14

TheIndian EXPRESS
www.indianexpress.com

l SATURDAY l APRIL 6 l 2013

The Indian EXPRESS

BECAUSE THE TRUTH INVOLVES US ALL

HE government has taken the first step towards sugar decontrol by giving freedom to sugar millers to sell their output in the open market for two years, doing away with the present system of requiring mills to sell 10 per cent of their production to the government for the public distribution system at subsidised prices. The removal of the sugar levy for two years appears to be geared towards reducing opposition by state governments to the reform. During these two years, the Central government will pay the subsidy bill to state governments, who will buy sugar in the open market and sell it through the PDS. Hopefully, at the end of the two years, the government will also reduce the subsidy it gives or shift the burden to state governments that wish to continue the subsidy. Partial decontrol of the sugar industry is a step in the right direction as this industry remains one in which the policy of government interference in the market process has remained unchanged from the preliberalisation era. It would help to increase investment and growth in the industry. This reform is one of the recommendations of the Rangarajan panel on sugar decontrol. Other recommendations include dispens-

Partial decontrol of sugar is a belated first step. Now move the industry to a market price based system
ing with the present system of regulated release of non-levy sugar in the market, which raises the cost of holding inventory. The panel also recommended the phasing out of cane reservation area to allow the emergence of a competitive market, a stable and low tariff regime for sugar trade and removal of other government-mandated requirements like packaging in jute bags. The economic survey had strongly recommended that the government adopt the recommendations of the Rangarajan panel to enable a growing and competitive market-based sugar industry. The first step has been taken to move the industry towards a market price-based system. The next problem the government should look into is how to reduce the subsidy burden on the exchequer while ensuring the benefit of the subsidy reaches those it is intended for. At present, the government has not removed either the subsidy or the distribution of sugar through the PDS. Sale and purchase of sugar in the open market with sugar vouchers for BPL families or, even better, direct cash transfers with an estimated amount for sugar consumption, instead of an array of institutions that distort the market for sugar, would be the rational way forward.

Sweet something

Not enough, Boss

National Interest

Letters to the

EDITOR Letter of the

Ask her no questions

F ANY more proof were needed that Mamata Banerjee has completely failed to honour the mandate that brought her Trinamool Congress to power in West Bengal, it came this week in the aftermath of the death of a student leader in Kolkata. Suditpa Gupta was picked up by the police while participating in an agitation demanding the holding of student union elections, and given the somewhat indeterminate circumstances of his death thereafter and the fact of his affiliation to the Students Federation of India, a wing of the CPM, controversy was inevitable. What comes as an outrage, however, is that instead of using her high office to counsel patience till the matter is duly investigated, the chief minister has waded into the exchange of charges by questioning the gravity of the incident and, more damagingly, presuming to absolve the police of any possible wrongdoing. The incident, in her words, is a small and petty matter and the post-mortem will reveal it is an accident. By all indications, Banerjee had coasted to power in West Bengal two years ago on a wave of popular resentment against the politi-

Mamata Banerjee continues to belie the promise of change in governance and political culture

cisation of the law-and-order machinery in the state by the longruling Left Front. But the manner in which she has since politicised every interrogation of her government suggests that she remains irresponsibly and insensitively innocent of any such realisation. In Banerjees Bengal, to ask valid questions of the administration, to seek truth and clarity from power, is to not only court accusations of a partisan agenda, it is also to be denied the right to question at all. In fact, this reflexive response to every hint of criticism or call for accountability invites the suspicion that these are the battlelines the Trinamool Congress is comfortable with a politics of charge and pitched counter-charge that reduces the space for a meaningful conversation on issues of governance. The Left Front, desperately casting around for issues to rally its rank-and-file, appears only too willing to play along. An inquiry by local agencies into the cause of Guptas death may ultimately exonerate the police, or it may not. But by attempting to predetermine the outcome, as she has, Banerjee has endangered its credibility.

