATO M 48 Independent
13 DHIREN RAJAK M 44 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
14 BISAMBAR MURA M 42 Independent
15 MUKHES SAHU M 36 All Jharkhand Students Union
16 MRITYUNJAY MAHATO M 46 Independent
S25 36 WB BANKURA 30-Apr-09 1 BASUDEB ACHARIA M 67 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 LAKSHMI SARKAR F 54 Independent
3 SUBRATA MUKHERJEE M 63 Indian National Congress
4 BYASDEB CHAKRABORTTY M 37 Janata Dal (United)
5 PARESH MARANDI M 54 Independent
6 PRABIR BANERJEE M 36 Independent
7 SUDHIR KUMAR MURMU M 40 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
8 GANESH ROY M 34 Bahujan Samaj Party
9 RAHUL (BISWAJIT) SINHA M 45 Bharatiya Janata Party
10 ASWINI DULEY M 51 Jharkhand Party (Naren)
11 TAPAN KUMAR PATHAK M 27 Rashtriya Dehat Morcha Party
S25 37 WB BISHNUPUR 30-Apr-09 1 SUSMITA BAURI F 34 Communist Party of India (Marxist)
2 UMA KANTA BHAKAT M 62 Samajwadi Janata Party (Rashtriya)
3 TAPAS DAS M 31 Jharkhand Mukti Morcha
4 UTTAM BOURI M 30 Independent
5 SEULI SAHA F 39 All India Trinamool Congress
6 JAYANTA MONDAL M 53 Bharatiya Janata Party
7 MANIK BAURI M 43 Bahujan Samaj Party
U03 1 DN DADAR & NAGAR HAVELI 30-Apr-09 1 DELKAR MOHANBHAI SANJIBHAI M 46 Indian National Congress
2 PATEL SUMANBHAI THAKORBHAI M 37 Indian National Congress
3 PATEL NATUBHAI GOMANBHAI M 36 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 MADHA JATARIYABHAI BUDHIYABHAI M 33 Bharatiya Janata Party
5 BIJ YOHANBHAI BHADIYABHAI M 36 Bahujan Samaj Party
6 RAJESH PRABHUBHAI PATEL M 38 Independent
7 MISHAL LAXMANBHAI NAVSUBHAI M 39 Independent
8 GAVIT BARAKBHAI JAURBHAI M 38 Independent
9 KHULAT BHIKALYABHAI VANSYABHAI M 40 Independent
S07 2 HR KURUKSHETRA 7-May-09 1 VISHNU BHAGWAN M 61 Independent
S07 6 HR SONIPAT 7-May-09 1 SHIV NARAYAN M 45 Independent
2 JITENDER SINGH M 40 Indian National Congress
3 JITENDER SINGH M 40 Indian National Congress
S19 10 PB FEROZPUR 7-May-09 1 MATHRA DASS M 73 Proutist Sarva Samaj
S19 11 PB BATHINDA 7-May-09 1 HARDEV SINGH ARSHI M 59 Communist Party of India
2 HARDEV SINGH ARSHI M 59 Communist Party of India
S19 12 PB SANGRUR 7-May-09 1 TARSEM JODHAN M 59 Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
S20 3 RJ CHURU 7-May-09 1 SALIM GUJAR M 39 Independent
2 RAM SINGH KASWAN M 63 Bharatiya Janata Party
3 KAMALA KASWAN F 63 Bharatiya Janata Party
4 YUSUF KHAN M 46 Independent
S20 15 RJ PALI 7-May-09 1 PUSP JAIN M 52 Bharatiya Janata Party
S20 18 RJ JALORE 7-May-09 1 SUKHRAJ M 66 Independent
2 SHANTI PARMAR F 48 Independent
S20 23 RJ BHILWARA 7-May-09 1 VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH M 61 Bharatiya Janata Party
S24 15 UP ALIGARH 7-May-09 1 RAJ KUMARI CHAUHAN F 46 Bahujan Samaj Party
S24 17 UP MATHURA 7-May-09 1 UDYAN SHARMA M 42 Samajwadi Party
2 PHAKKAD BABA M 64 Independent
S24 40 UP FARRUKHABAD 7-May-09 1 SWAMI SACHIDANAND HARI SAKSHI M 53 Rashtriya Kranti Party
S24 42 UP KANNAUJ 7-May-09 1 MAHESH CHANDRA M 53 Bahujan Samaj Party
2 AKHILESH YADAV M 35 Samajwadi Party
S25 27 WB SRERAMPUR 7-May-09 1 KALYAN BANERJEE M 52 All India Trinamool Congress
A toast to each and all of you in your endeavours in these hot summer months and Jai Hind.
Subroto Roy, Kolkata
Postscript: I shall be grateful if any inadvertent errors or ommissions are kindly brought to notice by sending in a comment on the post. Thanks in advance.
India is not a monarchy! We urgently need to universalize the French concept of “citoyen”! (2009)
March 28, 2009 — drsubrotoroyEach of the two sons of Feroze and Indira Gandhi died tragically in his prime, years ago, and it is unbecoming to see their family successors squabble today. Everyone may need to be constantly reminded that this handful of persons are in fact ordinary citizens in our democratic polity, deserving India’s attention principally in such a capacity.
What did, indeed, Feroze Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi “live and die for”? It was not any one identifiable thing or any set of common things, that seems certain.
Feroze Gandhi from all accounts stood for integrity in Indian politics and journalism; it is not impossible his premature death was related to his wife’s negligence because she had returned to her father’s side instead. Jawaharlal Nehru did not do well as a father to promote his daughter so blatantly as his assistant either before 1947
or after.
Nehru did not achieve political power until well into middle age; his catastrophic misjudgment of communist ideology and intentions, especially Chinese communist ideology and intentions, contributed to an Indian defeat at war, and led soon thereafter to his health collapsing and his death. He and Indira somewhat nonchalantly made a visit to Ceylon even as the Chinese attack was commencing; a high point of my own childhood was saying namaste on October 13 1962 at Colombo airport when they arrived.
Feroze and Indira’s younger son evidently came to die in a self-inflicted aeronautical mishap of some sort. What did Sanjay Gandhi “live for”? The book Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s created twenty years ago in America
has a chapter titled “The State of Governance” by the political scientist James Manor which says:
“After 1973 or so, personal loyalty tended increasingly to become the main criterion for advancement in the Congress Party. People who appeared to be loyal often replaced skilled political managers who seemed too independent. Many of these new arrivals did not worry, as an earlier generation of Congress officials had done, that excessive private profiteering might earn the wrath of party leaders. In 1975, Sanjay Gandhi suddenly became the second most powerful figure in Indian politics. He saw that the parties of the left and right had strong organizations that could put large numbers of militants into the streets for demonstrations while Congress had no such capacity. In the belief that Congress should also have this kind of muscle, he began recruiting elements from urban centres including the criminal underworld. The problem of corruption was exacerbated by demands that State-level Congress leaders place large sums of money at the disposal not of the national party but of the persons who presided over it. Congress chief ministers realized that a fulsome response to these demands went a long way toward insulating them from interference from New Delhi, and a monumental system of fund-raising sprang up. When so many people were being drawn into semi-institutionalized malfeasance, which seemed to be condoned by higher authorities, it was inevitable many would skim off portions of the funds raised for personal benefit. Corruption soared. The problem was compounded by the tendency for people to be dismissed from public and party offices abruptly, leading many Congress politicians to fear that their time in power might be quite short.”
I do not have reason to disagree with this opinion contained in the book that I and WE James created at the University of Hawaii twenty years ago. If anything, Sanjay’s political model may have spread itself across other Indian political parties in one way or another.
What does strike me as odd in light of current political controversy is that several of Sanjay’s friends and colleagues are now part-and-parcel of the Sonia Congress – one must ask, were they such fair-weather friends that they never lent a hand or a shoulder to his young widow and her infant son especially against the cruelties Sanjay’s mother bestowed upon them? Did they offer help or guidance to Sanjay’s son, have they tried to guide him away from becoming the bigoted young politician he seems to wish to be today?
Indira’s major faults included playing favourites among her bahus and her grandchildren with as much gusto as any mother-in-law portrayed on the tackiest TV-serial today.
What were her good deeds? There was one, and it was an enormously large one, of paramount significance for the country and our subcontinent as a whole: her statesmanship before, during and to some extent after the war that created Bangladesh. My father has preserved a classic photograph over the years of Indira’s finest period as an international stateswoman, when she visited Paris and other foreign capitals including Washington in the autumn of 1971.
She tried to prevent the Yahya Khan/Tikka Khan genocide in Bangladesh when many Bangladeshis came to be sacrificed at the altar of the Nixon-Kissinger visits to Mao and Zhou. She made a major diplomatic effort in world capitals to avert war with West Pakistan over its atrocities in East Pakistan. But war could not be averted, and within a few weeks, in December 1971, Bangladesh was born.
“Indira Gandhi’s one and paramount good deed as India’s leader and indeed as a world leader of her time was to have fought a war that was so rare in international law for having been unambiguously just. And she fought it flawlessly. The cause had been thrust upon her by an evil enemy’s behaviour against his own people, an enemy supported by the world’s strongest military power with pretensions to global leadership. Victims of the enemy’s wickedness were scores of millions of utterly defenceless, penniless human beings. Indira Gandhi did everything right. She practised patient but firm diplomacy on the world’s stage to avert war if it was at all possible to do. She chose her military generals well and took their professional judgment seriously as to when to go to war and how to win it. Finally, in victory she was magnanimous to the enemy that had been defeated. Children’s history-books in India should remember her as the stateswoman who freed a fraternal nation from tyranny, at great expense to our own people. As a war-leader, Indira Gandhi displayed extraordinary bravery, courage and good sense.” (From my review article of Inder Malhotra’s Indira Gandhi, first published in The Statesman May 7 2006.)
“She had indeed fought that rarest of things in international law: the just war. Supported by the world’s strongest military, an evil enemy had made victims of his own people. Indira tried patiently on the international stage to avert war, but also chose her military generals well and took their professional judgment seriously as to when to fight if it was inevitable and how to win. Finally she was magnanimous (to a fault) towards the enemy ~ who was not some stranger to us but our own estranged brother and cousin. It seemed to be her and independent India’s finest hour. A fevered nation was thus ready to forgive and forget her catastrophic misdeeds until that time….” (From “Unhealthy Delhi” first published in The Statesman June 11 2007).
What did Indira die for? I have said it was “blowback” from domestic and/or international politics, similar to what happened to Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto in later years.
“Indira Gandhi died in “blowback” from the unrest she and her younger son and others in their party had opportunistically fomented among Sikh fundamentalists and sectarians since the late 1970s. Rajiv Gandhi died in “blowback” from an erroneous imperialistic foreign policy that he, as Prime Minister, had been induced to make by jingoistic Indian diplomats, a move that got India’s military needlessly involved in the then-nascent Sri Lankan civil war. Benazir Bhutto similarly may be seen to have died in “blowback” from her own political activity as prime minister and opposition leader since the late 1980s, including her own encouragement of Muslim fundamentalist forces. Certainly in all three cases, as in all assassinations, there were lapses of security too and imprudent political judgments made that contributed to the tragic outcomes.” From “An Indian Reply to President Zardari”.
And then there was Rajiv. He did not know me except in his last eight months. It has now emerged that Dr Manmohan Singh’s first bypass operation was in 1990-1991, coinciding precisely with the time I gave Rajiv the results of the perestroika-for-India project that I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986, an encounter that sparked the 1991 economic reform as has been told elsewhere. Dr Singh was simply not in that loop, nor has he himself ever claimed to have been in it — regardless of what innumerable flatterers, sycophants and other straightforwardly mendacious characters in Delhi’s high power circles have been making out over the years since. Facts are rather stubborn things.
As a 35-year old newcomer to Delhi and a complete layman on security issues, I did what little I knew how to try to reduce the vulnerability that I felt Rajiv faced from unknown lists of assassins.
“That night KR dropped me at Tughlak Road where I used to stay with friends. In the car I told him, as he was a military man with heavy security cover for himself as a former Governor of J&K, that it seemed to me Rajiv’s security was being unprofessionally handled, that he was vulnerable to a professional assassin. KR asked me if I had seen anything specific by way of vulnerability. With John Kennedy and De Gaulle in mind, I said I feared Rajiv was open to a long-distance sniper, especially when he was on his campaign trips around the country. This was one of several attempts I made since October 1990 to convey my clear impression to whomever I thought might have an effect that Rajiv seemed to me extremely vulnerable. Rajiv had been on sadhbhavana journeys, back and forth into and out of Delhi. I had heard he was fed up with his security apparatus, and I was not surprised given it seemed at the time rather bureaucratized. It would not have been appropriate for me to tell him directly that he seemed to me to be vulnerable, since I was a newcomer and a complete amateur about security issues, and besides if he agreed he might seem to himself to be cowardly or have to get even closer to his security apparatus. Instead I pressed the subject relentlessly with whomever I could. I suggested specifically two things: (a) that the system in place at Rajiv’s residence and on his itineraries be tested, preferably by some internationally recognized specialists in counter-terrorism; (b) that Rajiv be encouraged to announce a shadow-cabinet. The first would increase the cost of terrorism, the second would reduce the potential political benefit expected by terrorists out to kill him. On the former, it was pleaded that security was a matter being run by the V. P. Singh and then Chandrashekhar Governments at the time. On the latter, it was said that appointing a shadow cabinet might give the appointees the wrong idea, and lead to a challenge to Rajiv’s leadership. This seemed to me wrong, as there was nothing to fear from healthy internal contests for power so long as they were conducted in a structured democratic framework. I pressed to know how public Rajiv’s itinerary was when he travelled. I was told it was known to everyone and that was the only way it could be since Rajiv wanted to be close to the people waiting to see him and had been criticized for being too aloof. This seemed to me totally wrong and I suggested that if Rajiv wanted to be seen as meeting the crowds waiting for him then that should be done by planning to make random stops on the road that his entourage would take. This would at least add some confusion to the planning of potential terrorists out to kill him. When I pressed relentlessly, it was said I should probably speak to “Madame”, i.e. to Mrs. Rajiv Gandhi. That seemed to me highly inappropriate, as I could not be said to be known to her and I should not want to unduly concern her in the event it was I who was completely wrong in my assessment of the danger. The response that it was not in Congress’s hands, that it was the responsibility of the V. P. Singh and later the Chandrashekhar Governments, seemed to me completely irrelevant since Congress in its own interests had a grave responsibility to protect Rajiv Gandhi irrespective of what the Government’s security people were doing or not doing. Rajiv was at the apex of the power structure of the party, and a key symbol of secularism and progress for the entire country. Losing him would be quite irreparable to the party and the country. It shocked me that the assumption was not being made that there were almost certainly professional killers actively out to kill Rajiv Gandhi — this loving family man and hapless pilot of India’s ship of state who did not seem to have wished to make enemies among India’s terrorists but whom the fates had conspired to make a target. The most bizarre and frustrating response I got from several respondents was that I should not mention the matter at all as otherwise the threat would become enlarged and the prospect made more likely! This I later realized was a primitive superstitious response of the same sort as wearing amulets and believing in Ptolemaic astrological charts that assume the Sun goes around the Earth — centuries after Kepler and Copernicus. Perhaps the entry of scientific causality and rationality is where we must begin in the reform of India’s governance and economy. What was especially repugnant after Rajiv’s assassination was to hear it said by his enemies that it marked an end to “dynastic” politics in India. This struck me as being devoid of all sense because the unanswerable reason for protecting Rajiv Gandhi was that we in India, if we are to have any pretensions at all to being a civilized and open democratic society, cannot tolerate terrorism and assassination as means of political change. Either we are constitutional democrats willing to fight for the privileges of a liberal social order, or ours is truly a primitive and savage anarchy concealed beneath a veneer of fake Westernization….. the news suddenly said Rajiv Gandhi had been killed. All India wept. What killed him was not merely a singular act of criminal terrorism, but the system of humbug, incompetence and sycophancy that surrounds politics in India and elsewhere. I was numbed by rage and sorrow, and did not return to Delhi. Eleven years later, on 25 May 2002, press reports said “P. V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh lost their place in Congress history as architects of economic reforms as the Congress High command sponsored an amendment to a resolution that had laid credit at the duo’s door. The motion was moved by…. Digvijay Singh asserting that the reforms were a brainchild of the late Rajiv Gandhi and that the Rao-Singh combine had simply nudged the process forward.” Rajiv’s years in Government, like those of Indira Gandhi, were in fact marked by profligacy and the resource cost of poor macroeconomic policy since bank-nationalisation may be as high as Rs. 125 trillion measured in 1994 rupees. Certainly though it was Rajiv Gandhi as Leader of the Opposition in his last months who was the principal architect of the economic reform that came to begin after his passing.”
(I have had to say that I do not think the policies pursued by Dr Singh thus far have been consistent with the direction I believe Rajiv, in a second term as PM, would have wished to take. See, for example, “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fallacious Finance”, “Against Quackery”, “Mistaken Macroeconomics”, and other articles listed and linked at “Memo to Dr Kaushik Basu”. See also https://independentindian.com/2006/05/21/the-politics-of-dr-singh/ https://independentindian.com/2008/04/25/assessing-manmohan-the-doctor-of-deficit-finance-should-realise-the-currency-is-at-stake/ https://independentindian.com/2013/08/23/did-jagdish-bhagwati-originate-pioneer-intellectually-father-indias-1991-economic-reform-did-manmohan-singh-or-did-i-through-my-encounter-with-rajiv-gandhi-just-as-siddhartha-shan/)
The treatment of Indira or Rajiv or Sanjay or their family successors as royalty of any kind whatsoever in India was, is, and remains absurd, reflecting stunted growth of Indian democracy. I remember well the obsequiousness I witnessed on the part of old men in the presence of Rajiv Gandhi.
Tribal and mansabdari political cultures still dominate Northern and Western regions of the Indian subcontinent (descending from the Sikhs, Muslims, Rajputs, Mahrattas etc).
Nehru in his younger days was an exemplary democrat, and he had an outstanding democratically-minded young friend in Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.
But Nehru and Abdullah as Westernized political liberals were exceptions in the autocratic/monarchical political cultures of north India (and Pakistan) which continue today and stunt the growth of any democratic mindset.
What we may urgently need is some French Liberté, égalité, fraternité ! to create a simple ordinary citoyen universally in the country and the subcontinent as a whole! May we please import a Marquis de Lafayette?
Bengal and parts of Dravidian India have long lost fondness for monarchy and autocracy — Western political liberalism began to reach Kolkata almost two centuries ago after all (see e.g. Tapan Raychaudhuri’s fine study Europe Reconsidered). Both Nepal and Pakistan have been undergoing radical transformation towards democracy in recent months, as Bengali Pakistanis had done 40 years earlier under Sheikh Mujib. I said last year and say again that there may be a dangerous intellectual vacuum around the throne of Delhi.
Subroto Roy
Did Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders get their Trade Policy from my 1983 Cato talk?
March 19, 2009 — drsubrotoroy
In the summer of 1983 Dr James Dorn of Cato Institute invited me (then in Menlo Park) to comment on the influential papers then being given by the prominent trade economist Dr J Michael Finger.
I think I might have said I hadn’t worked on trade since LSE days a decade earlier but Jim said something sweetly persuasive like “We want to put you in the limelight” — and limelight there was, a full house in Washington (the Capitol Hill Hyatt Regency), with the bright camera lights of C-Span and local television.
I do not recall what current trade issues dominated the agenda, certainly it was years before NAFTA or China were being discussed, perhaps tariff removal on US textiles, probably Japanese auto-imports: Michael Finger certainly gave a devastating example of the difficulty US beef exporters had entering Japan’s beef market at the time.
But whatever I said, as a 28 year old Indian from Cambridge and India, was very well received by that packed Washington audience. And I did not say much more than offer a Hahnian-Keynesian scepticism about textbook economic theory being divorced from ground realities.
[Twitter 21.10.2016 et seq: I recollect three interactions after the talk, Donald J Trump or someone like him was seated midway in the hall in an aisle, introduced himself praised the talk to me, and may have said “Remember the name”! (He looked like a “preppie”, like myself.) Bernie Sanders, or someone like him made a momentary comment as he charged by at speed; a third man said I “waxed eloquent”. Trump sat toffishly dressed in an aisle seat, congratulated me and introduced himself, Sanders charged out at speed after a momentary word…I recall three interactions after the talk, one each with Trump and Sanders, or someone like them.) I seemed to recall coming from Blacksburg by car to give the Washington talk, but the letter Jim Dorn sent was to Menlo Park, California, where I had been in the summer; and later in Fall 1983 I was visiting at Cornell; I have not yet been able to reconstruct how I travelled to Washington, I would be surprised if I drove from Ithaca and back but perhaps I did. (I had just driven from Blacksburg to California and back, then up to Ithaca).
[I apparently flew from Ithaca to Washington National, then stayed at the hotel for one night, and after my talk (and encounter with the future POTUS Trump), drove to Baltimore airport where I had to pick someone up and drove back to Ithaca in the rented car. The phone conversation about “limelight” must have been in the summer. Oddly enough, I was at Ithaca from Blacksburg teaching History of Economic Thought for a semester in the Economics Department because, from my point of view I could talk to Max Black in Philosophy, and from Cornell’s point of view, Ken Burdett the Economics chair told me, History Department students had demanded the course: those History Department students were led by Ms Ann Coulter, who became a quite quiet pupil in my class.]
Half a dozen years later at the University of Hawaii in March 1989 I amplified the argument a little bit as follows:
“Risk-aversion explains resistance to freer trade (and explains protectionism during a recession)
Textbook economics suggests world trade improves material welfare: consumers are better off when imports may compete freely in the home-market. Yet from Adam Smith’s critique of mercantilism to modern theories of rent-seeking, domestic producers in import-competing industries have been described as trying to restrict international trade by tariffs or other means. How is it producers so often succeed in persuading governments of the social costs of imports? Why are there not (or not as many, or not as powerful) consumer lobbies? Certainly there are high costs of organizing consumer lobbies relative to producer lobbies, but leaving that aside, is it possible consumers are ignorant and irrational? J. Michael Finger (1982, 1983/84) argued that in this respect consumers are in fact ignorant of their own best interests.
Roy (1983/84) suggested that a simple Keynesian observation offers a different explanation. A domestic household may be definitely better off by trade-liberalization on the expenditure side of its budget but the increased competitiveness of the economy accompanying liberalization may so decrease the expected value of its income that a risk-averse household would prefer the trade-protected status quo and have no incentive to lobby for trade-liberalization. Conversely, in a recession when the expected value of a household’s income declines, households have an incentive to lobby for trade-protection despite this worsening the expenditure side of their budgets.
The simplest of examples suffices to show all this. Let x1 be a non-traded domestic good, and x2 an imported good, and let a domestic household have preferences
U (x1, x2) = x1α . x2β
α + β < 1; 0 < α, β < 1 (1)
Let x1 be numeraire, p’ and p be the world and domestic prices of x2 respectively, and t be the tariff-rate on x2 such that p = (1 + t). p’. Let the household’s expected income be ya in the trade-protected state and yb in the trade-liberalized state, so its budget constraint is either
ya = x1 + (1 + t).p’. x2 in the trade-protected state (2a)
or
yb = x1 + p’. x2 in the trade-liberalized state (2b).
Maximizing (1) subject to (2a) gives a “final utility” in the trade-protected state, Ua*. Maximizing (1) subject to (2b) gives a “final utility” in the trade-liberalized state, Ub*.
Hence Ua* > Ub* as
[ya/yb] (α + β)/β > 1 + t where (α + β)/β > 1.
If income is certain in the trade-protected state but uncertain in the trade-liberalized state, a household’s risk-aversion will require loss in the expected utility of income in the trade-liberalized state to be offset by a gain in final utility that it receives as a consumer due to tariff-reduction.
E.g., let α = β = ½ and let the household have a certain income in the trade-protected state of $20,000; let it place a subjective probability of 1/4 on being unemployed with zero income in the trade-liberalized state, and 3/4 on maintaining the same income of $20,000.
Then Ua* > Ub* as [4/3]2 > 1 + t.
I.e., for any tariff-rate less than about 78% with these particular data, the household may rationally think itself better off in the trade-protected state than in the trade-liberalized state, and hence have no incentive to lobby for the latter.
Cooper (1987) remarked: “There should of course be a strong appeal to consumers of imported goods for removing restrictions. For a variety of reasons, political mobilization of consumers has been difficult in most countries. Many of these consumers also are employed in producing tradable goods, and they worry more about their jobs than about the purchasing power of a given wage. But most goods that move in international trade are not consumer goods. They are capital goods and intermediate products, and it should be easier to appeal to buyers of these intermediate products for import liberalization, because such buyers would enjoy a reduction in their costs.” The sentence italicized above may be consonant with the simple point made here.
References
Richard N. Cooper “Why liberalization meets resistance” in J. Michael Finger (ed.), The Uruguay Round, A Handbook on the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, World Bank, November 1987.
J. Michael Finger, “Incorporating the gains from trade into policy”, The World Economy, 5, December 1982, 367-78.
“The political economy of trade policy”, Cato Journal, 3, Winter 1983/84.
Subroto Roy, “The political economy of trade policy: comment”, Cato Journal, 3, Winter 1983/84″
I sent it to Economic Letters but the editor Professor Jerry Green rejected it, perhaps because it was too simple and unpretentious. And it remained unpublished until I put it on my blog in March 2009.
Yes it is relevant to the trade-problem America may face today, and yes perhaps both Mr Trump and Mr Sanders were in my audience at Cato, I do not know.
From Twitter 21.10.2016: I recollect three interactions after the talk, Donald J Trump or someone like him was seated midway in the hall in an aisle, praised the talk to me afterwards; he looked like a “preppie”, like myself. Bernie Sanders, or someone like him made a momentary comment as he charged by at speed; a third man (I think he was a Florida State professor who became a friend and later invited me there but I could not go) said I had “waxed eloquent”.
From Twitter 09.11.2016: Trump sat toffishly dressed in an aisle seat, congratulated me and introduced himself, Sanders charged out at speed after a momentary word…I recall three interactions after the talk, one each with Trump and Sanders, or someone like them
see too https://independentindian.com/2016/11/24/fixing-washington-on-improving-institutional-design-in-the-united-states/
from My American years
https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/my-american-years-1980-96-battling-for-the-freedom-of-my-books/
I have put these documents here now in 2017 after recollecting in 2016 during the American election campaign that both Bernie Sanders and Donald J Trump had been present at that trade policy conference in Washington in September 1983 and both had interacted with me briefly! Mr Sanders had expressed a momentary word of praise and had charged out of the large crowd at speed with I think a small retinue of staff. (I asked someone who that had been, and recall Vermont being mentioned, and recall the spectacles and the fierce earnest expression.) Mr Trump had sat in an aisle seat in the middle and he had looked at me and I at him (we were both relatively young men in that middle aged milieu) as I had walked up to the podium. He was toffishly dressed, looking somewhat out of place in a nerdy conference of academics, journalists, politicians and policy wonks. As I had come down from the podium he had stood up and introduced himself as “Donald J Trump”, and said “Manhattan real estate” possibly upon my enquiry; he praised my talk quite profusely and might have said something like he was surprised that “coming from the part of the world” I did I had grasped what I had done about America.
[I would have looked a year younger than this, Mr Trump a bit older than this…]
The encounter was no more than two a few minutes and ended with him saying “Remember the name”… which as it happens I did not even when I walked by his tall buildings in New York a decade later.
It was only when I heard his primary campaign speeches in the American Midwest about March 2016 that I said “Hey I said that”, and recalled my own argument and our meeting. Was the future American President conspicuous in that nerdy policy wonk conference of academics, congressional staff, journalists etc? I would say he was… in both dress and manner. “Make no mistake #Trumpisapolicywonk…a preppie by education, an American nationalist, a commonsense pragmaticist (Peirce)” I have said at Twitter, starting the hashtag mentioned. As it happened, earlier that summer I had stopped with my Sheltie puppy for a night at a motel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where Mrs Clinton was First Lady; a leprechaun could have told me, Hey, those two are going to square off in 2016… .
from Twitter 11 January 2019
Both of us were relatively young men in that crowd of journalists, policy wonks, congressional staffers, his stare at me was one of “Now who’s that, where’s he from?”; I noticed him at all because he was looking back at me, & I saw a brash well-dressed preppie, the jock at school.
Mr Trump had been at 2 o’clock to me staring back at me in the hall before my talk, and I have tried to recall the logistics: our panel had been asked to sit midway in the packed hall waiting our turn as a previous panel finished. Trump looked back to stare at me…
When our panel was called, Mr Trump’s eyes followed me as I walked past him up to the podium (Washington Capitol Hyatt 1983, perhaps a few black journalists or staffers, no one else of “colour” except myself), and I recall his face in the audience as I waited to speak & then did…
Ordinary workers were not being represented yet were massively affected by trade policy taken from econ textbooks, there was a disconnect, that was my 1983 Washington contribution, and I, under the bright glare of tv lights, had the whole hall in thrall, not just @realDonaldTrump.
As I walked down back from the podium, he stood up and introduced himself, and I was like “Ha! Gotcha, Preppie!”, he was profuse in his praise, and upon my enquiry introduced himself as “Manhattan real estate”, an oddity in that crowd… “Coming from the part of the world you do” was Mr Trump ‘s way of saying “How did you as an Indian manage to get all that about America?”, I had to leave, I had to meet someone at Baltimore airport, then drive to my visiting parents, left alone in Ithaca with my Sheltie..
“Remember the name” parting shot from Mr Trump as I left our conversation, I’d probably have had a job offer with him if I’d chatted on… but No Can Do.. I was visiting @Cornell, my Green Card was being processed by Virginia Tech… a manuscript in longhand.
And at @Cornell I was talking to Max Black, Wittgenstein’s pupil, then aged 74, and teaching a new course on History of Economic Thought that had been demanded of the Econ dept by History students led by Ms @AnnCoulter! .. a quiet pupil..
“Ordinary workers were not being represented yet were massively affected by trade policy taken from econ textbooks, there was a disconnect… my 1983 contribution to the American discn. #DemocraticDebate accepted this objective reason for the
@realDonaldTrump win” https://twitter.com/subyroy/status/1185057601026850816?s=20…
Jul 22
“Yes, they did get the idea from your paper” @Ibishblog tells me, to which I say Thanks… Back then there was no China issue but Japanese small cars… twitter.com/Ibishblog/stat…
.
The Indian Revolution
December 8, 2008 — drsubrotoroyThe Indian Revolution
by
Subroto Roy
Prefatory Note Dec 2008: This outlines what might have happened if (a) Rajiv Gandhi had not been assassinated; (b) I had known at age 36 all that I now know at age 53. Both are counterfactuals and hence this is a work of fiction. It was written long before the Mumbai massacres; the text has been left unchanged.
“India’s revolution, when it came, was indeed bloodless and non-violent but it was firm and clear-headed and inevitably upset a lot of hitherto powerful people.
The first thing the Revolutionary Government declared when it took over in Delhi was that the rupee would become a genuine hard currency of the world economy within 18 months. This did not seem a very revolutionary thing to say and the people at first did not understand what was meant. The Revolutionaries explained: “Paper money and the banks have been abused by all previous regimes ruling in Delhi since 1947 who learnt their tricks from British war-time techniques. We will give you for the first time in free India a rupee as good as gold, an Indian currency as respectable as any other in the world, dollar, pound, yen, whatever. What you earn with your hard work and resources will be measured by a sound standard of value, not continuously devalued in secret by government misuse”.
The people were intrigued but not enlightened much. Nor did they grasp things to come when the Revolutionary Government abolished the old Planning Commission, sending its former head as envoy to New Zealand (with a long reading-list); attached the Planning Commission as a new R&D wing to the Finance Ministry; detached the RBI from the Finance Ministry; instructed the RBI Governor to bring proper work-culture and discipline to his 75,000 staff and instructed the Monetary Policy Deputy Governor to prepare plans for becoming a constitutionally independent authority, besides a possible monetary decentralization towards the States. India’s people did not understand all this, but there began to be a sense that something was up in Lutyens’ Delhi faraway.
The Revolutionary Government started to seem a little revolutionary when it called in police-chiefs of all States — the PM himself then signed an order routed via the Home Ministry that they were to state in writing, within a fortnight, how they intended to improve discipline and work-culture in the forces they commanded. Each was also asked to name three reliable deputies, and left in no doubt what that meant. State Chief Ministers murmured objections but rumours swirled about more to come and they shut up quickly. The Revolutionary Government sent a terse note to all CMs asking their assistance in implementation of this and any further orders. It also set up a “Prison Reform and Reconstruction Panel” with instructions to (a) survey all prisons in the country with a view to immediately reduce injustices within the prison-system; (b) enlarge capacity in the event fresh enforcement of the Rule of Law came to demand this.
The Revolutionary Government then asked all senior members of the judiciary to a meeting in Trivandrum. There they declared the judiciary must remain impartial and objective, not show favoritism even to members of the Revolutionary Party itself who might be in court before them for whatever reason. The judges were assured of carte blanche by way of resources to improve quality of all public services under them; at the same time, a new “Internal Affairs Department” was formed that would assure the public that the Bench and the Bar never forgot their noble calling. When a former judge and a former senior counsel came to be placed in two cells of the new prison-system, the public finally felt something serious was afoot. Late night comics on TV led the public’s mirth — “Thieves have authority when judges steal themselves”, waxed one eloquently.
The Revolutionary Government’s next step reached into all nooks and crannies of the country. A large room in the new Finance Ministry was assigned to each State – a few days later, the Revolutionary Government announced it had taken over control under the Constitution’s financial emergency provision of all State budgets for a period of six months at the outset.
Now there was an irrepressible outcry from State Chief Ministers, loud enough for the Revolutionary Government to ask them to a national meeting, this time in Agartala. When the Delhi CM sweetly complained she did not know how to get there, she got back two words “Get there”; and she did.
There the PM told the CMs they would get their budgets back some day but only after the Revolutionary Government had overseen their cleaning and restoration to financial health from their current rotten state. “But Prime Minister, the States have had no physical assets”, one bright young CM found courage to blurt out.
“That is the first good question I have heard since our Revolution began,” answered the PM. “We are going to give you the Railways to start with — Indian Railways will keep control of a few national trains and tracks but will be instructed to devolve control and ownership of all other assets to you, the States. See that you use your new assets properly”. There was a collective whoop of excitement. “During the time your budgets remain with us, get your police, transport, education and hospital systems to work for the benefit of common people, confer with your oppositions about how you can get your legislatures to work at all. Keep in mind we are committed to making the rupee a hard currency of the world and we will not stand for any waste, fraud or abuse of public moneys. We really don’t want to be tested on what we mean by that. We are doing the same with the Union Government and the whole public sector”. The Chief Ministers went home nervous and excited.
Finally, the Revolutionary Government turned to Lutyens’ Delhi itself. Foreign ambassadors were called in one by one and politely informed a scale-back had been ordered in Indian diplomatic missions in their countries, and hence by due protocol, a scale-back in their New Delhi embassies was called for. “We are pulling our staff, incidentally, from almost all international and UN agencies too because we need such high-quality administrators more at home than abroad”, the Revolutionary Foreign Minister told the startled ambassadors.
Palpable tension rose in the national capital when the Revolutionary Government announced that Members of Parliament would receive public housing of high quality but only in their home constituencies! The MPs would have to vacate their Delhi bungalows and apartments! “But we are Delhi! We must have facilities in Delhi!”, MPs cried. “Yes, rooms in nationalized hotels suffice for your legislative needs; kindly vacate the bungalows as required; we will be building national memorials, libraries and museums there”, replied the radicals in power. Tension in the capital did not subside for weeks because the old political parties all had thrived on Delhi’s social circuit, whose epicenter swirled around a handful of such bungalows. Now those old power-equations were all lost. A few MPs decided to boycott Delhi and only work in their constituencies.
When the Pakistan envoy was called with a letter for her PM, outlining a process of détente on the USSR-USA pattern of mutual verification of demilitarization, both bloated militaries were upset to see their jobs and perks being cut but steps had been taken to ensure there was never any serious danger of a coup. The Indian Revolution was in full swing and continued for a few years until coherence and integrity had been forced upon the public finances and currency of a thousand million people….”
see also
https://independentindian.com/2013/11/23/coverage-of-my-delhi-talk-on-3-dec-2012/
Milton Friedman’s defence of my work
September 15, 2008 — drsubrotoroyTwenty years have passed since the acceptance of my book Philosophy of Economics for publication — which coincided with the attack on me arising out of the very success of the India-perestroika and Pakistan-perestroika projects I had been leading (an attack from within the University that had sponsored the projects since 1986). I was graced with the support of two of the 20th Century’s great economists, TW Schultz (1902-1998) and Milton Friedman (1912-2006). Professor Schultz’s defence of my work has been published already. Here is that of Professor Friedman. Both Professor Friedman and Professor Schultz were later expert witnesses on my behalf in a federal trial (a trial that unfortunately came to be marred by demonstrable bribery and perjury, yet to be rectified).
Addendum 23 Dec 2016: the jury trial demanded 14 Feb 1990 has never happened; a bench trial with an admittedly compromised judge happened in 1992, marred by demonstrated bribery and perjury https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/my-american-years-1980-96-battling-for-the-freedom-of-my-books/become-a-us-supreme-court-justice-explorations-in-the-rule-of-law-in-america/
China’s India Example: Tibet, Xinjiang May Not Be Assimilated Like Inner Mongolia, Manchuria (2008)
March 25, 2008 — drsubrotoroyNote: My articles on related subjects recently published in The Statesman include “Understanding China”, “China’s India Aggression”, “China’s Commonwealth”, “Nixon & Mao vs India”, “Lessons from the 1962 War”, “China’s force & diplomacy” etc https://independentindian.com/2009/09/19/my-ten-articles-on-china-tibet-xinjiang-taiwan-in-relation-to-india/
China’s India Example: Tibet, Xinjiang May Not Be Assimilated Like Inner Mongolia And Manchuria
by
Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article March 25, 2008
Zhang Qingli, Tibet’s current Communist Party boss, reportedly said last year, “The Communist Party is like the parent (father and mother) of the Tibetans. The Party is the real boddhisatva of the Tibetans.” Before communism, China’s people followed three non-theistic religious cultures, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, choosing whichever aspects of each they wished to see in their daily lives. Animosity towards the theism of Muslims and Christians predates the 1911 revolution. Count Witte, Russia’s top diplomatist in Czarist times, reported the wild contempt towards Islam and wholly unprovoked insult of the Emir of Bokhara by Li Hung Chang, Imperial China’s eminent Ambassador to Moscow, normally the epitome of civility and wisdom. In 1900 the slogan of the Boxer Revolts was “Protect the country, destroy the foreigner” and catholic churches and European settlers and priests were specifically targeted. The Communists have not discriminated in repression of religious belief and practice ~ monasteries, mosques, churches have all experienced desecration; monks, ulema, clergymen all expected to subserve the Party and the State.
Chinese nationalism
For Chinese officials to speak of “life and death” struggle against the Dalai Lama sitting in Dharamsala is astounding; if they are serious, it signals a deep long-term insecurity felt in Beijing. How can enormous, wealthy, strong China feel any existential threat at all from unarmed poor Tibetans riding on ponies? Is an Israeli tank-commander intimidated by stone-throwing Palestinian boys? How is it China (even a China where the Party assumes it always knows best), is psychologically defensive and unsure of itself at every turn?
The Chinese in their long history have not been a violent martial people ~ disorganized and apolitical traders and agriculturists and highly civilised artisans and scholars more than fierce warriors fighting from horseback. Like Hindus, they were far more numerous than their more aggressive warlike invading rulers. Before the 20th Century, China was dominated by Manchu Tartars and Mongol Tartars from the Northeast and Northwest ~ the Manchus forcing humiliation upon Chinese men by compelling shaved heads with pigtails. Similar Tartar hordes ruled Russia for centuries and Stalin himself, according to his biographer, might have felt Russia buffered Europe from the Tartars.
Chinese nationalism arose only in the 20th Century, first under the Christian influence of Sun Yatsen and his brother-in-law Chiang Kaishek, later under the atheism of Mao Zedong and his admiring friends, most recently Deng Xiaoping and successors. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is the slogan of the present Communist Party but a more realistic slogan of what Mao and friends came to represent in their last decades may be “Chinese nationalism with socialist characteristics”. Taiwan and to lesser extent Singapore and Hong Kong represent “Chinese nationalism with capitalist characteristics”. Western observers, keen always to know the safety of their Chinese investments, have focused on China’s economics, whether the regime is capitalist or socialist and to what extent ~ Indians and other Asians may be keener to identify, and indeed help the Chinese themselves to identify better, the evolving nature of Chinese nationalism and the healthy or unhealthy courses this may now take.
Just as Czarist and Soviet Russia attempted Russification in Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine etc., Imperial and Maoist China attempted “Sinification” in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia as well as Tibet and Xinjiang (Sinkiang, East Turkestan). Russification succeeded partially but backfired in general. Similarly, Sinification succeeded naturally in Manchuria and without much difficulty in Inner Mongolia. But it has backfired and backfired very badly in Tibet and Xinjiang, and may be expected to do so always.
In India, our soft state and indolent corrupt apparatus of political parties constitute nothing like the organized aggressive war-machine that China has tried to make of its state apparatus, and we have much more freedom of all sorts. India does not prohibit or control peasant farmers or agricultural labourers from migrating to or visiting large metropolitan cities; villagers are as free as anyone else to clog up all city life in India with the occasional political rally ~ in fact India probably may not even know how to ban, suppress or repress most of the things Communist China does.
Hindu traditions were such that as long as you did not preach sedition against the king, you could believe anything ~ including saying, like the Carvaka, that hedonism and materialism were good, spiritualism was bunkum and the priestly class were a bunch of crooks and idiots. Muslim and British rulers in India were not too different ~ yes the Muslims did convert millions by offering the old choice of death or conversion to vanquished people, and there were evil rulers among them but also great and tolerant ones like Zainulabidin of Kashmir and Akbar who followed his example.
India’s basic political ethos has remained that unless you preach sedition, you can basically say or believe anything (no matter how irrational) and also pretty much do whatever you please without being bothered too much by government officials. Pakistan’s attempts to impose Urdu on Bengali-speakers led to civil war and secession; North India’s attempts to impose Hindi on the South led to some language riots and then the three-language formula ~ Hindi spreading across India through Bollywood movies instead.
China proudly says it is not as if there are no declared non-Communists living freely in Beijing, Shanghai etc, pointing out distinguished individual academics and other professionals including government ministers who are liberals, social democrats or even Kuomintang Nationalists. There are tiny state-approved non-Communist political parties in China, some of whose members even may be in positions of influence. It is just that such (token) parties must accept the monopoly and dictatorship of the Communists and are not entitled to take state power. The only religion you are freely allowed to indulge in is the ideology of the State, as that comes to be defined or mis-defined at any time by the Communist Party’s rather sclerotic leadership processes.
