Desicritics Author: Dweep Chanana

Taslima Nasreen Leaves Kolkata: A Giant Defeat for Secularism

Dweep Chanana — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:47:27 EST

The BBC has just reported that Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi author at the heart of Kolkata's riots has left the city for Jaipur. This follows a demand by Kolkata police to Taslima that she leave the city.

This is a tragedy of colossal proportions, akin to Modi's support of the Godhra riots. Since when is it the government's responsibility to evict law abiding residents of the territory, simply because a bunch of hooligans - Muslim or Hindu - decide to burn the city?

The government's action brings to mind two things. First, it stands in stark contrast to this article by a UK economist, celebrating diversity:

Diversity broadens the range of cultural experiences available in a city or country. As a Londoner, I’m delighted that local restaurants now serve food from around the world, rather than just the awful British stuff we once had to put up with...The biggest economic benefit of diversity is that it stimulates new ideas, which are the source of most economic growth, which in turn pays for the good schools, hospitals and other public goods that we value.

Second, one wonders what is the future for the rest of us in India? India's great cities have each slowly turned fundamentalist - Delhi in 1984, Bombay in 1992, and now Kolkata.

The biggest tragedy, however, is that this country's moderate Muslims and Hindus remain silent - again. The political parties - rather than uniting behind Taslima, rejecting calls for her visa to be canceled, and denouncing the AIMF for the fundamentalists that they are, all parties have remained largely silent. They worry, perhaps, about disturbing their Muslim vote bank. So why does the Muslim vote bank not speak up?

We would do well, after all, to remember the words of anti-Nazi Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Concluding the Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Moving Beyond Blame

Dweep Chanana — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:07:50 EDT

All hell has broken loose in the Indian parliament since the 123 Agreement was concluded between India and the USA. Following its conclusion the UPA government faces rebellion from the Left (the communists), the right (the BJP), and within. The imbroglio has been sufficiently covered in both domestic and international media, and seems to the result of domestic politics, posturing, and egos. It is not my purpose to add to that verbose discussion. Rather, I wish to ask: how can the government conclude this agreement?

The Frame of Reference: What is the Agreement About?

That begs another more fundamental question: what is this nuclear deal about and is it in India’s favor?

Many justifications have been given for this deal – among them access to nuclear technology, China, and Pakistan. Each successive justification has been met with resistance from a different quarter, leading M.K. Bhadrakumar to note that, “No one in the Indian establishment is able to explain cogently what this nuclear agreement is all about."

To move forward, let us drop all pretensions about this deal. The Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation agreement is not about “nuclear cooperation,” but about Indo-US cooperation.

Even that, however, is a near-term means to a more significant long-term end. The deal sets a precedent for India to create a country-specific niche for itself in the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and establishes that it can alter the international system to its benefit. The agreement, therefore, is about India’s ability to bend the rules of the international system to its benefit.

The stakes for India are, essentially, very high. Much higher, in fact, than the Prime Minister has been able to articulate. His inability to place the deal in this context is at the heart of the current stalemate; for while the government has been deft at bargaining internationally, it has been incompetent at doing so domestically.

Discrediting the Naysayers and their Arguments

Getting domestic political support in parliament on the deal requires two concomitant actions. The first is to discredit the arguments of the right and the left. Thankfully, this is easily done - once the correct “frame of reference” is articulated.

The Left argues that Indians do not want to align with the US. This is plain wrong. Most Indians care more about their next meal than about foreign policy. Those that do not have such existential worries - the middle class - remain largely pro-American, as revealed in many international polls.

The Communists' ideological opposition is hardly surprising given its history of undermining India’s very existence - during colonial rule they worked against the nationalists; in the post-independence era they actively conspired against the government to encourage a communist revolution taking orders from China or Russia. Their position proves only that they support their ideology, not India. Their support is unlikely, and therefore inconsequential.

The BJP has a more technical concern - that the deal restricts India’s foreign policy. This is, true, but it is not a criticism of the deal. That is because the agreement does not bind India’s hands any more than they are bound at present. For instance, under the Hyde Act the US will be required to end cooperation if India tests a nuclear weapon. However, if India were to test a nuclear weapon now, sanctions would still follow. If anything limits India's foreign policy, it is not the deal but how important the PMO considers it. And to say that the agreement will limit India’s foreign policy options is no criticism at all – because India’s options are already limited.

