Misplaced Emphasis

ଓଡିଶା ଗୋଇଁଗ ଗ୍ଲୋବାଲ ବେଳା

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Fri, 13 Jan 2023 09:42:00 +0000

ଓଡିଶା ଗୋଇଁଗ ଗ୍ଲୋବାଲ ବେଳା

ଶ୍ରୀଜିତ୍ ମିଶ୍ର (୧୩/୦୧/୨୦୨୩)

ଓଲି ନାନୀର ଦେଖ ବ୍ରହ୍ମାଣ୍ଡ ପଇଁତରା,

ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ହେଉଛି ବିଶ୍ୱ ହକି କପ ମେଳା।

ବାରବାଟୀରେ ସ୍ୱାଗତ ସମାରୋହ ପରା,

ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱର ଓ ରାଉରକେଲାରେ ଖେଳା।

କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଓ ବିର୍ଷାମୁଁଣ୍ଡା ପଡ଼ିଆରେ ଡେରା,

ମିଲି ମାଉସି ର ପୌଷ୍ଟିକ ବ୍ୟଞ୍ଜନ ଠେଳା।

ଖାଇ ସୁଆଁ କାଙ୍ଗୁ ମଣ୍ଡିଆ ପିଜ଼ା କାକେରା,

ଦେଖ ଷୋହଳ ଦେଶର ଭେଣ୍ଡିଆଙ୍କ ଲିଳା।

ବିଶ୍ୱ ପୁଷ୍ଟିଶସ୍ଯ ବର୍ଷ ଓଡିଶା ଚେହେରା,

ମାଣ୍ଡି ମା ଦେସିଆରୁ ଗୋଇଁଗ ଗ୍ଲୋବାଲ ବେଳା।

-୦-×-୦-

(Odia transliteration using English alphabet)

Odisha Going Global Bela

Srijit Mishra (13/01/2023)

Olly Nanira Dekha Bramhanda Paintara,

Odishare Heuchi Biswa Hockey Cup Mela.

Barabatire Swagata Samaroha Para,

Bhubaneswar O Rourkelare Khela.

Kalinga O BirsaMunda Padiare Dera,

Milli Mausira Poushtika Byanjana Thela.

Khai Suan Kangu Mandia Pizza Kakera,

Dekha Sohala Deshara Bhendianka Lila.

Biswa Pushtishasya Barsha Odisha Chehera,

Mandy Maa Desiaru Going Global Bela.

-୦-×-୦-

English translation (literal, work in progress)

Odisha's Going Global Time

Srijit Mishra (13/01/2023)

Olly's Sojourn across Universe,

Odisha Hosts Hockey World Cup.

Barabati enthralls with inaugural,

Bhubaneswar and Rourkela will have play-offs.

Kalinga and Birsa Munda Stadium is the place to be,

Visit Aunt Milli's Nutritious Meals Stall.

Eat millet-based recipe's like pizza and sweets,

Enjoy stickwork of players from sixteen countries.

In International Year of Millets Odisha Shows,

Mother Mandy's Time from Local to Going Global has come.

-୦-×-୦-

Olly is 2023 Hockey World Cup's Mascot (she was also the mascot in 2018)

Milli is Odisha's Mascot for International Year of Millets 2023

Mandy is mascot of Odisha's Annual Agricultural Fest (Krushi Mela) in 2020 catapulting Odisha Millets Mission

-୦-×-୦-

FIFA 2022 Final and Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 01 Jan 2023 07:08:00 +0000

Abstract: This post on FIFA 2022 World Cup Final between Argentina and France (or, Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappé, respectively) is a continuation of my curiosity on Pānini’s conflict resolution rule, Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam, beyond Sanskrit grammar, contextualized through the adage, "Let the best one win." We now look forward to Hockey World Cup 2023, and welcome 2023, the International Year of Millets.

“Let the best one win,” is a powerful adage, a wishful one, as it may not always turn out to be true. However, this adage seems to have been echoed by many football lovers after the final match between Argentina and France in the FIFA World Cup 2022 suggesting that in their view the best team did indeed win.

In this post, in sync with the adage, I will touch upon the ups and downs of that match through the lay reading of Pānini’s celebrated conflict resolution rule “In conflict the stronger (or, better) one prevails,” Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam. This draws from a recent post of mine wherein I had indicated that the lay reading renders the rule for wider application beyond Sanskrit grammar. I had also indicated there how the lay reading of the rule resonates with Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman, John Rawls’ veil in an original position, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator. In the spirit of that wider application, we now get back to that final match.

Supporters of Argentina and France would have wanted their teams to win. The fan following of Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappé would have wanted their idols to be in the winning side. There, however, was an undercurrent of support for Messi, as this would perhaps be his last World Cup and that his caliber as a player has been borne out by the fact that till that final match, he had been in the winning squad of all major football tournaments. In the last four years, Mbappé has also created a fan following of his own since his performance in the 2018 edition of the World Cup that France won, and he has been going from strength-to-strength thereafter.

When the 2022 FIFA final match between Argentina and France began many, so-called neutral supporters (perhaps talismanic, in a veil, and impartial spectators), wanted Argentina to win so that Messi can be part of the winning squad and will have in his repertoire the one Cup that is missing, and they also wanted Mbappé to score at least a goal. It was very much possible that Argentina would have won without Mbappé or his team scoring a goal, or for Argentina to have lost. Given the two competing wishes, it is only after the match that one could know which of these got fulfilled and who of the two teams was better and whether the better team won.

As the match progressed, Argentina and Messi were doing well. They were 2-0 up with Messi having scored one and assisted the other. But, Mbappé had not scored. He fulfills the neutral supporters wish and around the 80^th minute scores a goal. Hold on, within another minute or so, he goes beyond that and scores another goal. With Mbappé’s two back-to-back goals, France was level with Argentina and by the end of regular time the score line read 2-2.

Now, with the match going into extra time, the neutral supporters wanted Messi to show his magic and were all delighted when he does that by scoring another goal with Argentina now leading again at 3-2. With this, our neutral supporters were somewhere feeling a little let down for Mbappé but this does not last long as he scores again, a hat-trick in a Wrold Cup final, and France levels the score again with Argentina at 3-3 at the end of extra time. With no clear winners, the match goes to penalty kicks.

Mbappé and Messi score their respective penalty goals. France misses out the second and third one with a good save by Damián Martínez the Argentine goalkeeper, but scores their fourth, while Argentina players, after Messi, score their subsequent three and go on to win the World Cup 2022 with the penalty kicks score reading 4-2.

Some non-connoisseur's of the game would suggest what was this ado all about, they could have started with the penalty kicks and decided the match. No, that cannot be. The beauty of the game lies in the the laws of the game along with the ups and downs and the upheavals therein. If there is no decision after the regular time of 90 minutes then the match goes to extra time, and if there is still no decision after the extra time of 30 minutes then the match goes to penalty kicks.

The application of the laws of the game for determining the outcome of a match follows a sequence, which, in a convoluted sense, seems to support Vipratisidhe Param Kāryam. No decision at the end of a stage of the match (that is, end of regular or extra time) indicates that at the end of that stage the two teams continue to be of equal strength (vipratisidhe) and this requires that the progress of the match to the next or subsequent stage (param) be brought into action or invoked (kāryam). Further, as the match progresses to kicks from the penalty mark the penalty kicks can go on ad infinitum till a decision on the winner is reached.

To get back to our adage, the best team won, Argentina won the Cup in the penalty shoot out. But, our neutral supporters got more, Messi gets the golden ball as the best player of the championship including his goals and assists (see all goals by Argentina in the World Cup), Mbappé gets the golden boot as the maximum goal scorer in the tournament, and Martínez gets the golden glove as the best goalkeeper of the competition.

There was no decision to be made by our neutral supporters, but in their personal emotional space they felt vindicated and it is this that supports our lay reading of Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam beyond Sanskrit grammar. The feeling by our neutral supporters also seems to resonate Gandhi’s talisman, Rawls’ veil in an original position and Smith’s impartial spectator. What more would they want. The laws of the game to decide a winner in a World Cup final match also seems to, in a convoluted sense, fall in line with Pānini’s conflict resolution rule. It has been a win-win for all.

Now, we look forward to the Hockey World Cup 2023 that is to take place in Bhubaneswar and Rourkela of Odisha, India in January 2023. Wishing you well-being and happiness for 2023, the International Year of Millets.

[I reiterate of having no knowledge of Sanskrit, as indicated in my pervious post. This is just a continuation of my curiosity of Pānini’s conflict resolution rule, in my lay understanding, beyond Sanskrit grammar. My apologies to Sanskrit grammarians and football aficionados.]

CC BY-SA

-x-o-x-

Rishi on Pānini’s Vipratisedhe Param Kāryam and Beyond

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Wed, 28 Dec 2022 15:36:00 +0000

Rishi on Pānini’s Vipratisedhe Param Kāryam and Beyond

Srijit Mishra

28 December 2022

Abstract

The post provides a generic interpretation and a lay reading of Rishi Rajpopat’s interpretation of Pānini’s metarule vipratisedhe param kāryam for conflict resolution. This opens up possibilities for the application of this metarule beyond Sanskrit grammar. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman in his social philosophy, John Rawls’ veil in the original position as an aid in his political philosophy, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator in his moral philosophy.

Keywords: Adam Smith, Aṣṭādhyāyī, John Rawls, Kāryam, Mahatma Gandhi, moral philosophy, Pānini, param, political philosophy, Sanskrit, social philosophy, vipratisedhe.

The Context

Rishi Rajpopat’s doctoral thesis In Pāṇini We Trust: Discovering the Algorithm for Rule Conflict Resolution in the Aṣṭādhyāyī addresses an important problem for conflict resolution. Pānini’s celebrated Aṣṭādhyāyī on Sanskrit grammar has only one metarule for that, 1.4.2, vipratisedhe param kāryam, “if there are two conflicting rules, the subsequent one prevails.”

Conventional Interpretation

Conventionally, grammarians had suggested different approaches to conflict resolution. First, the stronger rule prevails.

Nitya (obligatory) is stronger than its counterpart anitya (not obligatory). An example of the latter is when the sense in a compound word can be equally expressed by the constituent parts).
Antaraṅga (internally conditioned), as the rule has the cause of its application embedded in another rule, the bahiraṅga (externally conditioned), making the application of the former a prerequisite for the latter and in that sense the former is the stronger one.
Apavāda (exception) is a special rule that sets aside utsarga (the general rule) and thereby makes exception rules stronger.

Second, if rules are of equal strength, the subsequent one in Pānini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī will prevail. However, all these also led to a host of additional metarules for umpteen exceptions.

Rishi’s Contribution

Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution is in three parts. First, it classifies whether the conflict (that is, application of two rules) is for the same operand or for different operands.

Second, in the case of a single operand, it develops a method to identify the specific rules. This would further aid in the application of the exception rules, as being specific gives greater clarity.