Chinese passports
During China’s Civil War, the Communists apparently had promised Tibet and Xinjiang a federation of republics ~ Mao later reneged on this and introduced his notion of “autonomous” regions, provinces and districts. The current crisis in Tibet reveals that the notion of autonomy has been a complete farce. Instead of condemning the Dalai Lama and repressing his followers, a modern self-confident China can so easily resolve matters by allowing a Dalai Lama political party to function freely and responsibly, first perhaps just for Lhasa’s municipal elections and gradually in all of Tibet. Such a party and the Tibet Communist Party would be adequate for a two-party system to arise. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan exiles also have a natural right to be issued Chinese passports enabling them to return to Tibet~ and their right to return is surely as strong as that of any Han or Hui who have been induced to migrate to Tibet from Mainland China. Such could be the very simple model of genuine autonomy for Tibet and Xinjiang whose native people clearly do not wish to be assimilated in the same way as Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. India’s federal examples, including the three-language formula, may be helpful. Once Mainland China successfully allows genuine autonomy and free societies to arise in Tibet and Xinjiang, the road to reconciliation with Taiwan would also have been opened.
Our Dismal Politics: Will Independent India Survive Until 2047? (from 2008)
February 1, 2008 — drsubrotoroyOur Dismal Politics
Will Independent India Survive Until 2047?
By SUBROTO ROY
First published in The Statesman Editorial Page, Special Article, Feb 1 2008
Mayawati and Narendra Modi are both in their 50s. So are the current leaders of Russia, Germany, Britain, France, the USA. No country, not even Communist Party China, is as pretentiously corrupt as ours in allowing a whole generation to be bred of “babalog” politicians among children of dead politicians or existing elderly politicians in their 70s and 80s. These babalog, Rahul Gandhi pre-eminent among them, are usually in their late 30s or early 40s. Having developed no useful marketable skills in life nor done anything worthwhile or creative, they have tended to arbitrage the political positions of their parents (whether departed or living) into gaining access and advantage in Delhi or the State capitals. Some nepotism is being seen in the USA with the Bush and Clinton families but nobody had heard of a Putin, Merkel or Sarkozy before they won their way into political power.
Inheriting advantage
The Indian phenomenon of the inheritance of advantage is also seen in organised business, in Bollywood and in journalism, which, like our politics, tend to be sold via TV. Academic institutions and the civil and military services are not far behind although there the phenomenon more usually involves exporting adult children (and bank accounts) especially to the USA or UK or Australia, and then making annual trips abroad during the hot summer months to be able to tell the neighbours about later.
The idea that the future of Indian politics is in the hands of a babalog GenNext is sheer nonsense and fantasy. The victories of Mayawati and Modi were also defeats of the expectations raised by Rahul Gandhi’s Congress. There is a continuity of years between someone like Sonia Gandhi and her children which implies there can be no discontinuous jump from Sonia to Rahul in the leadership of the Congress. In between, as it were, are people like Kamal Nath among “Friends of Sanjay” or Mani Shankar Aiyar (a solitary Rajivist), both of whom have won seats in the Lok Sabha unlike Sonia’s current elderly PM. If Sonia Gandhi devolves political power to her son who then leads the Congress into another defeat, of which UP and Gujarat have been examples, there will be a revolt among senior middle-aged politicians in the Congress, and the Congress may splinter into a Right Faction and Left Faction leaving Rajiv Gandhi’s family to look after the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation which is what they should have been doing in the first place rather than playing at Indian politics.
A Congress disintegration may or may not finally cause a useful bipolarisation in Indian politics because Indian politics has not only an economic dimension, it has a social or communal dimension too. Besides being (ostensibly) pro-poor or anti-poor, you can be either “Islamophilic” or “Islamophobic” ~ i.e. either pro-Muslim “secularist” /”pseudo-secularist”/minorityist, or anti-Muslim “communalist”/ “fascist”/majority communitarian.
Narasimha Rao cleverly manipulated the median parliamentary vote along these two dimensions so as to maintain a weak Government in power for five years by seeming to ally with the BJP on economic issues and seeming to ally with Leftists on social issues. If the Congress splits after another major defeat caused by Sonia-Rahul incompetence, with the Right Faction joining hands with whatever the BJP morphs into, and the Left Faction joining hands with whatever the CPI-M and CPI morph into, the central question will become which side of the split along the economic dimension holds the median voter along the pro-Muslim/anti-Muslim social dimension.
The BJP remains as dreadful and unscientific a gathering as it has been always without displaying the slightest creative trace of being able to evolve into a serious Conservative Party that India remains in desperate need of. AB Vajpayee and LK Advani led it into electoral defeat but that was not enough for their patriarchy to be disturbed by competent new younger people. In any case, the BJPs more articulate better-educated members in their 50s and 60s are unable to command nation-wide respect nor, with the exception of Modi, are they able to win an election on their own steam. The idea that e.g. Pramode Mahajan’s son could “succeed” him on the 10 JanPath pattern fortunately self-exploded. The best the BJP could do was to choose an inarticulate member as its nominal head while the patriarchy continued unchanged in its backward communalised thinking. Its RSS parent occasionally shows a little savant-like intelligence but generally remains in mental and physical regression.
As for the so-called Left, its multi-dimensional hypocrisy and incompetence has been permanently exposed in the heartland of what passes for Indian communism, Bengal. After the demise of the USSR and transition of Communist China towards Capitalism/ Fascism, there has been no real reason why the CPI and CPI-M cannot merge into one and then renounce together their retrograde ideology in favour of becoming a genuine Social Democratic and Labour Party representing working people and the poor. But that, like any corporate merger, would mean administrative redundancies, retrenchment and new management, and the last thing Stalinist politburo members like is the idea of losing their Rajya Sabha sinecures (in Russia and China they lost their heads but Indian conditions are kinder, gentler, more non-violent).
Besides the Congress, BJP and “Left”, most other parties in India revolve around the whims, personality and IQ of some single local political warlord/warlady. The Naxals and other extremists, including Hindu and Muslim religious terrorists, at least make some pretence at representing political interests of some sections of the people; there is thus at least a slight authenticity about them, no matter how disengaged their thought processes may be from realities around them.
Endless deficit finance
The 2008 Budget or the 2009 General Election seem likely to remain in the grip of all such dramatis personae permanently on the Indian stage, and no new real creative constructive force seems likely to appear. Every political misdemeanour will be paid for by endless deficit finance and money-printing, the accounts and auditing of all public institutions shall remain in a shambles while private pockets of the heads of public institutions come to be lined with gold, the armed forces shall be ready to fight their Pakistani counterparts while deferring to any more formidable adversary, rich business people will continue with their grotesque conspicuous consumption, young people graduating from India’s pampered institutions of tertiary education will continue to line up outside foreign embassies to seek hope and escape.
Can India survive as an independent democratic republic for 100 years after 1947, let alone be a country where all citizens are reasonably free and comfortable? A worst-case scenario may see North India in endless conflict with a chaotic Pakistan, Eastern India hived off under Beijing’s influence, and peninsular India from Surat to Vizag being Western-dominated with “SEZs” on the pattern of pre-communist Coastal China. The failure of our elite classes to provide healthy creative governance over generations must inevitably result in the putrefaction of our body politic.
(Author’s Note: The graph that accompanied this article is published elsewhere here under the title “Median Voter Model of India’s Electorate”.)
Understanding China (2007)
October 22, 2007 — drsubrotoroyUnderstanding China
The World Needs to Ask China to Find Her True Higher Self
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman, October 22, 2007, Editorial Page Special Article
The most important factors explaining China’s progress since the deaths of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai have been the spread and quick absorption of modern Western technology under conditions of relative peace and tranquillity. The “capitalist road” came to be taken after all and the once-denounced Liu Shaoqui was posthumously rehabilitated by his shrewd old friend Deng Xiaoping.
To be sure, the new technology itself has combined with democratic hatred felt by young Chinese against the corrupt elitist police-state gerontocracy, and this produced first a Wei Jingsheng and Democracy Wall and later the Tiananmen Square protests. There have been also in recent years many thousands of incidents of peasants resisting State-sponsored brutality, fighting to prevent their lands being stolen in the name of purported capitalist industrialisation, in an economy where, as in India, land is an appreciating asset and the paper-currency remains weak because inflation by money-printing is the basis of public finance. China’s multitudinous domestic tensions continue to boil over as if in a cauldron, and it seems inevitable Chinese Gorbachevs and Yeltsins will one day emerge from within the Communist Party to try to begin the long political march towards multiparty democracy and a free society ~ though of course they may fail too, and China will remain condemned to being a dictatorship of one sort or other for centuries more.
Absence of war
What has been seen in recent decades is the relative absence of war. The last military war the Chinese fought was a month-long battle against fellow-Communist Vietnamese in 1979, after Vietnam had run over and destroyed the Chinese (and Western) backed Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Before that, fellow-Communists of the USSR were fought in a border war in 1969. Before that was the border-war with India in 1959-1963 and occupation of Tibet 1950-1959.
The really savage, fierce large-scale fighting in 20th Century Chinese history was seen in the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, the Civil War of 1945-1949 and the Korean War of 1950-1953. The occupation of Tibet and fighting against India resulting from Tibet’s occupation were really, from a Chinese Communist point of view, merely light follow-ups to those major wars of the Mao-Zhou era, especially fighting the USA and UN in Korea. Peaceful Tibet and naïve non-violent India stood no chance against the aggressive highly experienced Mao-Zhou war-machine at the time.
It may even be that Mao could live only with incessant external tumult ~ after fighting military wars, he orchestrated domestic conflicts in the Little and Great Leap Forward of 1949-1963 and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of 1964-1969, all among the failures of a cruel ill-educated man who led his people into social, political and economic disaster from which trauma they have been slowly recovering over the last thirty years.
Today, Communist China’s military is geared to fight the non-Communist Chinese of Taiwan in a continuation of the Civil War. It seems unlikely there will be an actual invasion for the simple reason that Taiwan, though much smaller, may not suffer eventual defeat but instead inflict a mortal wound upon invading forces. Mao succeeded in driving Chiang Kaishek across the Taiwan Straits but it is post-Chiang Taiwan that displays the model of how strong, prosperous, democratic and self-confident Chinese people really can strive to be in the modern world. Everyone agrees Taiwan and China must one day unite ~ the interesting question is whether Taiwan will get absorbed into China or whether China shall take Taiwan as its new model! Just as Liu Shaoqi had the last word over Mao on the question of taking the capitalist road, Chiang Kaishek may yet have the last word over Mao on the best constitutional method for modern China’s governance.
Peculiarly enough, China’s Kuomintang and Communists were both allies of Russian Bolshevism (not unlike India’s Congress Party and Communists). Sun Yatsen’s collaboration with Comintern’s founders began as early as 1921. By 1923 there was a formal agreement and Stalin sent Gruzenberg (alias Borodin) to China as an adviser, while Sun sent many including Chiang to Russia on learning expeditions. “In reorganising the party, we have Soviet Russia as our model, hoping to achieve a real revolutionary success”, said Sun hopefully. But by March 1926, Sun’s successor Chiang, had begun purging Communists from the Kuomintang-Communist alliance; in July 1927 Borodin returned to Russia after failing at reconciliation; and by July 1928 Chiang had unified China under his own leadership, and Moscow had repudiated the Kuomintang and ordered Chinese Communists to revolt, starting the Civil War and instability that invited the vicious Japanese aggression and occupation.
China’s problems today with Taiwan and with Tibet (and hence with India) will not come to be resolved until China looks hard in the mirror and begins to resolve her problems with herself. No major country today possesses a more factually distorted image of its own history, politics and economics than does China since the Communist takeover of 1949. “Protect the country, destroy the foreigner” was the motto of the Boxer revolts in 1900, a natural defensive reaction to the depredations and humiliations that Manchu-dynasty China suffered at the hands of the British, French, Germans, Russians, Japanese etc for more than a century. The Boxer motto seemed to implicitly drive Mao, Deng and his modern successors too ~ hence the “One China” slogan, the condemnation of “splittism” etc. But the ideology that Mao, Liu, Deng et al developed out of Stalin, Lenin and Marx seems base and stupid when it is unsentimentally compared to the great political philosophy and ethics of ancient China, which emerged out of wise men like Mo Tzu, Meng Ko (Mencius) and the greatest genius of them all, K’ung Fu Tzu, Confucius himself, undoubtedly among the few greatest men of world history.
Tibet
India has not been wrong to acknowledge Outer Tibet as being under China’s legal suzerainty nor in encouraging endogenous political reform among our Tibetan cousins. The Anglo-Russian treaty of 1907 undertook that Tibet would not be dealt with except through China, and the Indian Republic has been the legal successor of British India. Lhasa may be legitimately under Beijing as far as international relations goes ~ the more profound question is whether Beijing’s Communists since 1949 have not been themselves less than legitimate, and if so whether they can now transform themselves in the post Mao-Zhou era through good deeds towards greater legitimacy.
The root problem between China and India has not been the Tibet-India border which was almost always a friendly one and never a problem even when it remained imprecise and undefined over centuries. The root problem has been the sheer greed and aggressiveness of Chinese Communists ~ who now demand not merely Aksai Chin but also a minimum of some 2000 sq km of Tawang and Takpa Shiri in Arunachal. The CIA’s 1959 map of the region, which would be acceptable to the USA, UK, Taiwan and the international community in general as depicting the lawful position, shows the Communist Chinese territorial claim to be baseless and Indian position to be justified.
Nehru’s India was naïve to approach the Mao-Zhou Communists with the attitude of ahimsa and a common Buddhism. But Mao-Zhou Communism is dead, and the Deng capitalist road itself has lost its ethical way. What India and the world need to do now is ask China or help guide China to find her true higher self. China’s Tibet problem and hence border-dispute with India would have been solved peacefully by application of the ways of great men like Confucius, Mencius and Mo Tzu, who are and will remain remembered by mankind long after petty cruel modern dictators like Mao, Zhou and Deng have been long forgotten. Why China’s Communist bosses despise Taiwan may be because Taiwan has sought to preserve that memory of China’s true higher self.
see also https://independentindian.com/2009/09/19/my-ten-articles-on-china-tibet-xinjiang-taiwan-in-relation-to-india/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUhy9pJyys
Karl Georg Zinn’s 1992 Review of *Philosophy of Economics* Routledge: 1989 (English translation, 1994, by Nihar Bhattacharya).
September 26, 2007 — drsubrotoroyReview of Philosophy of Economics by Karl Georg Zinn
Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik / Zeitschrift für Wirtschaft und Statistik. Vol. 209, Nr. 5/6 (May 1992), p 573-574
(translated from the German by Nihar Bhattacharya, 1994)
“The author intends to discuss some of the central philosophical questions facing modern economic theory. In the foreground is a disposition of the conventional problem of value-independence. Roy sees the value-independence postulate as “Hume’s Scepticism”. He defines Hume’s First and Second Laws on the basis of two signified propositions taken from R. M. Hare.
(1) From positive empirical premises, no normative postulate can be derived; in order to establish obligatory propositions, at least one normative proposition is needed.
(2) In a specified economic context, after all empirical and formal/logical matters are resolved, little scope exists for further intersubjectively valid answers. Valuations beyond this limit are based on the subjective feelings of the economist to the concerned problem.
The scientific/theoretical attitude representative of most economists of the 20th century has been based on this characteristic Humean scepticism. To show this, the author reviews short representative quotations from some of the known names of recent economic theory: Friedman, Myrdal, Lionel Robbins, P. A. Samuelson, Hicks, Joan Robinson, Hayek, Oskar Lange, Schumpeter, Arrow, Blaug, Frank Hahn.
Subsequently, the author raises the point as to what explains this scientific-theoretical approval. A cursory survey of important real and virtual historical developments since antiquity confirms that the essential reason for the reported wide acceptance of a humean position by the economic scientist indeed could have been as a defensive posture against dogmatism and political dictatorship (“It is part of the democratic reaction against medieval authoritarianism” p.45).
Conditioned by their “disgust with the tyrannies and ideologies of the twentieth century”, these authorities tried to protect economic science and guarantee the objectivity of research by resort to moral scepticism.
Hence the author arrives at the starting position of his actual subject: After using Hume to escape from dependence on Plato e tutti quanti, has not value-free economics gotten into a fresh dependence, namely, moral scepticism and its philosophical consequence, moral indifference? Here too a contradiction is shown to arise, namely, that each argumentation against the normative can stand its ground only through normative premises. Thus ultimately something like correct standards become necessary. This however is only a marginal problem compared to a very much more important point: whether the moral scepticism permeating the strict scientific-theoretical position, is not just part of a very much more comprehensive scepticism, which includes Hume’s own criticism of induction as well. But then the same scepticism makes positive theory dubious as well: “Either all of positive economics is attacked with just as much scepticism as anything in normative economics, or we accept one and reject the other when instead there are reasons to think they share the same ultimate grounds and must be accepted or rejected together”(p.47).
The author illustrates the difficulties with radical scepticism in a continental traversal of economic theory: micro and macroeconomics, mathematical economic theory and welfare theory are stations on this tour. A solution of the problem in the strict sense is not given nor could have been expected. But Roy delivers a methodical rule which permits a more exact definition of the limits to which normative discussion can take place precisely and objectively: first, to distinguish always whether an objective answer is at all possible to certain questions, and secondly, to ask who is competent or in the best position to give an answer.
For readers interested in a new, thoroughly subtle discussion of a basic yet customary problem, this book will be profitable reading. However, the author could have argued some matters slightly more elaborately and others less redundantly, and set forth the central idea more clearly through appropriate summaries.”
See also: https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/introduction-and-some-biography/philosophy-of-economics-on-the-scope-of-reason-in-economic-inquiry-1989/apropos-philosophy-of-economics/
https://independentindian.com/2013/01/31/i-have-a-student-called-suby-roy-reflections-on-frank-hahn-1925-2013-my-master-in-economic-theory/
Against Quackery (2007)
September 24, 2007 — drsubrotoroyAgainst Quackery
First published in two parts in The Sunday Statesman, September 23 2007, The Statesman September 24 2007
by
Subroto Roy
Manmohan and Sonia have violated Rajiv Gandhi’s intended reforms; the Communists have been appeased or bought; the BJP is incompetent
WASTE, fraud and abuse are inevitable in the use and allocation of public property and resources in India as elsewhere, but Government is supposed to fight and resist such tendencies. The Sonia-Manmohan Government have done the opposite, aiding and abetting a wasteful anti-economics ~ i.e., an economic quackery. Vajpayee-Advani and other Governments, including Narasimha-Manmohan in 1991-1996, were just as complicit in the perverse policy-making. So have been State Governments of all regional parties like the CPI-M in West Bengal, DMK/ AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, Congress/NCP/ BJP/Sena in Maharashtra, TDP /Congress in Andhra Pradesh, SP/BJP/BSP in Uttar Pradesh etc. Our dismal politics merely has the pot calling the kettle black while national self-delusion and superstition reign in the absence of reason.
The general pattern is one of well-informed, moneyed, mostly city-based special interest groups (especially including organised capital and organised labour) dominating government agendas at the cost of ill-informed, diffused anonymous individual citizens ~ peasants, small businessmen, non-unionized workers, old people, housewives, medical students etc. The extremely expensive “nuclear deal” with the USA is merely one example of such interest group politics.
Nuclear power is and shall always remain of tiny significance as a source of India’s electricity (compared to e.g. coal and hydro); hence the deal has practically nothing to do with the purported (and mendacious) aim of improving the country’s “energy security” in the long run. It has mostly to do with big business lobbies and senior bureaucrats and politicians making a grab, as they always have done, for India’s public purse, especially access to foreign currency assets. Some $300 million of India’s public money had to be paid to GE and Bechtel Corporation before any nuclear talks could begin in 2004-2005 ~ the reason was the Dabhol fiasco of the 1990s, a sheer waste for India’s ordinary people. Who was responsible for that loss? Pawar-Mahajan-Munde-Thackeray certainly but also India’s Finance Minister at the time, Manmohan Singh, and his top Finance Ministry bureaucrat, Montek Ahluwalia ~ who should never have let the fiasco get off the ground but instead actively promoted and approved it.
Cost-benefit analysis prior to any public project is textbook operating procedure for economists, and any half-competent economist would have accounted for the scenario of possible currency-depreciation which made Dabhol instantly unviable. Dr Singh and Mr Ahluwalia failed that test badly and it cost India dearly. The purchase of foreign nuclear reactors on a turnkey basis upon their recommendation now reflects similar financial dangers for the country on a vastly larger scale over decades.
Our Government seems to function most expeditiously in purchasing foreign arms, aircraft etc ~ not in improving the courts, prisons, police, public utilities, public debt. When the purchase of 43 Airbus aircraft surfaced, accusations of impropriety were made by Boeing ~ until the local Airbus representative said on TV that Boeing need not complain because they were going to be rewarded too and soon 68 aircraft were ordered from Boeing!
India imports all passenger and most military aircraft, besides spare parts and high-octane jet fuel. Domestic aviation generates near zero forex revenues and incurs large forex costs ~ a debit in India’s balance of payments. Domestic airline passengers act as importers subsidised by our meagre exporters of textiles, leather, handicrafts, tea, etc. What a managerially-minded PM and Aviation Minister needed to do before yielding to temptations of buying new aircraft was to get tough with the pampered managements and unions of the nationalized airlines and stand up on behalf of ordinary citizens and taxpayers, who, after all, are mostly rail or road-travellers not jet-setters.
The same pattern of negligent policy-behaviour led Finance Minister P. Chidambaram in an unprecedented step to mention in his 2007 Union Budget Speech the private American companies Blackstone and GE ~ endorsing the Ahluwalia/Deepak Parekh idea that India’s forex reserves may be made available to be lent out to favoured private businesses for purported “infrastructure” development. We may now see chunks of India’s foreign exchange reserves being “borrowed” and never returned ~ a monumental scam in front of the CBI’s noses.
The Reserve Bank’s highest echelons may have become complicit in all this, permitting and encouraging a large capital flight to take place among the few million Indians who read the English newspapers and have family-members abroad. Resident Indians have been officially permitted to open bank accounts of US $100,000 abroad, as well as transfer gifts of $50,000 per annum to their adult children already exported abroad ~ converting their largely untaxed paper rupees at an artificially favourable exchange-rate.
In particular, Mr Ratan Tata (under a misapprehension he may do whatever Lakshmi Mittal does) has been allowed to convert Indian rupees into some US$13,000,000,000 to make a cash purchase of a European steel company. The same has been allowed of the Birlas, Wipro, Dr Reddy’s and numerous other Indian corporations in the organised sector ~ three hundred million dollars here, five hundred million dollars there, etc. Western businessmen now know all they have to do is flatter the egos of Indian boxwallahs enough and they might have found a buyer for their otherwise bankrupt or sick local enterprise. Many newcomers to New York City have been sold the Brooklyn Bridge before. “There’s a sucker born every minute” is the classic saying of American capitalism.
The Sonia-Manmohan Government, instead of hobnobbing with business chambers, needed to get Indian corporations to improve their accounting, audit and governance, and reduce managerial pilfering and embezzlement, which is possible only if Government first set an example.
Why have Indian foreign currency reserves zoomed up in recent years? Not mainly because we are exporting more textiles, tea, software engineers, call centre services or new products to the world, but because Indian corporations have been allowed to borrow abroad, converting their hoards of paper rupees into foreign debt. Forex reserves are a residual in a country’s international balance of payments and are not like tax-resources available to be spent by Government; India’s reserves largely constitute foreign liabilities of Indian residents. This may bear endless repetition as the PM and his key acolytes seem impervious to normal postgraduate-level economics textbooks.
Other official fallacies include thinking India’s savings rate is near 32 per cent and that clever bureaucratic use of it can cause high growth. In fact, real growth arises not because of what politicians and bureaucrats do but because of spontaneous technological progress, improved productivity and learning-by-doing of the general population ~ mostly despite not because of an exploitative parasitic State. What has been mismeasured as high savings is actually expansion of bank-deposits in a fractional reserve banking system caused by runaway government deficit-spending.
Another fallacy has been that agriculture retards growth, leading to nationwide politically-backed attempts at land-grabbing by wily city industrialists and real estate developers. In a hyperinflation-prone economy with wild deficit-spending and runaway money-printing, cheating poor unorganised peasants of their land, when that land is an asset that is due to appreciate in value, has seemed like child’s play.
What of the Opposition? The BJP/RSS have no economists who are not quacks though opportunists were happy to say what pleased them to hear when they were in power; they also have much implicit support among organised business lobbies and the anti-Muslim senior bureaucracy. The official Communists have been appeased or bought, sometimes so cheaply as with a few airline tickets here and there. The nonsensical “Rural Employment Guarantee” is descending into the wasteland of corruption it was always going to be. The “Domestic Violence Act” as expected has started to destroy India’s families the way Western families have been destroyed. The Arjun-DMK OBC quota corrodes higher education further from its already dismal state. All these were schemes that Congress and Communist cabals created or wholeheartedly backed, and which the BJP were too scared or ignorant to resist.
And then came Singur and Nandigram ~ where the sheer greed driving the alliance between the Sonia-Manmohan-Pranab Congress and the CPI-M mask that is Buddhadeb, came to be exposed by a handful of brave women like Mamata and Medha.
A Fiscal U-Turn is Needed For India to Go in The Right Economic Direction
Rajiv Gandhi had a sense of noblesse oblige out of remembrance of his father and maternal grandfather. After his assassination, the comprador business press credited Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh with having originated the 1991 economic reform. In May 2002, however, the Congress Party itself passed a resolution proposed by Digvijay Singh explicitly stating Rajiv and not either of them was to be so credited. The resolution was intended to flatter Sonia Gandhi but there was truth in it too. Rajiv, a pilot who knew no political economy, was a quick learner with intelligence to know a good idea when he saw one and enough grace to acknowledge it.
Rule of Law
The first time Dr Manmohan Singh’s name arose in contemporary post-Indira politics was on 22 March 1991 when M K Rasgotra challenged the present author to answer how Dr Singh would respond to proposals being drafted for a planned economic liberalisation that had been authorised by Rajiv, as Congress President and Opposition Leader, since September 1990. It was replied that Dr Singh’s response was unknown and he had been heading the “South-South Commission” for Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere, while what needed to be done urgently was make a clear forceful statement to restore India’s credit-worthiness and the confidence of international markets, showing that the Congress at least knew its economics and was planning to take bold new steps in the direction of progress.
There is no evidence Dr Singh or his acolytes were committed to any economic liberalism prior to 1991 as that term is understood worldwide, and scant evidence they have originated liberal economic ideas for India afterwards. Precisely because they represented the decrepit old intellectual order of statist ”Ma-Bap Sarkari” policy-making, they were not asked in the mid-1980s to be part of a “perestroika-for-India” project done at a foreign university ~ the results of which were received, thanks to Siddhartha Shankar Ray, by Rajiv Gandhi in hand at 10 Janpath on 18 September 1990 and specifically sparked the change in the direction of his economic thinking.
India is a large, populous country with hundreds of millions of materially poor citizens, a weak tax-base, a vast internal and external public debt (i.e. debt owed by the Government to domestic and foreign creditors), massive annual fiscal deficits, an inconvertible currency, and runaway printing of paper-money. It is unsurprising Pakistan’s economy is similar, since it is born of the same land and people. Certainly there have been real political problems between India and Pakistan since the chaotic demobilisation and disintegration of the old British Indian Army caused the subcontinent to plunge into war-like or “cold peace” conditions for six decades beginning with a bloody Partition and civil war in J&K. High military expenditures have been necessitated due to mutual and foreign tensions, but this cannot be a permanent state if India and Pakistan wish for genuine mass economic well-being.
Even with the continuing mutual antagonism, there is vast scope for a critical review of Indian military expenditures towards greatly improving the “teeth-to-tail” ratio of its fighting forces. The abuse of public property and privilege by senior echelons of the armed forces (some of whom have been keen most of all to export their children preferably to America) is also no great secret.
On the domestic front, Rajiv was entirely convinced when the suggestion was made to him in September 1990 that an enormous infusion of public resources was needed into the judicial system for promotion and improvement of the Rule of Law in the country, a pre-requisite almost for a new market orientation. Capitalism without the Rule of Law can quickly degenerate into an illiberal hell of cronyism and anarchy which is what has tended to happen since 1991.
The Madhava Menon Committee on criminal justice policy in July proposed a Hong Kong model of “a single high-tech integrated Criminal Justice complex in every district headquarters which may be a multi-storied structure, devoting the ground floor for the police station including a video-installed interrogation room; the first floor for the police-lockups/sub-jail and the Magistrate’s Court; the second floor for the prosecutor’s office, witness rooms, crime laboratories and legal aid services; the third floor for the Sessions Court and the fourth for the administrative offices etc…. (Government of India) should take steps to evolve such an efficient model… and not only recommend it to the States but subsidize its construction…” The question arises: Why is this being proposed for the first time in 2007 after sixty years of Independence? Why was it not something designed and implemented starting in the 1950s?
The resources put since Independence to the proper working of our judiciary from the Supreme Court and High Courts downwards have been abysmal, while the state of prisons, borstals, mental asylums and other institutions of involuntary detention is nothing short of pathetic. Only police forces, like the military, paramilitary and bureaucracies, have bloated in size.
Neither Sonia-Manmohan nor the BJP or Communists have thought promotion of the Rule of Law in India to be worth much serious thought ~ certainly less important than attending bogus international conclaves and summits to sign expensive deals for arms, aircraft, reactors etc. Yet Rajiv Gandhi, at a 10 Janpath meeting on 23 March 1991 when he received the liberalisation proposals he had authorized, explicitly avowed the importance of greater resources towards the Judiciary. Dr Singh and his acolytes were not in that loop, indeed they precisely represented the bureaucratic ancien regime intended to be changed, and hence have seemed quite uncomprehending of the roots of the intended reforms ever since 1991.
Similarly, Rajiv comprehended when it was said to him that the primary fiscal problem faced by India is the vast and uncontrolled public debt, interest payments on which suck dry all public budgets leaving no room for provision of public goods.
Government accounts
Government has been routinely “rolling over” its domestic debt in the asset-portfolios of the nationalised banks while displaying and highlighting only its new additional borrowing in a year as the “Fiscal Deficit”. More than two dozen States have been doing the same and their liabilities ultimately accrue to the Union too. The stock of public debt in India is Rs 30 trillion (Rs 30 lakh crore) at least, and portends a hyperinflation in the future.
There has been no serious recognition of this since it is political and bureaucratic actions that have been causing the problem. Proper recognition would entail systematically cleaning up the budgets and accounts of every single governmental entity in the country: the Union, every State, every district and municipality, every publicly funded entity or organisation, and at the same time improving public decision-making capacity so that once budgets and accounts recover from grave sickness over decades, functioning institutions exist for their proper future management. All this would also stop corruption in its tracks, and release resources for valuable public goods and services like the Judiciary, School Education and Basic Health. Institutions for improved political and administrative decision-making are needed throughout the country if public preferences with respect to raising and allocating common resources are to be elicited and then translated into actual delivery of public goods and services. Our dysfunctional legislatures will have to do at least a little of what they are supposed to. When public budgets and accounts are healthy and we have functioning public goods and services, macroeconomic conditions would have been created for the paper-rupee to once more become a money as good as gold ~ a convertible world currency for all of India’s people, not merely the metropolitan special interest groups that have been controlling our governments and their agendas.
Saving Pakistan: A Physicist/Political Philosopher May Represent Iqbal’s “Spirit of Modern Times”
August 13, 2007 — drsubrotoroySaving Pakistan: A Physicist/Political Philosopher May Represent Iqbal’s “Spirit of Modern Times”
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, August 13 2007,
Pakistan’s Nobel winning particle physicist Abdus Salam (1926-1996) was, like Pakistan’s most eminent jurist Zafrullah Khan (1893-1985), treated badly by his country and compatriots merely because of his religious beliefs as an Ahmadiya/Qadiani. This itself may be an adequate reason for secular thinking when it comes to identifying Pakistan’s or any country’s interests. Pakistan has had eminent poets and writers but there have been no dedicated first-rate technical economists ~ and no serious political philosophers other than, recently, Pervez Hoodbhoy who is a physicist. Most political economy by Pakistanis about Pakistan has tended to be at the level of World Bank bureaucratic reports or traveller’s tales, which have their uses but hardly amount to profound insight or significant scholarship. (We in India also have had numerous minor World Bank/UN bureaucrats, with or without PhDs about anything, passing themselves off as experts on India’s political economy.)
Yet during Pakistan’s present national crisis (and Pakistan has continually faced crises ever since 1947) people must go back to first principles of political economy and ask questions like “Who are we?”; “What are we doing to ourselves?”; “What is our future?” etc ~ questions about national identity and national viability and national purpose.
Abu Dhabi Pact
On 29-30 July, a deal was reportedly struck in Abu Dhabi after a secret face-to-face meeting between Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto: he would stay on as President for five years, she would be PM and Head of Government, have prosecutions against her dropped and get back her enormous frozen wealth. Such would be the intended outcome of the long-touted return to fair competitive elections later this year. The deal was brokered by British, American, Saudi and other go-betweens outside Pakistan, and is an overt way of keeping Musharraf in power while also seeming to allow a large concession by way of the return of a purported symbol of democracy like Benazir.
But Benazir seems out of touch with reality. When she returned two decades ago as a young unmarried woman confronting General Zia ul-Haq, she was a genuine popular hero. Her father’s judicial execution at Zia’s hands was still fresh in public memory, and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, no matter how misguided his ideologies, had some makings of a serious modern Pakistani nationalist politician.
Benazir as a middle aged matron is not her father and has lost almost all political credibility with her flip-flopping opportunism, and is now seen merely as a face agreeable to the West. Her good looks were discussed on American TV by the comedian Bill Maher while Musharraf’s publicity agent had him sharing jokes on a rival TV comedy – however, American TV audiences are or should not be a Pakistani constituency.
Benazir also forgets that Zia had set up Nawaz Sharif as an ally of the Pakistan military against her own populism in the late 1980s, just as she is being set up now as an ally of the same military against people like Sharif, Javed Hashmi, Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Imran Khan. Musharraf overthrew Sharif and jailed Hashmi and they are his declared foes; the other two have expressed opinions hostile to Western military presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Maulana made a nationalistic overture towards India, while Imran has openly praised Indian democracy despite its faults. But Indian foreign policy has not responded and seems under manifest influence of the Western powers ~ had we felt and thought with genuine independence we could have, for example, easily declared and implemented large-scale humanitarian food-aid from the FCI’s wheat-stocks for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as was suggested in these pages a year ago.
A Musharraf-Benazir alliance is hardly destined to save Pakistan and will be no more than a cynical example of short-term opportunism: we in India can expect them to use J&K as traditional rhetorical camouflage for their own continuing misgovernance and corruption. As in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, the Western powers face the dilemma that any government they support in Pakistan will be perceived as lacking legitimacy while a genuine hands-off policy could result in legitimate popular governments which seem to Western Governments beyond their control and hence seemingly adverse to Western interests.
The West has long ill-understood Pakistan, partly because it has seen Pakistan merely to be used as a source of convenient military manpower and real-estate for itself as and when necessary. American diplomats were reporting as early as November 1951 that Maulana Maududi’s Jamaat were hostile to the “evils” of Western materialism which they wanted to “do away with root and branch” in the country. In January 1976, American diplomats were reporting Pakistan’s “crash program to develop nuclear weapons”, and by June 1983 that Pakistan was close to nuclear test capability, intended to deter aggression by India “which remains Pakistan’s greatest security concern”. For Islamic revivalism to coincide with nuclear weapons in the last decade has been something long-predictable if there had been adequate will to do so.
Right wing politicians and religious fundamentalists have come to power in countries with nuclear weapons without untoward results, e.g., Likud in Israel or the BJP/RSS in India. (It is America’s present leaders, as well as all main Democrat and Republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul, who have unilaterally threatened nuclear attacks on a non-nuclear country that has not committed aggression against anyone.) There is no obvious reason why an elected legitimate “conservative” or right wing government in Pakistan must come to pose a special nuclear danger to anyone. If it is serious about governance (which Musharraf-Benazir may not be), it may even succeed in finding enough sobriety and political honesty to start to face up to Pakistan’s real economic and social problems which are vast in size and scope.
Wali Allah vs Iqbal
“We are an Arab people whose fathers have fallen in exile in the country of Hindustan, and Arabic genealogy and Arabic language are our pride,” said Wali Allah (1703-1762). Two centuries later, Mohammad Iqbal (1877-1938), in his 1930 Presidential Speech to the Muslim League in Allahabad conceptualising today’s Pakistan, wished precisely to become free of that Arab influence: “I would like to see the Punjab, NWFP, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state… The life of Islam as a cultural force in this living country very largely depends on its centralisation in a specified territory… For India it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power, for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and the spirit of modern times.”
That “spirit of modern times” is today represented most prominently in Pakistan by Pervez Hoodbhoy. In a December 2006 speech, Hoodbhoy suggested a new alternative to MA Jinnah’s ”Faith, Unity, Discipline” slogan: “First, I wish for minds that can deal with the complex nature of truth…. My second wish is for many more Pakistanis who accept diversity as a virtue… My third, and last, wish is that Pakistanis learn to value and nurture creativity.” And he has spoken of bringing “economic justice to Pakistan”, of the “fight to give Pakistan’s women the freedom which is their birthright”, and of people to “wake up” and engage politically. We shall witness a most engaging battle if Benazir and her new military friends all representing the jaded and corrupt old political power structures, come to face in the elections a new conservative alliance of people like Sharif, Hashmi, Fazlur Rahman and Imran all infused with Hoodbhoy’s scientific liberalism representing Iqbal’s ”spirit of modern times”.
Unhealthy Delhi
June 11, 2007 — drsubrotoroyUnhealthy Delhi
When will normal political philosophy replace personality cults?
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, June 11 2007,
A decade after Solzhenitsyn’s classic 1962 memoir One day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch, an ambitious young Delhi photographer published a hagiography called A life in the day of Indira Gandhi. Indira was shown gambolling with her little grandchildren, guiding her dutiful daughter-in-law, weeping for her father, greeting her loyal subjects from around India, reprimanding her ingratiating sycophants, imperiously silent during political meetings, smiling and scolding alternately at press conferences, and of course standing in victory at Shimla beside the defeated Bhutto. “Indira is India” the sycophantic slogan went, and the cult of her personality was one of showing her as omniscient and omnipotent in all earthly matters of Indian politics.
She had indeed fought that rarest of things in international law: the just war. Supported by the world’s strongest military, an evil enemy had made victims of his own people. Indira tried patiently on the international stage to avert war, but also chose her military generals well and took their professional judgement seriously as to when to fight if it was inevitable and how to win. Finally she was magnanimous (to a fault) towards the enemy ~ who was not some stranger to us but our own estranged brother and cousin.
It seemed to be her and independent India’s finest hour. A fevered nation was thus ready to forgive and forget her catastrophic misdeeds until that time, like bank-nationalization and the start of endless deficit-finance and unlimited money-printing, a possible cause of monetary collapse today four decades later under Manmohan Singh whose career as an economic bureaucrat began at that time.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao
Modern personality cults usually have had some basis in national heroism. In Indira’s case it was the 1971 war. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were seen or portrayed as war heroes too. Because there has been leadership in time of war or national crisis, nervous anxious masses extend their hopes and delusions to believe such a leader has answers to everything. The propaganda machinery available as part of modern state apparatus then takes over, and when it is met on behalf of the citizenry with no more than a compliant docile ingratiating mass media, the public image comes to be formed of a parental god-like figure who will protect and guide the community to its destiny.
Beneath this public image, the cunning play of self-interest by anonymous underlings in the allocation of public resources continues unabated, and so it is possible some truth attaches to the idea that an individual leader is not as responsible for evil misdeeds or depredations done by “the party” in his/her name.
In the Indian case, hero-worship and ancestor-worship are part of the culture of all our major religions. Hence we have parades of parliamentarians garlanding or throwing flowers and paying obeisance at this or that statue or oil-painting or photograph regularly ~ though as a people we have yet to produce rigorous intellectual biographies of any major figures of our own modern history, comparable to, say, Judith Brown’s work on Gandhi or Ayesha Jalal’s on Jinnah.
Indira continued to dominate our political culture until her assassination more than a decade later, but there was hardly a shred of political or economic good in what she left the country. Her elder son (leaving aside his blunders in Sri Lanka, J&K etc.) did have the sense to initiate fundamental change in his party’s economic thinking when he found a chance to do so in the months before his own assassination.
Rajiv was the son of Feroze Gandhi too and a happy family man; he seemed not to have psychological need for as much of the kind of personality cult his mother clearly loved to indulge in. It is not clear if his widow is today trying to follow his example or his mother’s ~ certainly, the party that goes by the name of Indian National Congress would like to relive for a second time the worst of the Indira personality cult around Sonia Gandhi. And Rahul Gandhi, instead of seeking to develop or display any talent as befits a young man, has shown disconcerting signs of longing for the days of his grandmother’s personality cult to return. He may have been more effective pursuing a normal career in the private sector.
The Congress’s perpetual tendency towards personality cults has extended by imitation to other political parties in New Delhi and the States. Atal Behari Vajpayee at his peak as PM did not find it at all uncomfortable to be portrayed by his sycophants as a wise, heroic and loving father-figure of the nation ~ an image shattered when, immediately after perfunctorily commiserating the Godhra and post-Godhra horrors, he was pictured fashionably on a Singapore golf-cart sporting designer sunglasses.
India’s organised communists make a great show of collective decision-making since they most intimately followed the details of Kruschev’s denunciation of Stalin’s personality cult. It has not stopped them routinely genuflecting to China’s communists. There also has been a communist tendency to deny individual merit and creativity at junior levels and instead appropriate all good things for the party bosses. New brilliant faces will never arise in the Left and we may be condemned to see the usual characters in perpetuity. If personality cults around Jyoti Basu or Buddhadeb Bhattacharya have failed to thrive it has not been through lack of trying on part of the publicly paid communist intelligentsia and their docile artists, but rather because of resistance from Bengal’s newspapers and a few clear-headed journalists and well known opposition politicians.
Tamil Nadu has seen grotesque rivalry between Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha as to whose personality cult can alternately outdo the other, supplanting all normal political economy or attempts at discovery of the public interest. In Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, J&K, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (but not Gujarat or Rajasthan lately), two-party democratic politics has succeeded in limiting tendencies for personality cults to develop. The North Eastern States have had inadequate coverage by modern media, which, fortuitously, along with tribal traditions, may have restrained personality cults from developing.
Facts explode cults
Facts are the most reliable means by which to explode personality cults. It is not a coincidence that facts are also the source by which to develop modern political philosophies, whether conservative, classical liberal/ libertarian, or socialist. Facts have to be discovered, ferreted out, analysed, studied and reflected upon by those civil institutions that are supposed to be doing so, namely university social science, economics and related departments, as well as responsible newspapers, radio and other mass media. Julian Benda once titled a book The Treason of the Intellectuals. India will begin to have a normal political philosophy when the treason of its modern intellectual classes begins to be corrected.
It is not a treason in which the state has been betrayed to an enemy. Rather it is one in which the very purposes of public conversation, such as the discovery of the public interest, have been betrayed in the interests of immediate private gain. This may help to explain why there is so little coherent public discussion in India today, and certainly almost nothing on television, or in the business papers or what passes for academia.