IAEA and NSG Agreements: A Package to Keep or Loose

The second action to develop domestic consensus needs to be to present a face saving compromise for the left but particularly the right. For political reasons neither can abandom their current position, unless presented with a situation that either seems to vindicate their current position or makes it indefensible.

There is only one situation that does so. It requires India conclude agreements with the IAEA and the NSG, then present all three agreements as a package for approval to parliament.

This strategy, of moving forward with the NSG and IAEA, has several benefits. First, time is of the essence - the US Congress must approve the entire deal early next year before campaigning starts in earnest for the presidential elections. Second, it will illustrate that the agreement has broad support, including from China and Japan. This will take the bite out of the left’s argument that this is only about the US. And, by allowing India access to diversified suppliers, it will alleviate the Right’s concern that the agreement may tie India’s hands.

It is not an accident that the US administration will present the 123 Agreement, the IAEA safeguards agreement, and the NSG agreement to the US Congress as a package. A vote on the package, rather than on specific sections, presents US policymakers with a stark choice - to vote in favor of, or against, “strategic cooperation” with India. Faced with that choice only an ideologue, and only one impervious to the strong Indian lobby, would vote against the entire package. The Indian administration needs to do the same, rather than allow a parochial legislature veto power on every segment of international deal making.

123: Not the Endgame

The 123 Agreement is not, as some might say, the end game. Rather, it should be viewed as the start of India’s involvement in developing friendly international frameworks.

Even the current agreement is the first of three, two of which are yet to be concluded. In the ensuing negotiations with the NSG, the current imbroglio in parliament is actually beneficial to India, because domestic constraints in the form of the legislative-executive divide significantly strengthen India’s bargaining position. Of course, using that as leverage requires the Prime Minister extract himself from a stalemate of his own making.

The only way forward for the government is to explain what this deal is about - the rise of India on the international stage. That rise is aided by America, but is not for it. Second, the government must present the deal’s opponents with a stark choice – to support India’s aggressive and independent foreign policy, or not.

Court Rejects Novartis' Patent Challenge, Dilutes India's Sovereignty

Dweep Chanana — Tue, 7 Aug 2007 00:01:41 EDT

Earlier today (Aug 6, 2007), the Chennai High Court rejected Novartis' legal challenge to section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. Given the charged nature of the issue, the decision received near blanket coverage globally, and was covered by Reuters, Forbes, IHT as well as by NGOs such as SocialFunds, SciDev and KaiserNetwork. In rejecting Novartis' case, the court stated simply that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue.

Novartis is, of course disappointed. Its company's news release states that:

"We disagree with this ruling, however we likely will not appeal to the Supreme Court. We await the full decision to better understand the Court's position," said Ranjit Shahani, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Novartis India Limited.

It is interesting that Novartis has chosen not to appeal. Civil society organizations are calling this a 'victory for generics'. But the truth is not so glorious. Indeed, it is tragic that the Chennai High Court said that it did not have jurisdiction. Novartis' case argued that the Patent Act violated terms of the WTO's TRIPS agreement. Yet, what section 3(d) simply did was to take advantage of flexibilities provided by the Doha Declaration on Public Health, which allowed for a looser intellectual property regime than was originally enforced by TRIPS. By challenging section 3(d), Novartis challenged much of what had been gained by the Doha Declaration (see here for a more detailed analysis, and here for a prior report on the outcome).

The Chennai High Court has created two problems, due to its stand that it does not have jurisdiction.

First, this means that the legality of the IPA is still in limbo, and others may question its use of TRIPS flexibilities. The rejection itself is a short-term boon to public health proponents such as MSF. Yet, in the long-term, it leaves the IPA vulnerable to change.

Even more critically, the decision suggests that the appropriate jurisdiction lies with the WTO. If that position were accepted by the Supreme Court or the WTO, it would hand jurisdiction of an issue of critical national interest to a multilateral forum. Essentially, India's national laws would be beholden to a forum designed not for the dispensation of justice but for international negotiations and bargaining.

This is in sharp contrast to the US' approach, which has categorically and repeatedly refused to accept the jurisdiction of multilateral institutions on issues of national interest, including human rights and criminal law. If allowed to proliferate, this view is a serious long-term threat to India's ability to make use of TRIPS flexibilities - indeed any flexibilities in international law, without being threatened at the WTO.