UST two days before he passed away at 70, arguably the most famous film critic of his time, Roger Ebert, wrote of a leave of presence, announcing that he would cut down on his workload, reviewing only the movies [he] wanted to review, as his cancer had returned. That blogpost was characteristic of the candour with which he spoke of his decade-long struggle with cancer, to which he lost his jaw and the ability to speak and eat. He spoke through his reviews and his blog, where he chronicled his illness with grace and humour and discussed his views on politics, culture and society. It is unnecessary to say Ebert loved the movies. He was, after all, a prolific film critic who produced 17 books and hundreds of reviews, and the first to win a Pulitzer Prize. He was the rare critic who transcended the popular and critical

Roger Ebert was both immensely popular and respected by his peers
divide. His words were always passionate and grounded in scholarship, never inaccessible or condescending. He judged movies in accordance with their goals, rather than expecting every film to be Citizen Kane, his favourite. Ebert also transformed television film journalism in the US through a syndicated show with his sparring rival and co-host Gene Siskel, wielding a gladiatorial thumb that could make or break a film. As eloquent as Ebert could be when he enjoyed a film, he was at his most entertaining when skewering derivative, banal or just plain awful films. Of a film called The Spirit, he said, To call the characters cardboard is to insult a useful packing material. His takedowns of gimmicks like 3-D are legendary. He remained, for many would-be cinephiles, the first gateway to movie magic, the man to consult every Friday.

Peoples critic

HATEVER your view on Rahul Gandhis first substantive public appearance on Thursday, you would say that he displayed a charmingly self-deprecatory side to his personality. So, if he is capable of having a little laugh at himself, is he also willing to reflect on the way he has approached his politics so far, as he completes 10 years as an MP? Because if he did, he might see some of the mistakes he has made, or issues he might wish to revisit. Since we do not have an insight into his mind yet, here is our list of what could possibly be called the three mistakes of his political life (apologies to Chetan Bhagat). And lets talk about two first, and leave the third for later. First, he went campaigning in the 2010 assembly elections to Bihar with a straightforward message, which I am taking the liberty to paraphrase: over the decades, two different Indias had come into being, one shining, the other declining. And the time had now come to rectify that. That the message did not work is evident in the fact that the Congress lost its deposit in 221 out of 243 seats, winning only four. As to why it failed so badly, listen to the words of a very poor but politically articulate, as they usually come in Bihar farmer at one of his rallies. Woh kahat hain dui Bharat ban gawa (he says two Indias have come into being), said the farmer, half-squatting and leaning on a lathi. And what do you think about this, we asked him. Hum kahat, sahib (we say, sir), that of the 60 years of Independence, for 53 years you have ruled us and created two Indias. Then, with a defiantly mischievous twinkle that you see in the eyes of the poorest Indians only during an election, he added, and we say, sahib, that if we gave you five more years, how can we trust you not to divide us into three Indias now. This was followed by the next mistake, of failing to understand the meaning of aspiration and ambition as he launched a more optimistic campaign in Uttar Pradesh, 2012. He said it was so awful that people from that state had to go to big cities like Mumbai and Delhi to look for ordinary jobs. He illustrated this with the story of an Uttar Pradesh migrant working on the Delhi Metro, leading a tough life away, because there was no opportunity at home. His solution was that an expanded NREGA and a better rural economy would enable the same people to stay at home, in their villages. Cut to a member of his audience again. We get Rs 300-400 a day as labourers on Delhi Metro. You can live on Rs 150 and send the rest home so your children can go to a decent school. Wed rather go to Delhi and Mumbai and work. Ask the Congress people to give NREGA 365 days a year and stay in our village, was the answer. That view was later affirmed in the election result.