On Indian Nationhood (2007)
May 25, 2007 — drsubrotoroyOn Indian Nationhood
From Tamils To Kashmiris And Assamese And Mizos To Sikhs And Goans
First published in The Statesman, Editorial Page
May 25 2007
By Subroto Roy
In the decades before 1947, imperialist critics of Indian nationalism accused the movement of being less about creating Indian nationhood than about supplanting British rule with local Indian oligarchies. Sydenham, for example, in the upper house of Britain’s Parliament in August 1918, gleefully quoted from the “Madras Dravidian Hindu Association” (forerunners of today’s DMK etc): “We shall fight to the last drop of our blood any attempt to transfer the seat of authority in this country from British hands to so-called high-caste Hindus, who have ill-treated us in the past and will do so again but for the protection of British laws.” Also quoted were “Namasudras of Bengal”, allegedly numbering “ten million men”, protesting “gross misrepresentation” by “so-called high-caste leaders” of the desirability of “Home Rule or self-government”. Besides caste and class there was always religion too by which India’s inhabitants could be classified and divided, and it must have delighted Sydenham to quote the “South Indian Islamic League” saying “Nothing should be done which will weaken British authority in any manner whatsoever, and hand over the destinies of the Moslem community to a class which has no regard for their interests and no respect for their sentiments”.
Home Rule League
Sydenham was attacking the Montagu-Chelmsford Report which had stated that India had “a core of earnest men who believe sincerely and strive for political progress; around them a ring of less educated people to whom a phrase or a sentiment appeals; and an outside fringe of those who have been described as attracted by curiosity to this new thing, or who find diversions in attacking a big and very solemn Government as urchins might take a perilous joy at casting toy darts at an elephant.”
Annie Besant, herself an Englishwoman, was, along with BG Tilak and MA Jinnah, a pioneer of Indian nationalism at the time and headed the new Indian Home Rule League on the Irish pattern. The League stated its membership at 52,000. Sydenham multiplied that by five and asked if a quarter million could purport to rule 244 millions in an Indian democracy. Where, he demanded, was the “voice that cannot yet be heard, the voice of the peoples of India”? The imperialist jibe was that the British Raj would be replaced at best by a “Vakil Raj” of “high-caste” Hindus and at worst by anarchy and bloodshed.
Thirty years later India’s was partitioned and independent under Attlee’s Labour Party. Churchill took over the imperialist mantle and found solace in the new India agreeing to remain in Britain’s “Commonwealth”, saying that India doing so as a Republic did not impair “the majesty of the Crown or the personal dignity of the King”.
The ghosts of Churchill and Sydenham today would heartily cheer our Republic’s current President APJ Abdul Kalam agreeing to receive the “King Charles II Medal” from the Royal Society, and our current PM Manmohan Singh accepting honorary British degrees also while in office. Britain’s Crown Prince has proposed a cricket match between India and Pakistan to mark the 60th anniversary of 1947, and what, after all, could be less inappropriate to mark the event in British eyes? All that Indian nationalism would have been firmly put in its place.
Now Pakistan mostly goes unmentioned in the history of Indian nationalism because the new Pakistanis as of 14 August 1947 hardly felt or even wished to be independent of the British. Instead they longed only to acquire control over any kind of Muslim-majority Government that they could, and as much of the resources and joint military assets of the old India they could get their hands on.
The Kashmir dispute and India-Pakistan conflict have not been ones between Hindus and Muslims, regardless of what the BBC, CNN etc make themselves believe. As much as for any other reason, Kashmir escalated out of control because of British irresponsibility during the process of disintegration of the old Indian Army between the two new Dominions. Newly demobilised Mirpuri soldiers who had formed loyal British battalions were drawn into the cycle of Partition-related communal violence and reprisals in Punjab, which inevitably spilt over into Jammu and culminated in the attack on J&K State that commenced from Pakistan’s NWFP in October 1947 ~ plunging J&K into civil war with Sheikh Abdullah and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad’s National Conference allied to the new secular India and Sardar Ibrahim’s Muslim Conference allied to the new and soon to be Islamic Pakistan. Field Marshal Auchinlek, the Supreme Commander of both Indian and Pakistani Armed Forces, had the decency to resign and abolish the so-called “Supreme Command” as soon as he realised his own forces were at war with one another.
It would not be too inaccurate to say Pakistan and Britain continued in a neo-colonial relationship throughout the 1950s and 1960s ~ all the way until Ayub Khan (who had been warmly entertained at Chequers during the Christine Keeler-Profumo matter), overplayed his hand by attacking India in 1965. That war followed by the East Pakistan cyclone in 1969 brought to a head the inherent political contradictions of the Pakistani state accumulated until that time, and soon led to Bangladesh’s creation in 1971. Britain has had no real interest in Bangladesh but as Pakistan had allowed dual nationality with Britain, Britain found itself with a lot of Bangladeshi immigrants whose “Indian” restaurants give modern Britons today something to look forward to every weekend.
Britain and its American ally continued to have deep interests in Pakistan, mostly because of the geopolitical importance of Pakistani real estate and the generally obsequious and compliant nature of the Pakistani military and diplomatic elite. All that began to change fundamentally when the real declaration of Pakistani independence occurred in the world with the AQ Khan nuclear bombs exploding in 1998 followed by the September 11 2001 attacks upon the USA.
Nationalism today
As for ourselves in India, we have developed some coherent and recognisable design of a modern political economy with a Union Government and more than two dozen State Governments, and we have abolished the imperialist lackeys known as the “princes”. Our Governments at Union and State levels change peacefully by periodic elections under the 1950 Constitution. This in itself would be seen as an astonishing democratic achievement relative to where we were one hundred years ago at the time of the Morley-Minto policies. Thanks to Jawaharlal Nehru, we have had universal franchise since 1952 (at a time when the USA still had its Jim Crow laws against black citizens) ~ yet the imperialist jibe of an infinitesimally small elite purporting to represent hundreds of millions of India’s people remains to be addressed.
It would be interesting to know how many descendants of the 52,000 members of Annie Besant’s Home Rule League remain in India and how many have emigrated to the USA, Britain, Australia etc. The children of our top military, bureaucratic, business, professional and academic elite have cheerfully led an exodus out of the country. E.g. the son of a former commanding general of the Indian Army’s Artillery Regiment is now a British businessman and member of Tony Blair’s new House of Lords. Indian Nationhood in the 21st Century no longer has to include Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who have ended up seeking to develop their own nationalisms, but it remains hard enough to try to include everyone else ~ from Tamils to Kashmiris and from Assamese and Mizos to Sikhs and Goans. Cleaning up our government accounting and sorting out our public finances nationwide so as to establish a sound money for everyone to use for the first time in sixty or seventy years, is among the first steps in defining our common goals as an independent nation.
(Postscript: The original text stated Independence and Paritition came “forty years” after the only date mentioned until that point in the text, which is of the 1918 Montagu-Chelmsford period. Unconsciously, I was counting from the Morley-Minto period of 1906-1908 which was the constitutional precedent to Montagu-Chelmsford.)
India and Her Neighbours
May 15, 2007 — drsubrotoroyWe & Our Neighbours
Pakistanis And Bangladeshis Would Do Well To Learn From Sheikh Abdullah
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman May 15 2007, Editorial Page Special Article, http://www.thestatesman.net
Pakistan and Bangladesh, unlike ourselves in India, have yet to properly establish elementary constitutional institutions. “Individuals may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation”, said Benjamin Disraeli. The continual political chaos on the streets of Pakistan and Bangladesh ~ not just in recent weeks but in recent years and decades ~ indicate such institutions are still lacking or stillborn there. Tear gas, water cannon and hordes of armed policemen to charge at enraged stone-throwing crowds are not part of any solution but part of the political problem itself.
One main purpose of constitutional institutions has to do with peaceful transfer of power from one political party to its adversary. Mulayam Singh Yadav has just transferred political power to Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, an Indian State more populous than either Pakistan or Bangladesh. Not long ago Lalu Prasad Yadav did the same to Nitish Kumar in Bihar, and Atal Behari Vajpayee to an appointee of Sonia Gandhi for all India itself. Modern democratic institutions are precisely about such peaceful transfers of power after voters have acted periodically to try to “throw the rascals out”.
Honeymoon period
It would be foolish to suppose an incoming Government of UP, Bihar or all India itself will be very much better than the one it displaces. But certainly in its first few “honeymoon” months or weeks at least, it will not be any worse. The tail-end of any scheduled democratic government, whether in India, Britain, the USA or elsewhere, is quite a disgusting sight, as those in their last days of power grab whatever they can from office before departure without any pretence of shame or embarrassment. Serious decision-making in the public interest would have long ago ceased. Almost anything new would be better.
At the same time, among those coming into power there will be some earnest wish at least to make some small difference for the better ~ a wish that will surely disappear within weeks of entering office after which the old cynicism and corruption will take hold again, and it will be the same ugly business as usual. But certainly, voters can expect slightly fresh air for a brief time after they have thrown one party out of power and chosen to bring in another. That is as about as good as democracy gets in modern practice.
Of India’s dozen or more larger States, we have, in the sixth decade of our Constitution, quite a few in which bipartisan democratic processes have been taking shape. UP was not one of them, and it is to Mayawati’s credit that she has broken the pattern of hung assemblies and now heads a majority government. Bihar too had seemed in the monolithic grip of Lalu Yadav until Nitish Kumar broke it, though the latter’s honeymoon period is now long over and it is business quite as usual there. Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and even J&K each have a noticeable bipartisan nature developing with at least one “national” party present to be counted. Tamil Nadu has been bipartisan but in an unhealthy way based on the personality cults of antagonistic leaders rather than any political principles or class-interests ~ which is a pity as the old Madras once had seemed a source of some new rationality in Indian politics. West Bengal’s voters have been definitely bipartisan, the communist vote being no more than that of the Congress and Trinamul combined. But for decades the local Congress has been notoriously sold down the river to its communist adversary by the Congress “leadership” in Delhi, and that has allowed an entrenched and wholly corrupted communist cultural and political mindset to rule in Kolkata. The Basu-Bhattacharjee Government was palpably bewildered over the Singur and Nandigram events because of their self-induced delusion about the economic and political realities of the State.
Throughout India though, periodic elections have acquired enough legitimacy to be accepted as the means of peaceful change of government. And with bipartisan politics there is a tendency for the median voter to be wooed at election-time.
We have of course many other continuing problems in our political economy ~ most notorious of which is the rotten state of our public finances and the continuous massive deficit finance that has ruined our paper currency and banking system ever since Indira Gandhi’s rule, coinciding with the start of Manmohan Singh’s career as an economic bureaucrat and Pranab Mukherjee’s as a politician in the early 1970s. Our acceptance of the democratic way has to an extent depended on our notoriously irresponsible macroeconomic policies ~ since every State and Union Government entity has been allowed to face no effective binding financial budget-constraint, and all its perverse decision-making can flow eventually into the swamp that is our Public Debt which constitutes the asset-side of the domestic banking system. India’s cardinal problem then becomes one of how to improve our macroeconomics without losing our democracy ~ something the Sonia-Manmohan-Pranab Congress, the BJP/RSS and the Communists are all equally clueless about.
Across our borders, our Pakistani and Bangladeshi cousins were cut from the same constitutional cloth as ourselves, namely the 1935 Government of India Act and the Montague-Chelmsford reforms before that. But after Jinnah’s death they refused to admit this and instead embarked on trying to write and implement a Constitution for a new Caliphate. The initial demand was “That the sovereignty in Pakistan belongs to God Almighty alone and that the Government of Pakistan shall administer the country as His agent”. In Rashid Rida and Maulana Maududi’s words, Islam becomes “the very antithesis of secular Western democracy. The philosophical foundation of Western democracy is the sovereignty of the people. Lawmaking is their prerogative and legislation must correspond to the mood and temper of their opinion… Islam… altogether repudiates the philosophy of popular sovereignty and rears its polity on the foundations of the sovereignty of God and the viceregency (Khilafat) of man.” (Rosenthal, Islam & the Modern National State, Cambridge 1965). Pakistan’s constitutionalists thus have faced an impossible battle to overcome the ontological error of assuming that any mundane government can be in communication with God Almighty.
J&K’s Constitution
Now Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was as pious a Muslim as any but was far more modern in his 5 November 1951 speech to J&K’s Constituent Assembly: “You are the sovereign authority in this State of Jammu & Kashmir; what you decide has the irrevocable force of law”. Referring to the American and French Constitutions, he said the “basic democratic principle” was of the “sovereignty of the nation”. “We should be clear about the responsibilities that this power invests us with. In front of us lie decisions of the highest national importance which we shall be called upon to take. Upon the correctness of our decisions depends not only the happiness of our land and people now, but the fate as well of generations to come.”
Can a modern conclave of Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto and Chaudhry Iftikhar Ahmed decide or declare any better for Pakistan today? Or one of Khaleda, Hasina and whichever cabal of generals and bureaucrats happens to head Bangladesh at present?
If Pakistan and Bangladesh each chose to restart with the modern-minded constitutional example Sheikh Abdullah set more than a half century ago in J&K, they may find their political problems less severe in due course. It is a long road ahead.
India and “Energy Security”
May 7, 2007 — drsubrotoroyFirst published in India’s Energy Security edited by Anant Sudarshan and Ligia Noronha, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, New Delhi 2007
“On the Political Economy of India’s Energy Policy: One Citizen’s Viewpoint”
by
Subroto Roy
For the idea of “energy security” to have meaning, “energy insecurity” must hold meaning as well. Looking back a generation, the average American, European and Japanese citizen became anxious and insecure when the cartel power of the oil exporting countries was first exercised, and energy prices quadrupled. The idea of the US Government accumulating a “strategic reserve” of petroleum originated due to the oil crisis, and amounted to no more than a buffer-stock or commodity price-stabilisation scheme so “cheap gasoline” could be had always, and lifestyles would not be suddenly inconvenienced, and hence presidential popularity ratings would not suddenly drop.
In many ways energy insecurity has been a creation of bad design. Hawaii is a good example of this. Hawaii’s renowned climate is cooled by the magnificent trade-winds which blow all year long except in September. Architecture suitable to those trade-winds would have created homes a few stories high with windows which could be opened. Instead, Honolulu has become a city of high-rises and skyscrapers in the middle of the Pacific Ocean — many with New York-style permanently closed windows and centralised airconditioning.
Energy Insecurity, and hence Energy Security, may be notions mostly relevant to advanced Western economies. North American, European and Japanese homes, lifestyles, architectures and urban sprawls are all highly capital-intensive and inelastically dependant on domestic or imported energy. The reason a vague undefined notion of “Energy Security” tends to make New Delhi anxious is because many inside the Delhi Beltway live in dreamlands or fantasy-worlds where they would like to imitate Western lifestyles in their personal lives. But New Delhi is not Europe or America and certainly India is not New Delhi.
There are hundreds of millions of Indians in rural India. What is the appropriate National Energy Policy for them? It quite simply is for there to be genuine electrification of India’s 600,000 villages (where more than 70% of the rural Indian population still have no electric lighting even according to Government data), as well as better trains, better all-weather feeder-roads to reach bus routes and primary schools, and conditions to arise for technological change and normal prosperity among ordinary people, so those who are today transporting a whole family of four on a bicycle, are able in a few years to do so on a motor-scooter, and some years after that perhaps in a small private car. Economic theory speaks of preferences, resources and technologies. Preferences define and give rise to the demand-side; resources and technologies define and give rise to the supply-side. Relative prices (which include interest-rates, reflecting the force of the present relative to the future) tend to intermediate equilibria between demand and supply conditions. In policy-making, private preferences for public goods and services must somehow become translated through a tolerable political process into reasonable public preferences. It must have seemed a good idea privately to someone to create skyscrapers with closed windows in Honolulu forgetting the trade winds and ignoring the energy-dependence of the Hawaiian Islands, yet in retrospect that may seem to have been publicly unwise. Similarly, India is a coal-abundant coal-exporting and diesel-importing country yet we got rid of all our steam locomotives and replaced these with diesel engines – if there were enough reasons to do so, I at least remain ignorant of what they were. One problem with our energy policy-making that has emerged in the current nuclear deal-making with American businessmen and politicians, is that it has seemed to lack rational assessments being made of relative costs and benefits in the Indian case of nuclear/fossil fuel/renewable energy, especially hydroelectric energy. Indeed it reveals the same lack of transparency as other policy-making in this country – like the $12 billion worth of commercial aircraft from Boeing and Airbus bought for our bankrupt nationalized airlines.
Moving from preference-formation to resources and technologies, it will be recalled that no economist of any school of thought anywhere ever backed the Club of Rome/“Limits to Growth” idea a generation ago that mankind was doomed in some sense to run out of resources. There are always alternatives, each with a relative cost attached to it, and there are always new and unpredictable opportunities and ingenuities arising which dynamically change the set of alternatives on offer at a given time. Prices and costs tend to adjust when possible to make myriad individual decisions consistent with one another, and in fact, futures, forward and option markets for petroleum products are among the most active and well-traded that there are in the world. Design improvements in nuclear reactors will also improve productivity; e.g. “fast breeder” reactors “breed” more fissile material than they use, and may get 100 times as much energy from a kilogram of uranium as existing reactors do. We in India also have one innovatively designed thorium reactor under construction.
Coming to the nuclear deal, the plausible part of the Government of India’s official line on the Indo-US nuclear deal is that removing these international restrictions will — through importation of new technologies, inputs, fuel etc — improve the functioning of the 14 existing nuclear plants that are going to be designated as “civilian”. However, those purchasing decisions involved in enhancing India’s efficiency gains must be made by the Government’s nuclear scientists on technical grounds of improving the working of our existing nuclear infrastructure.
It would be a different animal altogether to be purchasing new nuclear reactors on a turnkey basis from American, French or any other foreign businessmen in a purported attempt to improve India’s “energy security”. The central question over such massive foreign purchases no longer would be the technical one of using the Indo-US deal to improve efficiency or productivity of our existing inefficient and even crippled nuclear infrastructure. Instead it would become a question of calculating social costs and benefits of our newly investing in nuclear power relative to other sources like hydroelectric power. The contribution of nuclear power to India’s electricity production has been close to negligible. Among India’s energy sources, the largest growth-potential has remained hydroelectric. Even if all other sources of electricity remained constant, and our civilian nuclear capacity alone was made to grow by 100% under the deal that Dr Manmohan Singh and Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia have been promoting, that would still make up less than 8% of total Indian electricity produced.
In 2004, the International Energy Agency’s estimated that the new energy capacity required by rising economic growth in 2020 will derive 1400 GW from burning coal (half of it in China and India), 470 GW from burning oil, 430 GW from hydro, and 400 GW from renewable sources like solar or wind power. Because gas prices are expected to remain low worldwide, construction of new nuclear reactors for electricity will mostly remain unprofitable. By 2030, new energy expected to be required worldwide is 4700 GW, of which only 150 GW is expected from new nuclear plants which in any case will replacing existing plants due to be retired. I am afraid the thought cannot be avoided that a proper cost-benefit analysis may reveal that the reason why potential American, French and other sellers of new nuclear reactors to India are becoming so keen on India using civilian nuclear energy is that they are unable to sell these reactors under free market principles elsewhere in the world economy. There is enough circumstantial evidence that the current nuclear deal-making has been promoted mostly by big business lobbies and has had little to do with anything else. The nuclear deal was promoted by the US-India Business Council and the US-India CEO Forum. The Confederation of Indian Industry registered as an official lobbyist in Washington, and went about spending half a million dollars lobbying American politicians for the nuclear deal. After President Bush’s visit to India, the US Foreign Commercial Service reportedly said American engineering firms, equipment suppliers and contractors faced a $1,000 billion opportunity in India, and the US Chamber of Commerce said the nuclear deal can cause $100 billion worth of new American business in India’s energy-sector alone.
If the Indo-US nuclear deal helps India improve or maintain its existing nuclear infrastructure, well and good. If in fact the underlying motivation of the local and foreign business lobbies driving the deal has been to sell India nuclear reactors on a turnkey basis at a time when nuclear energy is uneconomical elsewhere in the world because of low gas prices, then India’s ordinary citizens may demand to know from the Government whether the deal is principally aimed at allowing such importation of new nuclear reactors, and if so, why such an expensive alternative is being considered. Thus must include a realisation that while the transactions, organisation and political costs of getting new hydroelectric power investments off the ground are high, it is hydroelectric and not nuclear power where India’s real future potential exists. As a general rule, I put it to you that we need to be less worried about “Energy Security” anywhere and more worried about thoughtless irresponsible corrupt governments everywhere. There is no shortage of energy or resources as such anywhere in the world; what should be making us feel insecure is the shortage of wisdom in political decision-making. That there is everywhere.
Fallacious Finance: Congress, BJP, CPI-M et al may be leading India to hyperinflation (2007)
March 5, 2007 — drsubrotoroyFallacious Finance: Congress, BJP, CPI-M et al may be leading India to hyperinflation
by
Subroto Roy
first published in The Statesman, 5 March 2007
Editorial Page Special Article
It seems the Dream Team of the PM, Finance Minister, Mr. Montek Ahluwalia and their acolytes may take India on a magical mystery tour of economic hallucinations, fantasies and perhaps nightmares. I hasten to add the BJP and CPI-M have nothing better to say, and criticism of the Government or of Mr Chidambaram’s Budget does not at all imply any sympathy for their political adversaries.
It may be best to outline a few of the main fallacies permeating the entire Governing Class in Delhi, and their media and businessman friends:
1. “India’s Savings Rate is near 32%”. This is factual nonsense. Savings is indeed normally measured by adding financial and non-financial savings. Financial savings include bank-deposits. But India is not a normal country in this. Nor is China. Both have seen massive exponential growth of bank-deposits in the last few decades. Does this mean Indians and Chinese are saving phenomenally high fractions of their incomes by assiduously putting money away into their shaky nationalized banks? Sadly, it does not. What has happened is government deficit-financing has grown explosively in both countries over decades. In a “fractional reserve” banking system (i.e. a system where your bank does not keep the money you deposited there but lends out almost all of it immediately), government expenditure causes bank-lending, and bank-lending causes bank-deposits to expand. Yes there has been massive expansion of bank-deposits in India but it is a nominal paper phenomenon and does not signify superhuman savings behaviour. Indians keep their assets mostly in metals, land, property, cattle, etc., and as cash, not as bank deposits.
2. “High economic growth in India is being caused by high savings and intelligently planned government investment”. This too is nonsense. Economic growth in India as elsewhere arises not because of what politicians and bureaucrats do in capital cities, but because of spontaneous technological progress, improved productivity and learning-by-doing on part of the general population. Technological progress is a very general notion, and applies to any and every production activity or commercial transaction that now can be accomplished more easily or using fewer inputs than before. New Delhi still believes in antiquated Soviet-era savings-investment models without technological progress, and some non-sycophant must tell our top Soviet-era bureaucrat that such growth models have been long superceded and need to be scrapped from India’s policy-making too. Can politicians and bureaucrats assist India’s progress? Indeed they can: the telecom revolution in recent years was something in which they participated. But the general presumption is against them. Progress, productivity gains and hence economic growth arise from enterprise and effort of ordinary people — mostly despite not because of an exploitative, parasitic State.
3. “Agriculture is a backward sector that has been retarding India’s recent economic growth”. This is not merely nonsense it is dangerous nonsense, because it has led to land-grabbing by India’s rulers at behest of their businessman friends in so-called “SEZ” schemes. The great farm economist Theodore W. Schultz once quoted Andre and Jean Mayer: “Few scientists think of agriculture as the chief, or the model science. Many, indeed, do not consider it a science at all. Yet it was the first science – Mother of all science; it remains the science which makes human life possible”. Centuries before Europe’s Industrial Revolution, there was an Agricultural Revolution led by monks and abbots who were the scientists of the day. Thanks partly to American help, India has witnessed a Green Revolution since the 1960s, and our agriculture has been generally a calm, mature, stable and productive industry. Our farmers are peaceful hardworking people who should be paying taxes and user-fees normally but should not be otherwise disturbed or needlessly provoked by outsiders. It is the businessmen wishing to attack our farm populations who need to look hard in the mirror – to improve their accounting, audit, corporate governance, to enforce anti-embezzlement and shareholder protection laws etc.
4. “India’s foreign exchange reserves may be used for ‘infrastructure’ financing”. Mr Ahluwalia promoted this idea and now the Budget Speech mentioned how Mr Deepak Parekh and American banks may be planning to get Indian businesses to “borrow” India’s forex reserves from the RBI so they can purchase foreign assets. It is a fallacy arising among those either innocent of all economics or who have quite forgotten the little they might have been mistaught in their youth. Forex reserves are a residual in a country’s balance of payments and are not akin to tax revenues, and thus are not available to be borrowed or spent by politicians, bureaucrats or their businessman friends — no matter how tricky and shady a way comes to be devised for doing so. If anything, the Government and RBI’s priority should have been to free the Rupee so any Indian could hold gold or forex at his/her local bank. India’s vast sterling balances after the Second World War vanished quickly within a few years, and the country plunged into decades of balance of payments crisis – that may now get repeated. The idea of “infrastructure” is in any case vague and inferior to the “public goods” Adam Smith knew to be vital. Serious economists recommend transparent cost-benefit analyses before spending any public resources on any project. E.g., analysis of airport/airline industry expansion would have found the vast bulk of domestic airline costs to be forex-denominated but revenues rupee-denominated – implying an obvious massive currency-risk to the industry and all its “infrastructure”. All the PM’s men tell us nothing of any of this.
5. “HIV-AIDS is a major Indian health problem”. Government doctors privately know the scare of an AIDS epidemic is based on false assumptions and analysis. Few if any of us have met, seen or heard of an actual incontrovertible AIDS victim in India (as opposed to someone infected by hepatitis-contaminated blood supplies). Syringe-exchange by intravenous drug users is not something widely prevalent in Indian society, while the practise that caused HIV to spread in California’s Bay Area in the 1980s is not something depicted even at Khajuraho. Numerous real diseases do afflict Indians – e.g. 11 children died from encephalitis in one UP hospital on a single day in July 2006, while thousands of children suffer from “cleft lip” deformity that can be solved surgically for 20,000 rupees, allowing the child a normal life. Without any objective survey being done of India’s real health needs, Mr Chidamabaram has promised more than Rs 9.6 Billion (Rs 960 crore) to the AIDS cottage industry.
6. “Fiscal consolidation & stabilization has been underway since 1991”. There is extremely little reason to believe this. If you or I borrow Rs. 100,000 for a year, and one year later repay the sum only to borrow the same again along with another Rs 40,000, we would be said to have today a debt of Rs. 140,000 at least. Our Government has been routinely “rolling over” its domestic debt in this manner (in the asset-portfolios of the nationalised banking system) but displaying and highlighting only its new additional borrowing in a year as the “ Fiscal Deficit” (see graph, also “Fiscal Instability”, The Sunday Statesman, 4 February 2007). More than two dozen State Governments have been doing the same though, unlike the Government of India, they have no money-creating powers and their liabilities ultimately accrue to the Union as well. The stock of public debt in India may be Rs 30 trillion (Rs 30 lakh crore) at least, and portends a hyperinflation in the future. Mr Chidambaram’s announcement of a “Debt Management Office” yet to be created is hardly going to suffice to avert macroeconomic turmoil and a possible monetary collapse. The Congress, BJP, CPI-M and all their friends shall be responsible.
Of related interest: Mistaken Macroeconomics,
“The Indian Revolution”, “Against Quackery”, “The Dream Team: A Critique”, “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Indian Inflation”
Bengal’s Finances
February 25, 2007 — drsubrotoroyBENGAL’S FINANCES
First published in The Sunday Statesman February 25 2007, Editorial Page Special Article, www.thestatesman.net
There is urgent need for calm, sober thought, not self-delusion. Foreign trade, world politics are not what State Governments are constitutionally permitted to do.
By SUBROTO ROY
Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is fond of saying his hoped for industrialization plans will lead to jobs for “thousands” of unemployed young men and women emerging from West Bengal’s many schools, colleges and universities.
Now ever since JM Keynes’s time, economists have understood the phenomenon of unemployment quite well. Some unemployment is voluntary: where someone declines to accept a job at the prevailing wage or chooses leisure instead, e.g. withdraws from the labour-force in order to go to college or care for children or family or be involved in search for a better job. Some unemployment is seasonal, as in agriculture ~ where there often is “overfull” employment at harvest-time. Some unemployment may be frictional or structural, depending on dynamic unpredictable industrial or technological changes. In none of these cases is any large role defined for government investment using public resources, though there can be smaller roles like providing job-information, advice and training.
Keynes himself was concerned with systematic “involuntary” unemployment, where masses of people are willing but unable to find work at the going wage because there has been a general collapse of the market economy, as arguably happened in the 1930s in the Western countries. There has been no such situation in independent India.
And it is important to remember our labour markets are mostly unrestricted by State boundaries: unlike totalitarian China, we do not have internal passports in the country, and Indians are mostly free to work anywhere they wish to. Talk from CPI-M, Congress, BJP or other politicians of alleged Keynesian “multiplier” effects arising from government expenditure is mostly talk. And as for Sonia Gandhi’s “National Rural Employment Guarantee”, to the extent it was argued for at all by Amartya Sen’s disciples like Jean Drèze, the argument was not on Keynesian grounds but of a purportedly more equitable distribution of government expenditure.
What then is the Bhattacharjee Government supposed to be doing?
Chandrababu Naidu started a trend among Chief Ministers flying off to exotic foreign vistas, addressing international conferences and signing memoranda with foreign businessmen. But world politics, international relations and foreign trade are not what Indian State Governments are permitted by our Constitution to be engaged in doing. Nelson Mandela is a great man of history but Jyoti Basu’s Government had no constitutional right or business to gift him five million American dollars of West Bengal public money after he was released from jail in South Africa in 1990 by De Klerk.
Our Constitution is crystal clear that the legitimate agenda of India’s State Governments is something very mundane and wholly unglamorous: State Governments are supposed to be managing Courts of Law; the Police, Civil Order, Prisons; Water, Sanitation, Health; State Debt Service; Intra-State Infrastructure & Communications; Local Government; Liquor & Other Public Sector Industry; Trade, Local Banking & Finance; Land, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry; Libraries, Museums, Monuments; State Civil Service & Administration. In addition, “concurrent” with the Union Government are Criminal, Civil & Family Law, Contracts & Torts; Forests & Environmental Protection; Unemployment & Refugee Relief; Electricity; Education. It is relative to that explicit agenda that State Government performances around the country must be evaluated.
The finances of the West Bengal Government and those of every other State of the Union appear in a condition of Byzantine confusion. Even so, it is not impossible for any citizen to understand them with a little serious effort. The State receives tax revenues, income from State operations (like bus fares, lottery tickets etc), and grants transferred from the Union. Of the State’s total revenues, more than 80% arise from taxation. Of those taxes, about 30% is collected by the Union on behalf of the State in accordance with the Finance Commission’s formulae; 70% is collected by the State itself, and about 60% of whhat the State collects is Sales Tax. On the expenditure side, more than 60% goes in repaying the State’s debts as well as interest owed on that debt. The remainder gets distributed as summarily shown in the table. (What would be revealed at a higher level of detail is that e.g. Rs. 2.63 Bn is spent in collecting Rs. 9.93 Bn of land revenue!) The wide difference between the State’s income from all sources and its expenditures implies the State must then issue new public debt. That typically has been a larger and larger sum every year, greater than the amount of maturing debt being amortised or extinguished. The potentially grave consequence of this will be obvious to any householder, and makes it imperative that calm, sober thought and objective analysis occur about the State’s financial condition and budget constraint. There is no room for self-delusion, especially on the part of the Bhattacharjee Government. We are still paying interest on the money we borrowed to make Nelson Mandela a gift seventeen years ago.
Govt. of W. Bengal’s Finances 2003-2004
Rs Billion (Hundred Crore)
EXPENDITURE ACTIVITIES:
government & local government 8.68 1.68%
judiciary 1.27 0.25%
police (including home guard etc.) 13.47 2.61%
prisons 0.62 0.12%
bureaucracy 5.69 1.10%
collecting land revenue & taxes 4.32 0.84%
government employee pensions 26.11 5.05%
schools, colleges, universities, institutes 45.06 8.72%
health, nutrition & family welfare 14.70 2.84%
water supply & sanitation 3.53 0.68%
roads, bridges, transport, etc. 8.29 1.60%
electricity (mostly loans to power sector) 31.18 6.03%
irrigation, flood control, environment, ecology 10.78 2.09%
agricultural subsidies, rural development, etc. 7.97 1.54%
industrial subsidies 2.56 0.50%
capital city development 7.29 1.41%
social security, SC, ST, OBC, labour welfare 9.87 1.91%
tourism 0.09 0.02%
arts, archaeology, libraries, museums 0.16 0.03%
miscellaneous 0.52 0.10%
debt amortization & debt servicing 314.77 60.89%
total expenditure 516.92
tax revenue 141.10
operational income 6.06
grants from Union 18.93
loans recovered 0.91
total income 167.00
INCOME SOURCES:
GOVT. BORROWING REQUIREMENT
(total expenditure
minus total income ) 349.93
financed by:
new public debt issued 339.48
use of Trust Funds etc 10.45
349.93
From the author’s research and based on latest available data published by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India
On Land-Grabbing
January 14, 2007 — drsubrotoroyON LAND-GRABBING
Dr Singh’s India, Buddhadeb’s Bengal, Modi’s Gujarat have notorious US, Soviet and Chinese examples to follow ~ distracting from the country’s real economic problems
By SUBROTO ROY
First published in The Sunday Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, Jan 14 2007
AT a business meet on 12 January 2005, Dr Manmohan Singh showered fulsome praise on Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee as “dynamic”, “the Nation’s Best Chief Minister”, whose “wit and wisdom”, “qualities of head and heart”, “courage of conviction and passionate commitment to the cause of the working people of India” he admired, saying “with Buddhadeb Babu at the helm of affairs it appears Bengal is once again forging ahead… If today there is a meeting of minds between Delhi and Kolkata, it is because the ideas that I and Buddhadebji represent have captured the minds of the people of India. This is the idea of growth with equity and social justice, the idea that economic liberalization and modernization have to be mindful of the needs of the poor and the marginalized.”
With such support of a Congress Prime Minister (as well as proximity to Pranab Mukherjee), Mr Bhattacharjee could hardly have feared the local Congress and Trinamul would pose any threat in the 2006 Assembly Elections despite having more potential voters between them than the CPI-M.
Dr Singh returned to the “needs of the poor and the marginalized” at another business meet on 8 January 2007 promising to “unveil a new Rehabilitation Policy in three months to increase the pace of industrialisation” which would be “more progressive, humane and conducive to the long-term welfare of all stakeholders”, while his businessman host pointedly stated about Singur “land for industry must be made available to move the Indian manufacturing sector ahead”.
The “meeting of minds between Delhi and Kolkata” seems to be that agriculture allegedly has become a relatively backward slow-growing sector deserving to yield in the purported larger national interest to industry and services: what the PM means by “long-term welfare of all stakeholders” is the same as the new CPI-M party-line that the sons of farmers should not remain farmers (but become automobile technicians or IT workers or restaurant waiters instead).
It is a political viewpoint coinciding with interests of organised capital and industrial labour in India today, as represented by business lobbies like CII, FICCI and Assocham on one hand, and unions like CITU and INTUC on the other. Business Standard succinctly (and ominously) advocated this point of view in its lead editorial of 9 January as follows: “it has to be recognised that the world over capitalism has progressed only with the landed becoming landless and getting absorbed in the industrial/service sector labour force ~ indeed it is obvious that if people don’t get off the land, their incomes will rise only slowly”.
Land is the first and ultimate means of production, and the attack of the powerful on land-holdings or land-rights of the unorganised or powerless has been a worldwide phenomenon ~ across both capitalism and communism.
In the mid-19th Century, white North America decimated hundreds of thousands of natives in the most gargantuan land-grab of history. Defeated, Chief Red Cloud of the Sioux spoke in 1868 for the Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, Iroquois and hundreds of other tribes: “They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they never kept any except one: they promised to take our land, and they took it.”
Half a century later, while the collapse of grain prices contributed to the Great Depression and pauperisation of thousands of small farmers in capitalist America in the same lands that had been taken from the native tribes, Stalin’s Russia embarked on the most infamous state-sponsored land-grab in modern history: “The mass collectivisation of Soviet agriculture (was) probably the most warlike operation ever conducted by a state against its own citizens…. Hundreds of thousands and finally millions of peasants… were deported… desperate revolts in the villages were bloodily suppressed by the army and police, and the country sank into chaos, starvation and misery… The object of destroying the peasants’ independence…was to create a population of slaves, the benefit of whose labour would accrue to industry. The immediate effect was to reduce Soviet agriculture to a state of decline from which it has not yet recovered… The destruction of the Soviet peasantry, who formed three quarters of the population, was not only an economic but a moral disaster for the entire country. Tens of millions were driven into semi-servitude, and millions more were employed as executants…” (Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism).
Why did Stalin destroy the peasants? Lenin’s wishful “alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry” in reality could lead only to the peasants being pauperised into proletarians. At least five million peasants died and (Stalin told Churchill at Yalta) another ten million in the resultant famine of 1932-1933. “Certainly it involved a struggle ~ but chiefly one between urban Communists and villagers… it enabled the regime to obtain much of the capital desired for industrialization from the defeated village… it was the decisive step in the building of Soviet totalitarianism, for it imposed on the majority of the people a subjection which only force could maintain” (Treadgold, 20th Century Russia).
Mr Bhattacharjee’s CPI-M is fond of extolling Chinese communism, and the current New Delhi establishment have made Beijing and Shanghai holiday destinations of choice. Dr Singh’s Government has been eager to create hundreds of “Special Economic Zones” run by organised capital and unionised labour, and economically privileged by the State. In fact, the Singur and Nandigram experiences of police sealing off villages where protests occur are modelled on creation of “Special Economic Zones” in China in recent years.
For example, Chinese police on 6 December 2005 cracked down on farmers and fishermen in the seaside village of Dongzhou, 125 miles North East of Hong Kong. Thousands of Dongzhou villagers clashed with troops and armed police protesting confiscation of their lands and corruption among officials. The police immediately sealed off the village and arrested protesters. China’s Public Security Ministry admitted the number of riots over land had risen sharply, reaching more than seventy thousand across China in 2004; police usually suppressed peasant riots without resort to firing but in Dongzhou, police firing killed 20 protesters. Such is the reality of the “emergence” of China, a totalitarian police-state since the Communist takeover in 1949, from its period of mad tyranny until Mao’s death in 1976, followed by its ideological confusion ever since.
Modern India’s political economy today remains in the tight grip of metropolitan “Big Business” and “Big Labour”. Ordinary anonymous individual citizens ~ whether housewife, consumer, student, peasant, non-union worker or small businessman ~ have no real voice or representation in Indian politics. We have no normal conservative, liberal or social democratic party in this country, as found in West European democracies where the era of land-grabbing has long-ceased. If our polity had been normal, it would have known that economic development does not require business or government to pauperise the peasantry but instead to define and secure individual property rights and the Rule of Law, and establish proper conditions for the market economy. The Congress and BJP in Delhi and CPI-M in Kolkata would not have been able to distract attention from their macroeconomic misdeeds over the decades ~ indicated, for example, by increasing interest-expenditure paid annually on Government debt as a fraction of tax revenues (see Table). This macroeconomic rot originated with the Indira Gandhi-PN Haksar capriciousness and mismanagement, which coincided with the start of Dr Singh’s career as India’s best known economic bureaucrat.
Milton Friedman: A Man of Reason, 1912-2006
November 22, 2006 — drsubrotoroy
A Man of Reason
Milton Friedman (1912-2006)
First published in The Statesman, Perspective Page Nov 22 2006
Milton Friedman, who died on 16 November 2006 in San Francisco, was without a doubt the greatest economist after John Maynard Keynes. Before Keynes, great 20th century economists included Alfred Marshall and Knut Wicksell, while Keynes’s contemporaries included Irving Fisher, AC Pigou and many others. Keynes was followed by his younger critic FA Hayek, but Hayek is remembered less for his technical economics as for his criticism of “socialist economics” and contributions to politics. Milton Friedman more than anyone else was Keynes’s successor in economics (and in applied macroeconomics in particular), in the same way David Ricardo had been the successor of Adam Smith. Ricardo disagreed with Smith and Friedman disagreed with Keynes, but the impact of each on the direction and course both of economics and of the world in which they lived was similar in size and scope.
Friedman’s impact on the contemporary world may have been largest through his design and advocacy as early as 1953 of the system of floating exchange-rates. In the early 1970s, when the Bretton Woods system of adjustable fixed exchange-rates collapsed and Friedman’s friend and colleague George P. Shultz was US Treasury Secretary in the Nixon Administration, the international monetary system started to become of the kind Friedman had described two decades earlier. Equally large was Friedman’s worldwide impact in re-establishing concern about the frequent cause of macroeconomic inflation being money supply growth rates well above real income growth rates. All contemporary talk of “inflation targeting” among macroeconomic policy-makers since the 1980s has its roots in Friedman’s December 1967 presidential address to the American Economic Association. His main empirical disagreement with Keynes and the Keynesians lay in his belief that people held the intrinsically worthless tokens known as “money” largely in order to expedite their transactions and not as a store of value – hence the “demand for money” was a function mostly of income and not of interest rates, contrary to what Keynes had suggested in his 1930s analysis of “Depression Economics”. It is in this sense that Friedman restored the traditional “quantity theory” as being a specific theory of the demand for money.
Friedman’s main descriptive work lay in the monumental Monetary History of the United States he co-authored with Anna J. Schwartz, which suggested drastic contractions of the money supply had contributed to the Great Depression in America. Friedman made innumerable smaller contributions too, the most prominent and foresighted of which had to do with advocating larger parental choice in the public finance of their children’s school education via the use of “vouchers”. The modern Friedman Foundation has that as its main focus of philanthropy. The emphasis on greater individual choice in school education exemplified Friedman’s commitments both to individual freedom and the notion of investment in human capital.
Friedman had significant influences upon several non-Western countries too, most prominently India and China, besides a grossly misreported episode in Chile. As described in his autobiography with his wife Rose, Two Lucky People (Chicago 1998), Friedman spent six months in India in 1955 at the Government of India’s invitation during the formulation of the Second Five Year Plan. His work done for the Government of India came to be suppressed for the next 34 years. Peter Bauer had told me during my doctoral work at Cambridge in the late 1970s of the existence of a Friedman memorandum, and N. Georgescu-Roegen told me the same in America in 1980, adding that Friedman had been almost insulted publicly by VKRV Rao at the time after giving a lecture to students on his analysis of India’s problems.
When Friedman and I met in 1984, I asked him for the memorandum and he sent me two documents. The main one dated November 1955 I published in Hawaii on 21 May 1989 during a project on a proposed Indian “perestroika” (which contributed to the origins of the 1991 reform through Rajiv Gandhi), and was later published in Delhi in Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, edited by myself and WE James.
The other document on Mahalanobis is published in The Statesman today for the first time, though there has been an Internet copy floating around for a few years. The Friedmans’ autobiography quoted what I said in 1989 about the 1955 memorandum and may be repeated: “The aims of economic policy (in India) were to create conditions for rapid increase in levels of income and consumption for the mass of the people, and these aims were shared by everyone from PC Mahalanobis to Milton Friedman. The means recommended were different. Mahalanobis advocated a leading role for the state and an emphasis on the growth of physical capital. Friedman advocated a necessary but clearly limited role for the state, and placed on the agenda large-scale investment in the stock of human capital, encouragement of domestic competition, steady and predictable monetary growth, and a flexible exchange rate for the rupee as a convertible hard currency, which would have entailed also an open competitive position in the world economy… If such an alternative had been more thoroughly discussed at the time, the optimal role of the state in India today, as well as the optimum complementarity between human capital and physical capital, may have been more easily determined.”