PIL Against the Indo-US Nuclear Deal - Foreign Policy by Judiciary?

Dweep Chanana — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:32:59 EDT

The Hindustan Times reports that an IIT scientist from Mumbai has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against the Indo-US nuclear deal. Claiming the deal is detrimental to the country's interest, Mr. Ramamurthy wants the Supreme Court to "restrain the Central Government from hurriedly executing any agreement with the US till it was thoroughly examined by an apex court-appointed Committee."

This is the most frivolous litigation I have heard of, and the Supreme Court would do well to throw out the PIL without even listening to it.

Technically speaking, it is a little premature to ask the Supreme Court to step in, and may not have jurisdiction. After all, as a judicial and constitutional authority it can only adjudicate on laws passed by government. So far, no law has been passed by parliament, so there is nothing to review.

Technicalities aside, it is not the Supreme Court's job to dictate foreign policy. It is the role of the Executive to set - and execute - policy, with the Legislature (hopefully) playing a supervisory role. One would hope that the bureaucrats and foreign policy experts in these two branches of government are better informed on what constitutes "national security", than judges versed in law.

It is perhaps a reflection of our lack of trust in politicians that Mr. Ramamurthy took this step. And he may have some valid concerns. Nevertheless, by turning to the judiciary at every step, we ask it to assume all roles of government. That is no less dangerous than a corrupt polity. A system of checks and balances limits the roles of all three branches of government. And in this case, that limit should be on the judiciary.

Equally likely, this is a poor attempt at grabbing attention by Mr. Ramamurthy. He has every right to question his government. But that right comes with the responsibility of accepting that he may be - and in this case is - wrong. He may be an exceptional scientist, but political science is not his forte.

If the Court accepts this, it will set a very dangerous precedent, that will tie the hands of all future governments in international negotiation. The real threat to national security is not the Indo-US law, but rather, the possibility that the Court will actually entertain such irresponsible litigation.

India's Foreign Aid Program - Playing Like The Big Boys

Dweep Chanana — Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:49:42 EST

India has a longstanding foreign aid program and with economic growth has come the ability to play like the big boys, even if not with them. Yet, very little information is available on India's foreign aid program, so I decided to do some web research. I leave it to you to decide if this money is well spent.

Basics

The foreign aid program is called the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Programme, or ITEC, and was established in 1964.
ITEC covers 156 countries, together with the Special Commonwealth African Assistance Programme (SCAAP).
Both programs are run by the Economic Division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
The MEA also runs the Indian Council of Cultural Relations, which provides assistance and programs to improve cultural ties, for instance through student and teacher exchange programs.
The ITEC's official aid budget is roughly Rs. 500 million, annually, and over $2 billion has been disbursed since its inception.

Afghanistan as Major Recipient

ITEC is not, however, the only channel for foreign aid. Indeed, large amounts of aid is directed outside ITEC. Afghanistan is by far the largest recipient of that aid. From 2002, to 2006, $650 million had been pledged to India's Assistance Programme for Afghanistan. The MEA and UN have a list of major commitments:

$100 million grant (2001-02)
$70 million grant to build the Zarang-Delaram Highway
$200,000 to the World Bank's Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (2002)
$4 million grant to repair and build the Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health in Kabul (2003)
$4 million grant to build the Habibba School
$52 million to the World Food Programme, for Afghanistan and Iraq (India is today a net donor to the WFP and IMF).
$25 million to build the Afghan parliament in Kabul
A gift of 3 Airbus airplanes to Ariana, the Afghan national carrier.

Other Bilateral Aid

Beyond ITEC and Afghanistan, significant amounts of aid are directed to Africa, much of it delivered in the form of loans, or delivered in-kind as consultancy. Some of these are offered under the India Development Initiative and include (partly drawn from IndiaDaily editorial):

$218 million in economic aid to Nepal (summer 2006). This is in addition to previous loan waivers for military supplies.
$500 million to West African nations.
$110 million in long-term loans to finance Indian exports to Africa. Offered through the Exim Bank, these loans funded the sale of 500 buses by Tata Motors to Senegal.
$40 million to Angola, for a railway project managed by RITES, Indian Railway's consultancy division.
Support and upgrade of the Farkhor Air Force base in Tajikistan (since 2004). The base is India's first permanent military presence outside India, and operated jointly with Russia and Tajikistan.