And, third, in the case of two different operands, it provides a novel interpretation wherein param in the metarule means the rule that should apply to the subsequent one or the next one from the two operands (say, the rule that is applicable to the latter of the two independent words that aid the formation of a new compound word). Here, I use the subsequent one and not the one that will come to the right-hand side, as indicated by Rishi Rajpopat, because the subsequent one is generic and should hold for people who learn Sanskrit in a script where the writing is not from left to right (while recognizing the limits of the usage because of the script) or even for those who learn (or, have learnt) Sanskrit largely through an oral tradition. Independent of this generic usage, this novel interpretation has solved a long-standing puzzle and opens up the logical structure of Sanskrit grammar for wider application.

A Lay Reading

A lay reading of the metarule could imply that “if there are two conflicting rules, the stronger one prevails.” This presumes that param (or, parama) means the stronger one or the better one or the best. Such a reading is different from the perspective provided by the Sanskrit grammarians and leaves room for interpretation on what one means by ‘the stronger one’. This reading would be counterproductive as it does away with the clarity involved in interpreting param as the subsequent one or the next one (either in the sequence of rules in the conventional interpretation or in the sequence of operands in the novel interpretation). Nevertheless, we go ahead with this usage as, in our view, it subsumes different aspects of the conventional interpretation as also Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution and also opens up the metarule to a wider application.

In the conventional interpretation, by default, the stronger rules such as nitya, antaraṅga, and apavāda prevail over their corresponding weaker rules anitya, bahiraṅga, and utsarga, respectively. Only when the two rules in conflict are of equal strength then the one that comes later in the Aṣṭādhyāyī is considered to prevail. This interpretation draws from an implicit understanding that in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the sequencing of the rules is from the simpler to the complex ones. And, thereby, making the rules that come later in the sequence in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the stronger ones, albeit the exceptions.

Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution suggests two things. One is the identification and application of specific rules as exceptions in case of the conflict in a single operand. And, the other is the one that applies to the subsequent operand in case of conflict between two operands. Thus, in case of conflict in a single operand the exception rule prevails and is the stronger one while in case of conflict between two operands the one that applies to the subsequent operand prevails and is the stronger one.

Beyond grammar: Gandhi, Rawls and Smith

The lay reading is subjective to what one considers as param or, more specifically in our lay reading to what one considers to be stronger or better. However, this lay reading opens up the application of the metarule beyond grammar, including for decision-making in other situations of conflict.

For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s invoking of the talisman, John Rawls’ recourse to be under a veil in an original position, or Adam Smith’s reliance on the impartial spectator are the basis to guide decision-making to resolve some conflict. Gandhi’s is a powerful social philosophy for the individual to rely on thyself to resolve a conflict in one’s own mind when in doubt, Rawls’ is a transcendental political philosophy that requires a democratic ethos with identities under wrap to move forward in a reasonably plural world, and Smith’s is a moral philosophy where an individual falls back on thy conscience by being in the shoes of an impartial spectator.

Getting back to Pānini’s metarule on conflict resolution, one sees that the param kāryam (that is, the stronger one or better one prevails) in Gandhi’s talisman is a reliance on thyself (one’s own conscience), in Rawls’ veil in an original position is the focus on the democratic ethos with individual identities being under wrap (the free and equal citizens deciding for themselves while being blind to their own identities or self-interest), and in Smith’s impartiality is in identifying thy conscience by putting on the hat of independent and disinterested persons (being open to other perspectives to help visualize propriety in the larger social space).

Conclusion

A novel interpretation of Pānini’s metarule vipratisedhe param kāryamIn by Rishi Rajpopat has opened it up for wider application. It is in this spirit that we have suggested a generic interpretation followed by a lay reading of the metarule, “if there are two conflicting rules, the stronger one prevails.” This lay reading is not for usage in Sanskrit grammar. Nevertheless, this lay reading, in our opinion, subsumes the conventional and new contributions on the interpretation of the metarule. It also opens up the lay reading to applications beyond Sanskrit grammar. For instance, in understanding some specific rules that aid decision-making to deal with conflict resolution by thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman in his social philosophy for an individual in doubt, John Rawls’ veil in an original position with a set of other fundamental ideas leading to his principles of justice as a political philosophy, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator that aids his moral philosophy.

Acknowledgements

At the outset, I must state that I have no knowledge of Sanskrit, less so of its grammar. My limited understanding is in having heard some recitation and their interpretation as a proximate illiterate. This note is out of my curiosity, as I was intrigued by the recent discovery that has aided a long-standing puzzle in Sanskrit grammar. I am thankful to PK Viswanathan and through him Br Achutamrita Chaitanya for helping me in my understanding of the word param (परम्), and how it is different from parama (परम), and the metarule.

CC BY-SA

-x-o-x-

Essence of Deepawali by Sant Jnaneswar: Odia and English Interpretation

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 07:28:00 +0000

The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute have put out a nice Deepawali greetings based on Sant Jnaneswar's c.1290 commentary on Bhagavad Gita. My Odia and English translations as also original Marathi and Bhandarkar Institute's English message are given below.

ଅବିବେକତା କୁ ଜଳାଞ୍ଜଳି ଦିଅ।

ଫେଡ଼ଣମୋଚନ ସହ ବିବେକରଦିପ କୁ ଉଜ୍ବଳ କର।

ଯାବତ ଯୋଗସାଧକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଦୀପାବଳି। ନିରନ୍ତର ॥୫୪॥

ସନ୍ତ ଜ୍ଞାନେଶ୍ୱର, ଜ୍ଞାନେଶ୍ୱରୀ (ଭାଗବତ ଗୀତାର ବ୍ୟାଖ୍ୟାତ୍ମକ ମରାଠୀ ନିବନ୍ଧ), ୧୨୯୦।

ଅନୁବାଦରେ ତୃଟିଥିଲେ କ୍ଷମା କରିବେ।

ଶ୍ରୀଜିତ୍ ମିଶ୍ର

https://twitter.com/srijitmishra/status/1455748206663372801?s=20

Burn away thy moral turpitude.

Let go and get liberated by lighting thy conscience.

This for a seeker will be enlightenment (or, Deepawali).

https://twitter.com/srijitmishra/status/1455826864845377540?s=20

Original Marathi Verse

मी अविवेकाची काजळी ।

फेडूनी विवेकदीप उजळीं ।

तैं योगियां पाहे दिवाळी । निरंतर ॥ ५४ ॥

Sant Jnaneshwar (संत ज्ञानेश्वर) in his epochal commentary on Bhagavad Gita, "Jnaneshwari" (completed in 1290 AD), articulates the most profound essence of Diwali. #Diwali2021

https://twitter.com/BhandarkarI/status/1455568734521729032?s=20

Bhandarkar Institute's English message of the verse. The verse means:

(Written from the perspective of lord Shri Krishna)

"As I erase the gloom of ignorance and apathy,

the light of knowledge burns bright within the conscience.

Such an enlightened mind experiences immanent diwali"

https://twitter.com/BhandarkarI/status/1455568736430145541?s=20

I must admit that my knowledge of Marathi is limited and that of Odia is no where near to attempting to any translation. But, perhaps the spiritual essence behing Sant Jnaneswar's message pulled me into it.

In attempting the Odia translateion I benefitted by going over Bhandarkar Institute's Marathi and English versions and Odia-English and English-Odia dictionaries at my disposal. One thing that I had to struggle was whether to write or not to write the verse in the first person from the perspective of Sri Krishna, which the Marathi versio does, as it begins with मी (or, I, referring to Sri Krishna). I did try that. See the highlights in bold below.

ମୁଁ ଅବିବେକତା କୁ ଜଳାଞ୍ଜଳି ଦିଏ।

ଫେଡ଼ଣମୋଚନ ସହ ବିବେକରଦିପ କୁ ଉଜ୍ବଳ କରେ।

But, decided against that because I thought Sri Krishna's Bhagavad Gita can also be a call to self. The latter I thought would be represented if one considers that Sri Krishan represents each and every individual rathe than rather than Sri Krishna speaking to one. It is true that Sri Krishna speaks to Arjuna. But, it is also true that Sri Krishan wants Arjuna to see for thyself. It is a matter of interpretation and I leave it to you the reader.

In the third sentence I was thinking of beginning with ତାହା ହିଁ as I thought that was perhaps closer to Marathi तैं. I decided in favour of ଯାବତ.

My English translation was done after I did the Odia one and also exluded the first person version, which has been used in the interpretation shared by Bhandarkar Institute.

At some point, I was contemplating the second sentence to be:

Let go and liberate thyself by the light of consciousness.

But then I thought through and decided that "get liberated by lighting thy conscience" would better convey than "liberate thyself by the light of consciousness."

In the third sentence, an earlier version read:

This, for a true seeker, will be enlightenment (or, Deepawali).

I decided to do away with the word true because each seeker is a true seeker in their own way.

Your comments and perspectives are welcome.

Meaning of Protective Efficacy from Vaccines

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 20 Jun 2021 12:30:00 +0000

The other day I came across a debate in a vernacular channel where there was a reference to at least 60% protective efficacy from vaccines against COVID-19 even for some new variants of the virus even if one cannot say much about future variants. From the discussion, there seems to be a popular misconception in the understanding of protective efficacy. The purpose of this write-up is to address that misconception.

In popular understanding, 60% of protective efficacy from vaccines could mean that if 100 people take vaccines then 60 of them would be protected from the disease.

In actual practice, protective efficacy refers to relative risk reduction (RRR). Or,

RRR=1-RR.

RR is relative risk, that is, the ratio of the risk in the treatment group (proportion infected from among those who have been administered with the vaccine, R_t) with the risk in the control group (proportion infected from among those who have not been administered with the vaccine, R_c). In other words,

RR=R_t/R_c.

If the proportion of infected is equal in the two groups then a benchmark relative risk, R_tb/R_cb=1. RRR is a reduction from this benchmark. Hence, 60% of protective efficacy in the debate should have been identified with RRR%=RRR*100.

Now, what could this 60% of protective efficacy imply. If the treatment and control groups had 100 people each and if the number of people infected in the two groups are 2 and 5, respectively, or, R_t=2% and R_c=5%, then RRR=60%. This means that if there are 100 people each in the two groups then 2 could be infected from those vaccinated and 5 from those not vaccinated.

But, one would get the same value of RRR=60% with umpteen other possibilities where both the above-mentioned values of R_t and R_c are multiplied by a common factor, k. An extreme situation can be when R_t=40% and R_c=100%, which was the position taken by a panelist in the debate who conveyed that among those vaccinated 40% would be infected and among those unvaccinated everyone would be infected. This is an extreme scenario and in some sense a misrepresentation of facts.