A few months before attending my Hawaii conference on India, Friedman had been in China, and his memorandum to Communist Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang and two-hour dialogue of 19 September 1988 with him are now classics republished in the 1998 autobiography. Also republished there are all documents relating to Friedman’s six-day academic visit to Chile in March 1975 and his correspondence with General Pinochet, which speak for themselves and make clear Friedman had nothing to do with that regime other than offer his opinion when asked about how to reduce Chile’s hyperinflation at the time.
My association with Milton has been the zenith of my engagement with academic economics, with e-mails exchanged as recently as September. I was a doctoral student of his bitter enemy yet for over two decades he not only treated me with unfailing courtesy and affection, he supported me in lonely righteous battles: doing for me what he said he had never done before, which was to stand as an expert witness in a United States Federal Court. I will miss him much though I know that he, as a man of reason, would not have wished me to.
Subroto Roy
Revisionist Flattery of Indira Gandhi
May 7, 2006 — drsubrotoroyInder Malhotra’s Indira Gandhi : A Review Article
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman May 7 2006
Indira Priyadarshini Nehru was fortunate to have been a handsome woman born to an eminent and indulgent father and grandfather. Despite her lack of higher education or significant worldly wisdom or experience, she acquired enough of an aura of being born to rule that she became Congress Party President in 1959 at age 41, and India’s most dramatic Prime Minister from 1966-1977 and again from 1980-1984 when she was assassinated. She was lucky too that the Zoroastrian man she married did not have one of the many long and colourful surnames Indian Zoroastrians can have, but coincidentally shared the same surname as modern India’s founder. Hence arose the iconic name and personage known as Indira Gandhi.
“The evil that men do lives after them, the good is often interred with their bones”, said Shakespeare. Indira Gandhi’s one and paramount good deed as India’s leader and indeed as a world leader of her time was to have fought a war that was so rare in international law for having been unambiguously just. And she fought it flawlessly. The cause had been thrust upon her by an evil enemy’s behaviour against his own people, an enemy supported by the world’s strongest military power with pretensions to global leadership. Victims of the enemy’s wickedness were scores of millions of utterly defenceless, penniless human beings. Indira Gandhi did everything right. She practised patient but firm diplomacy on the world’s stage to avert war if it was at all possible to do. She chose her military generals well and took their professional judgement seriously as to when to go to war and how to win it. Finally, in victory she was magnanimous to the enemy that had been defeated. Children’s history-books in India should remember her as the stateswoman who freed a fraternal nation from tyranny, at great expense to our own people. As a war-leader, Indira Gandhi displayed extraordinary bravery, courage and good sense.
Unfortunately, this was the only arena in which these virtues of hers came to be expressed. India’s serious history-books, beyond those written for or read by children, need to record that her sheer ignorance of the fundamentals of domestic statecraft as well as her caprice, arrogance and hubris caused permanent harm to India’s polity in innumerable dimensions from which we have yet long to recover. On advice first of her childhood acquaintance, the proto-communist P. N. Haksar, and later of her ruffian unprincipled younger son Sanjay, she single-handedly destroyed India’s nascent parliamentary traditions, federalism, the Rule of Law, and its most important political party; the integrity of the civil services, judiciary, police, intelligence services and other public institutions; as well as monetary and fiscal prudence Beside this, she and her younger son Sanjay contributed to destroying communal harmony and political stability in the Punjab, while she and later her older son Rajiv contributed to do the same in Kashmir. She exulted in the personality cult, courtier culture and durbar politics of her father and grandfather.
Many pertinent questions about the personal and political life of Indira Gandhi have remained to be answered by any serious modern biographer. Her relationships with her husband and his rival for her time and affections, her father, remain in darkness, as does, after their deaths, her relationship between 1967- 1974 with Haksar, her key adviser. Her capacity and her failures as a mother to two very different sons also remain unclear. Her own lack of education was transmitted to them and neither succeeded at what he studied to be, though at least Rajiv became a gentleman. Her father had been an indifferent husband to Kamala and she an indifferent wife to Feroze — the most important thing her sons may have done with their lives was to have married women she did not choose for them, and then to have become well-loved spouses themselves. As mother-in-law, her petulant bullying of the young Sikh widow of Sanjay, mother of an infant child at the time, remains to be contrasted with her apparent warmth and generosity towards her Italian-born elder daughter-in-law. All such questions would be ones of feminine gossip or TV-soap operas in case of any ordinary woman but assume political significance for Indians because of the inordinate impact she, her father, her sons and their widows have had on India’s modern history. Why all of India’s national-level politics have acquired a gossipy joint-family tone about them is because she projected onto them no high and universally known political principles whatsoever, but merely her own personal experiences and desire for popularity.
The book at hand provides almost no new fact or insight on any relevant extant personal or political question about Indira Gandhi at all. The one exception has to do with a brief discussion of her relationship with Lal Bahadur Shastri which reveals her naked ambition most clearly, though the author is too ingratiating to wish to draw such a conclusion himself. He meekly deflects blame for her faults onto exogenous random shocks like monsoon failures, the rise in petroleum prices or other uncontrollable international events, or the ill-will of others. The most fawning apologists and cultists are quoted with approval: Sanjay was merely “inept”, the Emergency was brought on by its victims and not such a bad thing really, the Shah Commission resembled “a Chinese people’s court”, Maneka was a “rebellious chit of a girl”, etc. Two decades later, we must expect the greatest detachment and calm objectivity in any serious treatment of this complex stateswoman’s life. What we have instead received — at a time when Rajiv’s widow is in power in Delhi and Haksar’s protégé is her PM, while The Mitrokhin Archives II are published — is a clear attempt at revisionist flattery, complete with Indira’s face smiling at us at the start of every chapter and old propaganda photos from the PIB. This is deeply unfortunate coming from the National Book Trust. Indeed, neither she nor her father deserve further inquiry and reflection today more than do their respective spouses, Feroze Gandhi and Kamala Nehru, both of whom died prematurely.
The Dream Team: A Critique (2006)
January 8, 2006 — drsubrotoroyThe Dream Team: A Critique
by Subroto Roy
First published in The Statesman and The Sunday Statesman, Editorial Page Special Article, January 6,7,8, 2006
(Author’s Note: Within a few weeks of this article appearing, the Dream Team’s leaders appointed the so-called Tarapore 2 committee to look into convertibility — which ended up recommending what I have since called the “false convertibility” the RBI is presently engaged in. This article may be most profitably read along with other work republished here: “Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform”, “Three Memoranda to Rajiv Gandhi”, “”Indian Money & Banking”, “Indian Money & Credit” , “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fiscal Instability”, “Fallacious Finance”, “India’s Trade and Payments”, “Our Policy Process”, “Against Quackery”, “Indian Inflation”, etc)
1. New Delhi’s Consensus: Manmohantekidambaromics
Dr Manmohan Singh has spoken of how pleasantly surprised he was to be made Finance Minister in July 1991 by PV Narasimha Rao. Dr Singh was an academic before becoming a government economic official in the late 1960s, rising to the high office of Reserve Bank Governor in the 1980s. Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia now refers to him as “my boss” and had been his Finance Secretary earlier. Mr Ahluwalia was a notable official in the MacNamara World Bank before being inducted a senior government official in 1984. Mr P Chidambaram was PVNR’s Commerce Minister, and later became Finance Minister in the Deve Gowda and Gujral Governments. Mr Chidamabaram is a Supreme Court advocate with an MBA from Harvard’s Business School. During 1998-2004, Dr Singh and Mr Chidambaram were in Opposition but Mr Ahluwalia was Member-Secretary of the Vajpayee Planning Commission. Since coming together again in Sonia Gandhi’s United Progressive Alliance, they have been flatteringly named the “Dream Team” by India’s pink business newspapers, a term originally referring to some top American basketball players.
Based on pronouncements, publications and positions held, other members or associates of the “Dream Team” include Reserve Bank Governor Dr YV Reddy; his predecessor Dr Bimal Jalan; former PMO official Mr NK Singh, IAS; Chief Economic Advisers Dr Shankar Acharya and Dr Ashok Lahiri; RBI Deputy Governor Dr Rakesh Mohan; and others like Dr Arvind Virmani, Dr Isher Ahluwalia, Dr Parthasarathi Shome, Dr Vijay Khelkar, Dr Ashok Desai, Dr Suman Bery, Dr Surjit Bhalla, Dr Amaresh Bagchi, Dr Govind Rao. Honorary members include Mr Jaswant Singh, Mr Yashwant Sinha, Mr KC Pant and Dr Arun Shourie, all economic ministers during the Vajpayee premiership. Institutional members include industry chambers like CII and FICCI representing “Big Business”, and unionised “Big Labour” represented by the CPI, CPI(M) and prominent academics of JNU. Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar joins the Dream Team with his opinion that a gas pipeline is “necessary for the eradication of poverty in India”. Mr Jairam Ramesh explicitly claimed authoring the 1991 reform with Mr Pranab Mukherjee and both must be members (indeed the latter as Finance Minister once had been Dr Singh’s boss). Dr Arjun Sengupta has claimed Indira Gandhi started the reforms, and he may be a member too. External members include Dr Jagdish Bhagwati, Dr. TN Srinivasan, Dr Meghnad Desai, Dr Vijay Joshi, Mr Ian Little, Dr Anne O. Krueger, Dr John Williamson, IMF Head Dr R Rato, and many foreign bank analysts who deal in Bombay’s markets. Harvard’s Dr Larry Summers joins with his statement while US Treasury Secretary in January 2000 that a 10% economic growth rate for India was feasible. His Harvard colleague Dr Amartya Sen — through disciples like Dr Jean Dreze (adviser to Sonia Gandhi on rural employment) — must be an ex officio member; as an old friend, the Prime Minister launched Dr Sen’s recent book while the latter has marked Dr Singh at 80% as PM. Media associates of the Dream Team include editors like Mr Aroon Purie, Mr Vinod Mehta, Dr Prannoy Roy, Mr TN Ninan, Mr Vir Sanghvi and Mr Shekhar Gupta, as well as the giddy young anchors of what passes for news and financial analysis on cable TV.
This illustrious set of politicians, government officials, economists, journalists and many others have come to define what may be called the “New Delhi Consensus” on contemporary India’s economic policy. While it is unnecessary everyone agree to the same extent on every aspect — indeed on economic policy the differences between the Sonia UPA and Vajpayee NDA have had to do with emphasis on different aspects, each side urging “consensus” upon the other — the main factual and evaluative claims and policy-prescriptions of the New Delhi Consensus may be summarised as follows:
A: “The Narasimha Rao Government in July 1991 found India facing a grave balance of payments crisis with foreign exchange reserves being very low.”
B: “A major cause was the 1990-1991 Gulf War, in its impact as an exogenous shock on Indian migrant workers and oil prices.”
C: “The Dream Team averted a macroeconomic crisis through “structural adjustment” carried out with help of the IMF and World Bank; hence too, India was unaffected by the 1997 ‘Asian crisis'”.
D: “The PVNR, Deve Gowda, Gujral and Vajpayee Governments removed the notorious license-quota-permit Raj.”
E: “India’s measurable real economic growth per capita has been raised from 3% or lower to 7% or more.”
F: “Foreign direct investment has been, relative to earlier times, flooding into India, attracted by lower wages and rents, especially in new industries using information technology.”
G: “Foreign financial investment has been flooding into India too, attracted by India’s increasingly liberalised capital markets, especially a liberalised current account of the balance of payments.”
H: “The apparent boom in Bombay’s stock market and relatively large foreign exchange reserves bear witness to the confidence foreign and domestic investors place in India’s prospects.”
I: “The critical constraint to India’s future prosperity is its “infrastructure” which is far below what foreign investors are used to in other countries elsewhere in Asia.”
J: “It follows that massive, indeed gargantuan, investments in highways, ports, airports, aircraft, city-flyovers, housing-estates, power-projects, energy exploration, gas pipelines, etc, out of government and private resources, domestic and foreign, is necessary to remove remaining “bottlenecks” to further prosperity for India’s masses, and these physical constructions will cause India’s economy to finally ‘take off’.”
K: “India’s savings rate (like China’s) is exceptionally high as is observable from vast expansion of bank-deposits, and these high (presumed) savings, along with foreign savings, will absorb the gargantuan investment in “infrastructure” without inflation.”
L: “Before the gargantuan macroeconomic investments bear the fruits of prosperity, equally large direct transfer payments also must be made from the Government to prevent mass hunger and/or raise nominal incomes across rural India, while existing input or other subsidies to producers, especially farmers, also must continue.”
M: “While private sector participants may increasingly compete via imports or as new entrants in industries where the public sector has been dominant, no bankruptcy or privatisation must be allowed to occur or be seen to occur which does not provide public sector workers and officials with golden parachutes.”
Overall, the New Delhi Consensus paints a picture of India’s economy on an immensely productive trajectory as led by Government partnered by Big Business and Big Labour, with the English-speaking intellectuals of the Dream Team in the vanguard as they fly between exotic conferences and international commercial deals. An endless flow of foreign businessmen and politicians streaming through Bangalore, Hyderabad, five-star hotels or photo-opportunities with the PM, followed by official visits abroad to sign big-ticket purchases like arms or aircraft, reinforce an impression that all is fine economically, and modern India is on the move. Previously rare foreign products have become commonplace in India’s markets, streets and television-channels, and a new materialist spirit, supposedly of capitalism, is captured by the smug slogan yeh dil mange more (this heart craves more) as well as the more plaintive cry pardesi jana nahin, mujhe chhorke (foreigner, please don’t leave me).
2. Money, Convertibility, Inflationary Deficit Financing
India’s Rupee became inconvertible in 1942 when the British imposed exchange controls over the Sterling-Area. After 1947 independent India and Pakistan, in name of “planned” economic development, greatly widened this war-time regime – despite the fact they were at war now only with one another over Jammu & Kashmir and, oddly enough, formed an economic union until 1951 with their currencies remaining freely convertible with each other.
On May 29 1984, the present author’s Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India proposed in London that the Indian Rupee become a convertible hard currency again — the first time liberal economics had been suggested for India since BR Shenoy’s critique of the Second Five Year Plan (a fact attracting an editorial of The Times). The simple litmus test whether believers in the New Delhi Consensus have or have not the courage of their stated convictions – i.e., whether what they have been saying is, in its empirical fundamentals, more signal or noise, more reality or rhetorical propaganda – would be to carry through that proposal made 21 years ago. The Dream Team have had more than enough political power to undertake this, and it remains the one measure necessary for them to demonstrate to India’s people and the world that the exuberant confidence they have been promoting in their model of India’s economy and its prospects is not spurious.
What does convertibility entail? For a decade now, India has had limited ease of availability of foreign exchange for traders, students and tourists. Indeed some senior Government monetary economists believe there is convertibility already except forex dealers are being allowed “one-way” and not “two-way” quotes! That is wrong. The Government since 1942 has requisitioned at the border all foreign exchange earned by exporters or received as loans or investment — allocating these first to pay interest and amortisation on the country’s foreign debt, then to make its own weapons and other purchases abroad, then to release by ration what remains to private traders, students, tourists et al. Current account liberalisation has meant the last of these categories has been relaxed, especially by removal of some import quotas. What a convertible Rupee would mean is far more profound. It would allow any citizen to hold and save an Indian money that was exchangeable freely (i.e. without Government hindrance) into moneys of other countries. Full convertibility would mean all the paper money, bank deposits and rupee-denominated nominal assets held by ordinary people in India becomes, overnight, exchangeable without hindrance into dollars, yens, pounds or euros held anywhere (although not of course at the “one-way” rates quoted today).
Now money is a most peculiar human institution. Paper money is intrinsically worthless but all of India’s 1,000 million people (from street children onwards) have need to hold it temporarily to expedite their individual transactions of buying and selling real goods and services. Money also acts as a repository of value over time and unit of account or measure of economic value. While demand to hold such intrinsically worthless paper is universal, its supply is a Government monopoly. Because Government accepts obligations owed to it in terms of the fiat money it has itself issued, the otherwise worthless paper comes to possess value in exchange. Because Government controls its supply, money also can be abused easily enough as a technique of invisible taxation via inflation.
With convertibility in India, the quantity of currency and other paper assets like public debt instruments representing fiscal decisions of India’s Union and State Governments, will have to start to compete with those produced by other governments. Just as India’s long-jumpers and tennis-players must compete with the world’s best if they are to establish and sustain their athletic reputations, so India’s fiscal and monetary decisions (i.e. about government spending and revenues, interest-rates and money supply growth) will have to start competing in the world’s financial markets with those of the EU, USA, Japan, Switzerland, ASEAN etc.
The average family in rural Madhya Pradesh who may wish, for whatever personal reason, to liquidate rupee-denominated assets and buy instead Canadian, Swiss or Japanese Government debt, or mutual fund shares in New York, Frankfurt or Singapore, would not be hindered by India’s Government from doing so. They would become as free as the swankiest NRI jet-setters have been for years (like many members of the New Delhi Consensus and their grown children abroad). Scores of millions of ordinary Indians unconnected with Big Business or Big Labour, neither among the 18 million people in government nor the 12 million in the organised private sector, would become free to hold any portfolio of assets they chose in global markets (small as any given individual portfolio may be in value). Like all those glamorous NRIs, every Indian would be able to hold dollar or Swiss Franc deposit accounts at the local neighbourhood bank. Hawala operators worldwide would become redundant. Ordinary citizens could choose to hold foreign shares, real-estate or travellers’ cheques as assets just as they now choose jewellery before a wedding. The Indian Rupee, after more than 65 years, would once again become as good as all the proverbial gold in Fort Knox.
When added up, the new demand of India’s anonymous masses to hold foreign rather than Rupee-denominated assets will certainly make the Rupee decline in price in world markets. But — if the implicit model of India’s economy promoted by the Dream Team is based on correctly ascertained empirical facts — foreign and domestic investor confidence should suffice for countervailing tendencies to keep India’s financial and banking system stable under convertibility. Not only would India’s people be able to use and save a currency of integrity, the allocation of real resources would also improve in efficiency as distortions would be reduced in the signalling function of domestic relative prices compared to world relative prices. An honest Rupee freely priced in world markets at, say, 90 per dollar, would cause very different real microeconomic decisions of Government and private producers and consumers (e.g., with respect to weapons’ purchases or domestic transportation, given petroleum and jet fuel imports) than a semi-artificial Rupee at 45 per dollar which forcibly an inconvertible asset in global markets. A fully convertible Rupee will cause economic and political decisions in the country more consistent with word realities.
Why the Rupee is not going to be made convertible in the foreseeable future – or why, in India’s present fiscal circumstances if it was, it would be imprudent to do so – is because, contrary to the immense optimism promoted by the Dream Team about their own deeds since 1991, they have in fact been causing India’s monetary economy to skate on the thinnest of thin ice. Put another way, a house of cards has been constructed whose cornerstone constitutes that most unscientific anti-economic of assumptions, the “free lunch”: that something can be had for nothing, that real growth in average consumption levels of the masses of ordinary households of rural and urban India can meaningfully come about by nominal paper-money creation accompanied by verbal exhortation, hocus-pocus or abracadabra from policy-makers and their friends in Big Business, Big Labour and the media. (Lest half-remembered inanities about “orthodox economics” come to be mouthed, Maynard Keynes’s 1936 book was about specific circumstances in Western economies during the Depression and it is unwise to extend its presumptions to unintended situations.)
3. Rajiv Gandhi and Perestroika Project
On 25 May 2002, India’s newspapers reported “PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh lost their place in Congress history as architects of economic reforms as the Congress High Command sponsored an amendment to a resolution that had laid credit at the duo’s door. The motion was moved by…. Digvijay Singh asserting that the reforms were a brainchild of the late Rajiv Gandhi and that the Rao-Singh combine had simply nudged the process forward.”
Now Rajiv Gandhi was an airline-pilot and knew no economics. But the origins of the 1991 reform did come about because of an encounter he had, as Opposition Leader and Congress President from September 1990 onwards, with a “perestroika” project for India’s political economy occurring at an American university since 1986 (viz., The Statesman Editorial Page July 31-August 2 1991, now republished here; Freedom First October 2001). In being less than candid in acknowledging the origins of the reform, the Dream Team may have failed to describe accurately the main symptoms of illness that afflicted India before 1991, and have consequently failed to diagnose and prescribe for it correctly ever since.
The Government of India, like many others, has been sorely tempted to finance its extravagant expenditures by abusing its monopoly over paper-money creation. The British taught us how to do this, and in 1941-43 caused the highest inflation rates ever seen in India as a result. Fig. 1 shows this, and also that real growth in India follows as expected the trend-rate of technological progress (having little to do with government policy). Independent India has continually financed budget- deficits by money creation in a process similar to what the British and Americans did in wartime. This became most conspicuous after Indira Gandhi’s bank and insurance nationalisations of 1969-1970. Indeed, among current policy-makers, Pranab Mukherjee, Manmohan Singh, Arjun Sengupta, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Bimal Jalan, NK Singh, Amaresh Bagchi and Shankar Acharya, were among those governing such macroeconomic processes before 1991 — albeit in absence of the equations that illustrate their nature. Why the Rupee cannot be made an honest, internationally convertible, stable money held with confidence by all Indians today, is because the Dream Team have continued with the same macroeconomics ever since. The personal and political ambitions of the tiniest super-elite that the New Delhi Consensus represent (both personal and political) have depended precisely on gargantuan unending deficit-financing backed by unlimited printing of paper-money, and hence the continuing destruction of the integrity of India’s banking system. A convertible Rupee would allow India’s ordinary people to choose to hold other stores of value available in the world today, like gold or monies issued by foreign governments, and thus force an end to such processes.
Two recent articles in The Statesman (Perspective Page 30 October 2005, Front Page 29 November 2005) outlined India’s financial repression and negative real interest rates (which suffice to explain the present stock market boom the way athletes perform better on steroids), and also how deficits get financed by money creation accompanied by wishful projections of economic growth in an upside down imitation of how macroeconomic policy gets done in the West.
“Narrow Money” consists mostly of hand-to-hand currency. “Broad Money” consists of Narrow Money plus bank-deposits. Modern banking is built on “fractional reserves”, i.e. a system of trust where your bank does not literally hold onto deposits you place there but lends these out again – which causes further deposit expansion because no individual banker can tell whether a new deposit received by it is being caused by the depositor having himself borrowed. As a general rule, bank lending causes further deposit expansion. Why India’s (and China’s) bank deposits have been expanding is not because Indians (or Chinese) are superhuman savers of financial assets in banks but because the Government of India (and China) has for decades compelled (the mostly nationalised) banks to hold vast sums of Government debt on the asset side of their balance-sheets. Thus there has been humongous lending by the banking system to pay for Government expenditures. The Dream Team’s macroeconomics relies entirely on this kind of unending recourse to deficit finance and money creation, causing dry rot to set into banks’ balance sheets (Figs. 2,3, 4). If the Rupee became convertible, those vast holdings of Government debt by banks would become valued at world prices. The crucial question would be how heavily New York, London and Hong Kong financial markets discounted Indian sovereign debt. If upon convertibility, the asset sides of domestic Indian banks get discounted very heavily by world financial markets, their insolvency upon being valued at international prices could trigger catastrophic repercussions throughout India’s economy. Hence the Rupee cannot be made convertible — and all our present inefficiencies and inequities will continue for ever with New Delhi’s rhetorical propaganda alongside. The capital flight of 10 out of 1000 million Indians will continue, leaving everyone else with the internal and foreign public debts to pay.
4. A Different Strategy had Rajiv Not Been Assassinated
Had Rajiv Gandhi not been assassinated and the perestroika project allowed to take its course, a different strategy would have been chosen. Honest money first demands honest Government and political leadership. It would at the outset have been recognised by Government (and through Government by all India’s people) that the asset-liability, income-expenditure and cash-flow positions of every public entity in the country without exception — of the Union Government, every State and local Government, every public undertaking and project – is abysmal. Due to entanglement with government financial loans, labour regulations, subsidies, price controls, protection and favouritism, the same holds for the financial positions of vast numbers of firms in the organised private sector. Superimpose on this dismal scene, the bleak situation of the Rule of Law in the country today – where Courts of Justice from highest to lowest suffer terrible abuse receiving pitiable amounts of public resources despite constituting a third and independent branch of India’s Government (while police forces, despite massive expenditure, remain incompetent, high-handed and brutal). What India has needed ever since 1991 is the Rule of Law, total transparency of public information, and the fiercest enforcement of rigorous accounting and audit standards in every government entity and public institution. It is only when budgets and financial positions become sound that ambitious goals can be achieved.
The Dream Team have instead made a fetish of physical construction of “infrastructure”, in some grandiose make-believe dreamworld which says the people of India wish the country to be a superpower. The Dream Team have failed to properly redefine for India’s masses the appropriate fiscal and monetary relationship between State and citizen – i.e. to demarcate public from private domains, and so enhance citizens’ sense of individual responsibility for their own futures, as well as explain and define what government and public institutions can and cannot do to help people’s lives. Grotesque corruption and inefficiency have thus continued to corrode practically all organs, institutions and undertakings of government. Corruption is the transmutation of publicly owned things into private property, while its mirror image, pollution, is the disposal of private wastes into the public domain. Both become vastly more prevalent where property rights between private and public domains remain ill demarcated. What belongs to the individual citizen and what to sovereign India –their rights and obligations to one another – remains fuzzy. Hence corruption and pollution run amuck. The irrational obsession with “infrastructure” is based on bad economics, and has led to profoundly wrong political and financial directions. The Rupee cannot be made an honest stable money because India’s fiscal and monetary situation remains not merely out of control but beyond New Delhi’s proper comprehension and grasp. If and when the Dream Team choose to wake up to India’s macroeconomic realities, a great deal of serious work will need to be done.
Solving Kashmir: On an Application of Reason (2005)
December 3, 2005 — drsubrotoroySOLVING KASHMIR: ON AN APPLICATION OF REASON
by
Subroto Roy
First published in three parts in The Statesman
Editorial Page Special Article 1, 2, 3 December 2005
This article has its origins in a paper “Towards an Economic Solution for Kashmir” which circulated in Washington DC in 1992-1995, including at the Indian and Pakistani embassies and the Carnegie Endowment, and was given as an invited lecture at the Heritage Foundation on June 23 1998. It should be read along with other articles also republished here, especially “History of J&K”, “Law, Justice and J&K” , “Understanding Pakistan”, “Pakistan’s Allies” and “What to Tell Musharraf”. See https://independentindian.com/2011/10/13/my-seventy-one-notes-at-facebook-etc-on-kashmir-pakistan-and-of-course-india-listed-thanks-to-jd/ The Washington paper and lecture itself originated from my ideas in the Introduction to Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy, edited by WE James and myself in the University of Hawaii project on Pakistan 1986-1992.
Postscript 30 Dec 2015: I have made clear at Twitter that I find the K.M. Kasuri book, promoted and publicized in India by Mani Shankar Aiyar, Sudheendra Kulkarni, Barkha Dutt and others in Delhi and Mumbai, to be mendacious where it is not merely self-serving. Its clear intent is to get India to accept the (entirely false) ISI/Hurriyat narratives about 1947, Kashmir, Bangladesh, terrorism etc. Its purported ideas of demilitarisation and a borderless Kashmir are essentially lifted without the decency of normal acknowledgement from my earlier 1980s work in America cited above — which I myself have rejected as naive since the 1999 Pakistani aggression in Kargil…
NB: https://independentindian.com/2006/07/03/law-justice-and-jk/
https://independentindian.com/2006/10/30/history-of-jk/
I. Give Indian `Green Cards’ to the Hurriyat et al
India, being a liberal democracy in its constitutional law, cannot do in Jammu & Kashmir what Czechoslovakia did to the “Sudeten Germans” after World War II.
On June 18 1945 the new Czechoslovakia announced those Germans and Magyars within their borders who could not prove they had been actively anti-fascist before or during the War would be expelled — the burden of proof was placed on the individual, not the State. Czechoslovakia “transferring” this population was approved by the Heads of the USA, UK and USSR Governments at Potsdam on August 2 1945. By the end of 1946, upto two million Sudeten Germans were forced to flee their homes; thousands may have died by massacre or otherwise; 165,000 remained who were absorbed as Czechoslovak citizens. Among those expelled were doubtless many who had supported Germany and many others who had not — the latter to this day seek justice or even an apology in vain. Czechoslovakia punished none of its nationals for atrocities, saying it had been revenge for Hitler’s evil (“badla” in Bollywood terms) and the post Cold War Czech Government too has declined to render an apology. Revenge is a wild kind of justice (while justice may be a civilised kind of revenge).
India cannot follow this savage precedent in international law. Yet we must recognise there are several hundred and up to several hundred thousand persons on our side of the boundary in the State of Jammu & Kashmir who do not wish to be Indian nationals. These people are presently our nationals ius soli, having been born in territory of the Indian Republic, and/or ius sanguinis, having been born of parents who are Indian nationals; or they may be “stateless” whom we must treat in accordance with the 1954 Convention on Stateless Persons. The fact is they may not wish to carry Indian passports or be Indian nationals.
In this respect their juridical persons resemble the few million “elite” Indians who have in the last few decades freely placed their hands on their hearts and solemnly renounced their Indian nationality, declaring instead their individual fidelity to other nation-states — becoming American, Canadian or Australian citizens, or British subjects or nationals of other countries. Such people include tens of thousands of the adult children of India’s metropolitan “elite”, who are annually visited abroad in the hot summer months by their Indian parents and relatives. They are daughters and sons of New Delhi’s Government and Opposition, of retired generals, air marshals, admirals, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, public sector bureaucrats, private sector businessmen, university professors, journalists, doctors and many others. India’s most popular film-actress exemplified this “elite” capital-flight when, after a tireless search, she chose a foreign husband and moved to California.
The difference in Jammu & Kashmir would be that those wishing to renounce Indian nationality do not wish to move to any other place but to stay as and where they are, which is in Kashmir Valley or Jammu. Furthermore, they may wish, for whatever reason, to adopt, if they are eligible to do so, the nationality of e.g. the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan or the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
They may believe themselves descended from Ahmad Shah Abdali whose Afghans ruled or misruled Kashmir Valley before being defeated by Ranjit Singh’s Sikhs in 1819. Or they may believe themselves of Iranian descent as, for example, are the Kashmiri cousins of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Or they may simply have wished to be, or are descended from persons who had wished to be on October 26 1947, citizens of the then-new British Dominion of Pakistan — but who came to be prevented from properly expressing such a desire because of the war-like conditions that have prevailed ever since between India and Pakistan. There may be even a few persons in Ladakh who are today Indian nationals but who wish to be considered Tibetans instead; there is, however, no Tibetan Republic and it does not appear there is going to be one.
India, being a free and self-confident country, should allow, in a systematic lawful manner, all such persons to fulfil their desires, and furthermore, should ensure they are not penalised for having expressed such “anti-national” desires or for having acted upon them. Sir Mark Tully, the British journalist, is an example of someone who has been a foreign national who has chosen to reside permanently in the Republic of India — indeed he has been an exemplary permanent resident of our country. There are many others like him. There is no logical reason why all those persons in Jammu & Kashmir who do wish not to be Indians by nationality cannot receive the same legal status from the Indian Republic as has been granted to Sir Mark Tully. There are already thousands of Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi and Nepalese nationals who are lawful permanent residents in the Indian Republic, and who travel back and forth between India and their home countries. There is no logical reason why the same could not be extended to several hundred or numerous thousand people in Jammu & Kashmir who may wish to not accept or to renounce their Indian nationality (for whatever personal reason) and instead become nationals, if they are so eligible, of the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, or, for that matter, to remain stateless. On the one hand, their renunciation of Indian nationality is logically equivalent to the renunciation of Indian nationality by the adult children of India’s “elite” settled in North America and Western Europe. On the other hand, their wish to adopt, if they are eligible, a foreign nationality, such as that of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, and yet remain domiciled in Indian territory is logically equivalent to that of many foreign nationals domiciled in India already like Sir Mark Tully.
Now if you are a permanent resident of some country, you may legally have many, perhaps most, but certainly not all the rights and duties of nationals of that country. e.g., though you will have to pay all the same taxes, you may not be allowed to (or be required to) vote in national or provincial elections but you may in local municipal elections. At the same time, permanently residing foreign nationals are supposed to be equal under the law and have equal access to all processes of civil and criminal justice. (As may be expected though from human frailty, even the federal courts of the USA can be notorious in their injustice and racism towards “Green Card” holders relative to “full” American citizens.) Then again, as a permanently resident foreigner, while you will be free to work in any lawful trade or profession, you may not be allowed to work in some or perhaps any Government agencies, certainly not the armed forces or the police. Many Indians in the USA were engineering graduates, and because many engineering jobs or contracts in the USA are related to the US armed forces and require US citizens only, it is commonplace for Indian engineers to renounce their Indian nationality and become Americans because of this. Many Indian-American families have one member who is American, another Indian, a third maybe Canadian, a fourth Fijian or British etc.
The same can happen in the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir if it evolves peacefully and correctly in the future. It is quite possible to imagine a productive family in a peaceful Kashmir Valley of the future where one brother is an officer in the Indian Armed Forces, another brother a civil servant and a sister a police officer of the J&K State Government, another sister being a Pakistani doctor, while cousins are Afghan or Iranian or “stateless” businessmen. Each family-member would have made his/her choice of nationality as an individual given the circumstances of his/her life, his/her personal comprehension of the facts of history, his/her personal political and/or religious persuasions, and similar deeply private considerations. All would have their children going to Indian schools and being Indian citizens ius soli and/or ius sanguinis. When the children grow up, they would be free to join, if they wished, the existing capital flight of other Indian adult children abroad and there renounce their Indian nationality as many have come to do.
II Revealing Choices Privately with Full Information
For India to implement such a proposal would be to provide an opportunity for all those domiciled in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Laddakh to express freely and privately as individuals their deepest wishes about their own identities, in a confidential manner, citizen by citizen, case by case. This would thereby solve the fundamental democratic problem that has been faced ever since the Pakistani attack on the original State of Jammu & Kashmir commenced on October 22 1947, which came to be followed by the Rape of Baramulla — causing the formal accession of the State to the then-new Dominion of India on October 26 1947.
A period of, say, 30 months may be announced by the Government of India during which full information would be provided to all citizens affected by this change, i.e. all those presently governed by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. The condition of full information may include, for example, easy access to Afghan, Iranian and Pakistani newspapers in addition to access to Indian media. Each such person wishing to either remain with Indian nationality (by explicitly requesting an Indian passport if he/she does not have one already — and such passports can be printed in Kashmiri and Urdu too), or to renounce Indian nationality and either remain stateless or adopt, if he/she is so eligible, the nationality of e.g. Afghanistan, Iran, or Pakistan, should be administratively assisted by the Government of India to make that choice.
In particular, he/she should be individually, confidentially, and without fear or favour assured and informed of his/her new rights and responsibilities. For example, a resident of Kashmir Valley who chooses to become a Pakistani citizen, such as Mr Geelani, would now enjoy the same rights and responsibilities in the Indian Republic that Mr Tully enjoys, and at the same time no longer require a visa to visit Pakistan just as Mr Tully needs no visa to enter Britain. In case individual participants in the Hurriyat choose to renounce Indian nationality and adopt some other, they would no longer be able to legally participate in Indian national elections or J&K’s State elections. That is something which they say they do not wish to do in any case. Those members of the Hurriyat who chose e.g. Pakistani nationality while still residing in Jammu & Kashmir, would be free to send postal ballots or cross the border and vote in Pakistan’s elections if and when these occur. There are many Canadians who live permanently in the USA who cross home to Canada in order to cast a ballot.
After the period of 30 months, every person presently under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution would have received a full and fair opportunity to privately and confidentially reveal his/her preference or choice under conditions of full information. “Partition”, “Plebiscite”, and “Military Decision” have been the three alternatives under discussion ever since the National Conference of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and his then-loyal Deputy, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, helped the Indian Army and Air Force in 1947-1948 fight off the savage attack against Jammu & Kashmir State that had commenced from Pakistan on October 22 1947. When, during the Pakistani attack, the Sheikh and Bakshi agreed to the Muslim Conference’s demand for a plebiscite among the people, the Pakistanis balked — the Sheikh and Bakshi then withdrew their offer and decisively and irrevocably chose to accede to the Indian Union. The people of Jammu & Kashmir, like any other, are now bound by the sovereign political commitments made by their forebears. Even so, given the painful mortal facts of the several decades since, the solution here proposed if properly implemented would be an incomparably more thorough democratic exercise than any conceivable plebiscite could ever have been.
Furthermore, regardless of the outcome, it would not entail any further “Partition” or population “transfer” which inevitably would degenerate into a savage balkanization, and has been ruled out as an unacceptable “deal-breaker” by the Indian Republic. Instead, every individual person would have been required, in a private and confidential decision-making process, to have chosen a nationality or to remain stateless — resulting in a multitude of cosmopolitan families in Jammu & Kashmir. But that is something commonplace in the modern world. Properly understood and properly implemented, we shall have resolved the great mortal problem we have faced for more than half a century, and Jammu & Kashmir can finally settle into a period of peace and prosperity. The boundary between India and Pakistan would have been settled by the third alternative mentioned at the time, namely, “Military Decision”.
III. Of Flags and Consulates in Srinagar and Gilgit
Pakistan has demanded its flag fly in Srinagar. This too can happen though not in the way Pakistan has been wishing to see it happen. A Pakistan flag might fly in the Valley just as might an Afghan and Iranian flag as well. Pakistan has wished its flag to fly as the sovereign over Jammu & Kashmir. That is not possible. The best and most just outcome is for the Pakistani flag to fly over a recognised Pakistani consular or visa office in Srinagar, Jammu and Leh. In diplomatic exchange, the Indian tricolour would have to fly over a recognised Indian consular or visa office in Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Skardu.
Pakistan also may have to act equivalently with respect to the original inhabitants of the territory of Jammu & Kashmir that it has been controlling — allowing those people to become Indian nationals if they so chose to do in free private decisions under conditions of full information. In other words, the “Military Decision” that defines the present boundary between sovereign states must be recognised by Pakistan sincerely and permanently in a Treaty relationship with India — and all of Pakistan’s official and unofficial protégés like the Hurriyat and the “United Jehad Council” would have to do the same. Without such a sovereign commitment from the Government of Pakistan, as shown by decisive actions of lack of aggressive intent (e.g. as came to be implemented between the USA and USSR), the Government of India has no need to involve the Government of Pakistan in implementing the solution of enhancing free individual choice of nationality with regard to all persons on our side of the boundary.
The “Military Decision” regarding the sovereign boundary in Jammu & Kashmir will be so recognised by all only if it is the universally just outcome in international law. And that in fact is what it is.
The original Jammu & Kashmir State began its existence as an entity in international law long before the present Republics of India and Pakistan ever did. Pakistan commences as an entity on August 14 1947; India commences as an entity of international law with its signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919 20 1918. Jammu & Kashmir began as an entity on March 16 1846 — when the Treaty of Amritsar was signed between Gulab Singh Dogra and the British, one week after the Treaty of Lahore between the British and the defeated Sikh regency of the child Daleep Singh.
Liaquat Ali Khan and Zafrullah Khan both formally challenged on Pakistan’s behalf the legitimacy of Dogra rule in Jammu & Kashmir since the Treaty of Amritsar. The Pakistani Mission to the UN does so even today. The Pakistanis were following Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru himself, who too had at one point challenged Dogra legitimacy in the past. But though the form of words of the Pakistan Government and the Nehru-Abdullah position were similar in their attacks on the Treaty of Amritsar, their underlying substantive reasons were as different as chalk from cheese. The Pakistanis attacked the Dogra dynasty for being Dogra — i.e. because they were Hindus and not Muslims governing a Muslim majority. Nehru and Abdullah denounced monarchic autocracy in favour of mass democracy, and so attacked the Dogra dynasty for being a dynasty. All were wrong to think the Treaty of Amritsar anything but a lawful treaty in international law.
Furthermore, in this sombre political game of great mortal consequence, there were also two other parties who were, or appeared to be, in favour of the dynasty: one because the dynasty was non-Muslim, the other, despite it being so. Non-Muslim minorities like many Hindus and Sikhs in the business and governmental classes, saw the Dogra dynasty as their protector against a feared communalist tyranny arising from the Sunni Muslim masses of Srinagar Valley, whom Abdullah’s rhetoric at Friday prayer-meetings had been inciting or at least awakening from slumber. At the same time, the communalists of the Muslim Conference who had broken away from Abdullah’s secular National Conference, sought political advantage over Abdullah by declaring themselves in favour of keeping the dynasty — even elevating it to become an international sovereign, thus flattering the already pretentious potentate that he would be called “His Majesty” instead of merely “His Highness”. The ancestry of today’s Hurriyat’s demands for an independent Jammu & Kashmir may be traced precisely to those May 21-22 1947 declarations of the Muslim Conference leader, Hamidullah Khan.
Into this game stumbled the British with all the mix of cunning, indifference, good will, impatience, arrogance and pomposity that marked their rule in India. At the behest of the so-called “Native Princes”, the 1929 Butler Commission had hinted that the relationship of “Indian India” to the British sovereign was conceptually different from that of “British India” to the British sovereign. This view was adopted in the Cabinet Mission’s 12 May 1946 Memorandum which in turn came to be applied by Attlee and Mountbatten in their unseemly rush to “Divide and Quit” India in the summer of 1947.
It created the pure legal illusion that there was such a thing as “Lapse of Paramountcy” at which Jammu & Kashmir or any other “Native State” of “Indian India” could conceivably, even for a moment, become a sovereign enjoying the comity of nations — contradicting Britain’s own position that only two Dominions, India and Pakistan, could ever be members of the British Commonwealth and hence members of the newly created UN. British pusillanimity towards Jammu & Kashmir’s Ruler had even extended to making him a nominal member of Churchill’s War Cabinet because he had sent troops to fight in Burma. But the legal illusion had come about because of a catastrophic misunderstanding on the part of the British of their own constitutional law.
The only legal scholar who saw this was B R Ambedkar in a lonely and brilliant technical analysis released to the press on June 17 1947. No “Lapse of Paramountcy” over the “Native Princes” of Indian India could occur in constitutional law. Paramountcy over Indian India would be automatically inherited by the successor state of British India at the Transfer of Power. That successor state was the new British Dominion of India as well as (when it came to be finalised by Partition from India) the new British Dominion of Pakistan (Postscript: the deleted words represent a mistake made in the original paper, corrected in “Law, Justice & J&K” in view of the fact the UN in 1947 deemed India alone the successor state of British India and Pakistan a new state in the world system). A former “Native Prince” could only choose to which Dominion he would go. No other alternative existed even for a single logical moment. Because the British had catastrophically failed to comprehend this aspect of their own constitutional law, they created a legal vacuum whereby between August 15 and October 22-26 1947, Jammu & Kashmir became a local and temporary sovereign recognised only by the Dominion of Pakistan (until October 22) and the Dominion of India (until October 26). But it was not a globally recognised sovereign and was never going to be such in international law. This was further proved by Attlee refusing to answer the J&K Prime Minister’s October 18 1947 telegram.