The Broader Context

These figures combined, India's foreign aid probably stands at over $150-200 million per year, much more than what is provided through ITEC. However, even this inflated figure hides the vast amounts that are invested through private and public enterprises. For instance, India's oil exploration company ONGC invested $6 billion for railroads in Nigeria (2005). ONGC has also acquired oil assets in Sudan worth more than $750 million.

Even these amounts pale in comparison to China's beneficence, only to Africa. Late last year China unveiled preferential credit of $3 billion for Africa. China has also provided loans of over $100 million to Ghana and Egypt.

Africa is all too happy to receive this aid which comes with significantly fewer conditions than World Bank, US or EU loans. However, the aid has accompanied a general increase in trade and investment flows between Africa and Asia - particularly China and India.

Fundamentally, however, it reflects the shifting balance of power in the world. India and China have the resources to play power politics, without the conditional rhetoric of ethics, development, and values.

The Illusory Rule of Law and The Signs of a Failing Judiciary

Dweep Chanana — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:10:45 EST

It is sometimes said that the judiciary is the last truly functioning institution of Indian democracy. It has, so far, been beyond reproach. But if you thought convictions in the Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases were signs that the interests of ordinary citizens were safe, think again. And if you thought judgments on Delhi's demolition drive or Ninth Schedule laws show the rule of law, you are again mistaken. The Judiciary is not returning our faith in it, and is simply not very effective.

The Group of Ministers has approved Delhi's Master Plan-2021. This finally reverses the Supreme Court ordered demolition and sealing drive that has seen Delhi's landscape improve for its residents, but at the cost of the powerful construction and trader lobbies. In pleasing these segments the Delhi State and Federal governments - both Congress led - have shown that the 'common man' is not their concern, making a mockery of the Courts in the process.

How not to Uphold Law: Judiciary Contradicts Itself
Then again, the Courts themselves seem to have no stomach for consistent decisions. Even as the SC had ordered the demolition of illegal structures in Delhi, late last year it permitted the construction of illegal malls to proceed on the Vasant Kunj Ridge in New Delhi. The malls are being built on protected land auctioned by the DDA to private builders despite its protected status and construction had started without any environmental clearance (see Ridge Bachao Abhiyan and here for history).

In signing the death warrant of the Ridge, and dismissing the public interest litigation seeking demolition of the malls, the SC bought the Ministry of Environment and Forests' argument:

The Environment Ministry had, however, suggested to the court that instead of putting the clock back by ordering demolition, the same may be regularised by imposing heavy costs on the developers for starting constructions without obtaining clearance from the Ministry of Environment.

This is not justice! To uphold the law, the court should have ordered the demolitions and asked that criminal charges be brought against DDA officials compliant in this exploitation of public, protected land. Instead, while trampling on the environment and living standards of the area's residents, the court likely lined many pockets, including its own.

This judgment and argument directly contradict the Court's own order on the demolition of illegal constructions in the rest of Delhi. By these new measures the SC should have allowed constructions in all of Delhi to remain, with some penalties being paid. Perhaps next time someone commits a murder, that person too will be spared after paying damages, since 'the damage has already been done and cannot be reversed'?

Benefits of Being an Uncommon Criminal
That may well happen soon, for in another curious judgement the Supreme Court has now stayed the conviction of Navjot Sidhu till his appeal can be heard, allowing him to contest the Amritsar election. The highest court in the land said:

it would be wrong "to hold as a matter of rule" that a person's conviction should never be suspended, thereby preventing him from entering Parliament or an assembly. It would be unfair to Sidhu if he was not allowed to contest the Amritsar seat, which had fallen vacant only on account of his voluntary resignation on moral grounds.

What would be truly unfair is not to allow Sidhu's conviction to stand, but to make an exception for him and not for others. Does the Court suspend the conviction of every convicted felon till their appeal is heard? Clearly, being an uncommon criminal is better than being a common law-abiding citizen.

What Equality Before the Law?
At least the Judiciary is following the same path taken by the other failed institutions. The Delhi Master Plan regularizes 1500 unauthorized colonies, and in so doing admits to the Executive's complete failure to address issues such as urban planning and development.

The Court is going down the same path and making a complete mockery of itself and its laws. Its signal is clear. The laws of this land apply equally to all, unless you are rich or a powerful politician. Then you can get away - literally - with murder.