It calls for the relevance of absolute risk reduction, ARR=R_c-R_t. A Lancet Microbe paper (see discussion in earlier blogs here and here), drawing from phase 3 trials of five COVID-19 vaccines indicated that RRR was in the range of 67%-95% while ARR was in the range of 0.84%-1.28%. And, in a population setting for which data was available in one case, ARR comes down to 0.46%.

Based on this, it is quite likely that RRR=60% is to be commensurate with ARR in the range of 0.2%-1.5%, that is, R_t=0.2% and R_c=0.5% where ARR=0.3%, or, if one wants to give some benefit of doubt then R_t=1.0% and R_c=2.5% where ARR=1.5%. By not doing this, the panelist amplified the risk by 40-200 times. This can create panic and fear among the public and should be avoided.

The role of the State in providing vaccination to people by considering it as a public good is a relevant matter. Equally important, in a democratic polity, as conveyed by another panelist in the debate, is the fact that that vaccines being administered are with Emergency Use Authorization and that it is a voluntary act by an individual who has to weigh the information provided. An informed consent and right to refuse, after being provided with information that leaves questions unanswered, is not the same as hesitancy. For a complex, evolving and uncertain scenario, questions would be the first step for better science.

Comparing Deaths from COVID-19 among Uttarakhand Police in Two Periods

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Fri, 04 Jun 2021 07:42:00 +0000

The Indian Express put up a write-up on incidences of COVID-19 and fatality among police personnel of Uttarakhand. It indicates that the police personnel of the state had started vaccination in January 2021 and more than 93% among them have been vaccinated. This is an impressive figure because for a disease with reproduction number or R₀ "R naught" around three (R₀=3), the proportions needed for herd immunity (including natural infection) should be around 67%.

Given this backdrop, it might be a matter of concern that in April and May of 2021 the number of police personnel inflicted by the disease in Uttarakhand were 2,382. However, it is comforting that from among these 2,204 have already recovered while five (5) of them, bless their souls, are no more with us. The proportion of death from those inflicted by the disease is 0.21% (which could increase if there are additional deaths from the remaining 173 who have not recovered). The write-up further points out that the severity of the disease and and the number of deaths were lower than previously observed.

For instance, the proportion of deaths from the start of the pandemic till March 2021 was 0.40% (that is, 08 deaths from among 1,982 inflicted by the disease). Even if one ignores the fact that we are comparing more than 13 months of data with two months and that there are 173 cases for which we still do not know the final outcome but consider them to have recovered, a proper comparison would be to estimate absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) and their statistical significance for deaths among those inflicted by the disease in the two periods.

The ARR and RRR estimates and their 95% confidence intervals are:

ARR%=0.19% (95% CI: -0.14%, 0.53%) and

RRR%=48.1% (95% CI: -58.7%, 83.0%).

This indicates that when one compares the second period with the first, ARR in per cent is 0.19% and RRR in per cent is 48.1%, but more importantly both the estimates are not statistically significantly different from zero. This suggests that one should be cautious with the comparative statements between the two periods by using absolute numbers.

ARR is d1-d2

95% Confidence Interval (CI) for ARR is ARR±1.96*Standard Error (SE) of ARR

SE of ARR is {[(d1*r1)/N1]+ [(d2*r2)/N2]}^(1/2)

RRR=1-RR; RR is d2/d1

95% CI for RRR is 1-95% CI of RR

95% CI of RR is {exp^[Ln(RR)±1.96 SE of RR]}; SE of RR is {[(r1/d1)/N1]+ [(r2/d2)/N2]}^(1/2)

In the above calculations, d and r denote share of death and share of recovery from among those inflicted by the disease with subscripts 1 and 2 denoting periods 1 and 2, respectively, such that in each period their sums add up to unity, d1+r1=d2+r2=1. N1 and N2 denote number of people inflicted by the disease in periods 1 and 2 respectively.

The write-up also had mentioned that from among the family members of the police personnel 751 were inflicted by the disease and from among them there were 64 deaths. This is indeed an important sacrifice by their family members. The adverse effects, in terms of deaths, is much higher then that on the actual force and this should be an important concern.

One is also curious to know what would be the incidences and deaths by family members across the two time periods. Has that number increased in the second period then a question that comes to mind is the possibility of adverse impact having increased after a public health intervention among police personnel. A period wise break of the data will help us examine that.

Vaccine Effect in Trials and in Populations

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Wed, 02 Jun 2021 09:50:00 +0000

In my blog How Not To Read Vaccine Efficacy based on a Lancet Microbe paper it was shown that five COVID-19 vaccines with emergency approval (that is, by bypassing certain regulatory requirement) had relative risk reduction (RRR=1-RR; RR=SDT/SDC, relative risk is the ratio of the shares exposed to disease in treatment and control arms) that ranged from 67% to 95% but, their absolute risk reduction (ARR=SDC-SDT) ranged from 0.84% to 1.28%.

The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA) as per its phase 3 trial has an RRR of 95%. This immediately gives the impression that the proportions of the shares exposed to disease are 1% for treatment and 20% for control, but this could be 2% and 40% or any in other proportions that satisfy k times 1% and k times 20%.

If the proportions for SDT and SDC are 1% and 20%, respectively, then ARR will be 19%. But, ARR is actually 0.84%, which suggests that in the trial k=0.044. And, hence, SDT=0.04% and SDC=0.88%.

It is difficult to replicate this in a population, as design and methods cannot be the same as in a trial. However, following mass vaccination in Israel using Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA), a study shows that RRR is 94% (almost close to what was observed in the trial), but ARR was 0.046% (SDT=0.02% and SDC=0.48%) suggesting that k=0.024 is much lower than the trial.

A further decline in ARR means that the number of people that need to be vaccinated (NNV=100/ARR) to prevent one more person from being exposed to the disease is further increased by 83% from 119 in the trial to 217 in the specific population setting. In other words, the vaccine effect was further reduced in a population setting when compared to the trial.

The authorities associated with mass vaccination need to design studies to arrive at RRR and ARR, along with other aspects, in their population, as that would be of help in their public policy designing. The individual concerned should also have such information, along with other aspects, for them to take an informed decision.

How Not To Read Vaccine Efficacy

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Tue, 01 Jun 2021 08:39:00 +0000

To address COVID-19 pandemic, many vaccines have received emergency approval (that is, by bypassing many regulatory requirements that are otherwise needed for vaccines or other therapeutic interventions). The third phase trial data for relative risk reduction (RRR) are referred to as efficacy of the vaccines.

A popular perception is that if an individual takes the vaccine then the possibility of being afflicted by the disease gets reduced by this RRR%. This, however, is not the case. Then, what does this efficacy mean? From a lay perspective, RRR% is total risk in per cent (100%) minus relative risk in per cent (RR%).

Now, what is relative risk (RR) in a trial. It is the ratio of the share of those afflicted by the disease in the treatment arm of the trial (SDT=nt/Nt, number afflicted by the disease in the treatment arm of the trial divided by number of people in the treatment arm of the trial) to the share of those afflicted by the diseased in the control arm of the trial (SDC=nc/Nc, number afflicted by the disease in the control arm of the trial divided by number of people in the control arm of the trial). In other words, RR=SDT/SDC and when it is multiplied with 100 it gives us RR%.

The absolute risk reduction in per cent (ARR%=SDC%-SDT%) is the proportion of those afflicted by the disease in the control arm of the trial (SDC%) minus the proportion of those afflicted by the disease in the treatment arm of the trial (SDT%).

A recent Lancet Microbe paper reports that for five COVID-19 vaccines that have received emergency approval the ARR% are as follows:

1.28% Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19),

1.24% Moderna-NIH (mRNA 1273),

1.19% Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S),

0.93% Gamaleya (GamCovidVac) [Sputnik V], and

0.84% Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA).

However, the RRR% for these are:

66.84% Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19),

94.08% Moderna-NIH (mRNA 1273),

66.62% Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S),

90.97% Gamaleya (GamCovidVac) [Sputnik V], and

95.02% Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA).

Note that the reporting of RRR% are at times in misleading ways, as a Lancet Infectious Diseases paper shows. An informed consent, among other things, should also provide this perspective to the vaccine recipients before they take a decision.

Farmers' protest: response to queries from Infobae

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Fri, 05 Feb 2021 18:38:00 +0000

A few days ago (27 January 2021) a journalist from Argentina, Dario Mizrahi, who works for the Spanish newspaper Infobae, sent me some queries on farmers' protest in India. The ensuing piece (31 January 2021) cites Jonathan Kennedy (Queen Mary, London), Surabhi Mittal (Independent Consultant), Arvind Panagariya (Columbia), and me (Srijit Mishra, IGIDR). My response to Daario Mizrahi's queries in English are given below.

Q: The Indian government argues that agricultural reforms are necessary for greater economic progress for the country. To what extent is this truly the case? Why did these reforms spark so much anger among farmers?

A: There has been a crisis in India agriculture, which, analytically speaking, has two inter-twined dimensions - the agrarian and the agricultural. The agrarian crisis concerns the life and livelihood of nearly half of India's working population that is dependent on agriculture, which includes the multitude of smallholders with less than five acres of land holdings and the agricultural labourers, and that they have been adversely affected by the decreasing share of the pie. At the same time, the agricultural crisis is about the inappropriateness of the input-intensive agricultural production that is guided by a thinking of one-size fits all wherein costs and risks have been increasing and that these have been further aggravated by the changing climatic conditions.

These twin concerns require substantive reforms that address the livelihood sustenance of those dependent on agriculture, that are agro-ecological in nature, that are based on resilience inherent in local conditions, and that they reduce costs and risks. More importantly, these require the coming together of knowledge, policy and practice.

I am afraid that the three recent laws related to trade and commerce of farmers' produce, contract farming linking agricultural production to sale, and removal of limits on storage of farm produce for those who trade on these produce, respectively, do not address the agricultural crisis, and any claims to address the agrarian crisis is at best indirect and limited. Rather, a careful reading of the three laws indicate that these laws are meant to facilitate the trade and commerce of agricultural produce by large entities. This means that the multitude of smallholders will be pitted against few large entities who will buy their produce and thereby leading to their apprehension, and justifiably so, that their life and livelihood concerns are not only not being addressed but are likely to be worsened. In fact, the ongoing pandemic put that evidence starkly in front of them wherein the economy as a whole, including that of the smallholders and agricultural labourers, decreased, but at the same time there are a few large entities, particularly the billionaire club, whose income increased.

Q: What could be the political consequences of these protests if they continue, and how might they affect the government of Narendra Modi?

A: I must admit that I am not a political commentator and my knowledge of this evolving scenario has been constrained by the lockdown on account of the pandemic. Nevertheless, as I understand, the farmers' protest seems to be spreading in its intensity. While the protest has largely remained peaceful and non-violent, it is unfortunate and shameful that there have been some untoward incidents in New Delhi on India's Republic Day on 26 January 2021.