Rahuls unlearning from his mistakes but is it a bit slow, a bit late?
SHEKHAR GUPTA
E never know enough to make sense of political history in India, and definitely not so soon. But it could just be that the disaster of Uttar Pradesh led to an honest and realistic reappraisal within the Congress party, and particularly in its higher counsels. Only that could have jolted the party to come out to support FDI in retail at a public meeting, the first time it had done

for a day-labourer or security guards job is aspirational. It is not a humiliation. In rapidly growing India, even the perspirational classes are entitled to aspiration. Thats the intellectual moat he seems to have crossed now. While the inclusive metaphor and a tribute to a rights-based minimum guarantees programme were present, he mainly talked aspiration, empowerment and entrepreneur-

He had erred in the Hindi heartland, first in not reading the intensity of the aspirational upsurge, and then its meaning and implications. Even in the apparently hopeless heartland, aspiration is not three square meals, or Rs 100 a day. It is electricity, schools, jobs, dignity, mobile phones, even cable TV. For one living in a Bundelkhand village, migration to a big city even for a day-labourers job is aspirational. It is not a humiliation. Thats the intellectual moat he seems to have crossed now.
so for anything free-market or foreign (other than the Soviet Bloc in the non-aligned past). It definitely created the space for the prime minister to focus back on the economy. And while we do not yet know if it is too late already to redeem the wreck now, the important fact is, a new future course of the Congress partys econo-politics is now being set. And it has been bleached of some of its deep pink. Did we see some flashes of ship. He also spoke one of his most significant, welcome and hopefully enduring lines so far, when he talked of a job being the bridge between aspiration and empowerment, and how only entrepreneurial India could produce those jobs. This is progress. When Rahul Gandhi says in April 2013 that a rising tide may lift all boats but somebody, including industry, has to give the poorest Indian a boat to at least

In his speech at Jaipur that stirred the party faithful, he talked of this power that everybody seeks, being poison. It might be a good idea for him to reflect on this as well. In a democracy, power is a wonderful gift, an honour and a cherished privilege voters give you. Good leaders embrace it with joy, gratitude and humility. They must treat public office and power as public trust and try coming up to their peoples expectations.
that welcome change in Rahuls 70 minutes with the CII as well? He had erred in the Hindi heartland you cant just get away by blaming your speech writers when you are a leader of such overwhelming power in your party, and, self-admittedly, a product of such deeply political DNA. He had erred, first in not reading the intensity of the aspirational upsurge, and then its meaning and implications. Even in the apparently hopeless heartland, in this decade, aspiration is not three square meals, or a hundred rupees a day. It is electricity, schools, jobs, dignity, material goods, mobile phones, even cable TV. For one living in a Bundelkhand village with no economy, migration to a big city even have that opportunity, it is a far cry from the awful oldspeak of shining versus declining, aspirational versus perspirational India. When he speaks of professors at IITs not even knowing the worth of their intellect and the need to link them to the markets, when he taunts Indias corporates and asks if they have any say in decision-making besides, probably, being good friends with Montek, and suggests an institutional way for them to have a say in governance, it is progress. But is this enough? Or, has this re-education come too late? OUBTS arise because he is still hesitant to talk about the future, about his own and his partys politics and policies. The most important missing