All ambiguity came to end with the Pakistani attack of October 22 1947, the Rape of Baramulla, the secession of an “Azad Kashmir”declared by Sardar Ibrahim, and the Pakistani coup détat in Gilgit on October 31 1947 followed by the massacre of Sikh soldiers of the J&K Army at Bunji. With those Pakistani actions, Gulab Singh’s Jammu & Kashmir State, founded on March 16 1846 by the Treaty of Amritsar, ceased to logically exist as an entity in international law and fell into a state of ownerless anarchy. The conflict between Ibrahim’s Muslim communalists backed by the new Dominion of Pakistan and Abdullah’s secularists backed by the new Dominion of India had become a civil war within a larger intra-Commonwealth war that itself was almost a civil war between forces of the same military.
Jammu & Kashmir territory had become ownerless. The Roman Law which is at the root of all municipal and international law in the world today would declare that in the ownership of such an ownerless entity, a “Military Decision” was indeed the just outcome. Sovereignty over the land, waters, forests and other actual and potential resources of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir has become divided by “Military Decision” between the modern Republics of India and Pakistan. By the proposal made herein, the people and their descendants shall have chosen their nationality and their domicile freely across the sovereign boundary that has come to result.
Can India Become an Economic Superpower or Will There Be a Monetary Meltdown? (2005)
May 5, 2005 — drsubrotoroyIn 2005, I returned to Britain thanks to an invitation from Professor Patrick Minford of the Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, to deliver a lecture on India’s Money at his Economics Seminar. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/research/seminars.html
“Wednesday 13 April 2005 Dr Subroto Roy /India’s Money/ 4.30pm, Room S01 (Economics Seminar Series)
The same lecture was delivered at the Institute of Economic Affairs, London, a fortnight later under the title “Can India Become an Economic Superpower or Will There Be a Monetary Meltdown?”. The IEA’s summary of the lecture was as follows
http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=news&ID=263
27 April 2005
“Leading Indian economist, Dr. Subroto Roy discusses the prospects of the Indian economy and warns of dangers ahead.
Can India become an economic superpower or will there be a monetary meltdown?
Dr. Roy discussed the prospects for the Indian economy at a lecture at the IEA on 27th April. Below is a synopsis of his lecture, outlining his hopes and concerns.
New technological progress in a myriad of ways, as well as the discovery of new resources, plus a possible peace-dividend arising from reduced regional tensions and conflict, are all important factors contributing to real economic growth in India today.
While the real side of the economy does well, the “nominal” economy, within the Government’s control, displays disconcerting trends. Continual deficit financing for half a century has led to exponential growth of public debt and broad money. The vast growth of time-deposits in banks may have been misinterpreted as indicating a real phenomenon such as unusual savings behaviour when it is more likely to be a nominal phenomenon resulting from increasing amounts of government debt being held by the largely nationalised banking sector. (The same may be true of China).
Twenty-one years ago, the author’s IEA Occasional Paper No. 69, Pricing, planning and politics: a study of economic distortions in India, proposed microeconomic reforms provoking the Times‘ lead editorial of May 29 1984. Some of these came to be implemented following the author’s role as a senior adviser to Rajiv Gandhi in 1990-1991. Now, monetary and fiscal reforms of a classical liberal nature are vitally necessary if a macroeconomic meltdown is to be prevented. Important among these are complete budgetary transparency, fiscal discipline improving the social productivity of all public expenditure, and monetary and financial policies to restore the integrity of the currency at home and abroad. Dr. Roy was Wincott Professor at the Department of Economics at the University of Buckingham last year. He is editor of Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution available from the recommended books page of the IEA’s website.”
When I returned to India, I was invited to give the same lecture on May 5 2005 to the Reserve Bank of India’s Monetary Economics Seminar, chaired by Chief Economist Dr Narendra Jadav; the invitation came thanks to the intervention of Dr S. S. Tarapore. I subsequently informed a few of India’s key monetary policy decision-makers of these lectures, and I was happy to see policy talk emanating from Delhi and Bombay becoming a little less drunken and disorderly than it had been before.
Subroto Roy, April 14 2007
Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant
April 27, 2005 — drsubrotoroy
Margaret Thatcher’s Revolution: How it Happened and What it Meant, edited by Subroto Roy & John Clarke, London & New York: Continuum, 2005, 2006.
Towards a Highly Transparent Fiscal & Monetary Framework for India’s Union & State Governments (29 April 2000)
April 29, 2000 — drsubrotoroyTowards a Highly Transparent Fiscal & Monetary Framework for India’s Union & State Governments
An address by Dr Subroto Roy to
the Conference of State Finance Secretaries, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, 29 April 2000.
It is a great privilege to speak to this distinguished gathering of Finance Secretaries and economic policy-makers here at the Reserve Bank today. I should like to begin by thanking the Hon’ble Governor Dr Bimal Jalan and the Hon’ble Deputy Governor Dr YV Reddy for their kind invitation for me to do so. I should also like to record here my gratitude to their eminent predecessor, the Hon’ble Governor of Andhra Pradesh, Dr C Rangarajan, for his encouragement of my thinking on these subjects over several years.
My aim will be to share with you and seek your help with my continuing and very incomplete efforts at trying to comprehend as clearly as possible the major public financial flows taking place between the Union of India and each of its constituent States. I plan to show you by the end of this discussion how all the information presently contained in the budgets of the Union and State Governments of India, may be usefully transformed one-to-one into a fresh modern format consistent with the best international practices of government accounting and public budgeting.
I do not use the term “Central Government”, because it is a somewhat sinister anachronism left over from British times. When we were not a free nation, there was indeed a Central Government in New Delhi which took its orders from London and gave orders to its peripheral Provinces as well as to the British “Residents” parked beside the thrones of those who were called “Indian Princes”.
Free India has been a Union of States. There is a Government of the whole Union and there is a Government of each State. The Union is the sovereign and the sole international power, while the States, as political subdivisions of the Union, also possess certain sub-sovereign powers; as indeed do their own subdivisions like zilla parishads, municipalities and other local bodies in smaller measure.
Our 15 large States, which account for 97% of the population of the country, have an average of something like 61 million citizens each, which is vastly more than most countries of the world. In size of population at least, we are like 15 Frances or 15 Britains put together. The Indian Republic is unique or sui generis in that there has never been in history any attempt at federalism or democracy with such sheer large numbers of people involved.
In such a framework the citizen is supposed to feel a voter and a taxpayer at different levels, owing loyalty and taxes to both the national unit and the subdivisions in which he or she resides. In exchange, government at different levels is expected to provide citizens with public goods and services in appropriate measure. The problem of optimal fiscal decentralisation in India as elsewhere is one of allocating to each level of government the power to tax and responsibility to provide, public goods and services most appropriate to that level of government given the availability of information of resources and citizens’ preferences.
In parallel, a problem of optimal monetary decentralisation may be identified as that of allocating between an autonomous Central Bank and its regional or even State-level affiliates or subsidiaries, the power to finance through money-creation the deficits, if any, of the Union and State Governments respectively. It is not impossible to imagine a world in which individual State deficits did not flow into the Union deficit as a matter of course, but instead were intended to be financed more or less independently of the Union budget from a single-window source. There would be a clear conceptual independence between the Union and State levels of public action in the country. In such a world, the Union Government might approach a constitutionally autonomous national-level Central Bank to finance its deficit, while individual State Governments did something analogous with respect to autonomous regional or even State-level Central Banks which would be affiliates or subsidiaries of the national Central Bank.
This is similar to the intended model of the United States Federal Reserve System when it started 90 years ago, though it has not worked like that, in part because of the rapid rise to domination by the New York Federal Reserve relative to the other 11 regional Federal Reserve Banks.
A more radical monetary step would be to contemplate a “Reverse Euro” model by which a national currency issued by the national-level Central Bank acts in parallel with a number of regional or State-level currencies with full convertibility and floating exchange-rates guaranteed between all of them in a world of unhindered mobility of goods and factors.
However, these are very incomplete and theoretical thoughts which perhaps deserve to be shelved for the time being.[1] What necessitates this kind of discussion is after all not something theoretical but rather the practical ground realities of our country’s fiscal and monetary position, something of which this audience will be far better aware than am I.
Economic and political analysis suggests that managing a process of public financial decision-making requires a coincidence of the people who have the best information with the people who have the authority to act. In other words, decision-makers need to have relevant, reliable and timely information made available to them, and then they need to be considered accountable for the decisions made on that basis.
In a democracy like ours, the locus of economic policy decision-making must be Parliament and the State legislatures. Academics, civil servants, journalists, special interest groups, this or that business or industrial lobbyist or foreign management consultant can all have their say — but consensus on the direction and nature of economic policy, if it is to be genuine, has to ultimately emerge out of the legislative process on the basis of reasonable, well-informed discussion and debate, given full relevant timely information. The proper source of all economic policy decisions and initiatives is Parliament, the State legislatures and local government bodies — not this or that lobby or interest-group which may be vocal or powerful enough to be heard at a given time in New Delhi or some State capital-city.
Our 1950 Constitution was a marvellous document in its time and it has worked tolerably well. It defined the functions of government in India in accordance with the main parameters of normative public finance.
Economics ascribed a quite extensive traditional role to Government, the most important functions being collective and individual security, followed by all activities which in the words of Adam Smith,
“though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.” (Wealth of Nations, V.i.c., 1776)
Our 1950 Constitution defined the Union’s responsibilities to be
External Security;
Foreign Relations & Trade;
Supreme Court & Domestic Security;
Debt Service, Foreign & Domestic;
National Infrastructure;
Communications & Broadcasting;
Atomic Energy;
Public Sector Industries;
Banking; Currency & Finance;
Archives; Surveys & National Institutions;
National Universities;
National Civil Services & Administration.
Each State’s responsibilities were
High Courts & Lower Judiciary;
Police; Civil Order; Prisons;
Water; Sanitation; Health;
State Debt Service;
Intra-State Infrastructure & Communications;
Local Government;
Liquor & Other Public Sector Industries; Trade; Local Banking & Finance;
Land; Agriculture; Animal Husbandry;
Libraries, Museums, Monuments;
State Civil Service & Administration.
Some duties were supposed to be shared by the Union with each State, including
Criminal Law;
Civil & Family Law, Contracts & Torts;
Forests & Environmental Protection;
Unemployment & Refugee Relief;
Electricity;
Education.
But the authors of the 1950 Constitution could not have envisaged the nature of present problems, or foreseen in those early years what we would have become like today. Our fiscal system has become such that a few clauses may have led to an impossibly complex centralization of fiscal power and information. Not only did the 1950 Constitution identify agendas of the Union and State Governments, it also dictated the procedure of decision-making and it is this which may have become intractable over 50 years. Under Article 280, a Finance Commission is appointed every five years whose task is to try to efficiently and equitably allot tax revenues collected by the Union downwards to the States and laterally between the States. Members of Finance Commissions have been elder statesmen of high reputation and integrity, yet the practical impossibility of their task has made their actions seem to all observers to be clouded in mystery and perhaps muddle. As one recent member, Justice Qureshi, has candidly stated
“it is humanly impossible for a person to understand the problems of the Centre and the 25 States and take a decision thereon within such a short time” (Ninth Finance Commission, Issues and Recommendations, p.350).
No matter how competent or well-meaning a Finance Commission’s members may be, their purpose may be stymied by the overload of information and overcentralisation of authority that has come to take place. As a result, it may have been inevitable that Government has ended up doing what it need not have done at the expense concomitantly of failing to do what only Government could or must have done.
The present situation is such that, despite the best efforts of the Reserve Bank and other Government agencies, there may be a gross lack of timely, relevant and reliable information reaching all decision-makers including the ordinary citizen, who as voter and taxpayer is the cornerstone of the fiscal system. My own inquiry started when Mr. Hubert Neiss, then Central Asia Director at the IMF, hired me as a consultant in December 1992. He told me the IMF was naturally concerned about India’s national budget deficit, but no one seemed to quite know how this related precisely to the budgets of the different States whose deficits seemed to be flowing into it. By its terms of reference, the IMF could not inquire into India’s States’ budgets and I did not do so in my work with them, but the import of his question remained in my thinking. Later I found similar questions being asked at the World Bank. I do not think it a great secret to state that there may be a great deal of simple puzzlement about the workings of our fiscal and monetary system on the part of observers and decision-makers who may be concerned about India’s fiscal position.
Among both public decision-makers and ordinary citizens right across the length and breadth of our country, a severe and widespread lack of information about and comprehension of India’s basic fiscal and monetary facts seems to exist. This in itself may be a cause of fiscal problems as citizens may not be adequately aware of the link between making their demands for public goods and services on the one hand, and the necessity of finding the resources to fund these goods and services on the other.
In any ultimate analysis, resources for public goods and services in an economy can be found only by diverting the real resources of individual citizens towards public uses. Other than printing fiat money, a national Government can only either tax those citizens who are present today in the population, or, borrow from the capital stock on behalf of unborn generations of future citizens.
West Europe and America are heirs to a long history of political development; yet even there, as Professor James Buchanan has often observed, the idea until has not been grasped until recently that benefits from use of public goods and services are supposed to accrue to citizens from whom resources have been raised. Until the 19th Century,
“government outlay was frequently considered “unproductive”, and there was, by implicit assumption, no return of services to the citizens who were taxed. In a political regime that devotes the bulk of government outlay to the maintenance expenses of a single sovereign, or even of an elite, there is no demonstrable return flow of services to the taxpayers…. Tax principles were discussed as if, once collected, revenues were removed forever from the economy; taxpayers, both individually and in the aggregate, were held to suffer real income loss” (James M. Buchanan, The Demand and Supply of Public Goods, Rand 1968, p. 167).
According to Buchanan, such an undemocratic fiscal model was transformed in the work of the great Swedish economist Knut Wicksell and others by introducing the key assumption of fiscal democracy, namely, that
“those who bear the costs of public services are also the beneficiaries in democratic structures”
Conversely, we may say those who demand public goods and services in a fiscal democracy should also expect to pay for them in real resources. If citizens are aware of taxes only as a burden and come to feel they receive little or nothing from Governments in return, there is a loss of incentive to pay taxes or to stand up and be counted as proud citizens of the country. There is an incentive instead to evade taxes or to flee the country or to cynically believe everything to be corrupt. On the other hand, if citizens demand public goods and services without expecting to contribute resources for their production, this amounts to being no more than a demand to be a free-rider on the general budget.
In our country, we may have been seeing both phenomena. On one hand, there is, rightly or wrongly, a tremendous public cynicism present almost everywhere with respect to expecting effective provision of public goods and services. On the other hand, the idea that the beneficiaries of public goods and services must also, sooner or later, come to bear the costs in terms of taxed resources is far from established so our politics come to often be unreasonable and irresponsible.
Reliable and comprehensible information about the system as a whole and about the contents of public budgets is thus vital for a fiscal democracy to function. In ancient Athens it was said:
“Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the State as well; even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics — this is a peculiarity of ours: we do not say that a man who has no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.” Pericles (Funeral Oration, Thucydides, The Pelopennesian War)
That was the criterion that Pericles defined for ancient Athenian democracy, and I see no reason why in the 21st Century it cannot be met in modern India’s democracy.
This finally brings me to the positive contribution I have promised to make. The aim my attempt to redesign the Union and State’s budgets utilising precisely the same data as available has been to make the fiscal position of all public entities accessible to any interested citizen.
We do not have to say that every Indian citizen, or even every literate and numerate citizen of our country, has to be able to understand the intricacies of the public budgets of his or her State and the Union. But if information is available such that anyone who understands the finances of his own family or his own business enterprise is also reasonably able to understand the public budget then a standard of maximum feasible transparency would have been defined and met.
I have relied on the international normative model developed by our own countryman, Mr. A. Premchand, who retired from the IMF a few years ago, as described in his outstanding book Effective Government Accounting (IMF 1995), where he showed applications for e.g. the USA, New Zealand and Switzerland. What I have done – or rather did in 1997/1998, with the help of a research assistant and a student – is apply that to all of our States and the Union too.[2] What will be seen by way of differences with the present methodology is that there is essentially an Operating Statement, a Financial Statement and a Cash Flow Statement offered for each State and the Union. The financial position and gross fiscal deficit definition emerge rather neatly from this – while there the rather confusing “Development/Non-development” and “Planning/Non-Planning” distinctions have been done away with.
The exercise points to the foundations of a new and fresh federal framework for our Republic. A central new fact of modern India is that many, perhaps most, of our States have developed what is effectively a bipolar division in their legislatures. Voters have also increasingly started to judge Governments not by the personalities they contain but rather by their performance on the job, and, at election-time, have begun to frequently enough shown one side the door in the hope the other side may do better. In such circumstances, there seems no reason in principle why an entity as large as the average State of modern India today cannot be entrusted to legislate and administer a modern tax-system, based especially on the income-tax, and especially taxing income from all sources including agriculture. In a fresh and modern federalism, an elected State Government would have appropriate economic powers to run its own affairs, and be mainly accountable to the legislature whose confidence it requires, and ultimately to voters below.
From an efficiency standpoint, we should want a framework in which repercussions of political turmoil or bad financial management by a State Government to not spill into other States or flow into the Union Government’s own problems of deficit financing. With free mobility of goods and factors throughout the Union, citizens faced with a poorly performing State Government could seek to vote it out of office, or may of course “vote with their feet” by moving their capital or resources to another part of the country. In short, State Governments will be held responsible by their electorates for their expenditures on public goods and services, while having the main powers of domestic taxation in the economy, especially taxes on income from all sources including agriculture.
At the same time, diverse as India is, we are not 15 or 25 separate republics federated together but rather one country all of whose peoples are united by a common geography and a common experience of history. From an equity and indeed national standpoint, we may also want a system which also firmly established that the National Parliament would have to determine how much each citizen should be taxed for the Union to provide public goods and services for the country as a whole, as well as what transfers ought to be made between the States via the Union in the interests of equity given differences in initial resource-endowments between them.
Here again an American example may be useful. As is well-known, the 50 United States each have their own Constitutions governing most intra-State political matters, yet all being inferior in authority to the 1789 Constitution of the United States as duly amended. In India, an author as early as 1888 recommended popular Constitutions for India’s States on the grounds
“where there are no popular constitutions, the personal character of the ruler becomes a most important factor in the government… evils are inherent in every government where autocracy is not tempered by a free constitution.”[3]
We could ask if a better institutional arrangement may occur by each State of India electing its own Constitutional Convention subject naturally to the supervision of the National Parliament and the obvious provision that all State Constitutions be inferior in authority to the Constitution of the Union of India.[4] These documents would then furnish the major sets of rules to govern intra-State political and fiscal decision-making more efficiently. An additional modern reason can be given from the work of Professor James M. Buchanan, namely, that fiscal constitutionalism, and perhaps only fiscal constitutionalism, allows over-riding to take place of the interests of competing power-groups.[5]
State-level Constitutional Conventions in India would provide an opportunity for a realistic assessment to be made by State-level legislators and citizens of the fiscal positions of their own States. Greater recognition and understanding of the plain facts and the desired relationships between income and expenditures, public benefits and public costs, would likely improve the quality of public decision-making at State-levels, sending public resources from destinations which are socially worthless towards destinations which are socially worthwhile. It bears repeating the average size of a large State of India is 61 million people, and almost all existing political Constitutions around the globe furnish rules for far smaller populations than that.
Thank you for your patience. Jai Hind.
[1] Monetary Federalism at Work: F. A. Hayek more than anyone else taught us that relative prices are signals or guides to economic activity — summarizing in a single statistic information about the resources, constraints, expectations and ambitions of market participants. An exchange-rate between two currencies is also a relative price, conveying information about relative market opinions regarding the issuers of the two currencies. Suppose we had two States of India in the fresh kind of federal framework outlined above, which were identical in all respects except one had a larger deficit and so a larger nominal money supply growth. Would that mean the first currency must depreciate relative to the second? Not necessarily; it is not the size of indebtedness that matters but rather the quality of public investment decisions, to which borrowed money has been put. Thus we come to the crux: Suppose we have two States which are identical in all respects except one: State X is found to have an efficient Government, i.e. one which has made relatively good quality public investment decisions, and State Y is found to have one which has made relatively bad quality public investment decisions. In the present amalgamated model of Indian federal finance, no objective distinction can be made between the two, and efficient State Governments are surreptitiously compelled to end up subsidising inefficient ones. In a differentiated federal framework for India, as the different information about the two State Governments comes to be discovered, the X currency will tend to appreciate as resources move towards it while the Y will tend to depreciate as resources move away from it. In an amalgamated model, efficient State Governments lose incentives to remain efficient, while in a differentiated model, inefficient State Governments will gain an incentive not to be inefficient. The present amalgamated situation is such that inefficient States – and this may include not only the State Government but also the State Legislature and the State electorate itself – receive no fiscal incentive to improve themselves. In a differentiated framework, the same inefficient State would face a tangible, visible loss of reserves or depreciation of its currency relative to other States on account of its inefficiency, and thereby have some incentive to mend its ways. I call the proposal given here a “Reverse Euro” model because Europe appears to be moving from differentiated currencies and money supplies to an amalgamated currency and money supply, while the argument given here for India is in the opposite direction. Professor Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, has had the kindness, at the age of 88, to send me a brilliant and forceful critique of my Reverse Euro idea for India when I requested his comment. Since he is the founder of the flexible exchange-rate system and he has found it too radical, I have shelved it for the time being.
[2] The assistance of Dola Dasgupta and K. Shanmugam is recorded with gratitude.
[3] Surendranath Roy, A History of the Native States of India, Vol I. Gwalior, Calcutta & London: Thacker 1888.
[4] Large amounts of legal and constitutional precedent have built up on issues of a regional or local nature: whether a State legislature should be unicameral or bicameral, what should be its procedures, what days should be State holidays but need not be national holidays, on tenancy, rent control, school standards, health standards and so on ad infinitum. All this body of explicit and implicit local rules and conventions may be duly collected and placed in State-level Constitutions.
[5] James M. Buchanan, Limits to Liberty, Texas, 1978.
A major expansion and reorganization of the judiciary would have to accompany the sort of basic constitutional reform outlined above. Union and State judiciaries would need to be more clearly demarcated, and rules established for review of State-level decisions by Union courts of law. It is common knowledge the judiciary in India is in a state of organizational overload at the point of collapse and dysfunction. An expansion and reorganization of the judiciary to match new Union-State constitutional relations will likely improve efficiency, and therefore welfare levels of citizens.
Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform
September 18, 1990 — drsubrotoroyRajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform
Subroto Roy
Author’s Note May 2008: The family of Rajiv Gandhi received a copy of this when it was first written in July 2005. An earlier abbreviated version “Encounter with Rajiv Gandhi: On the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform” was published in October 2001 in Freedom First, Bombay, a journal founded by the late Minoo Masani and now edited by S V Raju. A copy of that article was received by all Congress MPs of the 13th Lok Sabha. In May 2002, the Congress Party passed an official resolution stating Rajiv Gandhi and not Narasimha Rao or Manmohan Singh was to be credited with having originated the 1991 economic reforms. This article has now been published in print in The Statesman Festival Volume, October 2007. It may be profitably followed by “The Dream Team: A Critique”, “Solving Kashmir”, “Law, Justice & J&K”, “What to tell Musharraf”, “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fiscal Instability”, “India’s Trade and Payments”, “Fallacious Finance”, “Against Quackery”, etc. My original advisory memoranda to Rajiv in 1990-1991 were published in The Statesman’s Editorial Pages July 31-August 2 1991, and now have been republished elsewhere here as well. See too https://independentindian.com/thoughts-words-deeds-my-work-1973-2010/rajiv-gandhi-and-the-origins-of-indias-1991-economic-reform/did-jagdish-bhagwati-originate-pioneer-intellectually-father-indias-1991-economic-reform-did-manmohan-singh-or-did-i-through-my-e/ https://independentindian.com/2014/08/07/haksar-manmohan-and-sonia/
I met Rajiv Gandhi for the first time on 18th September 1990 thanks to an introduction by S. S. Ray (see “I’m on my way out”: Siddhartha Shankar Ray (1920-2010)… | Independent Indian: Work & Life of Professor Subroto Roy) We met a half dozen or so times until his assassination in May 1991. Yet our encounter was intense and consequential, and resulted directly in the change of the Congress Party’s economic thinking prior to the 1991 elections. I had with me results of an interdisciplinary “perestroika-for-India” project I had led at the University of Hawaii since 1986. This manuscript (later published by Sage as Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s edited by myself and W. E. James) was given by me to Rajiv, then Leader of the Opposition, and was instrumental in the change of thinking that took place. In interests of fairness, I tried to get the work to V. P. Singh too because he was Prime Minister, but a key aide of his showed no interest in receiving it.
The Hawaii project manuscript contained inter alia a memorandum by Milton Friedman done at the request of the Government of India in November 1955, which had been suppressed for 34 years until I published it in May 1989. Milton and Rose Friedman refer to this in their memoirs Two Lucky People (Chicago 1998). Peter Bauer had told me of the existence of Friedman’s document during my doctoral work at Cambridge under Frank Hahn in the late 1970s, as did N. Georgescu-Roegen in America. Those were years in which Brezhnev still ruled in the Kremlin, Gorbachev was yet to emerge, Indira Gandhi and her pro-Moscow advisers were ensconced in New Delhi, and not even the CIA had imagined the Berlin Wall would fall and the Cold War would be over within a decade. It was academic suicide at the time to argue in favour of classical liberal economics even in the West. As a 22-year-old Visiting Assistant Professor at the Delhi School of Economics in 1977, I was greeted with uproarious laughter of senior professors when I spoke of a possible free market in foreign exchange. Cambridge was a place where Indian economists went to study the exploitation of peasants in Indian agriculture before returning to their friends in the well-known bastions of such matters in Delhi and Calcutta. It was not a place where Indian (let alone Bengali) doctoral students in economics mentioned the unmentionable names of Hayek or Friedman or Buchanan, and insisted upon giving their works a hearing.
My original doctoral topic in 1976 “A monetary theory for India” had to be altered not only due to paucity of monetary data at the time but because the problems of India’s political economy and allocation of resources in the real economy were far more pressing. The thesis that emerged in 1982 “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India” was a full frontal assault from the point of view of microeconomic theory on the “development planning” to which everyone routinely declared their fidelity, from New Delhi’s bureaucrats and Oxford’s “development” school to McNamara’s World Bank with its Indian staffers.
Frank Hahn protected my inchoate liberal arguments for India; and when no internal examiner could be found, Cambridge showed its greatness by appointing two externals, Bliss at Oxford and Hutchison at Birmingham, both Cambridge men. “Economic Theory and Development Economics” was presented to the American Economic Association in December 1982 in company of Solow, Chenery and other eminences, and then Pricing, Planning and Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India published by London’s Institute of Economic Affairs, provoking the lead editorial of The Times on May 29 1984. The Indian High Commission sent the editorial to the Finance Ministry where it caused a stir as the first classical liberal attack on post-Mahalonobis Indian economic thought since B. R. Shenoy’s original criticism decades earlier. The “perestroika-for-India” project was to follow at Hawaii starting in 1986. New Delhi was represented at the project’s conference held between May 22-27 1989 by the accredited Ambassador of India to the USA, the accredited Consul General of India to San Francisco, and by the founder-director of ICRIER (see photo).
All this I brought into that first meeting with Rajiv Gandhi on September 18 1990. That first day he came to the door to greet me. He was a handsome tall man with the most charming smile and manner, seemed pleased to see me and put me at ease at once. I gave him my books as well as the manuscript of the “perestroika for India” project. He gave me a celebratory volume that had just been published to mark his grandfather’s centenary. He began by talking about how important he felt panchayati raj was, and said he had been on the verge of passing major legislation on it but then lost the election. He asked me if I could spend some time thinking about it, and that he would get the papers sent to me. I said I would and remarked panchayati raj might be seen as decentralized provision of public goods, and gave the economist’s definition of public goods as those essential for the functioning of the market economy, like the Rule of Law, roads, fresh water, and sanitation, but which were unlikely to appear through competitive forces.
I distinguished between federal, state and local levels and said many of the most significant public goods were best provided locally. Rajiv had not heard the term “public goods” before, and he beamed a smile and his eyes lit up as he voiced the words slowly, seeming to like the concept immensely. It occurred to me he had been by choice a pilot of commercial aircraft. Now he seemed intrigued to find there could be systematic ways of thinking about navigating a country’s governance by common pursuit of reasonable judgement. I said the public sector’s wastefulness had drained scarce resources that should have gone instead to provide public goods. Since the public sector was owned by the public, it could be privatised by giving away its shares to the public, preferably to panchayats of the poorest villages. The shares would become tradable, drawing out black money, and inducing a historic redistribution of wealth while at the same time achieving greater efficiency by transferring the public sector to private hands. Rajiv seemed to like that idea too, and said he tried to follow a maxim of Indira Gandhi’s that every policy should be seen in terms of how it affected the common man. I wryly said the common man often spent away his money on alcohol, to which he said at once it might be better to think of the common woman instead. (This remark of Rajiv’s may have influenced the “aam admi” slogan of the 2004 election, as all Congress Lok Sabha MPs of the previous Parliament came to receive a previous version of the present narrative.)
Our project had identified the Congress’s lack of internal elections as a problem; when I raised it, Rajiv spoke of how he, as Congress President, had been trying to tackle the issue of bogus electoral rolls. I said the judiciary seemed to be in a mess due to the backlog of cases; many of which seemed related to land or rent control, and it may be risky to move towards a free economy without a properly functioning judicial system or at least a viable system of contractual enforcement. I said a lot of problems which should be handled by the law in the courts in India were instead getting politicised and decided on the streets. Rajiv had seen the problems of the judiciary and said he had good relations with the Chief Justice’s office, which could be put to use to improve the working of the judiciary.
The project had worked on Pakistan as well, and I went on to say we should solve the problem with Pakistan in a definitive manner. Rajiv spoke of how close his government had been in 1988 to a mutual withdrawal from Siachen. But Zia-ul-Haq was then killed and it became more difficult to implement the same thing with Benazir Bhutto, because, he said, as a democrat, she was playing to anti-Indian sentiments while he had found it somewhat easier to deal with the military. I pressed him on the long-term future relationship between the countries and he agreed a common market was the only real long-term solution. I wondered if he could find himself in a position to make a bold move like offering to go to Pakistan and addressing their Parliament to break the impasse. He did not say anything but seemed to think about the idea. Rajiv mentioned a recent Time magazine cover of Indian naval potential, which had caused an excessive stir in Delhi. He then talked about his visit to China, which seemed to him an important step towards normalization. He said he had not seen (or been shown) any absolute poverty in China of the sort we have in India. He talked about the Gulf situation, saying he did not disagree with the embargo of Iraq except he wished the ships enforcing the embargo had been under the U.N. flag. The meeting seemed to go on and on, and I was embarrassed at perhaps having taken too much time and that he was being too polite to get me to go. V. George had interrupted with news that Sheila Dixit (as I recall) had just been arrested by the U. P. Government, and there were evidently people waiting. Just before we finally stood up I expressed a hope that he was looking to the future of India with an eye to a modern political and economic agenda for the next election, rather than getting bogged down with domestic political events of the moment. That was the kind of hopefulness that had attracted many of my generation in 1985. I said I would happily work in any way to help define a long-term agenda. His eyes lit up and as we shook hands to say goodbye, he said he would be in touch with me again.
The next day I was called and asked to stay in Delhi for a few days, as Mr. Gandhi wanted 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 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 was to meet former army chief K.V. Krishna Rao, former foreign secretary M. K. Rasgotra, V. Krishnamurty and Sam Pitroda.
The group met for the first time on September 25 in the afternoon. Rasgotra did not arrive. Krishna Rao, Pitroda, Krishnamurty and I gathered in the waiting room next to George’s office. The three of them knew each other but none knew me and I was happy enough to be ignored. It seemed mysterious while we were gathering, especially when the tall well-dressed General arrived, since none of us knew why we had been called by Rajiv, and the General remarked to the others he had responded at once to the call to his home but could not get a flight into Delhi for a day.
Rajiv’s residence as Leader of the Opposition had a vast splendid meeting room, lined with high bookshelves on one or two walls, a large handsome desk on one side, two spacious comfortable sofa sets arranged in squares, and a long conference table with leather chairs occupying most of the rest of the room. The entrance to it was via a small 10 ft by 10 ft air-conditioned anteroom, where George sat, with a fax machine, typewriters and a shredding machine, plus several telephones, and a used copy of parliamentary procedures on the shelf. Getting to George’s office was the final step before reaching Rajiv. There were several chairs facing George, and almost every prospective interviewee, no matter how senior or self-important, had to move from one chair to the next, while making small talk with George, as the appointment with Rajiv drew near. Opening into George’s office was a larger and shabbier waiting room, which is where we sat, which was not air-conditioned, and which opened to the outside of the building where a plainclothes policeman sometimes stood around with a walkie-talkie. There were large photographs of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Indira Gandhi on the wall, and a modern print also hung incongruously. A dozen or more plastic chairs lined the walls. There were faded torn issues of a few old magazines on the plastic coffee-table, and on one occasion there was a television playing the new sporadic domestic cable news and weather information for the entertainment of the many visitors waiting. Via this waiting room went the vast majority of people who were to meet Rajiv in his office. To reach the waiting room, one had to walk a hundred yards along a path lined by splendid high hedges from the initial reception desk at the rear-gate, manned by Congress Seva Dal volunteers in khadi wearing Gandhi-caps. These persons were in touch with George’s office by telephone, and would check with George or his assistant Balasubramaniam before sending a visitor along. The visitor would then pass through a metal-detector manned by a couple of policemen. If someone’s face came to be known and had been cleared once, or if someone acted to the policemen like a sufficiently important political personage, such a person seemed to be waved through. Outside, the front-entrance of the premises were closed unless extremely important people were entering or exiting, while at the rear-entrance there were usually two or three jeeps and several plainclothes policemen, who might or might not challenge the prospective visitor with a kind of “Who goes there?” attitude before the visitor reached the Seva Dal reception desk. The whole arrangement struck me from the first as insecure and inefficient, open to penetration by professional assassins or a terrorist squad, let aside insiders in the way Indira Gandhi had been assassinated. I could not imagine counter-terrorist commandos would suddenly appear from the high hedges in the event of an emergency.
On that Tuesday when Rajiv finally called in our group, we entered hesitantly not knowing quite what the meeting was going to be about. Rajiv introduced me to the others and then spoke of why he had gathered us together. He wanted us to come up with proposals and recommendations for the direction the country should take on an assumption the Congress Party was returned to power in the near future. He said it would help him to have an outside view from specialists who were not party functionaries, though the others obviously had been closely involved with Congress governments before. Rajiv said we were being asked to write a draft of what may enter the manifesto for the next election, which we should assume to be forthcoming by April 1991. I asked what might have become of the “perestroika” manuscript I had given him at our previous meeting. He said he had gotten it copied and bound, and that along with my 1984 monograph, it had been circulated among a few of his party colleagues who included P. Chidambaram and Mani Shankar Aiyar.
The initial meeting left us breathless and excited. Yet within a few days, the others became extremely tied up for personal causes, and I found myself alone in getting on with doing what we had been explicitly asked to do. I felt I should get done what I could in the time I had while keeping the others informed. Rajiv had said to me at our first meeting that he felt the Congress was ready for elections. This did not seem to me to be really the case. He actually seemed very isolated in his office, with George seeming to be his conduit to the outside world. I decided to start by trying to write a definite set of general principles that could guide and inform thought about the direction of policy. I spent the evening of October 26 in the offices at Rajiv’s residence, preparing an economic policy memorandum on a portable Toshiba computer of his, the first laptop I ever used. After Rajiv’s assassination, this was part of what was published in The Statesmen’s center pages July 31-August 2, 1991.
Rajiv read the work and met me on October 30 or 31, even though he was down badly with a sore throat after his sadbhavana travels around the country; he looked odd clad in khadi with a muffler and gym shoes. He said he liked very much what I had written and had given it to be read by younger Congress leaders who would discuss it for the manifesto, for an election he again said, he expected early in 1991. I said I was grateful for his kind words and inquired whom he had shown the work to. This time he said Chidambaram and also mentioned another name that made me wince. In December 1990, I was back in Hawaii when I was called on the phone to ask whether I could come to Delhi. With the rise of Chandrashekhar as Prime Minister, Rajiv had called a meeting of the group. But I could not go.
In January 1991, the Gulf War brought an odd twist to my interaction with Rajiv. On January 15, the UN deadline for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait passed without Iraqi compliance, and American-led forces started the heavy aerial bombardment of Iraq. The American media had built up the impending war as one of utter devastation and mass killing, especially when the American infantry became engaged. Estimated casualties on the American side alone were being wildly exaggerated by the number of “body-bags” being ordered by the Pentagon. An even larger conflagration was being imagined if Israel entered the fighting, while Saddam Hussein had vowed to set fire to Kuwait’s oil-fields before retreating. I like everyone else erroneously believed the media’s hyperbole about the impending regional catastrophe. On January 16, just after the bombing of Iraq had begun, I called an American family friend who had retired from a senior foreign policy role and who had known me from when I was an infant. In informal conversation, I mentioned to him that since other channels had by then become closed, an informal channel might be attempted via India, specifically via Rajiv who was still Leader of the Opposition but on whom the Chandrashekhar Government depended. The sole aim would be to compel an immediate Iraqi withdrawal without further loss of life. What transpired over the next few days was that a proposal to that effect was communicated at Rajiv’s decision to a high level of the Iraqis on the one hand, and evidently received their assent, while at the same time, it was mentioned to the authorities on the American side. But nothing came of it. Rajiv initiated a correspondence with Chandrashekhar beginning January 19, demanding a coherent formulation of Indian policy in the Gulf war, and faxed me copies of this. By February 8, the Times of India led by saying Rajiv’s stand “on the Gulf War demonstrates both his experience and perspicacity … in consonance with an enlightened vision of national interest”, and urged Rajiv to “give the nation some respite from [the] non-government” of Chandrashekhar. I taped my phone conversations with Rajiv during the Gulf War because notes could not be taken at the necessary speed; in late December 1991, I was to give his widow a copy of the tape for her personal record.
I returned to Delhi on Monday, March 18, 1991 as new elections had been announced. Rasgotra said I should be in touch with Krishna Rao, and the next day March 19 Krishna Rao met me for several hours. I told him what I thought were the roots and results of the Gulf war. He in turn generously told me what had happened while I had been away. He said the group had met Rajiv in December with the proposal that Rajiv better organize his time by having an “office manager” of larger political stature than George. The name of a UP Congressman of integrity had been put forward, but nothing had come of it. Rajiv had been advised to keep Chandrashekhar in power through the autumn of 1991, as Chandrashekhar was doing Rajiv’s work for him of sidelining V. P. Singh. The idea was to cooperate with Chandrashekhar until he could be pushed up to the Presidency when that fell vacant. Rajiv had been advised not to work in a Chandrashekhar cabinet, though in my opinion, had we been like the Scandinavians, it was not impossible for a former prime minister to enter another cabinet on the right terms in the national interest of providing stable government, which was imperative at the time. Things seem to have slipped out of control when Chandrashekhar resigned. At that point, Rajiv called the group together and instructed them to write a draft of the manifesto for the impending elections. I had advised readiness back in September but the lack of organization had prevented much tangible progress at the time. Our group was to now report to a political manifesto-committee of three senior party leaders who would report to Rajiv. They were Narasimha Rao, Pranab Mukherjee and Madhavsingh Solanki. Krishna Rao liased with Narasimha Rao, Krishnamurty with Mukherjee, Pitroda with Solanki. While Rajiv would obviously lead a new Congress Government, Mukherjee was the presumptive Finance Minister, while Narasimha Rao and Solanki would have major portfolios though Narasimha Rao was expected to retire before too long.
Krishna Rao said I should be in touch with Krishnamurty who was preparing the economic chapters of the draft of the manifesto. Krishnamurty told me he had brought in A. M. Khusro to the group, and there would be a 5 p.m. meeting at Khusro’s office at the Aga Khan Foundation. I arrived early and was delighted to meet Khusro, and he seemed pleased to meet me. Khusro seemed excited by my view that India and Pakistan were spending excessively on defence against each other, which resonated with his own ideas, and he remarked the fiscal disarray in India and Pakistan could start to be set right by mutually agreed cuts in military spending. (Khusro was eventually to accompany Prime Minister Vajpayee to Lahore in 1999).
Krishnamurty had prepared a draft dated March 18 of several pages of the economic aspects of the manifesto. After our discussions, Krishnamurty was hospitable enough to open the draft to improvement. That evening, the 19th, I worked through the night and the next morning to get by noon copies of a revised version with all the members of the group. At 4 p.m. on the 20th there was a meeting at Andhra Bhavan of the whole group except Pitroda, which went on until the night. The next day the 21st , Krishnamurty, Khusro and I met again at Andhra Bhavan for a few hours on the economic aspects of the draft. Then in mid-afternoon I went to Rasgotra’s home to work with him and Krishna Rao. They wanted me to produce the economic draft which they could then integrate as they wished into the material they were dictating to a typist. I offered instead to absorb their material directly on to my laptop computer where the economic draft was. Rasgotra was reluctant to let go control, and eventually I gave in and said I would get them a hard copy of the economic draft, which they then planned to re-draft via a stenographer on a typewriter. At this, Rasgotra gave in and agreed to my solution. So the work began and the three of us continued until late.
That night Krishna Rao dropped me at Tughlak Road where I used to stay with friends. In the car I told him, as he was a military man with heavy security cover for himself as a former Governor of J&K, that it seemed to me Rajiv’s security was being unprofessionally handled, that he was vulnerable to a professional assassin. Krishna Rao asked me if I had seen anything specific by way of vulnerability. With John Kennedy and De Gaulle in mind, I said I feared Rajiv was open to a long-distance sniper, especially when he was on his campaign trips around the country.
This was one of several attempts I made since October 1990 to convey my clear impression to whomever I thought might have an effect that Rajiv seemed to me extremely vulnerable. Rajiv had been on sadhbhavana journeys, back and forth into and out of Delhi. I had heard he was fed up with his security apparatus, and I was not surprised given it seemed at the time rather bureaucratized. It would not have been appropriate for me to tell him directly that he seemed to me to be vulnerable, since I was a newcomer and a complete amateur about security issues, and besides if he agreed he might seem to himself to be cowardly or have to get even closer to his security apparatus. Instead I pressed the subject relentlessly with whomever I could. I suggested specifically two things: (a) that the system in place at Rajiv’s residence and on his itineraries be tested, preferably by some internationally recognized specialists in counter-terrorism; (b) that Rajiv be encouraged to announce a shadow-cabinet. The first would increase the cost of terrorism, the second would reduce the potential political benefit expected by terrorists out to kill him. On the former, it was pleaded that security was a matter being run by the V. P. Singh and then Chandrashekhar Governments at the time. On the latter, it was said that appointing a shadow cabinet might give the appointees the wrong idea, and lead to a challenge to Rajiv’s leadership. This seemed to me wrong, as there was nothing to fear from healthy internal contests for power so long as they were conducted in a structured democratic framework. I pressed to know how public Rajiv’s itinerary was when he travelled. I was told it was known to everyone and that was the only way it could be since Rajiv wanted to be close to the people waiting to see him and had been criticized for being too aloof. This seemed to me totally wrong and I suggested that if Rajiv wanted to be seen as meeting the crowds waiting for him then that should be done by planning to make random stops on the road that his entourage would take. This would at least add some confusion to the planning of potential terrorists out to kill him. When I pressed relentlessly, it was said I should probably speak to “Madame”, i.e. to Mrs. Rajiv Gandhi. That seemed to me highly inappropriate, as I could not be said to be known to her and I should not want to unduly concern her in the event it was I who was completely wrong in my assessment of the danger. The response that it was not in Congress’s hands, that it was the responsibility of the V. P. Singh and later the Chandrashekhar Governments, seemed to me completely irrelevant since Congress in its own interests had a grave responsibility to protect Rajiv Gandhi irrespective of what the Government’s security people were doing or not doing. Rajiv was at the apex of the power structure of the party, and a key symbol of secularism and progress for the entire country. Losing him would be quite irreparable to the party and the country. It shocked me that the assumption was not being made that there were almost certainly professional killers actively out to kill Rajiv Gandhi — this loving family man and hapless pilot of India’s ship of state who did not seem to have wished to make enemies among India’s terrorists but whom the fates had conspired to make a target. The most bizarre and frustrating response I got from several respondents was that I should not mention the matter at all as otherwise the threat would become enlarged and the prospect made more likely! This I later realized was a primitive superstitious response of the same sort as wearing amulets and believing in Ptolemaic astrological charts that assume the Sun goes around the Earth — centuries after Kepler and Copernicus. Perhaps the entry of scientific causality and rationality is where we must begin in the reform of India’s governance and economy. What was especially repugnant after Rajiv’s assassination was to hear it said by his enemies that it marked an end to “dynastic” politics in India. This struck me as being devoid of all sense because the unanswerable reason for protecting Rajiv Gandhi was that we in India, if we are to have any pretensions at all to being a civilized and open democratic society, cannot tolerate terrorism and assassination as means of political change. Either we are constitutional democrats willing to fight for the privileges of a liberal social order, or ours is truly a primitive and savage anarchy concealed beneath a veneer of fake Westernization.