Sans these incidents, credit needs to be given to the administration and to the protestors for keeping the movement within the realms of democracy, as BR Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of India's constituent assembly, had forewarned us. However, having said that, one is reminded of Mahatma Gandhi's calling off of the Non Cooperation Movement in 1922, after more than a year of the movement, because of retaliatory violence leading to the burning down of a police station. In the same vein, irrespective of who has been responsible for the untoward incidents in New Delhi on India's Republic Day in 2021, the protest can gain in strength by avoiding chaos and anarchy only if it follows the paths suggested by Ambedkar and Gandhi.

As an observer, my view is that this movement has been growing in strength because of its apolitical nature in the sense that it has tried to keep the political parties at a distance. The minimum reading that I see from the movement is a request to the Narendra Modi government to address their genuine concerns. At this juncture, a possible scenario is that both sides may come to an agreement or even agree to disagree and I do not visualize any political implications. However, if this continues for a longer time then your guess is as good as mine.

[The above responses were sent on 28 January 2021]

Poor Economic and Livelihood Opportunities can Push People Out: Srijit Mishra

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 31 May 2020 13:19:00 +0000

[This is an earlier unedited English version of the interview that came out in Odia in the Sunday Special of Sambad on 31 May 2020.]

Professor Srijit Mishra is Director, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies (NCDS). He has been Professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), Mumbai and was the Chair Professor for India Studies at the National Cheng Chi University, Taiwan. He has also been a Subir Chowdhury Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He is in discussion with Kshetrabasi Nayak for Sunday Special of Sambad.

Q1. The carona pandemic has adversely affected us globally, nationally and in the state (Odisha). What will be its impact on the economy of our state?

A1. You are right. The corona pandemic will have an adverse impact on global, national and the state's economy. In fact, it will have adverse impact on all sectors of the economy. Nevertheless, a silver lining has been Odisha's approach to address the pandemic. Globally, we have heard about the successes in South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam as also in Kerala state of India. All these have had impressive public health record. Odisha, in spite of its relatively poor health record, has done reasonably well in addressing the pandemic so far and can also be counted among these successes. The pandemic has put us all in a state of uncertainty. It is difficult to quantify the adverse impact, but as past pandemics suggest, saving lives and dignity now will help revive livelihood and economy later. Hence, in this sense, Odisha has been on the right path.

Q2. The central government has announced a special package for 20 lakh crore rupees (20 billion rupees). How will it be helpful for us?

A2. The pandemic has created a problem in the economy that has led to shocks on the demand side as also the supply side (both curves have shifted left). The stimulus package, prima facie, seems to be addressing the supply side (liquidity measures by the Reserve Bank of India, which were made prior to the current announcement, and credit facilities for MSMEs (micro small and medium enterprises), agriculture and allied, among others) and to a limited extent on the demand side (for instance, rural employment guarantee, and additional milk procurement). Besides, we do not have the numbers to say how much of each of the independent components will come to Odisha and what will be its implication here. Nevertheless, we should explore possibilities under each.

Q3. How will our state benefit from the announcements meant to help the MSMEs?

A3. The MSMEs change in definitions have increased the net. If enterprises based in Odisha do not move fast then they may miss out. Their associations and the state government may set up facilitation centres. It is also equally important for the MSMEs to gauge the future demand of their produce because we will be getting into a new normal. Otherwise, their debt may become non-serviceable.

Q4. Post corona, what should be the major concerns for Odisha? How should that be addressed?

A4. We are in a state of uncertainty with regard to the duration of this pandemic as it is still ongoing. However, from a global perspective food shortage is something that should be given paramount importance. In India as also for Odisha, with Kharif season knocking at our doors, we should consider agriculture, not only as critical, but also with urgency under the Disaster Management Act. In particular, sustainable agriculture should be the way forward. The reason for this is two-fold. One is to do away with the market and non-market risks of agriculture that can spiral into a debt problem that should be avoided in a post-Corona scenario. The other is to strengthen the local economy through necessary forward and backward linkages.

Q5. Large number of Odia labourers go out in search of work to other states. What is reason for them to go out? Can we provide them with adequate opportunities within the state?

A5. Returning labourers are broadly of two types. One is the seasonal migrants who go out as manual labourers. These people largely go from rainfed and dry regions of the state and sustainable agriculture has a lot of potential in absorbing this labour within agriculture directly. The migrants who go out for work for the entire year may have obtained a skill and it may not be possible for them to work in agriculture directly. For them, we should explore the forward and backward linkages. I must reiterate that, in the immediate short run, I am assuming the uncertainty that the pandemic has given and we do not know when and where we will have a containment, red, orange or green zone. Given this, it is paramount that we strengthen the local economy from the village upwards. The powers that the Government of Odisha has given to the Sarpanches will help us in taking this forward. In the medium-to-long run the forward and backward linkages could be further strengthened with MSMEs, micro food enterprises and street vendors among others where self-help groups (SHGs) or farmers producers’ organisation (FPOs) are also involved. People go out in search of work for a number of push and pull factors. Strengthening the economy while providing them with adequate opportunities is the need of the hour.

Q6. The Government of Odisha is planning to double the number of man days of work under rural employment guarantee. Some people have raised concerns on this. What is your view?

A6. The intention behind doubling of work under rural employment guarantee should be appreciated. However, we should also link this to agricultural work in the individual's own farm. If it is for agricultural work in someone else's farm or for community then the individuals should also have an additional share in the produce. To address concerns of some, we should involve the Gram Panchayat in decisions and the Sarpanch in overseeing them. However, as conveyed earlier, this should be linked to strengthening the local economy.

Q7. Will agriculture be able to provide enough work? Can all returning workers be employed in this?

A7. Yes, sustainable agriculture alone has the potential to absorb additional labour. This reminds one of the Physiocratic economic thinking (much before Adam Smith) who considered Agriculture to be the only primary sector and all others dependent on them. During this pandemic, this has some amount of relevance. If some of the people who have returned to Odisha do not want to take up agricultural work then they, as indicated earlier, should get engaged in the backward and forward linkages if they want to. A census of returnees with information on their current skill set, income that they earned prior to the pandemic, kind of work they are willing to do, and expected income will help us in our plans for strengthening the local economy. This could also be linked to setting up of MSMEs and other entities provided demand for such produce exist.

Q8. The absence of agriculture-based industries and village-based industries has been raised in many discussions in the context of residents of the state seeking work outside the state. What are your views on this?

A8. This pandemic has given us a new situation and opened our doors to many realities. Mobility of people and their goods and services have been as old as mankind and a basis for the progress of civilization. It is also the basis through which Odisha has a plural and syncretic culture. At the same time, poor economic and livelihood opportunities can push people out and also expose them to exploitative conditions. We are at a crossroad where strengthening sustainable agriculture along with forward and backward linkages in an enabling environment would give an opportunity to people to be part of this. It is implicit in this that we also strengthen our public education and public health.

Q9. To revive the economy of the state, what are the recommendations that your institute, NCDS, would like to give?

A9. This should be a continuing engagement, as we are all in this together and are learning as things are unfolding. It may require us to throw away our existing paradigms and structures and come up with some out-of-the box thinking. The pandemic also seems to suggest that the states as also local bodies should have greater revenue earning capacities. For instance, states and local bodies should have a right to levy additional income tax for residents living within their boundaries. This is followed in the United States and no reason why India should not follow the same. Similarly, the funds coming from centre should not be tied because in a post-corona scenario what may be required in one state may not be required in another.

Q.10 What are the other activities of NCDS that would help the state in strengthening livelihood and economy.

A10. One of the activities that NCDS has been involved with the Government of Odisha is the Odisha MilletsMission that works within the framework of sustainable agriculture and operates in four verticals - production, processing, marketing and consumption, which opens up forward and backward linkages. This sustainable approach addresses climate resilience and malnutrition, aspects which assumes greater importance with this pandemic. Hence, such approaches need to be further scaled up. During the pandemic, our research centre has also come up with a series of policy briefs to engage with policy makers and others concerned.

[The views expressed here are that of the interviewee and not that of the institutions or organisations that he is associated with.]

Black

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:11:00 +0000

Black, Recent Version

Resolute colour,

That signifies beauty,

Of mind and body.

Opposite

Of white,

That juxtaposes peace,

A paradox of life.

Racist slur

On skin pigment.

Rescind this weird view.

Image,

Of reverence,

In Kali's dance,

Or, Salabeg's Jagannath recital.

Empty board

To impart knowledge

That remains after erasure.

Burqa:

Veiled presence

Reminding Rawlsian prism.

On subjugation and freedom.

Black, Earlier Version

For some, it is a colour.

A colour that signifies beauty,

Of body, mind and heart.

For some, it is opposite of white.

Thereby juxtaposing peace.

A paradox to live and let live.

For some, it is a racist slur.

Linking people to their skin pigment.

A weird view that be put to rest.

For some, it is reverence.

In dance of Kali with Shiva

Or, Salabeg's call to Jagannath.

For some, it is an empty board.

To connect teacher with taught.

If, when erased, knowledge is not lost.

For some, it is a veiled dress, burqa,

Reminding one of the Rawlsian prism,

To debate on subjugation and freedom.

[Note: I have written two versions of a poem, Black. Both the versions have six stanzas each. In the recent version, the stanza has four lines with the lines having one, two, three and four words, respectively. The earlier version has three lines in each stanza.]

Summer, Elections and Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:33:00 +0000

The 2019 summer in India has seen the temperature rise beyond electioneering. The mercury has almost breached the earlier recorded maximum in many places even before peak summer.

Some people who went on election duty, the real heroes, had to take leave for a day or two on their return because of exposure to heat and exhaustion.

This rising temperature adds to the drought like condition faced in more than two-fifths of the country's agriculture. An unfortunate fallout of this, on account of model code of conduct that remains in force for an extended period because of the seven-phase elections, is the delay in policy decisions (not that the decisions would have come without that and that the decisions, if any, would have been farmer and farm friendly).

A lot many youth had their employment prospect increase in the week before voting as they were engaged in work related to campaigning for candidates. Some of them could earn enough to buy an air conditioner such that their families could escape the rising mercury. However, in the week immediately after voting these temporary opportunities were no more there and they were left in a state of unemployment or, if employed, without this additional source of earning.

There were a few candidates who arrived at a compromise with their opponents. As a result, they saved themselves the trouble of campaigning during these troubling times.

Along with soaring temperatures, the cash and liquor seizures have surpassed the previous amount and we are just at the half-way mark. It is said that the reported seizure is the tip of the iceberg.

The temporary employment, the freebies, the compromises, and the cash seizures (particularly, those that have not been reported) have led to an increase in demand for consumer durables even in rural areas. Quite an achievement for the rural economy reeling under drought.

In spite of all these, the popular discourse is falling short when it comes to climate change, state of agriculture, unemployment, or unaccounted for money. Well, at least the economy, in the first quarter of this fiscal, is showing buoyancy.

I was about to sign out with long live demo#$&!*, but my fingers faltered. Instead, I end with the dictum, 'it's the economy, stupid!'