In its judgment on the Ninth Schedule, the Supreme Court recently stated, "There can be no rule of law, if there is no equality before the law." It is time the Court applied that standard to its own judgments.

Big Brother: Of British Presumptousness and Indian Irrelevance

Dweep Chanana — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:05:05 EST

In case you had been living in a cave in the Himalayas, you might have missed news of Shilpa Shetty making headlines worldwide.

Shilpa Shetty is a Bollywood actress well past her prime participating in British reality TV show Big Brother on Channel 4. Controversy started when Jane Goody, one of Shetty's housemates with whom she was cloistered, began calling her names and making fun of her Indian roots. Furore erupted in a country that has a significant and powerful South Asian minority and traveled to India on the wings of today's news media. Then, it went to the rest of the world (see The Washington Post, New York Times, ABC News, and Euronews).

Things got really fun when the issue became political. British MP's asked Prime Minister Tony Blair for a clarification. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs raised the issue with the British government. Indians meeting Gordon Brown - Prime Minister in waiting - were not interested in his political views, but in what the UK was doing to protect minorities.

But what is the fuss all about? A little racism, after all, is good for business. The incidents between Goody and Shetty may have generated a record 30,000 complaints to the UK television watchdog. But the show clocked a record 8 million viewers, up from 2.5 million when the show started.

Goody's behavior says less about race and more about class. The venerable Economist put it well.

Ms Shetty herself has said that her bullying was not racist in the fully fledged sense of the word. Instead, it showed something of how British society is changing thanks to globalisation. The television programme put a wealthy, well-spoken Indian together with some white working-class Brits, who decided that she was not just different from them, but more upper class. One called her a princess, and meant it as an insult.

No doubt there is prejudice in Goody's behavior, but prejudice is natural and discrimination happens. Still, it is an ugly mirror for the Brits, exposing their insecurity (stop telling Indians they speak excellent English!) and their need for introspection on their own presumptions of superiority - a process done some justice by Martin Jacques on the Guardian (hat tip cicatrix).

In India, however, the controversy is not about racism at all. It is about media milking our ambitions of grandeur, politicians hiding their failure to execute substantial improvements in the quality of their constituents lives, and the people distracting themselves from their lack of power in global politics on issues that really matter.

The Ministry of External Affairs, for instance, should be flexing its muscles to get back Indian prisoners of war held in Pakistan. And the Indian citizen, rightly incensed at the treatment given to its citizen should probably pause before criticizing a society much more free and equal than ours.

In India, this is simply much ado about nothing. Lord Meghnad Desai said it best. This is "a third rate show for third rate people". So why worry about it?

Deconstructing Narmada: Large Dams in Energy Policy

Dweep Chanana — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:04:24 EST

For better or worse, the Narmada Dam is now complete. Its various NGO opponents and their star cast must now accept defeat against the economic logic of growth. And where economic logic prevails, can comparisons with China be far behind?

The Asia Times is carrying an article exhorting India to replicate China's Three Gorges Dam. The author, calling himself 'Chan Akya', writes:

The tortuous process of getting large hydroelectric projects commissioned in India contrasts with the relatively easy path hewn by China. While Indians can be proud of some aspects of due process that help to maintain the rights of those adversely affected, there is much to learn from China's ability to convince broader interest groups of economic advantages to be derived from such projects.

Let us ignore the secretive presumptuousness of an author equating himself/herself to Chanakya. Let us also ignore the disingenuous use of the word 'convince' - the Chinese authorities do not 'convince' but decree. Let us presume that the author is unbiased, though he gives us no reason to - discarding frivolously democracy's benefits to authoritarianism's. Let us, essentially, give him/her every benefit of doubt.

Nevertheless, the author's fundamental case for large dams rests on four assumptions:

That hydroelectric power, generated through large dams is essential for growth and hard to replace.
That India is way behind in exploiting its hydroelectric potential.
That China derives greater economic benefits from its 'development by decree' model.
And, that economic logic is all that matters in deciding state policy.

1. Hydro power in the Energy Mix

There is no doubt that hydro power is important. It is cheap, long-term, and stable, providing a reliable resource that is also often plentiful. However, it would be wrong to say that it is essential.