point was something suffixed with If we return to power... Isnt that what you expect from a political leader, hard-nosed or not, particularly in an election year, when his party is seeking a third successive term? You cant then get away merely with describing how things are. You also have to say how they will be, how you would want them to be. Could it also be because, as Rahul fathoms the contradictions within his own, his dynastys and his partys politics, his understanding and appreciation of what it means to be in public life is also still a work in progress? Which brings us, finally, to his third mistake. In his speech at Jaipur that stirred the party faithful, he talked of this power that everybody seeks, being poison. It might be a good idea for him to reflect on this as well. In a democracy, power is a wonderful gift, an honour and a cherished privilege that voters give you. Good leaders embrace it with joy, gratitude and humility. They must treat public office and power as public trust and try coming up to their peoples expectations. Power as poison is, regrettably, a feudal formulation, not a democratic one. Power, public office, the faith of the voter, even vote banks, can be looked at in one of two ways: a DNA-scripted bequest, or a responsibility you have to earn and deliver on. Also, if you see this power as poison, how do you persuade decent people to join politics? Maybe that dilemma still needs settling, and maybe this is also a work in progress. You can see this country any which way: an elephant, a tiger, a beehive or a hornets nest. But it changes faster than any other we know. See, for example, the incredible empowerment and rise of the backward castes in the past two decades. The ranks of Mulayam and Akhilesh, Lalu, Nitish and Mayawati are now joined by Narendra Modi and Shivraj Singh Chouhan, even Vasundhara Raje, the new stars of a party as Brahmanical as the BJP. You talk of finding political talent deep down, at the panchayat level, remember that is how it was until your own party turned into an oligarchy of many minor dynasties, if not a chamber of princes. Remember where even Ahmed Patel came from: he was a taluka panchayat president. This is a tribute to the same democratic politics and it is essential that the most significant national leaders recognise this and tailor their politics and message accordingly. Because, awful poison or humble privilege, power will no longer follow DNA and dynasties. It will need policies and programmes. Understanding the aspirational upsurge, therefore, is progress. But, in the absence of a convincing agenda on how you promise to live up to it, it is tempting to borrow a Rahulism and turn it on him to say that yes, we have seen progress, but there is a long way to go yet, Boss.
sg@expressindia.com

WEEK

No third option

WITH the national elec-

tions looming, talk of a Third Front has been revived. Earlier, the Left would take the initiative and the Third Front thrived in years marked by the decline of the BJP and the Congress. The Left provided ideological space for other regional parties. Things have changed. With the two big parties performing better, the Third Fronts space for leverage has shrunk. Today, the Left has dimmed and possibly been replaced by a mercurial Trinamool Congress, which has a hard time allying with anyone. The Samajwadi Partys overtures to the BJP could jeopardise its minority and Dalit votes. A potential Third Front might not like to be identified with the SP , in that case. The revival of an old-style Third Front will be difficult. It will simply become a waiting room for parties before they head to other political destinations. R.Narayanan Ghaziabad

Reboot or rewind?

THIS refers to the edito-

rial Rahuls reboot (IE, April 5). Rahul Gandhis speech at the annual CII meet was disappointing. It was along the same lines as his chintan shivir speech at Jaipur. Only it lacked some of the optimism of Jaipur. He was frank about the failure of the present system of governance. He spoke of inclusive governance and the need to meet the aspirations of millions of young Indians. Rahul Gandhis remarks about there being no man on a charger who can solve all problems has been seen as a swipe at Narendra Modi. It may, in fact, be a warning to members of the Congress who nurture hopes of Rahul Gandhi taking the reins of both party and government. His deprecating remarks about the role of dynasty and his advocating a more decentralised power structure may not go down well with members of his party either. N.Ramamurthy Chennai

Korea alert

APROPOS the editorial

IPSITA CHAKRAVARTY
HAKESPEARES had bad press lately. Researchers at Aberystwyth University have found that he was a ruthless businessman, a tax-evader and a black-marketeer who hoarded food in a time of scarcity. For these lapses, he was dragged to court and nearly thrown into jail. He is also accused of extracting tithe from starving peasants, all the while dashing off powerful lines about their plight. Fled is the immortal bard. William Shakespeare of Stratfordupon-Avon had money on his mind rather than eternal verities. The tongue-clicking about his business acumen is inexplicable, considering that reams have been written about the commercial success of his plays. It is no secret that Shakespeare went about his plays the same way Subhash Ghai or David Dhawan would go about directing their movies: there must be romance, comic relief, a fight scene, something for everyone. He also owned shares in the Globe and Blackfriars theatres. It was crucial to him that his plays draw bums on seats, as Rowan Atkinson so elegantly put it. As for his