Candidates for Bhubaneswar PC in Elections 2019

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 12:19:00 +0000

Introduction
I will be voting for the Bhubaneswar Parliamentary Constituency (PC) and the Bhubaneswar North Assembly Constituency (AC) in the third phase of 2019 general elections for India that will take place on 23 April 2019. I have had a look at the affidavits of the candidates for the Bhubaneswar PC.

There were 41 affidavits of 18 candidates, but only 14 are finally in the fray. Besides, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have also put up a report for all the third phase candidates of Odisha and there is a page for the constituency at MyNeta. Based on these, some basic information is provided in Table 1 in which the names of the candidates are put up alphabetically by their first names. This is also likely to be the order of their names in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Table 1 Information on Candidates for Bhubaneswar PC for General Elections 2019
Name	Party	Symbol	Asset Details, Rs	Criminal Cases	Education
Aparajita Sarangi	BJP	Lotus	3.1 cr+	-	BA English
Arup Mohan Patnaik	BJD	Conch	9.2 cr+	-	BSc, LLB
Bhakta Sekhar Ray	KS	Bat	44.0 la+	Yes (1)	HSC, Radio and TV Technician
Biswanath Ramachandra	FPI	Hat	76.3 la+	-	MA Political Science
Biswanath Rout	KP	Chappals	42.5 la+	-	MA, LLB
Janardan Pati	CPI(M)	Hammer, Sickle and Star	2.3 cr+	Yes (1)	BA, LLB
Jayant Kumar Das	Ind1	Helment	55.5 la+	-	PG Diploma in Labour Law
Lalita Kumar Nayak	BSP	Elephant	16.9 la+	-	LLB
Madhu Sudhan Yadav	Ind2	Scissors	29.2 la+	-	BA Economics (Board of Sec Edu)
Mahesh Chandra Sethi	Ind3	Calculator	4.0 th+	-	BTech (Civil)
Pramila Behera	CPI(ML)RS	Saw	47.2 th+	-	BA
Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo	Ind4	Whistle	21.0 la+	-	BA, PG JMC
Subhranshu Sekhar Padhi	AITC	Flowers and Grass	2.0 cr+	Yes (3)	PG Diploma in Business Management
Susil Kumar Jena	Ind5	Pot	30.0 la+	-	MEng (Electronics and Telecommunications)
Sources: Affidavits provided by candidates available at Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha, a report prepared from these affidavits by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), and a page put up by MyNeta. All these pages were accessed on 22 April 2019. Notes: PC is in title of table is Parliamentary Constituency. For column with heading 'Party': AITC is All India Trinamool Congrees, BJD is Biju Janata Dal, BJP is Bharatiya Janata Party, BSP is Bahujan Samaj Party, CPI(M) is Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI(M-L)RS is Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Red Star, FPI is Freethought Party of India, KP is Krupaa Party, KS is Kalinga Sena, Ind1 to Ind5 are Independents 1 to 5, as per their names put alphabetically. For column with heading 'Asset Details' the figures are in Rs (rupees) where cr, la, and th dente crore, lakh and thousand, respectively. Disclaimer: There might have been some inadvertent error while providing the above information. Hence, in case of discrepancy or if any one wants to cross check the information themselves, one should look up the original affidavits provided by the candidates.

The 14 Candidates
Based on the information in Table 1 and some additional information that I may have accessed, I briefly discuss each candidate as per their alphabetical listing.

Aparajita Sarangi, as per her affidavit, has a web page of her own. The page indicates that she was inspired by the Prime Minister and BJP party President and also provides a biography of her work as an officer through the Indian administrative services. She has earned a name as a good officer in the popular perception, but more as an executive functionary. A concern for a politically conscious lay citizen is why should experience in administration as an executive be an advantage for someone taking the plunge to facilitate legislation. It is, of course, possible that her experience can have an advantage as a political executive, but that is an independent decision beyond the domain of the voter.

Arup Mohan Patnaik was recently associated with the Odisha State Youth Welfare Board and is contesting as BJD candidate. Prior to that, he was with the Indian police services in Maharashtra and has a wiki page in his name. He has many credits and a decorated officer (and perhaps a bolywood character). He has also worked under leaders across the political spectrum in Maharashtra and that could be an asset for Odisha in Delhi. Outside his policing, he has also done some work for treatment of cancer patients, particularly for those going from Odisha to Mumbai. One needs to point out that policing and facilitating legislation are different things. At the same time, one ought to concede that experience in social service and a law degree may facilitate legislation, but then the transition will not not be that straightforward.

Bhakta Sekhar Ray is representing Kalinga Sena party. As per his affidavit, he edits an Odia weekly. With regard to education, he has completed his HSC and has also been trained as a Radio and TV technician. He also has a criminal case pending against him.

Biswanath Ramachandra is the founder General Secretary of Freethought Party of India (FPI). The page has a message from the candidate and it does talk about some concerns on democratic functioning. You will also see him with a Hat, the party symbol, whose colour green will also remind many from Bhubaneswar that he is Professor Ramachandra of AMOFOI (Anti-caste Marriage and One-child Family Organization of India). It is said that as a teacher and academic administrator he had his differences with people because of his secular and rationalist position, but was not disliked by those who did not agree with his views. His long standing involvement in social issues and social movement may help in facilitating legislation.

Biswanath Rout is from the Krupaa Party. He is a superannuated government servant, perhaps from the police services. He has a Master's and a law degree.

Janardan Pati represents CPI(M), which has a pre-poll agreement with some other parties - INC, CPI and JMM - in Odisha for 2019 general elections. He edits a magazine and also has a law degree. He has a criminal case registered against him, which as his affidavit points out is after he had filed a case against the individual who had physically harmed him. Independent of the alliance, the party did have a base in the past in Bhubaneswar and has taken up pro-people issues. It is said that he responds quickly to queries in his Facebook page.

Jayanta Kumar Das is an independent candidate. He has a degree in labour law and is an advocate. There is not much beyond that that one can ascertain for the candidate's affidavit. In any case, one needs to be aware that practicing law in the bar and formulating laws are two different things.

Lalita Kumar Nayak is contesting as a BSP candidate. He has a law degree and is an advocate, and hence, the distinction in practicing and formulating law should be kept in mind. A search takes one to a Facebook page that is probably his, but the link is not provided as it is not obvious either from the affidavit or from the page that this is indeed the case.

Madhu Sudhan Yadav is contesting as an independent. His affidavit indicates of a BA in Economics from Board of Secondary Education (BSE). This may be an inadvertent error because BSE does not offer BA degrees.

Mahesh Chandr Sethi is contenting as an independent. As per the affidavit of all candidates, he is the poorest with Rs.4000/-. He has a BTech in Civil Engineering and pursuing law and one would have expected him to have some presence in social media, but that is not obvious from his affidavit. For some logistic reason, his is the only affidavit not analysed by ADR and MyNeta.

Pramila Behera is a candidate for CPI(M-L)RS. The party's decision to put up a candidate when there is another left candidate indicates an absence of unity between them.

Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo is an independent candidate. His affidavit indicates his educational qualification to be post graduate in journalism and mass communication, which implies that there ought to have been a presence in social media, but the affidavit as also an internet search does not indicate that.

Subhranshu Sekhar Padhi is a contestant for AITC. The party page gives a list of contestant from West Bengal, but not from Odisha. He has a post graduate diploma in business management. Incidentally, he also has three criminal cases registered against his name, which is the highest among all candidates.

Susil Kumar Jena is an independent candidate. He has a Masters in Engineering in Electronics and Telecommunications and one would have expected his strong presence is social media, but this is not obvious from his affidavit or from an internet search.

Some Additional Concerns on Whom To Vote
Recently, I had put up some suggestions to the Election Commission of India (ECI), which I will present again below, but before that let me reiterate my response in the ensuing discussions in the wall of the post to a concern on whom to vote.

Elections to Lok Sabha in India and similarly for lower houses in the States are not like the elections for the US President. The Prime Ministerial face from a party is not that important, as she/he, like the US President, will be an Executive head. The most important parameter for me is that we are selecting law makers, that is, people who can articulate concerns from the perspective of people in the Lok Sabha or to the lower house of the state assemblies.

The sad part is parties do not select candidates keeping this in mind. There is, unfortunately, a premium given to the candidates role as an Executive (that is, their possibility of becoming a Minister) or other considerations. This, along with the whip, whatever may be its rationale, makes law making a casualty.

Having said that, if at all one would like to give some weight to the party then it should not be for strengthening the Executive, but rather for strengthening the Legislature, which should be independent of the political, as also administrative, executives. A healthy democracy would be one where the Legislature, the Executive along with its different entities, the Judiciary and the fourth estate are all independent.

Some suggestions to Election Commission of India
In the Facebook post referred to above, I had put up some suggestions for ECI in future elections. They are as follows.

The ECI should ask the candidates to enter the data in a reader friendly electronic format so that voters can easily compare across major parameters for candidates in their constituency or even for candidates across constituencies. I know that the ADR and MyNeta do this for almost all contestant for most constituencies, but they must be entering the data again, which is a tedious task. The entry by candidates in the first instance will reduce this time and effort and release the resources with ADR and MyNeta for additional work like providing information from the social media of contestants or organizing a debate in the social media among contestants.

In the affidavit as also in the reader friendly format there should also be a space provided to the candidates to indicate why they should be the right candidate and why should the voter chose her/him. Frankly, the current information provided in the affidavits do not provide much information for helping the voter to choose.

The ECI should also provide a platform (through social media) where voters can ask the candidates questions and the candidates can respond.

Concluding Remarks and Disclaimer
The purpose of this exercise was to educate myself about the candidates and I am sharing this so that it might be of use to others. I also share my concerns on the parameters one may consider in selecting whom to vote and also provided some suggestion to ECI for conducting elections in the future to make the affidavits provided by candidates easily accessible to the voters.

I thank the candidates for providing their information through their affidavits, the ECI for making the scanned PDFs of the affidavits accessible. The ADR and MyNeta teams are doing yeomen service by analyzing the data available in the affidavits and presenting them in a voter friendly manner.

I must mention that I might have met some of the candidates in some or the other capacity, but do not recall having met any of them in the recent past after the announcement of the dates for general elections 2019 by ECI. I must also put it categorically that I am not supporting any party or any candidate. I wish all the candidates their very best. Let democracy be the winner.

Gatekeeper and Citizen

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 06:10:00 +0000

"Before the law sits a Gatekeeper" are the opening words of the parable, Before the Law by Franz Kafka. The Gatekeeper (or, the Chowkidar), true to zir duty, does not allow "a man from the country" (hereafter, the Citizen or the Nagarik) to enter through the gate. In the beginning, the Gatekeeper lets the Citizen know that it is possible for the Citizen to get entry, "but not now."

The Citizen till zir fag end could never get entry through the gate. Nevertheless, the only consolation, if one may say so, is that the Gatekeeper lets the Citizen know that the gate, like Aadhaar, was specially prepared by the State for zir entry.