In most developed countries, for instance, hydro power is not the dominant source of power. Canada, with the largest hydroelectric program that generates 30-40% of its electricity, is something of an aberration. In the USA, less than 10% of electricity is hydroelectricity. Nor is hydro the only substantial renewable resource. Germany, for instance, generated 18,428 MW of wind power in 2005.

The point is not whether hydro power is good or not. Rather, it is simply of point out that hydro-electricity is not as important to a country's energy mix as is suggested. Further, technology improvements have provided new options, particularly in coal and nuclear energy to policy makers. Similarly, another option seldom discussed in the developing country context is energy efficiency, policies on which can significantly impact energy needs while also providing environmental and social benefits.

2. India's Hydro power Potential: Expanding Comparisons

�s India really far behind in tapping its hydro power potential? Since we are making comparisons, let us extend the comparison to a few developed countries. While total installed capacity is a good measure, it is incomplete, preventing cross-country comparisons. Instead, I use here installed capacity as a percentage of total potential, with the results listed from Wikipedia:

Country	Potential (GW)	Installed (MW)	Installed %
France	56,100	25,335	0.045
Japan	88,500	27,229	0.031
USA	260,400	79,511	0.031
China	401,300	117,000	0.029
India	125,126	33,600	0.027
Canada	396,700	68,974	0.017
Norway	180,800	27,528	0.015

Suddenly, India does not fare too poorly. Indeed, an additional 3,000MW would bring India on par with Japan and USA in hydro power potential developed.

Interestingly, large dams have been out of fashion in the developed world for several decades. All existing large dam projects are being constructed in developing countries. Among the largest dams in existence, those in the USA and Canada were built before 1982. The remaining have all come up in the developing world much later. So, could this be the west exporting its technology a few decades late and us poor sods accepting it as holy grail?

Large dams suffer the same problems nuclear power and other big industrial projects do in the western world - nobody wants them in their backyard. If we are making comparisons with China, we should also compare with other countries that have been through this development cycle. And numbers suggest that simply because China is doing it does not mean that should.

3. The Chinese Model

The third assumption, that China has benefited significantly from its authoritarian liberalization, is also questionable. For three decades, China has had much better infrastructure, attracted FDI an order of magnitude higher, and grown substantially faster than India. Yet, the jury is very much out on whether this is 'better'.

Indeed, policy decreed infrastructure improvements and economic growth are today recognized as having caused rampant environmental damage and demographic problems for China. While India cannot compare its infrastructure with China's, nor need it (thankfully) compare its noxious emissions. With expansion of renewable and energy efficiency policies there is hope that India may be better equipped to handle the long-term problems associated with economic growth. This hope is further strengthened by stronger institutions in India and a significantly higher ranking on the WEF's Global Competitiveness Report.

4. The Primacy of Economic Logic

Finally the author's fundamental case for the Narmada Dam rests on his argument that economic logic is the most important:

In essence, the Chinese have every expectation of and desire for material improvement, for which they are willing to bear small sacrifices at the present juncture, such as a regimented communist government. In contrast, Indians have had a poor experience of growth's benefits until recently, and thus have greater inertia when it comes to matters of development.

Fortunately, economic logic is not the only logic. As with hydro and nuclear power in the west, societies routinely make choices that go against economic logic. Otherwise, why not clear entire villages to create massive coal-based power plants. They are the cheapest, even if the most polluting.

National policies are informed by economic logic, yes. But to use that as the only logic is to fall into the same trap that overzealous economists fall into.

Large Dams, Economics, and Public Policy

The economic case for large dams is actually not undeniably strong. In fact, it is economics that has prevented large dams from being built in the west. To quote a friend in the business:

Big dams cost a LOT of money to build and need sharp engineering expertise, even though they are very cheap to operate thereafter (like nukes - large economies of scale). For instance, many Canadian dams are very remotely located and need very long and expensive transmission lines to deliver the power. Financing can also be a big challenge - Newfoundland wants to build a huge project in Labrador and deliver the power to the US, but they do not have a contracted buyer nor do they have the technical expertise and a good enough balance sheet. Hence, no project.

It would appear that most large dams - including Narmada & Three Gorges - would never exist as commercial ventures. It is ironic then that what 'Chan Akya' recommends for economic reasons is only viable on the back of government policies that subsidize land acquisition and provide discounted capital taken from the taxpayer.

This article has avoided a discussion of the problems of large dams (see the World Dams Commission for more) such as disruption to ecosystems and forced migration, because dams also provide benefits, most notably electricity generation and irrigation. Conflict occurs because they benefit some, while damaging the interests of others.

