Economy
Journalism…or is it simply business?
A few days ago, we were told, by television news channels, that one Delhi schoolteacher was selling her students off for prostitution. We were all suitably shocked and outraged at the news. Teachers are supposed to be seconds parents. We were justifiably furious at this teacher whose actions went against all norms of humanity. Then, we were told that the entire expose conducted by Live India TV was fake and that the said school teacher was blackmailed by a Delhi businessman into posing for the “sting” video. Not just that, the schoolgirl who was reportedly propositioned by the teacher turned out to be an aspiring journalist keen to make it big in the business. She posed as a school girl for Prakash Singh, a friend who promised to help her establish herself as a journalist.
All this leaves me wondering what journalism means in today’s world? Am I a fool to expect some ethics out of the Fourth Estate? The media is supposed to be the fourth pillar of democracy. Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned ethical journalism? In the TRP-driven world of broadcast journalism, anything is acceptable. The poor school teacher, Uma Khurana was charged with immoral trafficking by an over-zealous Delhi police inspector, the parents of the affected girls beat up Khurana in public. Even worse, nearly two-thirds of the girls attending the school have been forced to drop out by parents who fear their daughters’ lives and honour. Is the media, like the judiciary, being deified and sanctified so that any criticism of media practices is seen as an insult to democracy? Is the media above the law? Why do we not hear news channels question the role of journalists and news channels in shaping public opinion? Enough is enough. The media is answerable to the law and to the public for its commissions and omissions, just like any of the other pillars of democracy. A responsible and ethical media is indispensable for the functioning of a good democracy.
Temple of gold?
This morning, NDTV, or was it CNN-IBN, ran a news story about the consecration of a new temple in Sripuram near Vellore in Tamil Nadu. So, what’s the fuss, you may ask. The fuss is that the said temple is built using 1.5 tonnes of gold. Yes, you read that right. 1.5 tonnes of gold. According to Chennai Online, the temple is built mainly from gold and copper. Except the walking path, the entire structure has been made of gold and copper. It has been built at a total cost of Rupees Six Billion ($15 million). My first reaction to this piece of news was that all the money spent was a royal waste. Just imagine! The money spent on the temple could have been used to build at least 10 hospitals with state-of-the-art equipment or schools with excellent facilities. Instead, it has been lavished in a building that is of no use to anybody, least of all those who really need help.
I am a Hindu too. I believe in God too. But, I do not believe that 15 million dollars must be spent to keep Him happy. I firmly believe that any money spent for the welfare of those who really need it will make God happy. They say God is omnipresent and omniscient. Then, why build a temple of gold to house him? Are we not trying to confine him to a gilded cage? Is there any point in spending so much money to build something that will serve no larger purpose to society? I may sound like an atheist when I say this, but the fact remains that India’s temples are the richest institutions of the country today. The daily income of the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanam is higher than the turnover of most companies. Granted that the TTD runs charities and uses the money earned for the greater good of humanity. But this temple at Vellore? How is it going to help those who survive with less than a dollar a day? How is it going to help those who walk tens of kilometres everyday to get a pail of drinking water?
My heart bleeds when I think of the colossal waste of money that this temple is. It bleeds when I realise that the temple is a symbol of everything that is wrong with India today. It symbolises the growing divide between the rich and the poor. It symbolises the harsh reality that the Indian diaspora all over the world is more willing to contribute to the construction of this pointless and extravagant temple in the hope that they will be relieved of their sins, than to contribute to the establishment of a school in a remote village in India. India ranks 126th among 177 countries in the UN Human Development Report. How is India to attain the status of a developed country by 2020 as our esteemed former President Dr. Kalam hopes, if this waste is to continue? It is time we wake up and realise that building temples and other places of worship at massive costs is going to get us nowhere. It is time to sit up and take note of the fact that the money thus spent is needed elsewhere. Think about it. 15 million dollars could have contributes to schools for the entire district. It could have meant better irrigation for the arid lands of the country. Or, it could have meant better health care for the millions who cannot afford private health care. We need to sit up and protest. Otherwise things will never change.
Of the Indian economy and human development…
Reading the news, especially news from India, seems to give me plenty of blog material. The latest in the series is this article from Statesman, Calcutta (oops! its Kolkata now!) stating that over 48% of all outbound investment is from the IT and the IT-enabled sector. The point of this post is not to debate the whys and wherefores of outbound direct investment by Indian companies and its mechanisms, but to wonder how far IT and ITeS can lead us as a nation?
I am not an economist and I will not debate the macroeconomic considerations behind calling India an emerging economy. As a student of Security Studies, I am more concerned with the issue of Human Security. And as a student of International Relations, I am more concerned about human development. So, here I am, asking the question I should have asked a few years ago during the BJP’s “India Shining” campaign. How far can IT take us when nearly 30% (maybe more) of India’s population is illiterate? What do IT, computers and Internet mean to the one-half of India that has no access to drinking water? And finally, how does IT ensure the security and well-being of the citizen, thus bringing into focus the issue of human security?
My immediate response to these questions is that it does not, in fact, contribute in any way to improvement of the lives of nearly 400 millions Indians who live below the poverty line. When I say this, I am not condemning IT or ITeS as unnecessary or pointless. I am simply observing that the money brought in by Indian multi-national companies (yes, they do exist) does not contribute effectively to improving the standard of living of the Indian masses. By masses, I do not mean the middle class and the upper middle class. I mean the real masses who live far away from bustling urban centres. It is easy for us, as Indians, to pat ourselves on the back for the rise of Indian multinational companies, not only in IT and ITeS, but also in other areas like steel, telecommunications and aviation. It is easy also to forget that India still ranks an abysmal 126 out of 177 countries, with a human development index of 0.611, according to the 2006 Human Development Report of the UNDP.