The parable while complete, somewhere, leaves a feeling of something being incomplete. The Gatekeeper, who has only done zir duty, moves on, without conveying what ze feels - ze perhaps has a sense of completion, perhaps not.

In a rational (not reasonable) manner, it would make sense to the Gatekeeper to internalize and accept that the gate (as also the wall) is for everyone's good. This also facilitates the Gatekeeper's move to a higher level. It is said that if one gate closes then many others open up. Note, the gates open up only for the Gatekeeper if ze is willing to continue as a Gatekeeper. Otherwise, ze can always be like the Citizen, waiting for zir entry through a gate that is specially made for zir.

It is pertinent to inform that Before the Law by Franz Kafka is a parable from an unfinished novel, The Trial, which has a concluding chapter. So, one is left with a question. Is the sense of completeness meant for some, like the Gatekeeper, who perhaps moves to a higher level of gatekeeping, but not for the Citizen, who is meant to wait on at a gate specifically prepared for zir?

[This write-up on Gatekeeper and Citizen (or, Chowkidar and Nagarik) is based on a reading of Franz Kafka's Before the Law. Any similarity with the larger discourse on Chowkidar in the Indian context now is coincidental.]

Minimum Basic Income For Farmer

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 12:01:00 +0000

The crisis in rural India reflected through a crisis in agriculture has been a matter of persistent concern. This has led to two farm-related peaceful marches in Mumbai and in New Delhi in 2018.

Many state governments, in recent times, have come up with different schemes. Telengana has waived off loans and water dues, provides free electricity to farmers, gives insurance for farmers, and has revived the age-old tank based irrigation system among others. It has also come up with the Rythu Bandhu scheme to provide investment support of ₹4,000 per acre per season.

The states of Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have also come up with loan waivers and are planning other things. However, it is said that debt waiver can be iniquitous across regions and across farm sizes. Further, it may lead to a culture of non-payment of loans.

Odisha's KALIA (Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation) with an acronym that is a popular name of Lord Jagannath allays some of these fears. It has five instruments: ₹5,000 per cultivator per season for five seasons for all marginal and small farmers, ₹12,500 per landless agricultural labourer household for three years to take up non land-based allied agricultural activities, ₹10,000 to vulnerable households who cannot take up any activity, life insurance for all cultivators and agricultural labourers, and interest subvention on crop loan up to ₹50,000.

The KALIA scheme is being implemented on a war-footing and almost all officials from agriculture and sister departments as also staff specifically employed for this are burning mid-night candles. This shows that if the powers that be want then they can stretch the system to its physical limits and also deploy additional human resources to implement pro-people programmes. This needs to be applauded. However, this urgency and importance should also be taken beyond its immediate implementation and extended (if not in its entirety) but at least in its spirit (with a limited rigour) to this as also many other pro-people programmes that have a knowledge-intensive approach such as in Paramparagat Krishi Vigyan Yojana, Integrated Farming and Odisha Millets Mission among others.

Getting back to India, a rough estimate for 2019 puts the number of rural households at 20 crore (200 million), of which nearly half are likely to be cultivators/farmers. These farmers may be contributing ₹10 lakh core (₹10 trillion) or 5 per cent of the ₹200 lakh crore (₹200 trillion) economy, ie ₹1 lakh (₹100,00) per farmer household. The Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers in 2013 indicates an average income per farmer household from all possible sources of income for 2012-13 at ₹77,112.

If ₹2.5 lakh (₹250,000) is considered as a minimum basic income per annum per household (similar to the minimum salary for a central government employee) then the shortfall, with the possibility of being an underestimate, is ₹1.5 lakh (₹150,000) per household, or, ₹15 lakh crore (₹15 trillion) for the 10 crore (100 million) farmer households. Similar shortfalls may be assumed for other rural households like agricultural labourers and casual labourers, which may also be ascribed to lower returns to farmer households.

The shortfalls are an outcome of farmers not being paid adequately for their produce and for not being paid anything for their ecosystem services. In short, the farmer has been subsidising the nation.

Ironically, the system may incentivise production that may harm ecosystems and may also propagate application of harmful chemicals in our food.These need to change.

There is a need to incentivise and facilitate systems that encourage no poison in our food. There is a need to provide minimum basic income support to farmers. For this, Rythu Bandhu and KALIA may be good beginnings, but it only opens up the door for more.

#NoPoisonInOurFood #IncomeSecurityForFarmer #iStand4Farmer

The Door

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 03:00:00 +0000

The child in me believes

that the door gives -

a sense of security,

by keeping aside fear;

a feeling of freedom,

from the unknown;

an impression that,

dark forces remain outside.

The wanderer in me thinks

that the door gives -

a sense of insecurity,

by keeping aside fear;

a feeling of unfreedom,

from the unknown;

an impression that,

one remains closed inside.

Bali Yatra: Aaa Kaa Maa Boi

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 20:59:00 +0000

Bali Yatra is celebrated on the day of Kartik Purnima,an auspicious day that falls on a full moon around November and is celebrated among Hindus, Jains and Sikhs in India and elsewhere. In Odisha, among other things, this also marks the end of the holy month of Kartik (a month when people give up non-vegetarian eating - can also be linked to the breeding season of fish, and hence, a sustainable practice; at earlier times people used to give up non-vegetarian food for four months - the chaturmas - some may follow this practice even today). Besides, in paddy cultivation areas of Odisha the month of Kartik being one of lean agricultural activity (because sowing/transplantation is completed and harvesting is yet to begin) a month of religious vows and spiritualism also keeps them away from uncalled for nefarious activities.

It also marks an end to possible cyclonic storms in the Bay of Bengal, and hence, the time is ripe to venture into the seas or so thought the ancient mariners (Sadhabas), two millennia earlier. It seems that they set sail to Bali (an island to the Southern tip of Indonesia) and on their way touch upon Sri Lanka, Java and Sumatra and sometimes even go beyond. To mark this ancient activity, even today, people in Odisha celebrate Bali Yatra (journey to Bali). A week long festival begins on the banks of the Mahanadi. In 2018, the celebrations began on 23 November. A song sang on this occasion is as follows.

ଆ କା ମା ବୈ,
ପାନ ଗୁଆ ଥୋଇ ।

ପାନ ଗୁଆ ତୋର,
ମାସକ ଧରମ ମୋର ।

The songs transliteration in Devanagri script will read as follows.

आ का मा बो इ,
पा न गु आ थो ई ।

पा न गु आ तो र,
मा स क ध र म मो र ।

The songs transliteration in English alphabet will read as follows.

Aaa Kaa Maa BoE,
PaaNa GuAaa ThoI.
PaaNa GuAaa ToRa,
MaSaKa DhaRaMa MoRa.

When the mariners set sail they were seen off by their near and dear ones. Given these, I provide two interpretations. The first interpretation from the perspective of the mariner may read as follows.

O Mother of the Mariner - protector of the Seas and our Sails.

We offer before thee the auspicious Betel and Arecanut.

Let these sacred offerings of Betel and Arecanut be Yours,

Protect us in the months when we venture into the high seas.

In short, before we start our journey, we pray thee for our safe passage to and from the far away lands and for peace and prosperity for all.

A second interpretation from the perspective of those who see the Mariners off may read as follows.

O first among equals, all set to sail with thy Mother

We offer you the auspicious Betel and Arecanut.

Let the sacred offerings of Betel and Arecanut be Yours,

It is my month long penance that will bring you back to be Mine.

Note that Aa(a) and Ka(a) are sort of the first vowel and the first consonant in Odia alphabet, respectively. Hence, first among equals, which could refer to a son or to a beloved. If it is being sung by a mother then it may convey that you are going with another mother who will take care of you during your journey and will return you safe and sound back to this mother - one mother's pain, agony and penance will be understood by another mother. If it is being sung by the spouse/partner then it may convey that you are going with your mother and my penance will bring you back - a mother ought to understand the pain, agony and penance of another woman (the subtle difference between mothers and lovers, notwithstanding). The month long penance could refer to the month of Kartik before the Mariners set sail or it could refer to the coming months, beginning with the month of Margasira when women in Odisha pray on Thursdays to thank and welcome the coming of Godess Laxmi in the form of harvest bounties and other forms of wealth.

Indian agriculture needs another revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 07:03:00 +0000

The crisis in Indian agriculture, which has been persisting for nearly two decades now, adversely affects farmers and farms and depicts a scenario of poison-to- mouth. This crisis of today has a greater predicament than the ship-to-mouth crisis of the 1960s. To address this, India has to invest substantially on agro-ecological approaches.

The Peasant at Risk

There is an Indian peasant saying: "Abundance of water, destroys life; scarcity of water, destroys life." In spite of these vagaries from the weather-gods, peasants have shown grit and resilience in adapting to the adversities. Their capability to resist is compromised because they have to increasingly address market shocks and withstand climate change.

Indian agriculture, for nearly two decades now, has been in a state of crisis. This crisis has twin dimensions - the agrarian and the agricultural. The agrarian crisis being the adverse impact on the livelihood of the people dependent on it - a symptom of this being the more than three hundred thousand reported farmers suicides in the last two decades. The agricultural crisis stems from the inappropriate designing and inadequate interventions - a reflection of this has been an insistence on increasing production of certain crops through an input-intensive agriculture that may not be in sync with the underlying agro-ecological considerations and thereby adding to the risks and vulnerability.

Ship-to-Mouth and Green Revolution

One ought to acknowledge that the input-intensive cultivation itself was a response to an earlier crisis of the 1960s. At that time, large masses of the population had to depend on grain grants from the United States, under Public Law 480 - India lived from ship to mouth. While, in principle, this was a grant. In the complex world of international relations, particularly during the cold war era, it would have had its unwritten demands.

It was at the time of ship to mouth that there was a debate going on whether India should or should not adopt the high yielding varieties (wheat from Mexico and rice from Philippines) that required investment in seeds, irrigation, fertilisers, research and extension, public procurement through support prices, and distribution of procured grains through fair price shops. The unwritten demands that came with Public Law 480 along with food shortages (particularly, in urban India where decision-makers lived) tilted the balance in favour of input-intensive cultivation or the green revolution. Thus, an emergency like situation that required an immediate solution ended with a permanent solution.

Recourse to green revolution was perhaps the need of the hour then, but it created a structure where the technique associated with input-intensive cultivation came down from scientists to farmers, from lab to farms, from a controlled and certain environment to an open and uncertain environment. This has resulted in monoculture production systems that has led to overuse of inputs (water, fertilisers, pesticides, and credit among others) and dependence on a technique where the rate of increase in costs happens to be higher than the rate of increase in output. This increases net returns when the situation is close to lab-controlled conditions, but added to risks when there is deviation from those conditions. And, thereby, making agriculture unsustainable and credit non-serviceable.