The next day, Friday March 22, I worked from dawn to get the penultimate draft to Krishna Rao before noon as planned the night before. Rasgotra arrived shortly, and the three of us worked until evening to finish the job. I left for an hour to print out copies for a meeting of the entire group, where the draft we were going to submit would come to be decided. When I got back I found Rasgotra had launched an extended and quite unexpected attack on what had been written on economic policy. Would someone like Manmohan Singh, Rasgotra wanted to know, agree with all this talk we were putting in about liberalization and industrial efficiency? I replied I did not know what Manmohan Singh’s response would be but I knew he had been in Africa heading something called the South-South Commission for Julius Nyrere of Tanzania. I said what was needed was a clear forceful statement designed to restore India’s credit-worthiness, and the confidence of international markets. I said that the sort of thing we should aim for was to make clear, e.g. to the IMF’s man in Delhi when that person read the manifesto, that the Congress Party at least knew its economics and was planning to make bold new steps in the direction of progress. I had argued the night before with Rasgotra that on foreign policy we should “go bilateral” with good strong ties with individual countries, and drop all the multilateral hogwash. But I did not wish to enter into a fight on foreign policy which he was writing, so long as the economic policy was left the way we said. Krishnamurty, Khusro and Pitroda came to my defence saying the draft we had done greatly improved on the March 18 draft. For a bare half hour or so with all of us present, the draft was agreed upon. Later that night at Andhra Bhavan, I gave Krishna Rao the final copy of the draft manifesto which he was going to give Narasimha Rao the next day, and sent a copy to Krishnamurty who was liaising with Pranab Mukherjee. Pitroda got a copy on a floppy disc the next day for Solanki.
In its constructive aspects, the March 22 1991 draft of the Congress manifesto went as follows with regard to economic policy: “CHAPTER V AGENDA FOR ECONOMIC ACTION 1. Control of Inflation …. The Congress believes the inflation and price-rise of essential commodities… is a grave macroeconomic problem facing the country today. It has hit worst the poorest and weakest sections of our people and those with fixed incomes like pensioners. The Congress will give highest priority to maintaining the prices of essential commodities, increasing their production and supply using all appropriate economic instruments. 2. Macroeconomic Policy Framework To control inflation of the general price-level, the Congress will provide a predictable long-term policy framework. The average Indian household and business will not have their lives and plans disrupted by sudden changes in economic policy. Coherent monetary policy measures will be defined as called for by the Report of Experts of the Reserve Bank of India in 1985. The Long-Term Fiscal Policy introduced by the Congress Government of 1984-1989 will be revived. Medium and long-term export-import policies will be defined. The basis for a strong India must be a strong economy. The Congress believes a high rate of real growth is essential for securing a strong national defence, social justice and equity, and a civilized standard of living for all. As the party of self-reliance, Congress believes resources for growth must be generated from within our own economy. This means all wasteful and unproductive Government spending has to be cut, and resources transferred from areas of low priority to areas of high national priority. Subsidies have to be rationalized and reduced, and productivity of investments already made has to be improved. The widening gap between revenue receipts and revenue expenditure must be corrected through fiscal discipline, and the growing national debt brought under control as a matter of high priority. These policies in a consistent framework will create the environment for the freeing of the rupee in due course, making it a hard currency of the world of which our nation can be proud. Public resources are not unlimited. These have to be allocated to high priority areas like essential public services, poverty-reduction, strategic sectors, and protection of the interests of the weaker sections of society. Government has to leave to the initiative and enterprise of the people what can be best done by themselves. Government can now progressively vacate some areas of activity to the private, cooperative and non-government sectors. Black money in the parallel economy has become the plague of our economic and political system. This endangers the social and moral fabric of our nation. Artificial price controls, excessive licensing, capacity restrictions, outmoded laws on rent control and urban ceiling, and many other outdated rules and regulations have contributed to pushing many honest citizens into dishonest practices. The Congress will tackle the problem of black money at its roots by attacking all outmoded and retrograde controls, and simplifying procedures in all economic spheres. At the same time, the tax-base of the economy must be increased via simplification and rationalization of tax-rates and coverage, user-fees for public goods, and reduction of taxes wherever possible to improve incentives and stimulate growth. 3. Panchayati Raj India’s farmers and khet mazdoors are the backbone of our economy. Economic development is meaningless until their villages provide them a wholesome rural life. The Congress will revitalize Panchayat Raj institutions to decentralize decision-making, so development can truly benefit local people most effectively. 4. Rural Development Basic economic infrastructure like roads, communications, fresh drinking water, and primary health and education for our children must reach all our villages. The Congress believes such a policy will also relieve pressures from migration on our towns and cities…… Through the Green Revolution which the Congress pioneered over 25 years, our farmers have prospered. Now our larger farmers must volunteer to contribute more to the national endeavour, and hence to greater equity and overall economic development. Equity demands land revenue should be mildly graduated so that small farmers holding less than one acre pay less land revenue per acre…. 9. Education and Health The long-run prosperity of our nation depends on the general state of education, health and well-being of our people. Small families give themselves more choice and control over their own lives. Improving female literacy, promoting the welfare of nursing mothers and reducing infant mortality will have a direct bearing on reducing the birth-rate and improving the health and quality of all our people. Primary and secondary education has high social returns and is the best way in the long-run for achievement of real equality. Efforts will be made to reduce the cost of education for the needy through concessional supply of books and other study materials, scholarships and assistance for transportation and residential facilities. The Congress Party pledges to dedicate itself to promoting education, especially in rural areas and especially for girls and the weaker sections of society. The next Congress Government will prepare and launch a 10-year programme for introduction of free and compulsory primary education for all children of school age. It will continue to emphasize vocational bias in education, integrating it closely with employment opportunities…. 11. Industrial Efficiency Our industrial base in the private and public sectors are the core of our economy. What we have achieved until today has been creditable, and we are self-reliant in many areas. Now the time has come for industry to provide more efficiency and better service and product-quality for the Indian consumer. The public sector has helped the Indian economy since Independence and many national goals have been achieved. Now it has become imperative that the management of public sector units is made effective, and their productivity increased. Major steps must be taken for greater accountability and market-orientation. Failure to do this will make our country lose more and more in the international economy. Budgetary support will be given only for public sector units in the core and infrastructure sectors. Emphasis will be on improving performance and productivity of existing investments, not on creating added organizations or over manning. Units not in the core sector will be privatised gradually. Even in core sectors like Telecommunications, Power, Steel and Coal, incremental needs can be taken care of by the private sector. The Government-Enterprise interface must be properly defined in a White Paper. The Congress believes privatisation must distribute the profits equitably among the people of India. In order to make our public enterprises truly public, it is essential that the shares of many such enterprises are widely held by the members of the general public and workers. Congress pledges to allot a proportion of such shares to the rural Panchayats and Nagarpalikas. This will enhance their asset-base and yield income for their development activities, as well as improve income-distribution. 12. Investment and Trade Indian industry, Government and professional managers are now experienced enough to deal with foreign companies on an equal footing, and channel direct foreign investment in desired directions. Foreign companies often bring access to advanced technological know-how, without which the nation cannot advance. The Congress Government will formulate a pragmatic policy channelling foreign investment into areas important to the national interest. Every effort must be made also to encourage Indians who are outside India to invest in the industry, trade and real estate of their homeland. Because of the protected and inflationary domestic market, Indian industry has become complacent and the incentive for industrial exports has been weakened. When all production is comfortably absorbed at home, Indian industry makes the effort to venture into exports only as a last resort. This must change. A Congress Government will liberalize and deregulate industry to make it competitive and export-oriented, keeping in mind always the interests of the Indian consumer in commercial policy. Export-oriented and predictable commercial policies will be encouraged. Existing procedural constraints and bottlenecks will be removed. Quotas and tariffs will be rationalized. Thrust areas for export-development will be identified and monitored. Efforts will be made to develop a South Asian Community. Trade and economic cooperation among South Asian countries must be increased and simplified.”
This March 22 1991 draft of the Congress’s intended economic policies got circulated and discussed, and from it rumours and opinions appeared that Congress was planning to launch a major economic reform in India. Economic Times said the manifesto “is especially notable for its economic agenda” and Business Standard said “if party manifestos decide election battles” Congress must be “considered home and dry”. A senior IMF official told me three years later the manifesto had indeed seemed a radical and bold move in the direction of progress, which had been exactly our intended effect. When I met Manmohan Singh at the residence of S. S. Ray in September 1993 in Washington, Ray told him and his senior aides the Congress manifesto had been written on my computer. Manmohan Singh smiled and said that when Arjun Singh and other senior members of the Congress had challenged him in the cabinet, he had pointed to the manifesto. Yet, oddly enough, while the March 22 draft got discussed and circulated, and the Indian economic reform since July 1991 corresponded in fundamental ways to its contents as reproduced above, the actual published Congress manifesto in April 1991 was as tepid and rhetorical as usual, as if some party hack had before publication put in the usual nonsense about e.g. bringing down inflation via price-controls. Certainly the published manifesto was wholly undistinguished in its economic aspects, and had nothing in it to correspond to the bold change of attitude towards economic policy that actually came to be signalled by the 1991 Government.
On March 23, our group was to meet Rajiv at noon. There was to be an event in the inner lawns of Rajiv’s residence in the morning, where he would launch Krishna Rao’s book on India’s security. Krishna Rao had expressly asked me to come but I had to wait outside the building patiently, not knowing if it was a mistake or if it was deliberate. This was politics after all, and I had ruffled feathers during my short time there. While I waited, Rajiv was speaking to a farmers’ rally being held at grounds adjoining his residence, and there appeared to be thousands of country folk who had gathered to hear him. When it was over, Rajiv, smiling nervously and looking extremely uncomfortable, was hoisted atop people’s shoulders and carried back to the residence by his audience. As I watched, my spine ran cold at the thought that any killer could have assassinated him with ease in that boisterous crowd, right there in the middle of Delhi outside his own residence. It was as if plans for his security had been drawn up without any strategic thinking underlying them.
Krishna Rao arrived and graciously took me inside for his book launch. The event was attended by the Congress’s top brass, including Narasimha Rao whom I met for the first time, as well as foreign military attaches and officers of the Indian armed forces. The attaché of one great power went about shaking hands and handing out his business card to everyone. I stood aside and watched. Delhi felt to me that day like a sieve, as if little could be done without knowledge of the embassies. One side wanted to sell arms, aircraft or ships, while the other wanted trips abroad or jobs or green cards or whatever for their children. And I thought Islamabad would be worse — could India and Pakistan make peace in this fetid ether?
Proceedings began when Rajiv arrived. This elite audience mobbed him just as the farmers had mobbed him earlier. He saw me and beamed a smile in recognition, and I smiled back but made no attempt to draw near him in the crush. He gave a short very apt speech on the role the United Nations might have in the new post-Gulf War world. Then he launched the book, and left for an investiture at Rashtrapati Bhavan. We waited for our meeting with him, which finally happened in the afternoon. Rajiv was plainly at the point of exhaustion and still hard-pressed for time. He seemed pleased to see me and apologized for not talking in the morning. Regarding the March 22 draft, he said he had not read it but that he would be doing so. He said he expected the central focus of the manifesto to be on economic reform, and an economic point of view in foreign policy, and in addition an emphasis on justice and the law courts. I remembered our September 18 conversation and had tried to put in justice and the courts into our draft but had been over-ruled by others. I now said the social returns of investment in the judiciary were high but was drowned out again. Rajiv was clearly agitated that day by the BJP and blurted out he did not really feel he understood what on earth they were on about. He said about his own family, “We’re not religious or anything like that, we don’t pray every day.” I felt again what I had felt before, that here was a tragic hero of India who had not really wished to be more than a happy family man until he reluctantly was made into a national leader against his will. We were with him for an hour or so. As we were leaving, he said quickly at the end of the meeting he wished to see me on my own and would be arranging a meeting. One of our group was staying back to ask him a favour. Just before we left, I managed to say to him what I felt was imperative: “The Iraq situation isn’t as it seems, it’s a lot deeper than it’s been made out to be.” He looked at me with a serious look and said “Yes I know, I know.” It was decided Pitroda would be in touch with each of us in the next 24 hours. During this time Narasimha Rao’s manifesto committee would read the draft and any questions they had would be sent to us. We were supposed to be on call for 24 hours. The call never came. Given the near total lack of system and organization I had seen over the months, I was not surprised. Krishna Rao and I waited another 48 hours, and then each of us left Delhi. Before going I dropped by to see Krishnamurty, and we talked at length. He talked especially about the lack of the idea of teamwork in India. Krishnamurty said he had read everything I had written for the group and learned a lot. I said that managing the economic reform would be a critical job and the difference between success and failure was thin.
I got the afternoon train to Calcutta and before long left for America to bring my son home for his summer holidays with me. In Singapore, the news suddenly said Rajiv Gandhi had been killed. All India wept. What killed him was not merely a singular act of criminal terrorism, but the system of humbug, incompetence and sycophancy that surrounds politics in India and elsewhere. I was numbed by rage and sorrow, and did not return to Delhi. Eleven years later, on 25 May 2002, press reports said “P. V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh lost their place in Congress history as architects of economic reforms as the Congress High command sponsored an amendment to a resolution that had laid credit at the duo’s door. The motion was moved by…. Digvijay Singh asserting that the reforms were a brainchild of the late Rajiv Gandhi and that the Rao-Singh combine had simply nudged the process forward.” Rajiv’s years in Government, like those of Indira Gandhi, were in fact marked by profligacy and the resource cost of poor macroeconomic policy since bank-nationalisation may be as high as Rs. 125 trillion measured in 1994 rupees. Certainly though it was Rajiv Gandhi as Leader of the Opposition in his last months who was the principal architect of the economic reform that came to begin after his passing.
Milton Friedman’s extempore comments at the 1989 Hawaii conference: on India, Israel, Palestine, the USA, Debt and its uses, Erhardt abolishing exchange controls, Etc
May 21, 1989 — drsubrotoroy
Preface by Subroto Roy October 31, 2008:
As recorded elsewhere here, I met Professor Milton Friedman for the first time at the Mont Pelerin Society meetings at Cambridge in the autumn of 1984. I there asked him for his November 1955 memorandum to the Government of India, which had been suppressed since then; when he returned to Stanford, he had the original document sent to me in Blacksburg. In January 1989, I invited him to the University of Hawaii conference on India’s modern political economy due to be held in May. I was determined to see publication of his 1955 memorandum and did so (despite opposition from “senior” Leftist professors). Milton agreed to come for two days, and what follows are his extempore comments on May 22 1989 as recorded on tape.
Milton Friedman’s extempore comments at the 1989 Hawaii conference: on India, Israel, Palestine, the USA, Debt and its uses, Erhardt abolishing exchange controls, Etc
“I don’t believe the term GNP ought to be used unless it is supplemented by a different statistic: the rate of growth of the average consumption basket consumed by the ordinary individual in the country. I think GNP rates of growth can give very misleading information. For example, you have rapid rates of growth of GNP in the Soviet Union with a declining standard of life for the people. Because GNP includes monuments and includes also other things. I’m not saying that that is the case with India; I’m just saying I would like to see the two figures together.
I have wondered about the following question for decades. What would have happened if the initial decision had been to make English the official language, and the Government had made no official statement about any of the other languages, had just allowed, as it were, free language competition? The reason I raise that is because many years ago when I was in India originally it seemed to me, that a lot of conflicts would have been eliminated, because everybody could have been opposed to English. You would have had a common opposition to it, and yet it was, in fact, the operating language of the country. If in time Hindi or any of the others had spread, they could have taken over the function. But it wouldn’t have been the subject of a political fight from then on. That may be wholly wrong, it’s just an off-hand impression. I am curious about what answer you would give the counterfactual question.
I’m just going to support Brass on the question of whether the modes of organization of the economy had anything to do with the political difficulties that were arising. I want to emphasize how important that is as an issue to be investigated, and I am not going to illustrate it with India which I don’t know enough about; I am going to give you a different even more dramatic example. I have no doubt whatsoever that a major part of the present difficulties between the occupied states in Palestine, the Palestinian organization and the Israeli government, derive from the structure of Israeli economic policies, from the socialist structure. When the occupied areas were first taken over, the generals were very wise in treating them in a completely laissez-faire manner, and they didn’t have many troubles. As you started to impose in those areas the same socialist techniques of the Israeli state, you get increasing conflict, and those conflicts have arisen until today. I think that this may be relevant to the study of political conflicts of the kind of you’re describing. Many of these difficulties arose because you were adopting economic policies which created them.
I think you have to distinguish sharply between a redistributive state and a regulatory state. I give you Sweden, which is a very highly redistributive state, but is not a highly regulatory state. As I understand it, the original Constitution of India called for a redistributive state. The ethos called for a regulatory state, and they turned out to be both very different and I would say ultimately incompatible.
I was interested in some of Dattachaudhuri’s remarks about the situation at the time of Independence and particularly about his summary of what he regarded as traditional economic development theory. I think there was an enormously important point that needs to be added to those you mentioned. That was the almost universal acceptance at that time of the view that there was a sort of technologically fixed capital output ratio. That if you wanted to develop, you just had to figure out how much capital you needed, used as a statistical technological capital output ratio, and by God the next day you could immediately tell what output you were going to achieve. That was a large part of the motivation behind some of the measures that were taken then. Secondly, you are quite right that one of the things that India inherited was a good civil service. I came back from India on my first trip there saying that in my experience, I had never met a class of civil servants who were as able as the Indian Civil Service. However, they weren’t in accord with the principles that were going to be followed. Many of them, particularly Mr HM Patel, would not have gone along, I suspect he would not have been an enthusiastic participant of the Mahalanobis Plan. I don’t know….you tell me. Am I wrong? There were people at the time who recognized fully what the consequences were going to be, the most notable example is BR Shenoy in his dissenting view on the committee of experts examining the Second Five Year Plan.
Essentially, your paper was in this great tradition of the hero theory of history versus the deterministic theory of history. Does a great man make a difference? Do personalities make a difference? Either extreme is untenable. In the particular case of India, I would say that in the early days, I have no doubt that personalities made an enormous difference. If Mr Mahalanobis for example had had a slightly different background, had been persuaded to slightly different things, you might have had a different result. You don’t have to look at the whole structure.
In my opinion, the most serious problem of India in the economic sphere can be pinned down very quickly. It has to do with the pegging of the exchange rate and the existence of change controls. My view on this is based not only on India alone; it is based on country after country. There is no other measure which opens itself so much to corruption than to spreading from one regulation to another. In some ways, if you could pull that pin out, much of the rest of the superstructure would collapse. On that particular issue, it was initially an open issue in India.
Now I agreed completely that in order to make reforms, you have to establish a base of support. You have to get a political basis to support you. But one mustn’t take that to mean that this is the best of all possible worlds and you can’t do anything about it. Let’s be clear about what our role is. Our role as economists and intellectuals is not to figure out what is politically feasible and then recommend it. Our role as economists and political scientists, in my opinion, is to look at what could be. Given the background, given the institutional limitations. It’s wrong to go to utopian solutions, but we ought to lay out what are alternative possible changes in the circumstances, whether we think at the moment or not that there is any possibility of getting backing for it. What you find in history time and again is that major changes almost never come except when you have a crisis. And when you have a crisis, things become feasible that you would have dismissed in advance as not feasible. I think you’re much too unadventuresome in your willingness to conceive of rather radical departures.
I don’t believe floating exchange rates will solve all the problems, far from it. But I do believe that exchange control is a particularly pernicious and widespread form of control.
I might be mistaken about this but I think the exchange control was ended in 1950 when they adopted the Dodge Plan for monetary reconstruction, and their recent progress might be traced from that date. Yet over and over, in country after country, you find that exchange control is the answering wedge for widening controls. I believe that the most important thing China could do right now would be to end exchange control.
The other point is that it’s an open invitation to corruption.
I want to comment on both papers also.
With respect to the debt, a balance sheet has two sides. One side is the assets and one side is the liability. A consideration of a debt problem that considers only one side is bound to be incomplete. The question of whether a high debt ratio is good, bad, or indifferent depends on what the debt was accumulated for. It is no different for a nation than it is for an individual. If I go out and borrow in order to maintain a stable of mistresses, I’m going to get into trouble. I’m a little old for that, but think of a younger person. On the other hand, if a man goes out and borrows in order to build a plant which is going to be very productive, he is not in trouble at all.
Similarly for a nation. The talk in the U.S. about the U.S. being a foreign debtor is a bunch of nonsense, because we have always had net private savings, and the debt isn’t debt, anyway, it’s acquisition of assets in the U.S. by foreigners. That acquisition has been of productive assets, and thus has increased our total capital. Similarly, if we go back to India, the question of whether the debt ratio is too high or too low is a question of what assets there are that have been created in the process of accumulating the debt, and what income they generate. We don’t ask in the U.S. or anywhere else what the private debt ratio of a country is without asking what is the private asset ratio. You don’t look at a particular individual company and say what’s the ratio of debt, you look at debt to assets. Similarly, therefore, it seems to me your paper needs to be (this really ties very much into what Seiji Naya said before about inefficient public enterprises.) If the debt was accumulated in order to finance public enterprises….I don’t like the word public; let me be precise….government enterprises….(Stanford University is a public university, but it’s not a government university.)… If debt was created to build government enterprises which were yielding a net income, the debt would be no burden at all. It would be a source of strength. It would provide the government with additional funds for other purposes. The plain fact is, of course (and I shouldn’t be saying this because I’m not up to date on the situation in India) but my impression is that the plain fact is that most government enterprises are a drain on the budget rather than contributing to it. Therefore, the debt is a real problem regardless of whether it’s 10 percent of the GNP or 60 percent of the GNP. Not because it’s 60 percent or 10 percent, but because you have to look at the other side of the balance sheet and see whether it’s been created for productive or nonproductive uses.
On a very different subject that you touched in your comment, I share completely with you the outrage at the picture of extraordinary ostentation in the midst of extraordinary poverty. I venture to predict that if you ask where the money comes from that finances that ostentation, you will find in almost every single case it comes from government favour. It is created by the present system of planning. The idea that the present system of planning is directed at egalitarianism is, I think, an absurd idea… I remember an incident which I think is very amusing. I once was in Hong Kong ten years ago, and I was entertained at the home of a very wealthy Hong Kong Indian businessman. He’s the person who owns the Hilton, Hare Nina. It was at his home. This is a man who has 50 people to dinner every night. One of the people who was present there was an Indian capitalist who would be an absolutely perfect image for a New Yorker cartoon of a bloated capitalist sitting on a pile of money. He was big, fat and just looked the image.
We ended up the evening with a vigorous argument between him and me, me defending capitalism and him defending socialism, and for understandable reasons. He was fat because of socialism. If you really want to attack that unproductive ostentation, and improve the lot of the individual people, there’s only one way that’s ever been proved to do it. That’s by setting those people free, to use their own resources as they see fit and not having around them the kind of controls that are involved in the Indian planning process. We have to separate objectives from means.
I want to go back for a moment about two comments about T.N.’s. One is, there are certain words which are red lights to fallacies. One of those words is “need”. I do not know any sentence that anybody ever uses with “need” which doesn’t turn out to have a fallacy embedded in it. The word that leads me to is not need but “essential”. “Essential import”. Every economist knows that if you have adjusted your resources properly, every item you buy is essential at the margin. It is a distinction between marginal and average. The word “essential” is a meaningless word, and any place you see it used, you can be sure there is a fallacy. The same thing with the word “shortage”. I noticed that when T.N. came to the word shortage, shortage of foreign exchange, he hesitated. He said an “alleged shortage”. Economists may not know much, but there is one thing we know very well. That is how to create shortages and surpluses. Tell us what you want a shortage in, and we’ll create it. The only thing you have to do is set a maximum price that is below the market price, and you’ll have a shortage. If you want a surplus, we’ll produce that, too. We’ll give you a case in which we’ll offer a price higher than the market price. We’ve got a surplus of wheat for that reason in the United States, and we’ve got a shortage of housing in New York for that reason. The talk about a shortage of foreign exchange is always an evasion of a problem. Some how or other, economists ought to get into the practice of never using the word shortage without accompanying it by at what price.”
One more point and I’ll be through. You say that you want to dismantle the exchange rates over a ten year period. I think you’re wrong. There are some things you want to do immediately overnight and some things you want to drag out. There are two aphorisms that bring out the point. One is: don’t cut a dog’s tail off by inches, and the other is haste makes waste. They’re the opposite of one another, but each is right in some occasions. It seems to me as a generalization with respect to any price control that it should be done instantly. You should cut the dog’s tail off at once. If you’re going to abolish exchange control, it ought to be announced on a Friday or Saturday night to be done on Sunday morning. Just as Ludwig Erhardt in the German reform announced overnight, over a weekend, he did it on Sunday because the American and British control offices were closed and so they couldn’t countermand his order. That is why he did it on a Sunday. He did it at one full stroke, all price controls abolished. Margaret Thatcher abolished exchange control in Britain overnight. Exchange control, it seems to me, is one of those things you have to abolish overnight. If you stretch it out, you will never abolish it.
With power, the product is sold. Power is something that can be provided by the private sector, it is sold, you are not giving it away. It may be infrastructure, but it’s the kind of infrastructure which ought to pay its way.
I don’t think we ought to get involved in words, and I don’t mind if we drop the word socialism. I would say that a system of detailed controls or whatever you call it, is a system which generates inequality. The private ownership of property is not enough. Some of the main beneficiaries from your controls are private enterprises and moreover as I cited in my example, they also support the system of controls and regulation. What I say is that the combinations of controls and regulations, whatever you call it, produces inequality, and chief among them is the foreign exchange control. If you could eliminate the foreign exchange control, you will eliminate a good bit of the harm which is currently being done by all your regulations.
If I might say, I have enormous sympathy with this view that it’s the same old story. It is! Exactly, and that’s what’s distressing about it. It’s a shame that in 40 years, there been no real major change in the structural characteristics of the Indian economy. That’s the real tragedy.”
Pricing, Planning & Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India (1984)
May 29, 1984 — drsubrotoroyPricing, Planning & Politics: A Study of Economic Distortions in India Subroto Roy
First published on May 29 1984 as Occasional Paper No. 69 of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London
Preface March 2007
A quarter century has passed since my 1982 doctoral thesis at Cambridge University under Frank Hahn, examined by Christopher Bliss and Terence Hutchison, and titled “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India.” I wrote what follows shortly afterwards in Blacksburg, Virginia, and Ithaca, New York, and it was published on May 29 1984 in London by the Institute of Economic Affairs as Occasional Paper No. 69, ISBN: 0-255 36169-6. The day it was published it turned out to be the subject of the main editorial of The Times, then London’s leading newspaper. (I learnt later this had been due to Peter Bauer, and also that 700 copies sold in the first month, a record for the publisher.) The Times editorial though laudatory was misleading, and I had to clarify the contents of the monograph in a letter published on June 16 1984; both documents are available elsewhere at this site.
This work was the first explicit critique of post-Mahalanobis Indian economic thought from a classical liberal perspective since B. R. Shenoy’s initial criticism decades previously. I was 29 when it was published, I am 52 now. I do not agree with everything I wrote back then and find the tone a little puffed up as young men tend to be; it was five years before publication of my main “theoretical” work Philosophy of Economics: On the Scope of Reason in Economic Inquiry (Routledge: London & New York, 1989, also now republished here). My experience of life in the years since has also made me far less sanguine both about human nature and about America than I was then. But I am glad to find I am not embarrassed by what I said as a young man, indeed I am pleased I said what I did in favour of classical liberalism and against statism and totalitarianism well before it became popular to do so after the Berlin Wall fell. (In India as elsewhere, former communist apparatchiks and fellow-travellers became pseudo-liberals overnight.)
The famous November 1955 Milton Friedman memorandum is referred to herein for the first time as “unpublished” in note 1; I was to meet Milton and Rose Friedman at the Mont Pelerin Society meetings held at Cambridge later that year, where I gave them a copy of this monograph; when Milton returned to Stanford he sent to me in Blacksburg his original 1955-56 documents on Indian planning. I published the 1955 document for the first time in May 1989 during the University of Hawaii perestroika-for-India project that I was then leading, it appeared later in the 1992 volume Foundations of India’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, edited by myself and WE James. The results of the Hawaii project reached Rajiv Gandhi through my hand in September 1990, as told elsewhere in “Rajiv Gandhi and the Origins of India’s 1991 Economic Reform”. The 1956 document was published in November 2006 on the front page of The Statesman, on the same day my obituary of Milton appeared in the inside pages (both are republished here too).
It is apparent from this monograph that I knew almost nothing then about Pakistan or Islam; that has changed as may be seen especially from the other book I created with WE James at the University of Hawaii, Foundations of Pakistan’s Political Economy: Towards an Agenda for the 1990s, as well as my more recent work on Pakistan and Islam. It is of course impossible to understand India without understanding Pakistan and vice versa.
In general, this monograph had to do with India’s microeconomics and theory of value and resource allocation while my latest work – “India’s Macroeconomics”, “Fiscal Instability”, “India’s Trade and Payments”, “Our Policy Process”, “Fallacious Finance”, “The Dream Team: A Critique” . “Against Quackery”, “Growth & Government Delusion” etc – has to do with India’s macroeconomics and monetary and fiscal theory and policy. Part of the criticism of “distorted incentives” prevailing in Indira Gandhi’s India may still be relevant to India today, while the discussion of ethnic problems, agriculture, the “public choice” factors that stymie Indian progress, misgovernance etc will almost certainly be found so.
Pricing, Planning and Politics:
A Study of Economic Distortions in India
First published on May 29 1984 as Occasional Paper No. 69 of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London
“The economic laws which operate in India are the same as in other countries of the world; the causes which lead to wealth among other nations lead to prosperity in India; the causes which impoverish other nations impoverish the people of India. Therefore, the line of enquiry which the economist will pursue in respect of India is the same which he adopts in inquiring into the wealth or poverty of other nations.” Romesh Chunder Dutt, 1906, The Economic History of India
“Satyameva Jayathe” (“Let truth be victorious”), Motto of the Indian Republic
I. INTRODUCTION
IN THE last 15 years, considerable evidence has accumulated to suggest that the most important policies pursued by successive governments of independent India have not been conducive to economic development, and have indeed gone against some of the most basic lessons that political economy has to offer. Forewarnings of the present predicament of India had come from a few economists in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but their arguments were either ignored or maligned as dogmatic and motivated by`ideology’.[1] My thesis in this Occasional Paper will be that, if the basic and commonsensical lessons of political economy had been acknowledged early on in the history of the Indian Republic, we might have found today a much more prosperous economy and a much healthier body politic than is the case.
To argue this, it is first necessary to describe an economy where the pursuit of the individual good by rational agents is conducted within some set of orderly political institutions which is conducive to both civil peace and sustained mass prosperity. Accordingly, Part I of this short Paper begins by describing the broad and familiar features of what may be called a neo-classical or liberal model, and then proceeds briefly to contrast it with a model in which individual incentives and public institutions have been distorted from their efficient characterizations.
The practical question that arises is: Where in practice have independent India’s policies led most conspicuously to distorted incentives and institutions? This will be the subject of Part III. Part II places the discussion in context by briefly describing a few relevant aspects of the political history of the Indian Republic.
I have argued elsewhere that every normative proposal for action is, in principle, open to question and criticism on the logical and factual grounds upon which it is founded. Whenever two people disagree about what ought to be done, it will be found either that at least one of them has made a mistake of logic or that they are also in disagreement about the facts of the case.[2] In Part IV, a tentative manifesto for political and economic reform in India is proposed, and I hope these proposals too will be subjected to critical scrutiny on the positive grounds upon which I shall seek to establish them.
Part I: Theory
2. EFFICIENT INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS
A `FACT’ may be understood as the opposite of that which could have been the case but is not. A basic fact of the study of men and society – one which was acknowledged first by Aristotle and then, very importantly, by Adam Smith, and which has been emphasized in modern times by Friedrich Hayek – is that, while we are able to study and speak of the nature of human decision and action in general terms, we do not and cannot have a knowledge of how particular actions are moved by particular causes and circumstances.[3]
We might certainly know, for instance, that every household in an economy views some horizons, wants to fulfill some aspirations, and faces some constraints. But if we were asked to specify what all these characteristics happened to be as a matter of fact at any one moment, we would certainly not be able to do so. Men are concerned almost wholly with (and are experts at) living their own lives as best they can – foraging for food, shelter and work, celebrating weddings and births, rearing children, and mourning deaths. For the most part, they are neither interested in, nor competent at judging, what others happen to be doing in their private lives. Neither benevolence nor envy extends much beyond a man’s immediate vicinity, and, certainly, neither can extend to people he does not know or come to know of in the course of a lifetime.
This fact is also acknowledged in modern microeconomics, when it is said that, for the individual agent to be able to make decisions and act upon them, it is sufficient for him to know (besides his own desires, abilities and constraints) only of the relative prices prevailing locally of the goods and skills he wishes to trade.`Efficient incentive’ defined We might then provisionally define an `efficient incentive’ as a set of relative prices and wages such that, when economic agents act upon them, three conditions are fulfilled:(i) the difference between the total demand for and the total supply of every good and skill is zero; (ii) every consumer succeeds in trading the amounts of different goods that he desires, and so obtains the highest utility he can within the constraint of his budget; (iii) every private enterprise maximizes the difference between its total revenues and total costs, that is, its profits. [4]
Rational action, however, occurs within a particular institutional context. Which action is rational and which is not will depend on what institutions there are and how well or poorly they function. As both classical liberals and Marxists argue, the neo-Walrasian tradition in modern economics – as exemplified by the Arrow-Debreu model – is practically devoid of any explicit institutional description, and so may best be regarded as a useful but grossly incomplete metaphor in the economist’s inquiry.
The institutions most relevant to economic activity are those of government. We might therefore add a fourth condition to characterize an efficient economy, namely, that government institutions work in such a way as to allocate tax revenues towards providing public goods in the amounts desired by citizens. This must be an institutional assumption implicit in the general equilibrium construction, without which it would be impossible to see the sense of that model.
The question that follows is how we are to ascertain the composition of the set of public goods to be provided. As is commonly known, this seems to confront the economist with numerous conceptual and practical problems. I propose here to circumvent all the typical difficulties of how to discover and combine individual preferences for public goods, or how to prevent free-riders, and to take a somewhat different route.
Functions of civil government: protection, public goods, education
To answer the question `What should be public goods first and foremost? I suggest we look for the kind of answer Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham or J. S. Mill might have given to a related but different question : `What should be the functions of government in a large civil society, regardless of whether or not it is constituted democratically?’ This was the relevant question before the modern era of mass democracy. And it is still interesting because, first, it probably remains the appropriate question for the many countries today which either do not have democratic governments or do not have long histories of democracy, and, secondly, because the kinds of answer given by classical authors were very similar to those we might expect from individual citizens in modern democracies as well.
The most important practical functions of civil government include defence against external aggression, the dispensing of civil and criminal justice, the protection of life, property and trade – broadly, the Rule of Law – and the pursuit of a judicious foreign policy. All are different aspects of the same broad objective of ensuring the survival of the community and the security of individual life.
Yet no pretext has been more common than that an imminent danger to the security of the community requires the government to take despotic measures. The guarantee by a civil government of the freedom of inquiry, discourse, criticism, and historical research should take precedence, therefore, even over ensuring security and survival, for it is probably the only final check there can be on whether what a government says is or is not in fact the case. Where this freedom is forcibly denied, or where it exists but people are too apathetic, ignorant or busy with their daily lives to exercise it, public life soon becomes self deceptive and absurd, with propaganda taking the place of discourse, and pretensions and appearances diverging more and more from attainments and reality. Wherever the questions `What is true?’ or `What is the case?’ are not asked frequently enough, there will be fewer and fewer correct answers as to what the case happens to be.[5]
After collective and individual security, the functions of government include the building of dams, embankments, bridges and canals, the provision of roads and fresh water, and so on – activities which, as Adam Smith put it, “. . . though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expence to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.” [6]
Each may be more or less a “pure” public good in the modern sense :“that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtraction from any other individual’s consumption of that good”.[7]
Such a list could be extended to include activities as diverse as: the prevention of soil erosion; the public finance of school education, and’ of measures of basic public health such as vaccinations against contagious diseases; the issuing of currency; sewage disposal; population censuses; the standardization of weights and measures; and so on. It is unnecessary to be more specific here since some people will find even this list controversial. Dogmatists will deny the need for free inquiry; pacifists will dispute that defence is a public good; communists will protest against the public protection of private property; `anarcho-capitalists’ will contest the public dispensation of justice; and so on. To these critics, I would offer merely the following short and incomplete reply.
First, a sound argument can be made that what functions civil government should have can be ascertained, without prejudice, by reasonable citizens, though which particular functions these are may well vary according to circumstances. Secondly, if we could spend time in thoughtful and leisured conversation with every citizen of a large community, it might be predicted – as a matter of cold, empirical fact – that practically everyone would agree with the suggestion that the first destinations of tax revenues should indeed be activities like defence, civil protection and the Rule of Law, the provision of roads, and so on. If such a prediction is correct, my thesis is plainly much more democratic than it might appear to modern economists, though I shall later claim that an objective defence of democratic institutions can be made on quite different grounds as well.
If there is a clear family resemblance between classical liberal authors – from Smith and Mill through to Hayek, Robbins, Friedman, Buchanan, Bauer and many others – it has to do, not so much with the denunciation of government activity in the market-place, as with the recognition of the existence of certain duties of government outside it, the fulfillment of which are indispensable to civil life, let alone the pursuit of economic prosperity. Their protest is at the high opportunity cost of the alternatives foregone.
This raises the question of how we might tell whether government is working well or badly in a particular country at a particular time, or, generally, how we might tell whether different public goods are provided in too small or large amounts. For present purposes it will again be sufficient to suggest a very rough and common sense way of proceeding: let us look first, and think second.
For example, the Iran-Iraq war has clearly been a perfect public bad as far as the ordinary citizenry in either country are concerned. Similarly, if there happen to be millions of cases queuing outside the courts waiting to be heard, or if crime is rampant and police protection ineffective, that may constitute prima facie evidence that too few public resources have been devoted to civil order and justice. Or, if heavy rainfall annually causes landslides in the hills and floods in the plains, devastating crops and leaving innumerable citizens destitute, that also might prompt us to ask whether sufficient public resources have gone towards precautions against such havoc. And so on.[8]
Which goods happen to be public goods depends on the circumstances and the level of government being discussed. For similar circumstances and levels, similar goods will most likely be public goods in different countries. The state ordinarily consists not only of the national government but also of several provincial governments and a myriad of local governments. In particular, a premise of the liberal state would be that public goods should in fact be provided by various levels of government, financed through taxes paid respectively at those levels. The citizen is a taxpayer at a variety of levels, and accordingly public goods are due to be provided at a variety of levels. Just as the national government may not usurp the power to tax for, or spend money on, a public good which is best provided by a provincial government to the citizens of a province, so a provincial government may not tax for, or spend on, a public good best provided by a local government to the citizens of a locality.
The broad principle involved has two aspects: first, a recognition that knowledge of particular circumstances – and hence the ability to act – is infinitesimally dispersed within a population; and, secondly, as direct and visible a matching as possible of the benefits a citizen receives from a particular public good with the taxes he pays towards it, thereby perhaps reducing his incentive to be a free rider on the contributions of others.8Uncertainty and ignoranceProvisionally, therefore, efficient incentives may be thought to consist of a set of market-clearing relative prices and wages, occurring within an institutional context in which the basic and indispensable functions of government have been adequately performed at a variety of appropriate levels.
Such a definition would still be seriously incomplete in one major respect. For we must now recognise: (i) that history is unique and irretrievable, that the present consists only of the fleeting moment, and that the future, by its very nature, cannot be fully known; (ii) that such a thing as human freedom exists; and (iii) that, as a consequence, uncertainty and ignorance are ubiquitous.
Some of the uncertainty derives from the unfolding of natural events (like the rains) over which man has little or no control. The rest derives from the fact that the individual is a free agent who is affected by the actions of others but who cannot predict those actions completely because they too are free agents like himself. Game theory would have had no appeal for the economist if the existence of human freedom had not been a fact. It is this which makes it impossible to read everything in another person’s mind and thus makes it impossible to predict everything he might do. The lasting contribution of Keynesian economics could be its emphasis that such uncertainty and ignorance are important to the economist’s inquiry.
Mathematical economists have been saying for several years that what is required if we are to be realistic are models which reflect the sequential character of actual decision-making and account for the past being immutable and the future uncertain.[9] However, they have proceeded to write even more complex mathematics than we already have – disregarding Aristotle’s advice not to seek more precision from the subject of an inquiry than it may be capable of yielding.[10] My question is the more mundane one of what becomes of the classical liberals’ concept of efficient incentives and institutions in a dynamic world. I shall answer it too in a pedestrian way.
The single overwhelming reason why uncertainty and ignorance are relevant to the economist’s descriptions is that they make real the possibility of mistakes by economic agents. To extend the previous discussion to a dynamic context, what we can do is to ask which institutions are most likely to reduce or mitigate the social consequences of mistaken decisions, whether made by private agents or by those in public office. And it is here that the classical liberals advocate two important institutional features: competition and the decentralisation of decision-making.
The major value of democratic institutions over authoritarian ones is that they encourage these two principles to be put into effect. Because, in a large economy, particular knowledge is infinitesimally dispersed, it may be better for adjustments to a multitude of variables to be made continuously in response to changing circumstances by a vast number of small economic agents, rather than for adjustments to a few variables to be made at political intervals by a small group of very powerful agents. The concentration of power to make major decisions among a few fallible men is a much more ominous prospect than the distribution of power in small amounts among a large number of fallible men. It is much more dangerous for a monopoly of ideas to be claimed about where the political good of a country lies than for there to be free and open competition among such ideas at the bar of reason.