However, if we are to make a case for large dams, they must be based on a stronger argument than that our neighbor is doing it. Equally important, it should be based on a comparison not only with other generating technologies, but also with options such as more efficient electricity utilization, or drip irrigation that reduces consumption.

And finally, one cannot take the decision based solely on criteria of growth. Public policy is not about growth but development of the sort sought by society. That inevitably requires consideration of justice, equity, and development. To confuse growth with development, is to miss the point entirely.

Entrepreneurship as a Competitive Advantage

Dweep Chanana — Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:07:17 EST

Duke University reports that immigrants are behind 25% of the start ups created in the USA between 1995 and 2005. More striking than the total number, however, was the dominance of Indian entrepreneurs. They founded 26% of tech start ups - more than those created by immigrants from the four next biggest sources combined - UK, China, Taiwan and Japan.

Entrepreneurship is important, creating jobs and adding to economic growth:

Immigrant entrepreneurs' companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in sales in 2005, according to the survey.

As to why immigrants do so well, the article explains:

"The advantage of entrepreneurs is that they're generally creating new opportunities and new wealth that didn't even exist before them," Saxenian said. "Just by leaving your home country, you're taking a risk, and that means you're willing to take risks in business. You put them in an environment that supports entrepreneurship, and this is the logical outcome."

There is an interesting lesson here for America. The question is best posed by the author of the study, Vivek Wadhwa (also a Delhi-born American)

"The bottom line is: Why aren't these people citizens?" Wadhwa said. "We're giving away the keys to the kingdom. This is a big, big deal once you figure out what this means for U.S. competitiveness."

Technology & Entrepreneurship in India
India itself is witnessing a mini-boom of sorts. BusinessWeek reports that Cisco is relocating 20% of its top executives to India and investing $1.1 billion. This, in anticipation of India's infrastructure needs of $300 billion, with $40 billion in the telecom sector alone.

The massive opportunity is a godsend for intellectual immigrants and India is seeing a return of the prodigals. The Times reports that over 32,000 Britons, mostly of Indian origin, have recently moved from the UK to India, to work and start their own businesses.

The rapid development of India's hi-tech economy has created particularly attractive opportunities for second and third-generation Anglo-Indians, who are using their knowledge of both cultures to seize the chance to develop their careers, earn comparatively high salaries and enjoy a luxurious standard of living that they could not dream of in Britain.

So, Indians do well abroad; and foreigners do well in India. What of the Indians in India? They aren't left out on a limb. Consider that the recent TiE-Canaan Entrepreneurship Challenge garnered over 100 business plans. According to BusinessWorld, India had the highest VC investment among all emerging markets. Proto.in, an entrepreneurship conference was so swamped with submissions it had to extend its deadline. And if the IIM's are anything to go by, graduates are going the start up way, ignoring the glitzy world of investment banking. For those who really want it, there are a host of incubators and angel and venture capital investors.

The Competitive Advantage of Entrepreneurship
The existence of so many start ups in America is no accident, and immigrants do not simply go to America and create enterprise. Rather, many go to America because they can create enterprise.

The ability of the US to attract the best international talent is then, a measure of the country's competitive advantage. It is a sign not simply of good education and health, a flexible labor market, functioning infrastructure and small government, or a well marketed economic philosophy. It indicates a heady mix of all of these.

However, if it is the result of a competitive advantage, the ability to attract talent is also, itself a competitive advantage. The presence of risk-taking entrepreneurs, and their visible success, attracts even more entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship begets entrepreneurship.

For India and other countries hoping to climb up the economic food chain there is a lesson here. In the long-term, and other things being equal, the only competitive advantage may well be human capital.

There are many people that are content where they are. There are some that will travel to more comfortable places for a better life. But there are relatively few that will go absolutely anywhere for a life that shapes their aspirations. It is those that we, as a country, want to retain and attract. Get a few things right and create a culture of risk-taking. Then let these people figure out the rest.

Demystifying CAS and DTH: A Consumers Guide

Dweep Chanana — Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:42:36 EST

I'm one of those people that must know everything about everything before they make a purchasing decision. So when the deadline for the Conditional Access System arrived on December 31, it was no surprise that I had neither CAS nor DTH, and missed Star Wars episode 3 on New Years Eve. But today, armed with everything there is to know, I finally made a decision. This is my attempt to explain it, for the benefit of other poor souls that have nowhere to turn for information.