Production or GDP Fetish and Poison-to-Mouth

What is more, it is this overuse and dependence that, unknown to the farmer, has adversely affected soil health and water quality. Along with these, to increase shelf-life and saleability, chemicals are added at the storage and distribution stage. So much so that all these has poisoned the food that one eats. A recent study by National Institute of Nutrition finds that food intake by children in Hyderabad has ten-to-forty times more pesticides than that in Europe or North America. The Central Institute of Fisheries Technology has issued a guidance note to guard against use of formalin in fish. All these are driven by a production or income or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fetish.

As against these, inter-cropping or crop rotation practices that add to soil health and provide micronutrients to the plants from the soil do not add to GDP. Activities that stop the production, sale and use of harmful chemicals and pesticides will not only have adverse implications on GDP but will also have an uphill task against powerful economic interests.

The GDP accounting is such that expenses incurred towards treatment of patient's travelling in the cancer train from India's green-revolution belt in Bhatinda, Punjab to Bikaner, Rajasthan will add to GDP. At the same time, relatively lower health-related expense because of a better health status among residents of Enabavi, the first organic village of India that also contributes to ecosystems, does not augur well for GDP.

In spite of the importance of ecosystems, a 100 year old tree that has enormous value from the perspective of ecosystem services will have no contribution to GDP. However, if the tree is cut and sold as wood it will add to GDP.

The irony in GDP accounting, the poison on our plates, and the unsustainable agriculture imply that the crisis in India's agriculture today has many facets. Poison to mouth of today seems to point to a greater predicament than the ship to mouth of yore. Hence, any intention to address this requires a commitment to invest.

Call to Agro-ecology and Knowledge Systems

There is no alternative (TINA) reflects a poverty of reason because if the powers that be will and facilitate appropriate investments in knowledge systems and agro-ecological approaches for location-specific resilience then many alternatives exist (MAE). In other words, MAE makes TINA redundant. Some notable recent initiatives are zero-budget natural farming of Andhra Pradesh and revival of millets in Odisha. The University of Cambridge led consortium to Transform India's Green Revolution by Research and Empowerment for Sustainable food Supplies (TIGR2ESS) also holds promise. But, more needs to be done.

ZBNF field, Ramjogi, Dharmavaram, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh

To do away with poison on our plates and to keep income fetish aside we have to think afresh. India needs to overhaul her agriculture. More of the same cannot be an option. India needs to invest in knowledge systems and agro-ecological approaches that recognises location-specific resilience that nature provides.

[The views expressed are those of the author and not of the organisations that he is associated with.

Srijit Mishra researches and teaches development-related issues. He is Director, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies (NCDS), an Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) institute in collaboration with Government of Odisha and Professor (on leave), Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR). He is the co-editor of Agrarian Crisis in India (OUP), has recently co-authored A MANUSH or HUMANS Characterisation of the Human Development Index and has been involved in the action research intervention of Odisha Millets Misson (OMM).]

Snakes

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 01 Jul 2018 05:22:00 +0000

Snakes conjure up images multiple,
some profound, some mundane.

From the sacred to the profane,
from reverence to fear.

The slithering beauty, adorning the neckline,
of the three-eyed Lord, Shiva.

The devoted companion, born again and again,
for thy love, in life and in death.

Nagina, Voldermot's double or horcrux,
epitome of evil, that will devour you in full.

The African saying: kill it,
before it bites.

India - the land of the snake charmer,
in penury, addressing man-animal conflict.

In blindfold, the trunk of an elephant,
spewing water, not venom.

Save the stick, save snake,
save the venom, save life.

Population of India in a non census year: 2017

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:02:00 +0000

A quick look at the world wide web does not give any clarity on population estimates for non-census years for India. Besides, agreeing on a single estimate, subgroup consistent estimates can help in the designing and planning of public policy initiatives for vulnerable communities. The Ministry of Home Affairs (Office of Registrar General), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation should come together to take this forward.

Curious

I was curious to know of India's population in a non-census year, 2017. The need arose, as I wanted to estimate snake bite rates (SBRs) across states by gender for 2017. I will address that in a different note, but for now I would like to comment on my search for an estimate of India's population in 2017.

Technical Group of 2006

My search took me to the Statistical Year Book of India 2017 available through the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), as also the National Health Profile of India - 2018 (released in June 2018 by the Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, CBHI). Both these documents provides population estimates for 2017 based on a Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections (TGPP) published in 2006. The report used census 2001 as base to estimate population rounded-off to the nearest '000 on 1 March for the years 2001 through 3026. The TGPP estimate for India in 2017 being

1,283,600,000 (or, 1.28 billion), for 1 March 2017.

CSO implied estimate

Recently, on 31 May 2018, a press note was released on provisional estimates of annual national income for 2017-18 and revised estimates for earlier years in 2011-12 prices by Central Statistics Office (CSO). In this, one has data for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita GDP for financial years (starting 1 April of year 't' to 31 March of year 't+1'). While there are no explanation on the method for computing population and the population estimates, one assumes that the per capita GDP ought to have been calculated by taking into consideration the population on 31 March of year 't+1'. The Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy (in notes to macroeconomic aggregates) points out that for 2011-12 series population figures are derived from census 2011. For 2016-17, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at ₹121,96,006 crore and per capita GDP at ₹93,888 by CSO indicates a population of

1,298,995,186 (or, 1.30 billion), perhaps for 31 March 2017.

UIDAI estimate

In addition to the above two estimates, the Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI), have also provided a projection of population for 2017 in an analysis of Aadhaar saturation. The note also indicates that data for nine states/union territories (Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh, Daman and Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh) were provided by the respective states/union territories. It is not clear whether the independence to states was in estimating of population or for saturation analysis. In any case, the note does not delineate the method of estimating population, but as this is meant for an analysis of Aadhaar saturation in 2017, one expects that the estimate of population is likely to be for 31 December 2017. The UIDAI estimate for 2017 is

1,316,632,920 (or, 1.32 billion), perhaps for 31 December 2017.

UN estimate

Independent of the above three estimates, the United Nations led exercise of World Population Prospects 2017 (also available at worldometers) estimates population for all countries from 1950 to 2100 with the reference date being the middle of the year, 1 July of each year. The UN estimate for 2017 for India is

1,339,180,127 (or, 1.34 billion), for 1 July 2017.

Comparing four estimates

A cursory glance may suggest that the difference in population estimates may be because the reference dates are likely to be different. To address this, we take the estimates for 2017 and 2018 provided by the four different entities in Table 1 and one observes that the range of the estimates for two consecutive years by any entity (TGPP, GDP, UIDAI, and UN) does not overlap with the others.

Table 1: Population estimates for India in 2017 and 2018 through Different Entities
Years	TGPP	CSO	UIDAI	UN
2017	128,36,00,000	129,89,95,186	131,66,32,920	133,91,80,127
2018	129,80,41,000	131,59,94,518	133,56,10,549	135,40,51,854
Notes and Sources: TGPP-Technical Group on Population Projections 2006, CSO-Central Statistics Office (press note 2018, also see Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy), UIDAI-Unique Identity Authority of India (projections for 2017 and 2018), and UN-United Nations (World Population Prospects 2017).

Policy pointers

Prima facie, one cannot reject the scientifically grounded UN estimates, unless substantive arguments are put forth. Besides, UN estimates, as is the practice, would have been developed with active engagement of officials and academia from all countries, including India. If there were any substantive differences then that ought to have been provided at that stage. If after that differences remain then they ought to be put up in the public domain.

It would help in provisioning of public policy if there is a common understanding to a basic matter like the total population of the country. This starting point will take us a long way in identifying sub-group consistent population estimates for different categories of vulnerable population and their geographical concentration or spread.

There should be serious efforts to provide population estimates for non-census years by taking into account the census of 2011. In today's age and computing advantages, even without the involvement and technological advantage of UIDAI, all this should be easily possible.

Way forward

The Office of the Registrar General under Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (including the Central Statistics Office) and all other entities should come together at the earliest to provide us with a subgroup consistent population estimates for non-census years. Till that happens, the UN estimates could be a starting point, the shares of population across states may be used from UIDAI or CSO estimates, and within states the sex ratio of TGPP estimates may be used to arrive at a gender-specific population estimate.

Exclusion errors, Inclusion errors and Aadhaar

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sun, 06 May 2018 13:26:00 +0000

This post discusses exclusion and inclusion errors in the context of Aadhaar. From a welfare perspective, reduction of exclusion errors need greater attention. The two errors are either inversely related or are positively related. The Aadhaar architecture is designed to address inclusion errors, and hence, it could either add to exclusion errors or require independent efforts to reduce them. Further, identification being independent, Aadhaar cannot address these errors at that stage. Besides, no one can be held accountable for exclusion errors.

Introduction: Day 36

On day 36 of Aadhaar hearing in the Supreme Court of India, an implicit reference was made to exclusion and inclusion errors in the delivery of entitlement. I have already discussed about exclusion and inclusion errors in the context of Aadhaar in my earlier posts on proportionality, right to physical existence, and nir-aadhaar among others. Nevertheless, the deliberations on day 36 of the hearing urge me to further elaborate on these.

The two errors

Exclusion error occurs when a person deserving an entitlement is excluded (we identify entitlement with receiving of benefits, subsidy, and services in Aadhaar Act).
Inclusion error occurs when a person not-deserving an entitlement is included.

In comparing the two errors, there are two broad perspectives.

First, from a welfare perspective, exclusion errors are considered the greater evil and to ensure that this is reduced the system can be lenient to inclusion errors. Under this, the two errors are inversely related. In this, efforts to reduce the exclusion errors, will lead to an increase in inclusion errors. Similarly, efforts to reduce the inclusion errors will lead to an increase in exclusion errors.

Second, under certain situations when targets are fixed, the two errors can be positively related. The lower the exclusion errors, the lower will be the inclusion errors. As a corollary, the greater the inclusion errors, the greater will be the exclusion errors. If targets remain unaltered, then a reduction in inclusion errors will also imply a reduction in exclusion errors. Otherwise, reduction in inclusion errors cannot automatically transfer to a reduction in exclusion errors. There ought to be independent efforts to address reductions in exclusion errors.

In fact, as targets ought to be independently assigned from macro aggregates (say, poverty ratio) then any reduction in inclusion errors leading to savings in budget implies that there are greater exclusion errors. Or, we are no more in the realm of positive relationship between the two errors. We have moved to the realm of inverse relationship. A reduction in inclusion errors imply an increase in exclusion errors. The authentication failures or absence of Aadhaar that add to the exclusion errors will all fall under this. The savings to the state from these would be like a regressive tax.