D. H. Robertson put it well when he warned “that all the eggs should not be in the same basket – that in this highly uncertain world the fortunes of a whole trade, or a whole area, should not depend on the foresight and judgement of a single centre of decision”.[11] The presumption in favour of democratic institutions is that they reduce the potential damage from wrong political decisions damage which can be rationally expected in an uncertain world.[12] Elections, in the liberal understanding, are then not so much the means to promote the interests of one’s confederates as to remove from office without bloodshed rulers who fail to do what they are entrusted with, and to replace them by those from whom better is expected. Economic efficiency in an uncertain worldThe economic notion of efficient incentives is also modified by uncertainty and ignorance. In the theory, a set of prices is market clearing only relative to unchanging preferences, resources and technologies. In a dynamic world, however, demand and supply functions are themselves changing and the notion of efficient incentives must accordingly be adapted to one in which relative prices move in the direction of the excess demand: that is, if the parameters change so that the total demand for a good or skill comes to exceed the total supply, we should want to see its relative price rising (and, conversely, if total supply exceeds total demand, we should want to see its relative price falling). During such a process of adjustment, many people may suffer very considerable hardship – something which reasonable Keynesians do well to emphasise.
If changing preferences, resources or technologies cause the demand for a product to diminish, we should want to see the firms which manufacture it either entering different markets, or improving its quality by technological innovation, or lowering prices. Similarly, we should want to see workers in these firms whether blue- or white-collar – who have skills specific to a product whose price is falling either increasing their productivity or retraining themselves in different skills more specific to the manufacture of goods whose prices are rising. Numerous enterprises can go bankrupt, and numerous workers can find themselves unable to sell the skills they possess, if they fail to adapt quickly enough to changing market conditions. The more specialised the product and the more specific the skill, the more hardship there may be. There could well be orthodox Keynesian consequences whereby laid-off workers reduce their consumption expenditures and firms on the verge of bankruptcy reduce their investment expenditures, leading to lower incomes for others, and thus to lower expenditures by them too, and so on. An anti-Keynesian who denied the existence of such hardship would be closed to the facts. He might also not be doing his own theory justice: for it is not unreasonable to argue that, while adjustments are inevitable in an uncertain world, the classical response of prices moving in the direction of excess demand probably minimises the hardship in the transition from one equilibrium to the next.
In a dynamic world, therefore, in which supply and demand functions are shifting continually and unpredictably (though probably incrementally, and not drastically), efficient incentives are better thought of as relative prices which are not stagnant but which are moving – and moving quickly – in the direction of excess demand. It should, in general, be continually profitable at the margin for firms and workers to be innovating technologically and improving productivity. As everyone knows from experience, the principle goad to such activity is fair and free competition. If a job or contract is sought badly enough, and if better quality or lower price are known to be the only criteria of selection, the expected outcome is a differentiation and improvement by competitors of the individual quality or price of what is sold.
In broad summary, the liberal understanding of how material well-being can be improved rests on the assumption that the basic functions of civil government are performed satisfactorily. Government provides the backdrop of civil order and protection necessary for private citizens freely and fairly to conduct their own lives and their transactions with one another. It is a theory which acknowledges a fundamental fact in the study of society, namely, that the individual household : (a) most commonly defines its own horizons; (b) knows the particular opportunities available to it to produce, trade and consume; (c) recognises the particular constraints which prevent it from doing all that it may desire; and(d) perceives how these opportunities and constraints may be changing. Where, as in the liberal picture, there are large numbers of producers and consumers, sellers and buyers – each family acting more or less independently – the efforts of one family do not directly make for other than its own success, while at the same time the repercussions of its mistakes are felt by itself and do not reverberate throughout the whole community. Such has been, as I see it, the American secret to mass prosperity.
3. DISTORTED INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS
DISTORTED INCENTIVES are the logical opposites of efficient ones. Relative prices and wages send distorted signals to individual economic agents when they do not move in the direction of excess demand, so that there is no general tendency for markets to clear. A long-run or endemic excess demand for a good reveals itself in rationing, queueing and black markets. The price at which trade nominally takes place is too low and shows no tendency to move upwards.
Conversely, in a product market, a long-run or endemic excess supply reveals itself in surpluses and spoilages. In a labour market, it reveals itself, on the one hand, in armies of tenured employees who have no incentive to improve productivity, and, on the other hand, in lines of involuntarily or disguised unemployed who cannot sell all the skill they possess and have to settle for selling their less-specialised ones. The price at which trade nominally takes place is too high and shows no tendency to move downwards. In practical terms, firms do not find it profitable to be continually entering new markets or improving quality or enhancing technology or reducing price in order to attract and retain customers. Farmers in particular may face output and input prices which make technological improvements unprofitable.
In politics, distorted incentives are ones which make it profitable for politicians and government officials to be corruptible and taxpayers to be evasive. Because corruption is not penalised and honesty not rewarded, the pursuit of private interest may make it rational to be corrupt and irrational to be honest.
Individualism and statism
A neo-classical economic model like the one outlined above presupposes among citizens a political attitude of individualism. This may be defined as a condition in which citizens have the idea (a) that it is the individual household itself which is principally responsible for improvements in its own well-being, and (b) that government merely “is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people …”, and that government officials are merely the citizens’ “trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.” [13]
Its logical opposite may be called an attitude of statism – defined as prevailing when various classes of citizens have the idea that it is government which is and should be principally responsible for improvements in individual and public well-being. A good sense in which `power’ can be defined in political and economic contexts is as “the capacity to restrict the choices open to other men”.[14] An attitude of statism entails a willingness, or at least an acquiescence, on the part of citizens to relinquish to those in government, with little or no questioning, the power to make decisions which may affect their lives intimately. At the same time, responsibility for relapses or lack of progress in individual well-being is also thought to be the consequence of governmental and not private decision-making. Whereas individualism is a self-assertive attitude, statism is a self abnegating one. For those in government to have a statist mentality is the same as saying they are paternalistic, that is, making the presumption that the citizen is often incapable of judging for himself what is for his own good.
The suggestion that government should have the principal responsibility for improvements in individual and collective economic well-being – in the sense that the collectivity can and should satisfy the material aspirations of every individual – appears straightaway to be self contradictory. An individual can have enough difficulty trying to articulate his own horizons, aspirations and constraints, let alone trying to do the same for others. For a politician (or economist) to claim (or imply) not only that he knows(or can know) the relevant characteristics of everyone at once, but also that he knows how to ameliorate the condition of humanity at a stroke, as if by magic, would have been considered ridiculous in more candid times than ours. If we understand `collective effort’ to mean the sum of individual labours engaged in a common pursuit or endeavour, then for the collectivity to try materially to satisfy every individual would amount to imposing a duty on everyone to try materially to satisfy everyone else – an absurd state of affairs, flying in the face of the fact that most people most of the time do not wish to, or cannot, cope with much else except their private lives.
Exhorting government directly to improve the material wellbeing of `the people’ cannot mean what it seems to because it cannot refer to literally all the people but only to some of them perhaps only a majority, or only the well-organised. That the state is endogenous to the polity implies that no government has resources of its own out of which to disburse the amounts a politician may promise or an economist recommend. To fulfil new promises, given an initial condition of budgetary equilibrium, a government is only able either to print more fiat money or to tax the resources of individual citizens more heavily. Leaving aside the first alternative, fulfillment of the exhortation amounts to using public institutions to transfer resources from some people in order to keep promises made to others.
When the attitude spreads that, in politics, one man’s gain is another man’s loss, and where political control is to be had by winning majorities in elections, the citizen comes to face a perverse incentive to try to coalesce with more and more others in the hope of capturing the public revenues in his favour – instead of thinking critically about the nature of the political good as the institutions of democracy require him to. Political power becomes less dispersed, and the size of the polity diminishes in the sense that it comes to have fewer and fewer constituent agents, each of which is a larger and larger coalition of like-minded confederates intent on acquiring control for its own benefit.
Perhaps the worst consequence of a general attitude of statism, however, is that the basic, commonsensical functions of government are obscured, ignored, and neglected. Instead of requiring politicians and government officials to fulfill these functions, a citizenry allows its public agents to become brokers and entrepreneurs – trading not only in the products of government controlled industries but also in an array of positions of power and privilege, all in the name of directing a common endeavour to help the poor. The state places itself at every profitable opportunity between private citizens who might otherwise have conducted their transactions themselves perfectly well. The result is that governments do, or try to do, what either does not need to be done or ought not to be done by government, while they neglect that which only governments can do and which therefore they ought to be doing.
Part II: History
4. INDIVIDUALISM AND STATISM IN INDIA
AN ATTITUDE of statism has probably been present in India since Mughal times at least. If anything, it spread during the British period since the raison d’être of British rule in India would have vanished without paternalism (as in the course of time it did) and the existence of British rule was the raison d’être of the nationalist movement. Paternalism towards India was espoused even by those Englishmen known for their liberal views at home. Thomas Macaulay, for instance, declared to the House of Commons in 1833: “It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future stage, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history.”[15]
Less than a hundred years later, in 1930-31, the Indian National Congress – to the considerable chagrin of the British Government – resolved to bring about an independent India in which every citizen would have the right to free speech, to profess and practise his faith freely, and to move and practise his profession anywhere in the country. There would be universal adult suffrage and no-one would be unjustly deprived of his liberty or have his property entered, sequestered or confiscated. In particular, all citizens in the future republic would be `equal before the law, irrespective of religion, caste, creed or sex’, and no disability would attach`to any citizen by reason of his or her religion, caste, creed or sex, in regard to public employment, office of power or honour, and in the exercise of any trade or calling’.[16]
These resolutions were made in the thick of the battle for independence, and underscored the fundamental argument of the nationalists that, in spite of the infinitely diverse characteristics of the inhabitants of the sub-continent, a free and secular India was possible in which all would be ruled by a common law. That argument had been in contradistinction to the frequent taunt from British Conservatives that an
India without Britain would disintegrate in internecine bloodshed, and also to the later `two nations’ theory of the Muslim League which led eventually to the creation of
Pakistan. With the departure of the British and the Pakistanis, in 1950 the Constitution of the first Indian Republic was finally able to bring into force the idea of secularity which had inspired the nationalist cause. Thus, among the Fundamental Rights established by the Constitution, Article 14 provided that the state `shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India’. Articles 15.1, 15.2, 16.1, 16.2 and 29.2 went on to prohibit discrimination on the arbitrary grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth in matters of public employment or access to publicly-funded education.
The century between Macaulay and the resolutions for independence was by far the most important to the country’s intellectual history since earliest antiquity. While it took its turbulent course, long severed since the time of the early Greeks – came to be re-established. The common interest and the common contribution became one of admiring and learning from Europe and from India’s own past what there was to be admired and learnt, whilst forsaking and resisting what was self contradictory or base. The maxim for a century might have been : learn the good and let the evil be buried in history. As Tagore wrote :`The lamp of Europe is still burning; we must rekindle our old and extinguished lamp at that flame and start again on the road of time. We must fulfill the purpose of our connection with the English. This is the task we face in the building up of a great India.’[17]
The ideal aspired to was swaraj, or `self rule’. It literally meant not only a government of India by Indians accountable to Indians, but also the governance of the individual by himself. Not only was the country to be sovereign vis-à-vis other states; its individual citizens were to be free vis-à-vis each other and equal before its laws. Swaraj meant, in other words, a condition of political autonomy where the citizen constrained his own free actions so as not to harm others, and where the Rule of Law would protect him when he acted autonomously and resist him when he did not. Given a backdrop of civil order, the infinite number of ways to individual happiness and prosperity in an infinitely diverse sub-continent could then be pursued. Statism all pervading
An attitude of statism, however, has pervaded all public discourse in independent India, and has been reinforced by the social and economic policies pursued by successive governments.
In the first place, a ghost from earlier controversies with the British was to remain in the 1950 Constitution. Immediately after the provisions establishing equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment and publicly funded education, the following caveats appeared. Article 15.3 said that the state could make “any special provision for women and children”; and then, of more significance, Article 15.4 allowed the state to make “any special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”.
Article 16.4 allowed it to make “any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.” Lastly, Article 335 said that “the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts [under the State] . . .” Who was to decide who was `backward’ and who was not, or which group was to be `scheduled’ and which not? Article 341.1 said that `The President may . . . by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes’, and Article 341.2 added that `Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified under 341.1 any caste, race or tribe or part of or any group within any caste, race or tribe . . .’ Articles 342.1 and 342.2 said the same for the Scheduled Tribes.
Subsequently, two Presidential Orders named no fewer than 1,181 different groups in the country as `Scheduled Castes’ and more than 583 other groups as `Scheduled Tribes’. Roughly a sixth of the population thus came to be termed `backward’ by executive decree and were segregated by statute from the rest of the citizenry.
The direct precursor of these provisions was the `Communal Award’ by the British Government in 1932, who had taken it to be their duty “to safeguard what we believe to be the right of Depressed Classes to a fair proportion in Legislatures ”.[18] (`Depressed Classes’ was the official name for those misleadingly called `untouchables’ outside the Hindu fold.)
The complex customs of the Hindus call for endogamy and commensality among members of the same caste, thus making anyone outside a caste somewhat `untouchable’ for its members. In marriage and dining habits, many orthodox Hindus would hold foreigners, Muslims, and even Hindus of other castes at the same distance as those formally classified as `Depressed Classes’. Indeed, non-Hindus in India -including the British often maintained social protocols that were equally as strict.
No serious Indian historian would doubt that members of the `Depressed Classes’ had been oppressed and had suffered countless indignities throughout Indian history at the hands of so-called`caste Hindus’. At various times, persecution had led to mass conversions to the more secular faiths. But the ancient wrongs of the Hindu practices had to do not so much with the lack of physical contact in personal life which the word `untouchability’ connotes for Indian society has always consisted of a myriad of voluntarily segregated groups – but rather with open and obvious inequities such as the denial of equal access to temples, public wells, baths and schools.
Gandhi, who by his personal example probably did more for the cause of the `Depressed Classes’ than anyone else, protested against the Communal Award with one of his most famous fasts. Privately, he suspected that `…the communal question [was] being brought deliberately to the forefront and magnified by the government because they did not intend to part with power’.[19] Publicly, he argued that the pernicious consequence would be a further exacerbation of the apartheid under which the `Depressed Classes’ had suffered for so long, when the important thing was for their right to be within the Hindu fold to be acknowledged by `caste’ Hindus.[20]
The Fundamental Rights in the 1950 Constitution establishing the equality of all citizens before the law evidently had the 1930-31 resolutions as their precursors; while Article17 – which specifically declared `untouchability’ to be `abolished’ and its practice `forbidden’ – was part of Gandhi’s legacy, placing those who had for centuries been denigrated and persecuted on exactly the same footing in the eyes of the laws of the Republic as their denigrators and persecutors. The subsequent clauses authorizing the state to discriminate in favour of `Scheduled Castes’, and allowing it to define by executive decree who was to be so called, were evidently the remnants of the Communal Award of 1932. Discrimination by the state was initially to last for a period of 10 years only. It has, however, been extended three times -for another 10 years on each occasion – and so continues to the present day. We shall examine a few of the consequences in Part III.‘A socialistic pattern of society’As for economic policy, while the original 1950 Constitution had ambiguously stated certain ends – such as that government was `to strive to promote the welfare of the people’ – it made no mention at all of any specific economic institutions, statist or liberal, which the new Republic was to nurture as means towards those ends. In spite of this omission, successive governments have explicitly avowed their espousal of` socialism’ as the means to the good and prosperous society.
For instance, a “socialistic pattern of society where the principal means of production are under social ownership or control” was declared to be a national objective at the ruling Congress Party’s convention in 1955; and, in 1976, the notorious 42nd Amendment purported to change the very description of the country in the preamble to the original Constitution from the sober `Sovereign, Democratic Republic’ to the awkward `Sovereign, Secular, Socialist Democratic Republic’. It is an open and important issue of constitutional practice whether a temporary majoritarian government can change the legal description of a republic so fundamentally that it necessarily begs every question now and in the future about the efficacy of socialism as the route to mass prosperity.[21]
Even so, `socialism’ is a vague and equivocal word, meaning different things to different people. Briefly, what happened in the Indian context seems to have been that the Nationalist Government explicitly took upon itself the responsibility of becoming the prime mover of the economic growth of the country. This was in addition to its other fundamental and urgent political responsibilities at the time, namely, to establish peace and civil order in the aftermath of a bloody partition, re-settle several million destitute refugees, integrate into the Republic the numerous principalities and fiefdoms run by the princes and potentates, re-draw provincial boundaries on a sensible linguistic criterion, and generally educate people about their rights and responsibilities as individual citizens in a new and democratic republic.
In a poor country which had just ended a long period of alien rule, it was understandable, if in advisable, that a nationalist government led by cultured, educated men among unlettered masses should take upon itself the responsibility for economic growth. Part of the nationalists’ critique of British rule had been precisely that it had worked to the considerable detriment of the Indian economy. And, certainly, whatever the exact calculation of the benefits and costs of the British presence in India, while there had been obvious benefits, there had also been obvious costs such as iniquitous taxes and overt racial discrimination in employment. [22]Thus, when the nationalists practically swore themselves to provide better government for the economy, it was certainly a very praiseworthy aim; 1947 would indeed be the year of India’s `tryst with destiny’.
Better government not necessarily more government
What the Nehru Government came to believe, however, was that better government for the economy necessarily meant more government activity in the economy. A similar nationalist government led by cultured, educated men among an unlettered public had chosen differently in 1776 at Philadelphia, but the times and circumstances were very different. The Indian nationalists, and most especially Prime Minister Nehru, had just witnessed what they took to be, on the one hand, the collapse of the market economy in the Great Depression and, on the other, the rapid growth to greatness of Bolshevik Russia. In his presidential address to the Congress in 1936, for instance, Nehru spoke of the immediate past in these terms: `Everywhere conflicts grew, and a great depression overwhelmed the world and there was a progressive deterioration, everywhere except in the wide flung Soviet territories of the USSR, where, in marked contrast with the rest of the world, astonishing progress was made in every direction . . .’ Thus, it seemed to him, there was`. . . no way of ending the poverty, the vast unemployment, the degradation, and the subjection of the Indian people except through Socialism”. Socialism meant, inter alia, ` the ending of private property, except in a restricted sense, and ttte repla emenr of the ,private profit system by a higher ideal of co-operative service. It means ultimately a change in our instincts and habits and desires. In short, it means a new civilisation, radically different from the present capitalist order. Some glimpse we can have of this new civilisation in the territories of the USSR. Much has happened there which has pained me greatly and with which I disagree, but I look upon that great and fascinating unfolding of anew order and a new civilisation as the most promising feature of our dismal age. If the future is full of hope it is largely because of Soviet Russia and what it has done, and I am convinced that, if some world catastrophe does not intervene, this new civilisation will spread to other lands and put an end to the wars and conflicts on which capitalism feeds’.[23]
Equally as certain and deep as his admiration for the liberal values of the West was Nehru’s evident misunderstanding of the causes and consequences of Stalin’s Russia. The political and economic history of India in the past 30 years cannot be understood without regard to her most powerful leader’s ambivalence about the nature of the political and economic good.
By the mid-1950s, many of India’s other prominent statesmen had died or retired from public life, and there was hardly a public figure of’ stature left (with the exception of Rajagopalachari) to challenge Nehru’s socialist vision of the country’s future. Moreover, men who were ostensibly `expert economists’, but whose writings revealed no knowledge of prices or markets or the concept of feasibility, were encouraged to endorse and embellish this vision, which they did without hesitation in the secure knowledge that they were shielded from critics by the intellectual patronage of a charismatic and elected leader.[24]
The choice between alternative models of mass economic prosperity must have seemed quite clear at the time. The cold fact did not, however, vanish that one of the oldest objective lessons of political economy has been that more government is not necessarily better government. It is to the consequences of ignoring this lesson that we now turn.
Part III: Practice
ECONOMIC POLICIES IN INDEPENDENT INDIA
INDIA TODAY is a bizarre maze of distorted incentives, which I (and no doubt others) have found very difficult to untangle and understand. I shall, however, list and discuss the most significant of them as methodically as I can.
(i) Industry
The Indian Government has declared a large `public sector’ in commerce and industry to be a national objective. Towards this end, it has therefore progressively acquired numerous enterprises, large and small, so that it now has either a full monopoly in an industry or is one of a few oligopolists. These industries range from banking, insurance, railways, airlines, cement, steel, chemicals, fertilisers and ship-building to making beer, soft drinks, telephones and wrist-watches. There are no explicit penalties for indefinite loss-making; indeed, bankrupt private enterprises have often been nationalised to serve politicians’ ends. And, certainly, there has been no general rule of marginal-cost pricing. In public utilities, like electricity generation and distribution or city buses and trams, prices appear to be well below marginal cost, leading to severe rationing and queueing. Sudden stoppages of electricity for hours at a time and monumental congestion on buses and trams have become endemic facts of life for millions of urban Indians.
At the same time, private industry in India has been made to face labyrinthine controls. The government has continually exhorted private firms to work in the `national interest’ – which means accepting the constraints of centralised planning. It has left no doubt that, while there is a `role’ for the min the growth of the economy, they exist at the sufferance of government and had better realise it, otherwise the dark forces of revolution which have so far been kept at bay will inevitably sweep them away altogether, as happened in Russia and China.
The constraints imposed on the operation of a private business are legion, and would make a businessman from the West or Far East reach for a psychiatrist or a pistol. An entrepreneur may not enter numerous industries without government approval of the `technical’ viability of his project; once it is approved, he cannot find credit except from a government bank; and he cannot buy raw materials and machinery of the highest quality at the lowest price since, if they are produced in India, he will be denied a licence to import better and/or cheaper foreign substitutes. The onus is on him to satisfy the government that no production occurs within India of the input he requires; only then will an import licence conceivably be granted, subject to periodic review by the government. He may be compelled to export a specified proportion of his output as a condition for the renewal of his import licence, which therefore places him at a disadvantage with foreign buyers who, of course, are aware of this restraint. He may be unable to compete internationally because the rupee is priced above its likely equilibrium and some of the inputs he uses are high-cost, low-quality domestic substitutes. As a result, he may be compelled practically to dump his output abroad at whatever price it will fetch.
The entrepreneur’s factory may be subject to random cuts in electricity for hours at a time. He may require government approval before he can increase his fixed capacity, modernise his plant, change a product-line, or even change the number of labour shifts. He may face minimum-wage and stringent unfair dismissal laws on the one hand, and price controls on the other. If he fails to meet credit obligations to the nationalised banks, he may be penalised by the appointment of one or more government directors to his board – a form of `creeping’ nationalisation. Further, he may be subjected to a constant threat of full nationalisation as and when the government decides that his industry should be in the public sector in the interests of national planning.[25]
The consequence of all these controls has been a monumental distortion of incentives away from encouraging private firms to try to attract customers by improving technology and quality or reducing prices towards encouraging them to concentrate on `rent-seeking’, in the term made familiar by Professors Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan.[26]
As Anne Krueger says in her excellent study of the automobile ancillary industry, the very notion of entrepreneurial efficiency changes in such circumstances: `Under conditions in India, the most important problem confronting entrepreneurs is that of assuring that production will continue. The combined effects of import licensing and investment licensing give virtually every firm a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position. The entrepreneur who is most successful in getting licences of greater value and/or in getting licences more quickly than his fellow producers will have higher profits. `The producer who does not compete successfully for licences cannot produce at all, no matter how skilled he is in achieving engineering efficiency, unless he enters the “open market” and pays a premium to the successful licence applicant for some materials . . . Successful entrepreneurs are therefore those who are best at obtaining the greatest number of licences most expeditiously . . .’ [27]
Moreover, firms which are low-cost and efficient (in the free market sense) and which are successful at rent-seeking as high-cost, inefficient firms may still not be able to compete the latter out of business because government will not usually allow a particular firm to expand – regardless of its efficiency – if there is excess capacity in the industry of which it is a part. High-cost firms can thereby rationally count on staying in business simply by maintaining significant excess capacity.
(ii) Foreign trade
The Government of India has always claimed that foreign exchange is a `scarce’ resource which must be rationed by fiat in the national interest. The total foreign-exchange revenue (at an exchange rate which was fixed until 1971 and has since been on a managed `peg’) has been allocated in the following order of priorities: first, to meet foreign debt repayments and government expenditures in the conduct of foreign policy, such as the maintenance of embassies (G1); secondly, to pay for imports of defence equipment, food, fertilisers and petroleum (G2); thirdly, to meet ear-marked payments for the imported inputs of public sector industries so that they may achieve projected production targets (G3); fourthly, to pay for the imported inputs of private sector firms which are
successful in obtaining import licences (P1); and, lastly, to satisfy the demands of the public at large for purposes such as travel abroad (P2).
Foreign exchange is `scarce’ in India, or elsewhere, in precisely the same sense that rice or petrol or cloth is scarce. Just as there exists some positive price for rice, petrol or cloth which, at any moment, will match total supplies with total demands, so there exists some positive price for rupees relative to dollars which, at any moment, will match the transaction and asset demands of Indians for dollars with the transaction and asset demands of foreigners for rupees. Underlying that market-clearing price would be (a) the demands of Indians for foreign goods whose f.o.b. prices were lower than those of domestic substitutes, and, similarly, the demands of foreigners for goods in which India has had a comparative advantage; and (b) the expectations of Indians and foreigners about the future purchasing power of the rupee relative to the dollar, using as a proxy, say, the difference between interest rates in India and abroad.
A free market in foreign exchange would first have encouraged India’s traditional exports, like jute manufactures and textiles, and then (if the positive theory of international trade is broadly correct)progressively encouraged the export of other non traditional goods which used India’s relatively inexpensive labour relatively intensively and thereby enabled Indian entrepreneurs to compete successfully in foreign markets. At the same time, capital flows into and out of India would have given the monetary authorities an incentive to keep domestic interest rates in line with the real opportunity cost of forgoing consumption in favour of savings.
Thus, the case against a free market in foreign exchange has always been, to say the least, far from obvious.[28] But even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the presumed superiority of rationing, the elementary theory of optimisation which underlies the so-called theory of `planning’ dictates that the government should allocate dollars between alternative uses such that the marginal dollar yields the same increase in social utility in any use. The Indian Government, however, appears to have allocated foreign exchange simply on the basis of giving a higher priority to its own foreign expenditures (categories Gl, G2 and G3) than to private foreign expenditures (categories Pl and P2). That is to say, regardless of how much social utility might have been derived from a particular increase in private-sector imports, it would not be considered until after the government had met all its own expenditures abroad.[29]
Jagdish Bhagwati and T. N. Srinivasan put it as follows : `The allocation of foreign exchange among alternative claimants and users in a direct control system . . .would presumably be with reference to a well-defined set of principles and criteria based on a system of priorities. In point of fact, however, there seem to have been few such criteria, if any, followed in practice.’[30]
With respect to imported inputs for private- and public-sector industries, a rule of `essentiality’ (that is, the input must be technically `essential’ to the production process) and a rule of `indigenous availability’(that is, there must be absolutely no domestically-produced physical substitutes, regardless of cost and quality)seem to have been followed. But, as Bhagwati and Srinivasan report, `. . . the sheer weight of numbers made any meaningful listing of priorities extremely difficult. The problem was Orwellian: all industries had priority and how was each sponsoring authority to argue that some industries had more priority than others? It is not surprising, therefore, that the agencies involved in determining allocations by industry fell back on vague notions of “fairness”, implying pro rata allocations with reference to capacity installed or employment, or shares defined by past import allocations or similar rules of thumb’. [31]
Clearly, in abjuring the free market and claiming a monopoly over foreign-exchange transactions, government planners have accepted certain premises as unquestionable: (a) that government sponsored industrialisation is the best means to mass prosperity; (b) that a policy of indefinite import-substitution is the best means to industrialisation; and (c) that such a policy requires all foreign expenditures by government to take precedence over all private foreign expenditures. The trade and foreign-exchange policies pursued cannot be understood except by reference to domestic economic policies and, in particular, to the view held about the proper functions of government in and out of the market-place.
In addition to a plethora of controls, tariffs and outright bans on imports, there have been erratic policies, subsidising the export of `new’, non-traditional manufactures like engineering goods, and taxing- and even banning – the export of goods in which India has traditionally enjoyed a comparative advantage.[32]
Moreover, the rupee has been continuously over-valued. From 1949 to 1959, the official exchange rate of Rs. 4.76 to the US dollar was, on average, 12..3 percent above the black-market rate, a figure which rose to 61 per cent between 1960 and 1965. From 1966 to 1970, the devalued official rate of Rs. 7.50 to the dollar was above the black-market rate by an average of 47.6 per cent, while from 1971 onwards the managed-peg rate has been above the black-market rate by an average of 24.3 per cent.[33]
Simple economics suggests that a free-market equilibrium rate would be somewhere between the black-market and official rates. An official exchange rate for the rupee fixed above that warranted by underlying relative demands for Indian and foreign goods, as well as by relative degrees of confidence in the rupee and the dollar, subsidises imports at the expense of exports. By discriminating in favour of its own foreign expenditures and against those of the private sector, the government has been the principal beneficiary of an over-valued rupee. If capital-intensive goods are the main imports and labour-intensive ones the main exports, an over-valued rupee further distorts incentives so as to favour the use of capital-intensive production processes over labour intensive ones – in a country with a demonstrable abundance of relatively inexpensive labour!
With an eye to India, Krueger has argued the general issue in these terms:`Subsidies can make any industry an export industry, even one that would not produce at all in an efficient allocation. Similarly, taxes can be levied on an industry that has comparative advantage which will penalize it enough to render domestic production entirely unprofitable. When taxes and subsidies are used, therefore, it is possible not only to distort the structure of production, but to distort it so much that the “wrong” commodities are exported.”[34]
The Indian Government’s planners have had the idea of forcibly effecting a reversal in the comparative advantage of the country, as if by magic overnight. The hope might have been that a forced pace of industrialisation would somehow allow economies of scale to be reaped and thus soon make Indian industrial goods competitive enough in international markets to be the country’s principal source of foreign exchange, displacing traditional manufactures like jute and textiles. In practice, however, as the evidence given by Bela Balassa
and other economists demonstrates, such a policy has not succeeded to date and is most unlikely ever to do so.
India’s import bill has risen continuously, most drastically after the 1973-74 quadrupling of petroleum prices; non-traditional manufactures have hardly been able to compete successfully in foreign markets; and the traditional exports of jute and textiles have suffered very severe setbacks. Balassa contrasts the consequences of the freer, outward-looking trade policies of South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan with those of the inward-looking, controlled regime of India as part of a study of 11 countries(including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Israel and Yugoslavia) which, along with Hong Kong, account for most of the manufactured exports of developing countries. India’s share of the total manufactured exports of these countries has fallen steadily from 65.4 per cent in 1953 to 50.7 per cent in1960, to 31.2 per
cent in 1966 and to a mere 10.3 per cent in 1973. The proportion exported of India’s total manufactured output fell from 9.7 per cent in 1960 to 9.4 per cent in 1966 and to 8.6 per cent in1973. In contrast, during the same two periods, the proportion of manufactured output exported rose from1 to 14 to 41 per cent in South Korea, from 11 to 20 to 43 per cent in Singapore, and from 9 to 19 to 50 per cent in Taiwan.[35]
Balassa cogently argues that the adverse effects of a sudden change in external factors, such as the quadrupling of petroleum prices in 1973-74 or the 1974-75 Western recession, were absorbed much more easily by developing countries with large foreign-trade sectors than by those like India with relatively small ones: `Outward orientation is associated with high export and import shares that permit reduction in non-essential imports without serious adverse effects on the functioning of the economy. By contrast, continued inward orientation involves limiting imports to an unavoidable minimum, so that any further reduction will impose a considerable cost in terms of growth. Furthermore, the greater flexibility of the national economies of countries pursuing an outward-oriented strategy, under which firms learn to live with foreign competition, makes it possible to change the product composition of exports in response to changes in world market conditions, whereas inward orientation entails establishing a more rigid economic structure.’[36]
In other words, if imports are both high in total value and diverse in composition, a rise in the relative price of a particular import for which home demand is relatively inelastic (like petroleum and its products) can be accommodated by a substitution of expenditure towards it and away from inessential imports for which demand is relatively elastic. A similar argument had typically been advanced by advocates of import-substitution when they maintained that the exports of a small country should be diverse and not concentrated on only a few goods since a decline in world prices would otherwise lead to serious falls in export revenues. This suggests that both critics and advocates of import substitution might agree that, for a country which is a price-taker in world markets, the encouragement of a large foreign-trade sector is a way of diversifying the risk of adverse effects from changes in world prices. The question remains as to whether the positive theory of trade is correct in saying that the encouragement of comparative advantage is superior to import-substitution as a means of achieving a large foreign sector. From the contrasting experiences of, say, South Korea on the one hand and India on the other, the answer seems overwhelmingly to be that it is.
(iii) Agriculture
The Indian Government has instituted a multiple-pricing system for the major food-grains, especially rice and wheat. Farmers are compelled to sell a specified fraction of their output to the government, at a price fixed by the government which is significantly lower than that warranted by underlying supply and demand conditions. Farmers may sell the remainder of their output freely. The quantities the government acquires in this way, plus any it imports (imports being subsidised by the over-valuation of the exchange rate), are sold by ration at lower than free-market prices in the so-called `fair-price’ shops – which happen to be mainly in urban areas. Urban consumers may purchase part of their requirements from such shops and the remainder on the open market at higher prices. Astute middle-class urban housewives know that rationed grain is often of poorer quality than that sold on the open market. Accordingly, the former often constitutes part of the wages of the domestic servants of the urban household, while the family consumes the latter. Insofar as this is true, it suggests that farmers distinguish quality much better than do government officials, and that they use this advantage somewhat to partition their output into low- and high-quality, selling the first under compulsion to the government and the second on the open market.
While such is the general food policy of India, the compulsory procurement of grains and their distribution to the ration-shops is implemented by individual State governments and not by the Union Government. There have usually been numerous restrictions on inter-State movements of grain, so the States do not form a full customs union; instead, the Union Government tries to be a central clearing-house, matching the desired imports of one State with the desired exports of another.[37]
Economic effects of ban on futures contracts
Furthermore, futures contracts in grains have been banned by law, in the belief that futures trading is conducive to speculation and that speculation is undesirable. A futures contract in grain consists simply of a promise by a seller to deliver an amount of grain to a buyer at some specified date in the future in return for payment at a price agreed today. The seller’s incentive to enter into the contract is the guarantee of a certain sale, and the availability of funds now; the buyer’s incentive is the guarantee of a certain price for future deliveries. The contract may be entered into because buyer and seller have different expectations about what the spot price will be in the future. The buyer minimises his expected costs and the seller maximises his expected revenues; both are able to balance their budgets inter-temporally. Even if they have the same expectations about future spot prices, buyer and seller may still find it mutually profitable to enter into a futures contract as a way of insuring against risk. Forbidding such contracts by decree thus forces more risk onto both buyer and seller than they would normally be prepared to carry, and also induces them to balance their accounts in each period rather than it inter-temporally. Alternative kinds of credit markets become it relatively more lucrative, with the potential seller and buyer of futures wheat respectively borrowing and lending more than they would otherwise have done.[38]
The government has also expressed its determination to keep prices in ration-shops low. It has accordingly stockpiled large inventories of grain, apparently regardless of the costs of storage and spoilage or the alternative of holding larger foreign-exchange reserves to permit increased imports when necessary.
The ostensible, declared objective of all such policies has been to ensure that the poor do not suffer severe adverse income effects from sudden rises in the price of food resulting (it has been thought) from the contingencies of rainfall and the actions of speculative traders. It is, however, an open secret that the policies have really been a means of (a) taxing farmers, who pay a smaller percentage of their income in direct and indirect taxes than do urban dwellers, and (b) subsidising urban consumers, who broadly comprise the industrial working class and the middle in classes.
At the same time, however, the government and its advisers — after the considerable hesitation recorded by David Hopper [39]- have also accepted that the best long-run prospects for increasing agricultural productivity lie in modernising traditional farming techniques. Given the outstanding results of the Green Revolution in wheat, they could hardly have arrived at any other conclusion. The problem from the government’s point of view has been, as a sympathetic economist puts it “…how to procure a sufficient quantity of food grains at reasonable prices without jeopardising the farmers’ incentives to produce more”.[40]
Thus, while taxing farmers de facto on their output, on the one hand, the government has tried, on the other, to promote the use of modern inputs by subsidizing them both directly and through low-interest loans from the banks for such investment.
Distortions of incentives in agriculture
The distortions of efficient incentives caused by such policies are not difficult to see. First, the low output prices of wheat and rice have, in effect, been discriminatory taxes on wheat. As Edward Schuh remarks, these discourage the production of `. . . the very crops that policy-makers believe the vulnerable groups should have greater access to . . .’[41]
Vasant Sukhatme and Theodore Schultz have argued that, even between wheat and rice, there has been severe discrimination in favour of the former. At the official over-valued exchange rate, the price of domestic wheat has been significantly higher than imported, while at open-market rates for the rupee, the domestic price approximated the import price. For rice, however, the domestic price has been consistently below the import price. Sukhatme estimated that the dead weight loss in welfare from the under pricing of rice amounted to 8.5 per cent of total agricultural income in 1967-68 and to 2.2 per cent in 1970-71. He also calculated effective rates of protection, which were strongly negative for rice whether at official or open-market exchange rates and positive for wheat at the official exchange rate. Both he and Schultz conclude that the discrimination against rice has been a major factor in explaining the absence of a Green Revolution in rice on the scale of that in wheat.[42]
Secondly, the main beneficiaries of government subsidies for modern inputs have evidently been not the many small farmers but the fewer relatively large ones. As Gilbert Brown reports :`Large-scale farmers buy most subsidised inputs. Poorer farmers usually lack the money to buy adequate amounts of fertiliser and pesticides, and are commonly unable to get credit except at near-prohibitive rates of often 60% to 100% per year. Even in countries with subsidised bank credit for agriculture, rich farmers get most of the credit because of legal or administrative restrictions and/ or through open or disguised bribery. Credit and subsidy programmes for tractors, tube wells and other fixed investments also go mostly to the largest and richest farmers . . .Water is also a subsidised input . . . The farmers who receive this subsidised water generally have substantially higher incomes (because of the water) than farmers without access to public irrigation. Thus, claims that water should be subsidised to help small farmers misses the point that most farmers with irrigation have higher incomes than those who do not.’[43]
Brown argues that subsidies for inputs have been made necessary only to offset the forced depression of output prices. Moreover, the social benefit from subsidising inputs is limited to when the input is first introduced: ‘Once the benefits and technique of using the input are widely known, however, the continuation of such subsidies serves largely to increase the benefit-cost ratio of using the input . . .’.
Whether it is better to continue with artificially low input and output prices or to adjust towards a free market in both must take into account that the subsidies have encouraged more capital-intensity in production, and also that the `. . . low prices of certain inputs, particularly water, are often associated with widespread waste and inefficient use of the resource’.[44]
Thirdly, the farmer who is too small to find investment in storage facilities profitable may also consider it not worth his while to hold any of his output for sale on the open market. He will then sell it all to the government – at a below-market price.
A general conclusion would seem to be that, if the combined effect of input subsidies and forced grain sales to government has been a net subsidy to agriculture, then it has been a progressive subsidy; whereas if the combined effect has been a net tax on agriculture, then it has been a regressive tax. The Marxists may be quite right to protest that what gains there have been in agriculture have accrued to the relatively larger farmers, while smaller peasants and farmers are becoming landless labourers in growing numbers as a result of bankruptcy (that is, there has been increasing `rural proletarianisation’, to use the Marxists’ picturesque phrase). But if this is true, the cause can be traced unambiguously to the Indian Government’s belief – vociferously shared by the Marxists – that the way towards the declared objective of helping the poor is by extensive interference in the price system. Besides, the industrial working class demonstrably benefits from low food prices, so the honest Marxist must face up to being torn by divided loyalties between the rural and the urban proletariats.
Srinivasan put it as follows in a 1974 survey article :`The public distribution system with respect to foodgrains . . . operated to the benefit of all those living in metropolitan cities and other large urban concentrations while all others, including rich and poor in relatively small urban and almost all rural areas, did not benefit at all. When one recalls that the rural population includes the most abject among the poor, namely landless workers, the inequity of the system becomes glaring. And in urban areas, the existence of the system and the fact that the ration is often inadequate provides incentives for a household to falsify the data on its size and age composition given to the rationing authorities, as well as to create bogus or ghost ration-cards, not to speak of the corruption of the personnel manning the rationing administration.’[45]
The history of the extensive control of agriculture – which has included a partial government monopsony, forcibly-depressed output prices, inter-State restrictions on grain movements, and urban ration-shops – can be traced to the last years of British rule, as an attempt to bolster the popularity of the imperial regime. [46] The continuation and reinforcement of statism in agriculture in independent India has evidently rested on certain premises, namely, that the private market would be grossly inefficient and would be dominated by a few traders continually reaping large speculative profits, with both the small farmer and the ordinary consumer suffering in consequence.
Uma Lele’s fine study of the private grain trade, however, shows the real picture to be quite different. She found that the trade was highly competitive, that individual traders were rational agents (given the constraints of technology and government policy), that location price differences closely reflected transport costs, and that temporal price differences closely reflected storage costs. She argued that, while there was considerable scope for government activity, it should be in the form, not of interfering in the competitive market, but rather of encouraging the market to work – by, for example, disseminating relevant information such as crop forecasts, standardising weights and measures, constructing or improving roads and encouraging efficiency in the market for the transport of grain, etc.[47]
The evident neglect of such findings as these, and the continued application of policies inimical to competition and the free market, suggest that successive governments of independent India have been hardly more concerned for the rural poor – whether as farmer or consumer – and hardly less concerned with bolstering their popularity in the urban areas than were the British.
(iv) Employment
An obvious consequence of the economic policies described above has been the distortion of the individual citizen’s calculation of the expected benefits and costs of living and working in urban areas compared with the rural countryside. The forced depression of output prices in agriculture and the plethora of foreign-trade policies which discriminate against agriculture certainly seem to have artificially depressed the expected incomes of farmers. At the same time, a large `public sector’ in industry, plus the array of foreign-trade policies which have protected private industry, plus the indirect subsidisation of food sold in urban ration-shops certainly seem to have artificially raised expected urban incomes. Predictably, the reaction has been a vast and continuing net migration from the villages to the towns and cities, even after adjusting for the seasonal nature of agriculture. This drift has been the subject of much inquiry and discussion by development economists.[48] I propose to set it aside and examine instead a different aspect of employment policy which has not received nearly as much attention, namely, the consequences of putting into effect the clauses in the 1950 Indian Constitution mentioned above which authorised discrimination in employment and public education in favour of the `Scheduled’ castes and tribes, as well as other policies which discriminate on grounds of ethnic origin.