For the record, I bought DishTV. Also for the record, my investment horizon for this decision is 1-2 years. TRAI mandated charges of Rs. 5 per pay channel are only valid for one year and DTH offerings will also expand. Second, with the frequent changes in technology I don't see why I should be stuck with the current generation of STBs, when I can probably own a Digital Video Recorder by that time. So, I am prepared to revisit this decision in 2 years or less.

I compare the three services - CAS, DishTV, and TataSky along three criteria: cost, convenience, and intangibles. There is no comparison on quality, simply because DTH is superior. The quality of CAS will depend on how good your cable operator is, which does not inspire much confidence in me.

Cost
Contrary to popular perception, CAS is not the cheapest option though the initial cost (Rs. 2000) is the lowest. This, because TRAI mandated charges of Rs. 5 per month do not include entertainment tax and VAT. Adding those, 15 paid channels - my requirement - will cost approximately Rs. 200 per month. By contrast, DTH providers offer free service for 6 months in CAS notified areas and subsequently charge Rs. 300 per month. CAS subscription, therefore, is 50% more expensive for the first year. Among DTH operators, even though DishTV is more expensive per month, its lower initial cost means it is cheaper over the entire year.

The following table explains this comparison with costs averaged for 1 year for 15 paid channels for CAS, or the most expensive package available for DTH:

Provider	Initial Cost	Monthly Cost	Offering
CAS/Cable	2000	200	77 free + 15 paid channels
DishTV	3450	170	160 channels
TataSky	4000	150	125 channels

Note that among the DTH operators, Tata Sky offers the STB for outright purchase. By contrast, DishTV offers the STB for a 5-year rental. It is not clear what '5-year rental' means, but I do not expect to have this box in 5 years so the difference is irrelevant.

There is one hidden cost to TataSky - it requires payment through pre-paid coupons. Inevitably, people will end up buying coupons of Rs. 2500, paying in advance for several months and foregoing interest. Of course, in this day and age, people hardly blink when spending a few thousand rupees, so this perhaps is not an issue.

Convenience
In their favor, TataSky has made it easy to understand their offering. You don't have to be math wiz to figure out what it will cost you, and all figures are nicely rounded. Setup is 4000, monthly subscription is 300. CAS advertisements have too much fine print and DishTV is almost equally incomprehensible.

Second, TataSky is easy to get. Go to the dealer, swipe your card - or write a check - and walk out with a small green box within minutes. DishTV is almost as easy - but not quite. For one, dealers prefer to push TataSky so you really need to make an effort to learn about DishTV.

Convenience is king, they say and that may be why TataSky is selling like hot cakes.

There are some points for CAS too. No call centers for one. If there's anything worse than a local serviceman in India, it's a call center. Besides, your monthly subscription is picked up at your doorstep. However, DishTV does offer many more payment options than TataSky. I prefer that freedom to choose how to pay and when, so DishTV scores a few brownie points.

Intangibles
By this time, I have no hesitation in giving CAS the boot. It is not much cheaper and its quality is suspect. For years I have cringed under the cable guy's monopolistic exploitation. So, I'm going to reject CAS, also for the pleasure of getting back at him.

There are a few intangibles in DishTV's favor. It has been around for 3 years. It offers 4 free movies on-demand for the first month. And most significantly, it offers two useful European channels I plan to see: Euronews and TV5 Asia.

But TataSky has many more intangibles in its favor. It is the new kid on the block. It is being pushed by dealers that prefer the no-hassle sales of TataSky. And, it has the halo effect of foreign partnering with Sky. Sky, incidentally, is owned by Rupert Murdoch which explains why there is such a slick marketing effort behind TataSky and why people hope it will soon offer more channels than DishTV.

Conclusion
But besides that hope and the cool factor, a fact-based analysis finds little to recommend TataSky. It is more expensive, has fewer channels, and a limited track record. Of course, people do strange things when following the herd.

There is one final and serious strike against TataSky. Their marketing campaign has been promoted by and is promoting Navjot Singh Sidhu. I have some serious reservations in patronizing an establishment that has, as its brand manager, a convicted murderer. That is, as it were, the last nail in the coffin for TataSky.