Shakespeare had money on his mind. So did most Elizabethan dramatists

felonious tendencies, truth is, before Shakespeare became the poster boy for creative genius, he was an Elizabethan dramatist. More often than not, the Elizabethan dramatist was not a nice man to know. A list of Shakespeares contemporaries may be mistaken for a rogues gallery. There was Christopher Marlowe, killed in a B&B at Deptford, where he had been spending a convivial evening with Englands most notorious spies. Sweet Kit Marlowe, dandy and playwright, had no trouble blending into the shadowy world of espionage, spying on Catholics for a newly Anglican English crown. A suspected double agent, he was also implicated in a counterfeiting racket. It is rumoured that he planted false evidence on fellow-playwright Thomas Kydd, who was then tortured and tried for atheism. Harold Bloom encourages you to imagine Marlowe as Barabbas from The Jew of Malta: As for myself, I walk abroad a-nights,/ And kill sick people groaning under walls. Then there was Ben Jonson, eight years younger than Shakespeare and a protege. Unfazed by a stint at Fleet Prison for Leude and mutynous behavior, Jonson killed a man in a duel and escaped the gallows on a technicality. Robert Greene, who famously dismissed Shakespeare as an upstart crow, matched his rival in pecuniary misdemeanours. He cast off his wife, he says, after having spent all the marriage money which I had obtained by her. But he died leaving a cordial note for his Doll, asking her to make good on his debts. Elizabethan England was not an easy place for writers. Feudal patterns of patronage were receding but a literary market had not yet formed. As political power became more centralised and aristocrats moved to the court, London became the place where fortunes were made. And the theatre was one of the few places you could make a living in writing. Shoreditch, believed to be Shakespeares first London address, teemed with actors, spies, thieves, prostitutes and poets, according to the author Charles Nicholl. It was in these narrow streets that the dramatists had to fight for a living. The professional writer did not pen verses in dreamy isolation. He was part of the hoi polloi and writing was a commercial project. TheElizabethandramatistsmostlycamefromfamiliesofmodest means.Ekingoutalivinginthecity,theyallknewhunger.In Coriolanus,thelinesaboutthecavernousbellythattakesinfoodwhile thelimbs,eyesandotherpartslabourawayspeakofthebodypolitic ofanoppressivestate.Butitisalso animageofhunger,thegulfthat yawnsinthemiddleofthebody,alwaysinsatiable.Writing,forthese dramatists,wasawayoutofhungerandintoabettersocialposition. Thebestwaytosecurethissocial positionwastoownland.When Shakespeareretires toStratford, heisanadmiredplaywright,a landownerandagentleman, hardlythelyre-totingpoetofpopularimagination.IfMarloweis Barabbas,IofferyouAntonio from TheMerchantofVenice as Shakespeare:amanofbusiness whostrikesquestionabledeals,a merchantwiththesoulofabard.
ipsita.chakravarty@expressindia.com

Weigh not the bard

Koreas at odds (IE, April 5), North Koreas threats should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. The editorial rightly observes This time, Pyongyang has a new, inexperienced dictator, someone who might act in the heat of the moment and could potentially trigger a nuclear war. I fully agree with the editorial, that the US and China, close to to South Korea and North Korea respectively, should de-escalate tensions and bring North Korea to the table for talks. R.K. Kapoor Chandigarh

Justice delayed

WORDLY WISE
Ralph Nader

The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.

more fair and timely by Maneesh Chhibber( IE, April 5). The government and the judiciary should work in tandem to ensure justice for litigants. The selection of judges and pendency in courts are the two core issues that must be addressed. It is highly important to ensure a transparent and accountable judiciary that is responsive to society. Merely increasing the number of judges will not address the pendency in courts unless genuine cases are filtered from the frivolous ones, and cumbersome procedures are streamlined. Ganapathi Bhat Akola

THIS refers to Justice,