It is important to find out where we are going wrong. Indians often pride themselves on the excellent system of higher education that exists in India. We waste no time in reminding everyone that our IITs and IIMs are comparable to MIT and Harvard Business School. However, we tend to forget that the students of these IITs and IIMs are often from elite, private schools that offer world class secondary education. The HDR says that the combined gross enrolment ratio in primary, secondary and tertiary education is merely 63%. That means that nearly 40% or India’s population has never been to school. How does economic development help the nearly 500 million people who have never stepped into an educational institution?
The problem lies here. It lies in the education sector. An emphasis on higher education and the existence of heavily subsidised universities and colleges serves no purpose if 40% of the country’s population cannot afford access to the first 12 years of schooling that will help them get into these universities. The fees my parents had to pay during my school years clearly demonstrates this. When I was in Class 12, the final year of school, my parents paid nearly 10,000 rupees ($250) a year. This changed dramatically once I got to college. As I did history in an aided college, albeit autonomous, I paid something like 3000 rupees ($75) including maintenance fee that WCC charged for the upkeep of the campus. I would have paid about 700 rupees (less than $20) had I studied in a government college. At post-graduate level, my entire year’s expenses, including exam fee, were no more than 2500 rupees ($65) at the University of Madras. How are people supposed to get to the stage where the government pays for everything if they can’t afford the $250 a year for primary school in the first place? Government-run primary schools are so bad that even the lady who works for my mother as domestic help prefers a badly-run private school. In rural centres, the teachers rarely ever show up. In states like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, schools are used to host local criminals and/or politicians. How will India ever really shine if primary education is so neglected?
I am not saying that economic development is a bad thing. In fact, economic development is essential to facilitate infrastructure building and education. However, the problem arises when higher education is given preferential treatment over primary education because of flawed government policy. The market in India does its job perfectly well: it creates wealth. The redistribution of the wealth thus created by ensuring access to basic public goods is the job of the government. Sadly, nothing seems to change in India. Every year, the Finance Minister offers sops to the IT sector and the services sector. But, no progress seems to be made on basic issues of health, sanitation and primary education. These are the primary issues that must be addressed if India intends to ever get to the position of a developed country.
The idea of India? Or is it ideas?
Yesterday, I got home quite late. And realised I did not have access to the internet because I had forgotten to pay. Might I add, that I cannot get to sleep unless I read something. And, I did what people have done for centuries before the advent of the internet. I took out a book, yes, a real book. For those who have forgotten what that looks like, it is mde of paper and bound together with glue. 😉
The book I got out to read was entitled, “L’Idée de l’Inde” by renowned Indian sociologist, Sunil Khilnani. As I read bits and pieces, I desperately wished I had the English version, that I had so intelligently left in my cupboard back home in India. However, the book was too interesting to ditch. I did not get through the book, indeed I did not read even one page, because my thoughts were drawn towards another, in my opinion, more interesting book on the same subject. This one is “India: From Midnight to the Millennium” by Shashi Tharoor.
I was reading the introduction when I found myself wondering what Tharoor would have to say today, on the same subjects. If he were to rewrite the book, how would it change? He enumerates four major issues that confronted India at the dawn of the new millennium. The bread-vs-freedom debate, the centralisation-vs-federalism debate, the pluralism-vs-fundamentalism debate and the coca-colonisation debate.
Now…this sets me thinking, not about the questions themselves, but about whether these questions continue to be relevant 7 years hence. Let’s first take the bread-freedom debate. Honestly, do we really set that much store by freedom, as it stands? The generation that knew an enslaved India is slowly disappearing. We, the citizens of the future have never known how it is to not be free. Indeed, the GenX does not even know how life was pre–internet. So, do we really care about losing freedom? Is it even possible? Why would any other country want to politically conquer India and thus take charge of its billion-strong population? Surely, it makes no sense any more.
Next, is the centralisation-federalism debate. Is it even a debate any more? I thought India was inexorably and irreversibly on its way to becoming a federal state. Devolution of power is not a debate any more. It is a necessity. Especially since we are a billion in number. Third, the pluralism question. Many may argue that the rise of the BJP is in fact a sign of the rise of fundamentalism. But, I beg to differ. India is plural. No one political party, or even a group of parties, or even still the people of India themselves, can change that. The fact remains that, as Tharoor clearly demonstrates, India can only be spoken of in the plural. It has always been, and will remain as far as I can envisage, a plural country. What more can you expect of a country with 18 official languages and thousands of dialects? Then, is the question of globalisation. It is not even a question any more. While globalisation in India has been gradual, it is far from stagnant. India has too much to lose from protectionism and a lot to gain from liberalisation.
Having said that, I think the real challenges come from within. India must sustain the astounding 9% growth rate it has experienced over the last few year. It must tackle the major problems of poverty, AIDS and population growth to achieve this. It must drastically improve its Human Development Index ranking from an abysmal 126 in 2006. These are what will give India the respect it deserves in the International community and not rhetoric. India is definitely a rising power, but to become a developed nation, more needs to be done.