The consequences have been similar in several respects to those in America of `affirmative action’ towards so-called `racial minorities’, and it will be useful to draw out the analogy a little. As Thomas Sowell has cogently argued in recent years, the racial composition of contemporary American society is a complex mosaic, and no-one can say with certainty how it has come to be what it is today. In such circumstances, for the government to try to isolate a single contingent characteristic like `race’, partition society on the basis of census data according to this characteristic, and then construct public policies accordingly, is to introduce an enormous arbitrariness into economic life. By merely defining a group by reference to a single contingent characteristic, which all its members seem to possess, the intrinsic complexity of the individual person is lost or overlooked. Two members of the same race may be very different from each other in every relevant characteristic (income, education, political preference, and so on), and indeed resemble members of other races more closely in them. A policy which introduces a citizen’s race as a relevant factor in the assignment of jobs or college places partitions the citizenry into vague groups : members of groups who are very different from members of other groups in characteristics other than race rarely competing with each other anyway, while the burden and beneficence of the state’s policies fall on members of groups who are not very different from members of other groups in characteristics other than race: `. . . costs are borne disproportionately by those members of the general population who meet those standards with the least margin and are therefore most likely to be the ones displaced to make room for minority applicants. Those who meet the standards by the widest margin are not directly affected – that is, pay no costs. They are hired, admitted or promoted as if blacks did not exist. People from families with the most general ability to pay also have the most ability to pay for the kind of education and training that makes such performance possible. The costs of special standards are paid by those who do not. Among the black population, those most likely to benefit from the lower standards are those closest to meeting the normal standards. It is essentially an implicit transfer of wealth among people least different in non-racial characteristics. For the white population it is a regressively graduated tax in kind, imposed on those who are rising but not on those already on top.’[49]
At the same time, there is, in effect, a progressively graduated subsidy for members of the `minority’ group in favour of those who are already closest to meeting the general standards. Those in the mainstream of each group are largely unaffected; it is at the margins of competition that the bitterness caused by such policies will be felt and will manifest itself. It would seem that the situation in India – where the racial mosaic is if anything more complex than in America – is somewhat analogous. In recent years there has been civil tension and violence in the streets as poor Muslims, `caste’ Hindus, Sikhs and others have protested at being edged out of jobs and promotions by equally poor, or wealthier, members of the `Scheduled Castes’. In March-April 1981, for instance, there was widespread civil tension and violence in Gujarat over the reservation of places in the State’s medical colleges. A quarter of these places were statutorily reserved for members of the `Scheduled Castes’, with any not taken up by qualified candidates from these groups accruing to them in the future, thereby rapidly excluding from general competition as many as half the total number of places.[50]
The cruel paradox is that, while the position of many members (perhaps the vast majority) of the `Scheduled Castes’ vis-à-vis `caste’ Hindus remains one of degradation and persecution – quite regardless of the constitutional guarantees of equality in the eyes of the law – the relatively few who have succeeded in taking advantage of the discriminatory statutes have aroused the indignation of those who have not -causing even more animosity towards the `Scheduled Castes’ in general. One commentator observes the emergence of a `new elite’ among the `Scheduled Castes’ which `ceases to identify with its caste brethren’; while, at the same time, the law on equality `is so widely flouted precisely because the Scheduled Castes have not the means or courage to seek its protection . . .’ He concludes :`Contrived gestures such as are now popular will either not benefit [the Scheduled Castes] . . . or will do so only by further lowering already deplorable academic and administrative standards’. [51]
Moreover, when all government posts are advertised with a caveat that 10 or 15 per cent of themare reserved for members of the `Scheduled Castes’ and `Scheduled Tribes’, there is a considerable incentive for people to persuade Parliament to declare them as being such. And that also has happened. Discrimination in employment on the ground of caste has not been the only kind of discrimination practised by the Indian state. In what may be the most thorough study currently available on the origins, consequences and legal history of official discrimination in India, Weiner, Katzenstein and Rao have described the plethora of policies pursued by the central and state governments which have used not caste but ethnic origin as a criterion for public employment (with the private sector also often being `encouraged’ to follow suit) :`Preferences are given to those who belong to the “local” community, with “local” understood as referring to the numerically dominant linguistic group in the locality.’ [52] The authors conclude that what is emerging in India is`. . . a government-regulated labour market in which various ethnic groups are given a reserved share of that market. Competition for employment is thus not among all Indians, but within specified linguistic, caste, and tribal groups.`. . . various ethnic groups, therefore, fight politically for a share of that labour market. The major political struggles are often over who should get reservations, how the boundaries of the ethnic groups should be defined, and how large their share should be. There are also political struggles over whether there should be reservations in both education and employment, in private as well as in public employment, and in promotions as well as hiring. The preferential policies themselves have thus stimulated various ethnic groups to assert their “rights” to reservations.’[53]
It is not difficult to understand the general economic argument against discrimination on grounds such as caste or ethnic origin. If a private employer indulges a personal preference to hire only people of an kind A when there are more able or better qualified candidates of other ethnic kinds B, C, D, . . . ,available, and if the product of his firm is subject to competition in the market from other enterprises which do not discriminate on criteria which are irrelevant to economic efficiency, we may confidently expect the discriminating employer’s product to become uncompetitive and his profits to fall. The best and most obvious example of this would be in the professional sports industry in the USA : a `whites-only’ basketball or football team would be immediately vanquished on the games-field into bankruptcy. If government pursues employment policies which discriminate according to economically irrational criteria such as caste or ethnic origin, or if it forces all private firms to do likewise, there will certainly be inefficiency resulting in a loss of real aggregate output in the economy. In the terms of modern economics, a vector of total outputs which would be feasible given the parameters of the economy, and which would leave everyone either better off or at least no worse off, would not be achieved. In sum, the consequence of direct and widespread government interference in the labour market in India appears to have been, not only a disregard for the principle of equality before the law for every citizen (in a nascent republic of immensely diverse peoples), but also a loss of real output and an enormous `politicisation’ of economic life whereby individual success becomes increasingly tied to political power and increasingly removed from personal merit, enterprise and effort. In addition, the composition of occupations in the economy has been indirectly distorted by the set of industrial, agricultural and foreign-trade policies pursued by successive governments.
6. THE MALFUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT
IT MIGHT be thought that a large and flabby `public sector’ in industry and commerce, labyrinthine controls on private industry, a government monopoly of foreign-exchange dealings, the overvaluation of the currency, indefinite import-substitution, forcibly depressed output and input prices in agriculture, enormous politicization of the labour market, disregard for equality before the law, and distortion of the composition of occupations would constitute a sufficient catalogue of symptoms of grave illness in the political economy of a nation. Sadly, however, there are in modern India other symptoms too which I can mention only briefly here.
An opinion frequently encountered among urban Indians (as well as among the majority of Western development economists) is that government control over the size of the population is a necessary condition for economic development, and indeed that it is the failure of government to do this that has dissipated the economic growth that would otherwise have resulted from the economic policies pursued. The urban Indian witnesses the hovels and shanty-towns inhabited by migrant families from the countryside attracted by the policies discussed previously, and he experiences the resulting congestion. So does the Western development economist when he ventures out of his hotel into the city streets. Very often, that is his only personal experience of the legendary `poor masses’ of India. It is understandable that such princely discomfiture should lead him to the opinion that the poor are mindless in their breeding habits and that they must be persuaded, bullied or compelled to change. If this opinion were true, it would seem to point to a neat and simple solution to many of the woes of poor countries, and India in particular. But if the opinion is false and yet widely believed, it would cause governments to be, as it were, barking up the wrong tree.
It is, however, far from established, and certainly not at all obvious, that demographic control is either necessary or desirable in India or elsewhere. In the first place, when the rate of infant mortality is known and experienced by rural people to be high, there will be mare births than there would have been otherwise. Secondly, it is perfectly clear that children are an investment good in traditional societies such as those of rural India. Even young children are a source of family income, either directly by working outside the home or indirectly by working at domestic chores and thereby releasing adult members of the family for outside work. For a child to be absent from primary school or to drop out within a few years is not necessarily truancy; it may be the outcome of a rational economic calculation about where his time may be better spent towards increasing the household’s income. Furthermore, in traditional societies adult children are the principal source of support for elderly and retired parents.
To know of the existence of artificial measures of contraception certainly enlarges the alternatives open to a couple. Assuming that such knowledge is not in itself a cause of unhappiness (as it can be if there are conflicting religious commitments), a couple may certainly be better off with that knowledge because of their ability to control the number and timing of their children. The couple might also have fewer children – though there is no necessary or causal connection between a knowledge of contraception and the number of children born to a couple. Rational calculation may produce the same number of children as the caprice of nature, the implication being that in general there is no causal connection between the availability of contraceptives and the rate of growth of the population. The value of a public policy which encourages the use of artificial contraception is not so much that it reduces the number of births as that it may allow couples more control over their own lives. Whether or not artificial contraception should be publicly subsidised is quite another question.
The Indian Government has expended considerable resources in propagating and subsidizing artificial birth control. The results appear to have been, at best, indifferent (coupled as birth control has been with indirect incentives for large families and, at worst, cruel – as when frenetic zeal spilled over into demands for, and the implementation of, compulsory sterilisation. For this author, however, the important consideration would seem to be not so much the exact costs and benefits of the demographic policies pursued as the critical acknowledgement that they have little or nothing to do with the fundamental causes of mass economic development.[54]
It remains a stark paradox that, with a general literacy rate of perhaps 30 per cent [NB: In 2007, this has grown to 73% for males and 48% for females] India still produces the third largest absolute number of science and engineering graduates in the world. This reflects the lopsidedness of the educational system, continued from British times, in which higher education is enormously subsidised relative to primary education. In addition, entry into the civil services requires a college or university education, which in turn requires a good private secondary school education, which in turn requires a good preparatory school education. Strenuously competing to enter prep. school, with the help of outside tutoring, is the unhappy fate of many a five- or six-year-old in the towns and cities, followed by strenuous competition in secondary school, college and university, and finally at the doorstep of government (or a foreign university).
A job in government – any job in government – has carried prestige since Mughal times. In addition to the prestige and the obvious benefits of tenure where ether `decent’ jobs are scarce, there has been in recent times the inner satisfaction from a belief that a person can truly do his best for his country only by being in government. Tens of thousands of youths spend significant personal resources (such as whole years in cramming schools) to compete for a few annual openings in government. It is only to be expected that the competent, ambitious, patriotic youth who succeeds will mature into a respected mandarin with an unshakeable conviction in the good his government has done for the masses, and in the further good yet in prospect.
Failure to anticipate monsoon damage and disarray of the judicial system
The most serious examples of the malfunctioning of civil government in India are probably the failure to take feasible public precautions against the monsoons and the disarray of the judicial system. Official estimates, for instance, of the damage caused by flooding to homes, crops and public utilities in a few weeks of July-August 1981 alone amounted to over Rs 1 billion, with 10.8 million people `affected’, 35,000 head of cattle lost, and 195,000 homes damaged. The full magnitude of the devastation which annually visits vast areas can be understood perhaps only by those in rural India, although the towns and cities also regularly suffer considerable chaos. [55] [NB 2007: Monsoon prediction appears far better today than it was when these words were written.]
As for the disarray of the judicial system, The Statesman lamented in July 1980:`The simplest matter takes an inordinate amount of time, remedies seldom being available to those without means or influence. Of the more than 16,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court, about 5,000 were introduced more than five years ago; while nearly 16,000 of the backlog of more than 600,000 cases in our high courts have been hanging fire for over a decade. Allahabad is the worst offender but there are about 75,000 uncleared cases in the Calcutta High Court in addition to well over a million in West Bengal’s lower courts.”[56] Such a state of affairs has been caused not only by lazy and corrupt policemen, court clerks and lawyers, but also by the paucity of judges and magistrates. In addition, however,`. . . a vast volume of laws provokes endless litigation as much because of poor drafting which leads to disputes over interpretation as because they appear to violate particular rights and privileges. Land legislation offers an example of radical zeal running away with legal good sense, giving rise to thousands of suits against the Government . . .’ [57] When governments determinedly do what they need not or should not do, it may be expected that they will fail to do what civil government positively should be doing. In a sentence, that has been the tragedy of modern India.
Part IV : Reform
A LIBERAL AGENDA
IT WILL by now have become evident to the reader from the descriptions and arguments given above that, in the judgement of the present author, only a set of radical changes in policy can put the Indian economy on a path to higher mass prosperity within a free and healthy body politic. I shall therefore put forward a tentative manifesto for reform, adding some predictions about which classes of citizens would be most likely to support or oppose a particular proposal. The scope and intention of such a manifesto should be made clear at the outset. As Aristotle taught, a set of actions which are the means towards certain ends may themselves be the ends towards which other prior means have to be taken.[58]
The ultimate ends of economic advice in India are to seek to bring about mass prosperity under conditions of individual freedom. The proposals I which follow are to be construed as means towards those ultimate ends. But they also constitute a set of intermediate ends, and their implementation would require further judgement about the best means towards achieving them. In economic policy, for instance, a firm but gradual phasing-in over a period of three or four years may be the best way to minimise the hardships entailed by the adjustment. For reasons which will become clear, however, I shall not here try to answer the question as to how the proposals might best be implemented.
(a) Effects of foreign policy on the domestic economy
It will be useful to begin with a short and very incomplete consideration of foreign policy insofar as it may bear upon domestic economic policies. It is a settled fact of international politics that, while there is no obvious connection between a nation’s economic and political institutions and the choice of strategic allies it faces, people’s subjective perceptions and opinions of the social arrangements in a foreign country can be deeply influenced by whether that country is seen as a potential ally or adversary. A related and equally settled fact is that war, or the fear of war, can make for the most incongruous of bed-fellows. In contemporary India, it is quite evident that the antipathy and pessimism towards market institutions found among the urban public, and the sympathy and optimism to be found for collectivist or statist ones, has been caused to a very significant extent by the perception that the United States is relatively hostile towards India while the Soviet Union is relatively friendly. This was not always so. The official affection between the United States and India in the early years of the Republic was grounded in sincerity and goodwill. The roots of its demise are probably to be found in the split between the Soviet Union and China in the late 1950s which, in a short period of time, made the latter a valuable strategically for the United States against the former. By the early 1970s, the spectre of a joint military threat to India from a totalitarian China and a militarist Pakistan – and especially a threat which it was perceived democratic America would do little or nothing to thwart – made it prudent for democratic India to become the virtual ally of totalitarian Russia.
Such a configuration on the international chess-board need not have been detrimental to India’s economic development. It is possible to imagine a liberal state allied to a totalitarian one for strategic reasons, yet maintaining liberal economic policies domestically and internationally. In practice[58], however, the extent of `economic collaboration’, bilateral trading arrangements, `joint ventures’, barter agreements, `cultural exchanges’, and the like into which the Indian Government has entered with the Soviet bloc, appears significantly to exceed what it has achieved with the Western powers. In particular, Soviet arms have in recent years been purchased more often and then manufactured under licence. This too need not have been economically detrimental if the Soviet products had in practice been competitive on international markets in terms of price and quality. As is common knowledge, however, this is often not so. It therefore appears that part of the price India has had to pay for the strategic support of the Soviet Union has been the foisting on her of low-quality, high-priced Soviet goods, whether arms or steel mills or technical know-how. At the same time, for reasons which are partly historical and partly related to these considerations, direct foreign investment by private Western firms has been treated with, at best, coolness and, at worst, open hostility.
A change in India’s foreign policy
If the economic liberalisation that will be proposed here for India is to be effective, a truly independent yet prudent foreign policy may be required to accompany it. A change in the present strategic configuration – in which the United States is perceived in India to be virtually the ally of both China and Pakistan, while India is perceived in the United States to be virtually the ally of the Soviet Union – is unlikely until and unless the United States finds it in her best interests in the region to distance herself from China and Pakistan, which is unlikely to happen without a rapprochement between the Soviet Union and China. A drastic alternative way for India to reduce her dependence upon the Soviet Union would be the kind of divorce Egypt effected some years ago, followed by an alliance with the Western powers. This might, however, undermine once more the independence of foreign policy and be perceived in India as a move from the devil to the deep sea. The prudent remaining alternative would appear to be an earnest and vigorous pursuit of serious no-war pacts with Pakistan and China, combined with an appropriately small independent nuclear deterrent. It seems to the author that the reasons which commend this course are closely analogous to those offered by the present American and British governments for pursuing serious no-war negotiations with the Soviet bloc whilst simultaneously improving the Western nuclear deterrent.
(b) Liberalisation of foreign trade
Not only would the truly independent foreign policy proposed in the preceding paragraph allow India to distance herself from the Soviet Union; it would probably also prompt the Western powers to end the intergovernmental transfers which go by the name of `foreign aid’. For reasons that Peter Bauer has emphasised over many years, an end to such transfers might be a boon in disguise for India.[59] In particular, it would require the government to seek to balance the foreign-exchange accounts without becoming obligated to the Western powers, and this in turn would require a major economic transformation from a closed and protectionist economy to an open one which harnessed India’s comparative advantages.
An initial liberalisation of foreign trade, involving a transition from quotas to tariffs, would probably be supported by private industry as a whole. It would, however, be opposed by incumbent politicians and government officials since it would dissipate the rents they receive under the closed regime. A subsequent reduction in tariffs, a withdrawal of export subsidies, and the free floating of the rupee would be opposed by those private firms (and their labour unions) which would be uncompetitive internationally – probably those in `non-traditional’ industries. The measures would, however, be supported by ordinary consumers, by private firms in traditional industries like jute manufactures and textiles, and particularly by farmers.
Once private industry became subject to the strict discipline of international competition again, there would be no reason whatsoever for government-imposed internal controls which were not conducive to free and fair competition among firms for the consumer’s rupee. The repeal of the plethora of licensing policies would dissipate the large rents attached to the controls under the present regime. Since these rents are paid by private industry and received, directly or indirectly, by incumbent politicians and government officials, the former could be expected to welcome repeal and the latter to oppose it vigorously.
(c) Privatisation of `public-sector’ industries
At the same time, for the so-called `public-sector’ industries to face international competition, when they are currently monopolists or oligopolists, would demand such an improvement in economic discipline as probably to require the shares of most of them to be sold on the open market, with marginal-cost pricing imposed on the remainder. There is no economic reason why the Government of India shouldbe engaged in commercial or merchant banking and insurance, or in industries from steel, machine-tools, ship-building and fertilisers to wrist-watches, hotels and beer. Nor is there any cogent reason why it should be a major producer, let alone a monopolist, in the road, rail, air and sea transport industries. Large-scale privatisation would be supported by private citizens in general, and would also draw out the reputedly vast private funds which circulate in the untaxable underground economy. But such measures would probably be opposed vigorously by the government officials who currently manage these industries, aswell as by the public-sector labour unions.
(d) Free-market pricing in agriculture
With the repudiation of the mistaken premise that government sponsored industrialisation is the best means to mass economic development, the free-market pricing of agricultural outputs and the removal of all controls that are not conducive to free competition among farmers should follow. This would be welcomed by all farmers and perhaps by the rural population in general. It could also be expected to provide much encouragement to the technological transformation of traditional agriculture. The abolition of ration-shops in urban areas would be opposed by the industrial working class, by the urban middle classes in general, and by government officials and employees engaged in the present regime of public distribution. Further, farmers, especially relatively large ones, might be expected to oppose the concomitant free-market pricing of agricultural inputs, including credit and fertilisers, as would those government employees presently charged with distributing these inputs.
The ending of the distortions in agricultural output and input prices would establish a conclusive case for uniform systems of taxation in the economy, and especially for income from agriculture to be treated on a par with income from other occupations. These systems could locally include direct subsidies to those (whether in rural or urban areas) who are unable to provide any income for themselves, such as the insane and the severely disabled – all of whom are currently cared for, if at all, by private charity, and none of whom, strangely enough, appears to enter the moral calculations of socialist and Marxist economists.
(e) Tax revenues for public goods
The first and most important destination of tax revenues, whether raised centrally, provincially or locally, must be the provision of public goods – central, provincial and local. In an earlier section, we have seen what kinds of goods these should be. Among the most urgent in India are more effective precautions against the monsoons and improvements in the efficiency of the systems of civil and criminal justice. The former might include measures to prevent soil erosion and the building of better dams, embankments, canals and roads. Such programmes would be likely to command practically unanimous support in the localities in which they were implemented.
Reforms of the judicial system might include raising the salaries of judges and policemen, as well as the penalties for their misconduct; improving the training and morale of the police, with the object of increasing public confidence in them (especially in the villages); and expanding the number of courts, at least temporarily until the monumental backlog of cases has been reduced and brought under control. A general reduction in the political and administrative direction of economic life would lead to fewer lawsuits being brought against the government itself, and thus provide further relief for the judiciary. Widespread prison reform may also be required if the reports are true that a large proportion of those held prisoner for a number of years have yet to be brought to trial, and that potential prosecution witnesses, if they are poor and uneducated, are themselves sometimes kept in jail until a case comes to court. Such reforms would command the support of everyone except criminals, capricious litigants and corrupt or incompetent members of the police and judiciary, none of which groups, it must be supposed, comprises apolitical constituency.
Together with improvements in the system of justice, the principle of equality before the law would have to be taken seriously. This would require the dispensation of justice by the state to be, as it were, a process blind to the infinitely diverse caste and ethnic characteristics of the citizenry, which in turn would imply the repeal of all laws – whether central, provincial or local – permitting governmental authorities to discriminate in favour of a particular politically-specified caste or ethnic group. Merely to have written `equality before the law’ into the Constitution without really believing it either possible or desirable is to allow the mutual caste and ethnic bigotry of private citizens to be exploited for political ends. That innumerable members of a caste, or religious or ethnic community have suffered at the hands of another, and that members of the `Scheduled Castes’ in particular have been victims of enormous cruelty, should not prevent acknowledgement of the sober fact that the past is irretrievable, or that it is similar cruelty in the present and future against any citizen at the hands of any other, or the state, that the declaration of Fundamental Rights was intended to prevent.
(f) Other reforms
Other proposals could also be suggested : the introduction of vouchers for primary and secondary education; a serious assessment of the benefits from and costs of subsidies to higher education; an end to the government monopoly of radio and television; a revision of government pay-scales to make them competitive with the private sector, together with equivalent reductions in non pecuniary benefits; a decentralisation of public spending decisions from New Delhi to the State capitals and from there to the districts; and so on. However, it is hardly necessary to go further, since even a limited liberal agenda would appear doomed to be still-born.
Incumbent politicians, government officials, and the public sector unions in general would vigorously oppose any reduction in government intervention in the economy for fear of losing the rents and sinecures of the status quo. Indeed, professional politicians in general could be expected to be averse to any lessening of the politicisation of economic life.
In other countries, a political party proposing such a reduction in government intervention would usually enjoy the backing of private industry. In India, however, private industry in general would probably see it in its own interest to support only the reduction of internal controls, whilst vigorously opposing reductions in the neo-mercantilist external controls. In July 1981, for example, I asked a prominent industrialist to imagine first a free-market regime at home : `That would be very welcome indeed’, he replied enthusiastically. I then asked him to imagine a policy of free trade : `That would wipe us out’, he replied gravely. His answers indicate very well what is perhaps the single most important feature of the equilibrium that has emerged in India: by accepting without significant protest the constraints and costs imposed upon it by the government and its `planners’, the private corporate sector has traded the freedom of enterprise for mercantilist monopoly profits in the home market.
When Indian Marxists rail about collusion between the `national bourgeoisie’ (that is, the governmental class) and the `comprador bourgeoisie’ (that is, the private sector), they make a cogent point as old as Adam Smith’s critique of mercantilism.[60] But, again, they fail to see that the fortunes of the industrial working-class have also risen with those of the private and public industries that have gained from the present regime. Moreover, a large proportion of industrial workers and blue-collar government employees are migrants with families left behind in rural areas; these rural families might also oppose reductions in the transfers currently received by their migrant relatives. Finally, while joining other farmers in welcoming a free market in grain, the politically influential larger farmers could be expected to oppose the direct taxation of agricultural incomes and the elimination of subsidies for inputs.
Who is left who would gain from the kinds of reforms proposed here? Only the ordinary citizen qua consumer, the rural poor and the residuum of severely disabled citizens unable to create any income for themselves. None of these has been or is likely to become an effective political force.
India’s `unhappy equilibrium’
The economy of the first Indian Republic has tended towards a broad and increasingly unhappy equilibrium. Distortions of efficient relative prices and wages lead to both substitution and income effects. Those who lose from one distortion rationally seek another from which they may gain; those who lose from the second seek a third; and so on ad infinitum until a maze of distorted incentives are in place and a60Adam Smith, host of income transfers are in progress – sometimes offsetting losses, sometimes not. Tullock has emphasised that the problem is not only that there are dead-weight losses in welfare, but also that people are led `. . . to employ resources in attempting to obtain or prevent such transfers.’[61] In modern India, the waste of productive resources put to the pursuit of such transfers has been incalculable. The reforms pro-posed here would cut through the maze of distorted incentives and institutions all at once – for which very reason it seems unlikely they can come to be implemented.
The economic significance of a political attitude of individualism is that it clearly recognises the relationship between individual effort and reward, and the relationship between cause and consequence generally. An attitude of statism obscures or obliterates this relationship. In republican India, statism has pervaded all public discourse and prompted most public policy. Successive groups of politicians and government officials seem never to have recognised the fundamental nature of those functions of government which are the indispensable prerequisites of civil peace and mass prosperity. Nor have they understood that it is no part of government’s agenda to be the driving force to mass prosperity, and that this can come (if it will) only from innumerable individual efforts in the pursuit of private rewards. This is not at all to say that those in government have been ill-intentioned. On the contrary, they may have sincerely sought the public good whilst introducing a Leviathan government into the market-place and neglecting the proper duties of government outside it. As Bauer has remarked in a related context :`Their financial benefits may appear to be fortuitous, as if Adam Smith’s invisible hand were to work in reverse, so that those who sought the public good achieve what was no part of their intention, namely personal prosperity.’[62] It is indeed possible that the basic fact of human nature that individual households every where ordinarily know most about, and are only concerned with, their own well-being has never been acknowledged in modern India. The simple secret of a stable and prosperous polity is to create institutions which harness the universal pursuit of individual self interest, and not ones which pretend that men are selfless saints. A polity where this fact is acknowledged would not have to depend for the viability of its institutions on mere exhortation, as the institutions of the Indian Republic seem perpetually fated to do, even while the competitive pursuit of self interest is everywhere manifest.
The logic of economic reasoning and the adducement of economic evidence have in the past had little effect in India because the distribution of gains and losses from the policies pursued has been closely matched by the distribution of effective political power. This distribution seems most likely to continue, and so the prospects of significant and sustained endogenous reform seem, to this author at least, very small. Changes in external constraints seem to be the only likely source of a major disturbance to the equilibrium, and there can be no guarantee that the results will be for the better. This is a sad and troubling conclusion to come to, for a citizen of India or anyone else who has loved the country. It places this author in the paradoxical position of believing his arguments to be broadly correct – while hoping they are not.
ENDNOTES (The original monograph in 1984 had footnotes, which have had to be transformed since pages, in this new HTML age, no longer have to be linear as in a book nor have to be turned in order to be read).
[1] The early studies notably include: B. R. Shenoy, `A note of dissent’, Papers relating to the formulation of the Second Five-Year Plan, Government of India Planning Commission, Delhi, 1955; Indian Planning and Economic Development, Asia Publishing, Bombay, 1963, especially pp. 17-53; P. T. Bauer, Indian Economic Policy and Development, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1961; M. Friedman, unpublished memorandum to the Government of India, November 1955 (referred to in Bauer, op. cit., p. 59 ff.); and, some years later, Sudha Shenoy, India : Progress or Poverty?, Research Monograph 27, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1971. Some of the most relevant contemporary studies are: B. Balassa, `Reforming the system of incentives in World Development, 3 (1975), pp. 365-82; `Export incentives and export performance in developing countries: a comparative analysis’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 114 (1978), pp. 24-61; The process of industrial development and alternative development strategies, Essays in International Finance No. 141, Princeton University, 1980; J. N. Bhagwati & P. Desai, India: Planning for Industrialisation, OECD, Paris : Oxford University Press, 1970; `Socialism and Indian Economic Policy’, World Development, 3 (1975), pp. 213-21; J. N. Bhagwati & T. N. Srinivasan, Foreign-trade Regimes and Economic Development: India, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1975; Anne O. Krueger, `Indian planning experience’, in T. Morgan et al. (eds.), Readings in Economic Development, Wadsworth, California, 1963, pp. 403-20; `The political economy of the rent-American Economic Review, 64 (June 1974); The Benefits and Costs of Import-Substitution in India : a Microeconomic Study, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1975; Growth, distortions and patterns of trade among many countries, Studies in International Finance, Princeton University, 1977; Uma Lele, Food grain marketing in India : private performance and public policy, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1971; T. W. Schultz (ed.), Distortions in agricultural incentives, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1978; V. Sukhatme, “The utilization of high-yielding rice and wheat varieties in India: an economic assessment”, University of Chicago PhD thesis, 1977.
[2] S. Roy, “On liberty and economic growth: preface to a philosophy for India”, University of Cambridge PhD thesis, 1982a, Chapters I and II; “Knowledge and freedom in economic theory: Parts I and II”, Centre for Study of Public Choice, Virginia Tech, working papers, 1982b. My epistemological arguments have closely followed those of Renford Bambrough, Moral Scepticism and Moral Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1979.
[3] Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, in Richard McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle, Random House, New York, 1941. We read: `. . . the whole account of matters of conduct must be given in outline and not precisely, as we said at the very beginning that the accounts we demand must be in accordance with the subject matter; matters concerned with conduct and questions of what is good for us have no fixity, any more than matters of health. The general account being of this nature, this account of particular cases is yet more lacking in exactness; for they do not fall under any art or precept but the agents themselves must in each case consider what is appropriate to the occasion, as happens also in the art of medicine or of navigation.’ (1,104a2-a9.)`. . . we do not deliberate even about all human affairs; for instance, no Spartan deliberates about the best constitution for the Scythians. For none of these things can be brought about by our own efforts. We deliberate about things that are in our power and can be done.’ (1,112a28-30.) Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations(1776), eds. R. H. Campbell et al., Liberty Classics, Indianapolis, 1981. We read: `What is the species of domestick industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in hislocal situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him.’ (Book IV. ii. 10, p. 456.) In modern times, Friedrich Hayek has always kept this fact in the foreground of his thinking. In his Individualism and Economic Order, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1949, we read, for example, of `. . . the constitutional limitation of man’s knowledge and interests, the fact the he cannot know more than a tiny part of the whole of society and that therefore all that can enter into his motives are the immediate effects which his actions will have in the sphere he knows . . .’ (p. 14.) The individual agent has a `special knowledge of circumstances of the; thus `. . . practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active co-operation.’ (p. 80.)
[4] The mathematical economist will recognise these three conditions as the characteristics which define a multi-market general equilibrium in the Arrow-Debreu model: Gerard Debreu, Theory of Value, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1959; K. J. Arrow and F. H. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1971.
[5] This argument is discussed further in Roy (1982a), pp. 96-107, pp. 133-43.
[6] Adam Smith, op. cit., Book V. i. c., p. 723.
[7] P. A. Samuelson, `A pure theory of public expenditures’, Review of Economics & Statistics, 36, 1954,reprinted in K. J. Arrow & T. Scitovsky (eds.), Readings in Welfare Economics, R. D. Irwin, Homewood, Ill., 1969.
[8] The idea I have in the background is of some implicit public goods function endorsed more or less unanimously by citizens – but not necessarily by those with political power – with commonsense dictating the elements it should contain. Thus Let U = U (π1, π2 , …, πn) be such a function with δU/δπi > 0, δ2U/δπi2 < 0 i=1,2,…,n, where πi = 1,2,…n, is a lateral index of a public good or service like defence, civil protection, roads, dams, or the finance of basic education. Each of these is “produced” by an expenditure of public resources: πi = πi (τi ), δπi/δτi > 0, δ2πi /δτi2 < 0 i=1,2,…,k, Σ i=1,2,…,n τi = τ* where τ* is the total level of public resources available (whether by taxation or borrowing). An efficient condition, i.e., one in which given public resources are efficiently allocated among alternative public goods or services, would be δU/δπi/ δπi/δτi = δU/δπj / δπj/δτj for every i,j = 1,2,. .,n. So, if the marginal tax-rupee was put towards the production of any public good, the increase in social utility should be the same; otherwise we would find an excess supply of some public goods (e.g. bureaucrats) and an excess demand for others (e.g. courts, dams, police protection, etc.).
[9] Two examples are F. H. Hahn, On the notion of equilibrium in economics : an inaugural lecture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, and J. M. Grandmont, “Temporary general equilibrium theory : a survey”, Econometrica, vol. 46, 1977.
[10] Aristotle, op. cit., 1,094b12-1,094b27
[11] D. H. Robertson, `The Economic Outlook’, in his Utility and All That, Allen & Unwin, London, 1952, pp.51-52.
[12] Karl Popper made a similar point in The Open Society and its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1950, when he suggested that Plato’s question `who should rule?’ should be discarded for the question:`How can we so organise political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too muchdamage?’ (p. 120). There is relevant discussion by Renford Bambrough in `Plato’s modern friends and enemies’, Philosophy, 37, 1962, reprinted in R.Bambrough (ed.), Plato, Popper and Politics : some contributions to a modern controversy, Barnes and Noble, New York, 1967. I have discussed the relationship of expertise to democracy in Roy (1982a), pp 80-95.
[13] Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776, in The Constitution of the United States, ed. E. C. Smith, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1979, p. 21.
[14] P. T. Bauer, Dissent on Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971, p. 72, n. 2. The term `statism’ suggested itself to the author after he read M. R. Masani, “Post-Sanjay outlook: where salvation does not lie” The Statesman, 9 July 1980.
[15]G. M. Young (ed.), Macaulay: Prose and Poetry, London: Macmillan, 1952, p. 718. Some 20 years later, in Considerations on Representative Government, ed. H. B. Acton (London: J. M. Dent), J. S. Mill claimed that rule by`a superior people . . . is often of the greatest advantage to a people, carrying them rapidly through several stages of progress’ (Ch. IV, p. 224). Ironically, a few years ago a distinguished retired member of the Indian civil service (who happens to be a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize) used very similar words in a newspaper article – in defence of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan!
[16] Resolution of the Indian National Congress, August 1931, reprinted in B. N. Pandey (ed.), The IndianNationalist Movement : 1885-1947, Macmillan, London, 1979, p. 67.
[17] S. Radhakrishnan, The philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore, Macmillan, London, 1918, p. 232. For an excellent account of the intercourse between ancient India and ancient Greece, H. G. Rawlinson, `Early contacts between India and Europe’, in A. L. Basham (ed.), A Cultural History of India, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1975. For excellent accounts of the growth of liberalism in India in the l9th and carly 20th centuries : Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism : Competition and Collaboration in the later l9th Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, Chs. 1, 3-6; J. R. McLane, Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1977; Gordon Johnson, Provincial Politicsand Indian Nationalism,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973, Ch. 1.
[18] Ramsay Macdonald’s letter to M. K. Gandhi, 8 September 1932, reprinted in Pandey (ed.), op. cit., p. 74.
[19] Devdas Gandhi’s letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, 2 October 1931, reprinted in Pandey (ed.), op. cit., p. 71
[20] Gandhi’s protest succeeded to the extent that the Award itself was superseded; and in unusual, euphoric displays of fraternity, `caste’ Hindus threw open temples to members of the `Depressed Classes’ and embraced them with
garlands. The compromise Pact which replaced the Communal Award removed separate electorates but still guaranteed special political representation for some years following the agreement. For an account of Gandhi’ s position on the Communal Award, Judith M. Brown, Gandhi and Civil Disobedience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977, pp. 313-21.
[21] For an eminent lawyer’s commentary, N. A. Palkhivala, The Light of the Constitution, Forum of Free Enterprise, Bombay, 1976.
[22] There is reason to think the Mughals before the British had done no better and had probably done much worse. T. Raychaudhuri, `The State and the Economy: the Mughal Empire’, in T. Raychaudhuri & I. Habib (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of India, vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[23] V. B. Singh (ed.), Nehru on Socialism, Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Publications Division, Delhi, 1977, pp. 56-57, 67.
[24] `Draft recommendations for the formulation of the Second Five Year Mahalanobis;`The Second Five-Year Plan – A tentative framework’, drafted by the economic ministries; and a `Memorandum’ written by a panel of prominent Indian economists – all contained in Papers relating to the formulation of the SecondFive Year Plan, Government of India: Planning Commission, 1955 – were the principal influences on the actual Second Plan. No significant understanding of markets, prices or the concept of feasibility is evident on the part of any of the authors. Shenoy’s lonely dissent has already been noted (note 1).
[25] The best descriptions of Indian industrial policy are still to be found in Bhagwati and Desai (1970), op. cit. Also C. Wadhwa, `New Industrial Licensing Policy: An Appraisal’, in C. Wadhwa (ed.), Some problems of India’seconomic policy, Tata-McGraw Hill, Delhi, 1977, pp. 290-324.
[26] Gordon Tullock is generally credited with introducing the notion of rent-seeking in `The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft’, Western Economic, Journal, 5 (June 1967), while Krueger (1974), op. cit., introduced the term itself. The collection edited by J. M. Buchanan et al., Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society, Texas A&M Press, College Station, 1980, contains reprints of both papers as well as other studies.
[27] Krueger (1975), op. cit., p. 108 ff.
[28] The classic argument for a free market is in M. Friedman, `The case for flexible exchange rates’, in his Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1953, pp. 157-203. Also V. S. Vartikar,Commercial policy and economic development in India, Praeger, New York, 1969, based on his PhD at Wayne State University; and D. Lal, A liberal international economic order : the international monetary system and economic development, Essays in International Finance No. 139, Princeton University, October 1980.
[29] An additive sub-utility function might be defined within each set of categories UG= ∑ ai vi (Gi) a1 ≥ a2 ≥ a3, ∑ ai= 1UP= ∑ bj wj (Pj) b1 ≥ b2 ∑ bj= 1where the vi (.) and the wj (.) are further sub-utility functions defined on each category, etc. None of these has ever been spelt out by the Indian Government and certainly no amount of UP has seemed substitutable for an iota of UG.
[30] Bhagwati and Srinivasan, op. cit., p. 38.
[31] Ibid.,p. 38
[32] In 1980, for example, exports of pig-iron and of sheep- and goat-meat were banned; an export duty on jute manufactures was imposed on 18 February and lifted on 8 September. (Annual Report on Exchange Controls, International Monetary Fund, 1981, pp. 205-13.) The Import and Export Policy (April 1982, March 1983)announced by the Commerce Ministry reported the banning of exports of cane, paraffin wax, mustard and rape-seedoil, and `certain
wild-life items’, including lizards and robins. An embargo on the export of CTC (cut, tear and curl) tea was announced by the Ministry of Commerce on 24December 1983. CTC is high-quality tea which accounts for about three-quarters of India’s tea exports. The ban followed a doubling of domestic prices over the previous year, compulsory registration of tea dealers holding more than 1,000 kg. to prevent hoarding, and agreement by manufacturers to reduce their profit margins and cut prices ofpackaged tea by about 20 per cent (Financial Times, 14 December 1983). The Indian Government apparently feared that the supply of tea for the domestic market was going to run out (The Times, 5 January 1984). The effect of thesemeasures is artificially to depress prices in the domestic market whilst raising them overseas (The Economist, 14 January 1984).
[33] Pick’s Currency Year-book, various editions
[34] Krueger (1977), op. cit., pp. 27-28.
[35] Balassa (1978), op. cit., p. 39; Balassa (1980), op. cit., p. 16.
[36] Ibid.,p. 22.
[37] Short surveys of the relevant practices can be found in Lele, op. cit.,Appendix 1, pp. 225-37, and Sukhatme, op. cit., pp. 29-37. Also Gilbert Brown, `Agricultural pricing policies in developing countries’, and G. E.Schuh, `Approaches to “basic needs” and to “equity” that distort incentives in agriculture’, in Schultz (ed.), op. cit.,pp. 84-113 and pp. 307-27 respectively.
[38] Theoretical economists have long recognised that a fundamental flaw in, for example, the Arrow-Debreu model is its assumption that all conceivable futures contracts are practicable. The longest futures price actually quoted at
the Chicago Board of Trade, however, would be for silver, at about two years; for grains, the longest would be only about three months. Since the natural market outcome is a far-cry from the theory, the Indian Government’s fears about the effects of speculation appear to be much exaggerated. To see the risk-dispersing character of a futures contract, let us suppose that both buyer and seller place a probability of one-half on prices being either in 8 or 2; if they are risk-averse, they may prefer to trade at a certain futures price of 5 now, rather than wait for the future to unfold.
[39] David Hopper, `Distortions of agricultural development resulting from Government prohibitions,’ Schultz (ed.), op. cit., p. 69 ff.
[40] K. Prasad, `Foodgrains policy 1966-1976′, in Wadhwa (ed.), op. cit., p.479.
[41] Schultz (ed.), op. cit., p. 309.
[42] Sukhatme, op. cit., pp. 74-86; T. W. Schultz, `On the economics and politics of agriculture’, in Schultz(ed.), op. cit., p. 15 ff.
[43] Schultz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 92-93.
[44] Ibid.,p. 95.
[45] T. N. Srinivasan, `Income Distribution: A survey of policy-aspects’, in Wadhwa (ed.), op. cit., p. 265. That the small farmer may not find it profitable to invest in storage, and that (if it has been taxed) agriculture has been taxed regressively, are also remarked upon by Srinivasan.
[46] Lele, op. cit., p. 2, where reference is made to Sir Henry Knight, Food Administration in India, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1954.
[47] Lele, op. cit., pp. 214-24
[48] For example, M. Todaro, `A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries’, American Economic Review, March 1969, 59, pp. 138-48; J. P. Harris & M. Todaro, `Migration,unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis’, American Economic Review, March 1970 60, pp. 126-42.The best paper known to the author is by Jerome Rothenberg, `On the economics of internal migration’, Working Paper No. 189, Dept. of Economics, MIT, July 1976.
[49] Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, Basic Books, New York, 1980, pp. 268-69.
[50] `The logic of protection’, The Statesman, Editorial, 19 March 1981; also the Editorial, `Danger of caste ethnic
[51] S. K. Datta Ray, `Backlash to protection: fancy gifts ignore real reform’, The Statesman Weekly, 21 March 1981.
[52]M. Weiner, M. F. Katzenstein, K.V.N. Rao, India’s preferential policies : migrants, the middle classes and ethnic equality, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981, pp. 16-17.
[53] Ibid. p. 5
[54] P. T. Bauer, `Population explosion: myths and realities’, in Equality, the Third World and Economic Delusion, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 42-65, contains some of the clearest arguments known to the author about this question; also M. Weiner, India at the Polls : the Parliamentary Election of 1977, American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, 1978, pp. 35-39.
[55] 10 8 million people affected by floods’, The Statesman Weekly, 22 August 1981; also `Down the drain’, Editorial in The Statesman, 8 July 1981.
[56] Justice with speed’, Editorial in The Statesman, Calcutta and New Delhi, 21 July, 1980
[57] Aristotle, op. cit., 1,094a1-1, 094b11.
[58] There are few thorough studies known to the author that are relevant. One such is Asha L. Dattar, India’s Economic Relations with the USSR and Eastern Europe 1953-1969, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972.
[59] Bauer (1981) op. cit. Chapters 5 & 6.
[60]. Adam Smith op cit Book IV; also B. Baysinger et al.,`Mercantilism as a rent-seeking society’, in Buchanan et al (eds) op. cit. pp. 235-68.
[61] G. Tullock in Buchanan et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 48.
[62] Bauer (1981), op. cit., p. 144.
Independent Indian: Work & Life of Professor Subroto Roy 