Additional concerns

The Aadhaar architecture based on biometric authentication to receive entitlement is designed to reduce inclusion errors (reduce ghosts and duplication among others). However, it is possible that it could also add to inclusion errors. There is nothing in the architecture to prevent inclusion errors that happen after authentication. There can be either denial or reduction of entitlement (like less or no ration) after authentication. However, as the amount will be accounted for it automatically changes hands leading to inclusion errors. This is a continuation of denials when authentication was not done biometrically. Such exclusion-cum-inclusion errors, in the past, have been effectively addressed through social audits and that should continue to be be an effective method, as Aadhaar cannot address it.

A recipient of entitlement ought to be identified independently. It is only after identification that the recipient's information can be integrated with Aadhaar for biometric authentication to facilitate delivery of entitlement. This means that that inclusion and exclusion errors at the stage of identification will remain outside the purview of Aadhaar.

Entitlement denial, with or without authentication, exempts accountability from state. Under Aadhaar Act, any future claims on denial of entitlement may not stand the scrutiny of courts in the sense that the implementing entity cannot be penalised. This is so because authentication will be proof for having received the entitlement and authentication failure cannot be held against them. No one can be held accountable for denial of entitlements.

Conclusion

To sum up, between exclusion and inclusion errors the former is a greater evil. The relationship between exclusion and inclusion errors can either be inversely related or positively related. Aadhaar is designed to address inclusion errors, and hence, it could either increase exclusion errors or need additional independent efforts to reduce exclusion errors. It may weed out some ghosts, but not all inclusion errors. The architecture and design of Aadhar not only does not address exclusion errors, but it could also add to exclusion errors. Further, as identification ought to be independent of Aadhaar, the errors at the identification stage cannot be addressed by Aadhaar. Besides, under an Aadhaar architecture, the implementing entities cannot be penalised for exclusion errors.

Earlier blog posts on Aadhaar by the author

On Aadhaar Proportionality

Right to Physical Existence Matters

Idhar, Udhar, Aadhaar

Aadhaar: Privacy, National Security and Democracy

Nir-Aadhaar

Neither for you, nor for me

Creative Identification

Right to Privacy, Aadhaar and Democracy (also re-posted at LSE blog)

Aadhaar Interim Order Calls for Some Clarification

If a Lie is told Three Times

Aadhaar, Radiagate and Cablegate

[The views expressed are that of the author and not that of the institutions/organisations that the author is associated with. Some of the arguments that are not elaborated here may be found in the earlier related blog posts or in tweets by the author. The author comes from a non-legal background and the final outcome of the Aadhaar hearing would depend upon the arguments put forth by the petitioners and the respondents and their considered interpretation by the honourable judges. Comments are welcome.]

On Aadhaar Proportionality

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:24:00 +0000

This note examines Aadhaar through the lens of proportionality and observes that it fails on all four counts. Aadhaar's interference with rights is not justified by goals because it is just a medium and cannot be the basis to address a motley of goals. The logical connect is weak because it does not address exclusion errors for individuals, is silent on inclusion errors for non-individuals, and the links to fraudulent financial dealings and terrorism is far-fetched. Even if one is restricted to addressing inclusion errors of individuals, a number without biometric information would be the least intrusive and with relatively less exclusion errors. More importantly, the architecture of Aadhaar does away with executive accountability and puts the burden on those whose rights are compromised.

Introduction

The Aadhaar hearing in the Supreme Court of India has completed 25 days. The petitioners opposing Aadhaar put forth their arguments for the first 19 days and the respondents (particularly, the Attorney General including a presentation by Chief Executive Officer of Unique Identity Authority of India) have now put forth their arguments for six days and this will continue for some more days. At this stage, it seems that the judgement could largely depend on Aadhaar's test of proportionality.

Four aspects of Proportionality
In constitutional jurisprudence, a test of proportionality looks into four aspects. In the context of Aadhaar, they raise the following four questions.

Is Aadhaar's interference of certain rights (that inter alia includes right to not be excluded from welfare entitlements, right to life with dignity, and right to privacy) justified by its legitimate goals (this not only includes targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, but also to curb money laundering, prevent bank frauds, do away with income tax evasion, eliminate poverty, reduce income disparity, and bring down terrorism, among others)?

Is there a logical connect between Aadhaar and the legitimate goals?

Are there other methods of addressing the legitimate goals that would be less intrusive of the rights?

And, more importantly, does Aadhaar impose an excessive burden on those whose rights are being compromised?

Is Interference of rights justified by goals?
In criminal jurisprudence, a settled matter is that no innocent should be punished and in ensuring that it is fine if some perpetrators go unpunished. In the same vein, in matters of welfare entitlement, no deserving person should be excluded and in ensuring that it is fine if some undeserving persons get included. It follows that right to life with dignity is also compromised for those who are excluded. As an afterthought one may also add that providing benefits to the non-deserving (say, entitlements for the poor to someone who is just a wee-bit above the poverty line) would have greater acceptance than the possibility of allowing the perpetrator of a rarest-of-rare crime go unpunished because of some benefit of doubt on account of poor evidence-gathering by the prosecution.

The right to privacy was always enshrined in the Consitution of India; but, unfortunately, was oblivious to the executive until a nine-judge bench clarified this to be the case subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the state. The reasonable restrictions fail the exclusion errors when it comes to targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services. In fact, it is a double whammy because one does not receive the entitlement due even after compromising with privacy concerns. Further, Aadhaar is also touted to curb money laundering, prevent bank frauds, do away with income tax evasion, eliminate poverty, reduce income disparity, and bring down terrorism, among others. This brings in a motley of goals, as if Aadhaar is a panacea for all ills, which it is not.

Is there a logical connect with goals?
Aadhaar by design is a technology to 'uniquely' identify and authenticate. Hence, by design it is structured to reduce inclusion errors in the case of persons. This is neither designed nor does it automatically lead to reduction of exclusion errors. Rather, failures to identify and authenticate can add to the exclusion errors. This can be particularly so for individual recipients of entitlements who are manual workers, old and sick among others and thereby questioning their right to life with dignity.

It needs to be mentioned that a substantial amount of benefits, subsidies and services may not be provided to individuals (for instance, incidence of burgeoning fertiliser subsidies, loan write-off to reduce non-performing assets of banks that emanate from non-individual entities, and tax waiver to corporate entities, see more on this at ground reality). They are provided to firms or corporate entities. And, all these would not come under the purview of identification and authentication through Aadhaar. Thus, in these instances, making Aadhaar incapable of addressing inclusion errors also.

Aadhaar's difficulty in addressing exclusion for the recipient of welfare entitlements and inclusion of non-deserving non-individual entities also raises questions on its ability to curb money laundering, prevent bank frauds, do away with income tax evasion, eliminate poverty, reduce income disparity, and bring down terrorism, among others. All these make its logical connect with goals weak.

Are there other less intrusive methods to attain the goals?
For the motley of goals Aadhaar is a means, a via media. In particular, it is designed to facilitate identification and authentication of not only intended recipient of entitlement but also of wrong doers involved in money laundering, bank fraud, and terrorism among others. Aadhaar's ability to identify and authenticate lies through its special feature that it is a 12 digit random number ensuring uniqueness through biometric information (fingerprints and iris of eye) and by not reissuing a number.

Aadhaar is considered to be better than a smartcard, as the smartcard may have a technical life and there could be a fear of misuse due to loss of a smartcard. Limits to a technical life could add to the cost, but the Aadhaar card, a copy of which is required by many service providers, will also have a limited technical life. Besides, an Aadhaar card will also require updating of address or biometric information and in all these instances the cost is on the individual. Besides, a possible misuse of smartcard because of loss could also be addressed technical (for instance, through usage of pin or one time password).

Aadhaar is considered better than a unique number without biometric information because it can do away with a particular individual having multiple such numbers. A case in point is the Permanent Account Number (or PAN) card. While there should be efforts to weed out duplicate PAN cards by any single entity to reduce possible inclusion errors, but its advantage lies in the fact that non-individual entities also have a PAN card and it would be easier to trace transactions, as legally appropriate, through the PAN cards and, if required, one could supplement and complement it with the recently introduced Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN). In any case, PAN serves a different purpose, as it is not meant to regulate delivery of benefits, subsidies and services. Either one could use the PAN number or a similar number because it is the least intrusive. This is so because it does not require a digital identification and authentication each and every time one is entitled to receive benefits, subsidies and services. Besides, this system of identification will have less exclusion errors.

Is there excessive burden on those whose rights are compromised?
A common problem of the three systems of identification numbers (Aadhaar, Smartcard, or PAN like number) if they are used to address delivery of benefits, subsidies and services is that they are designed to reduce inclusion errors and are centralised systems and top-down. Further, Aadhaar has been designed to address the executive's inability to address inclusion errors through a technological system (machine readability of identification and authentication), This may not reduce the inclusion errors, but will shift the burden of errors (particularly inclusion, but also exclusion) to the technology. This would mean that no individual would be held accountable for any errors or for omission and commission as the checks have been carried out through Aadhaar identification and authentication. This will be a serious burden on the recipients of entitlement.

It needs to be reiterated that the problem of exclusion errors is local because of absence of last mile connectivity and leakages. The solutions for these should not only be decentralised, but also bottom-up. This requires giving the responsibility to local authorities and also by holding them accountable for deliberate wrong doings. There should be appropriate and effective checks and balances, which among others, should also include social audits.

To wit, in the mid-day-meal scheme it should be the school teacher or any other authority in the school who is the best suited to identify. The possibility of teacher or any other authority misusing the power should be dealt independently and it definitely is not effective to allow each and every student authenticate their presence every day electronically if they have to partake in the mid-day-meal scheme. This will add to the time and cost requirement. Moreover, the Aadhaar-based identification and authentication is not likely to reduce leakages or misuse. For instance, if after identification and authentication through Aadhaar the authorities provide less, or discriminate in provisioning, or refuse mid-day meal to the children.

As already conveyed, Aadhaar's ability to curb money laundering, prevent bank frauds, do away with income tax evasion, eliminate poverty, reduce income disparity, and bring down terrorism, among others is weak. In fact, one does not see much additional advantage over what PAN and GSTIN can achieve to address some of these goals. Imposing Aadhaar identification and authentication on all such activities would rather add to the burden and can even compromise national security.

While Aadhaar has come through a Money Bill (an Act passed through the lower house), it has been designed to do away with executive accountability. This would mean that the burden of not to be excluded or the burden to live a life with dignity or the burden to not compromise with ones privacy would lie with the recipient. The legal costs can further add to the burden.

Summary
Examining proportionality to Aadhaar, one is of the opinion that Aadhaar fails on all four aspects. First, Aadhaar's interference with rights (right to not be excluded from welfare entitlements, right to life with dignity, and right to privacy) does not justify the goals because it is just a medium and cannot be the basis to address a motley of goals. It cannot be the be a panacea for all ills. Second, the logical connect to goals is weak. For instance, it does not address exclusion errors for individuals and is silent with regard to inclusion errors on account of non-individual entities. The links to fraudulent financial dealings and terrorism is also far-fetched. Third, even if one restricts to addressing inclusion errors, a number without biometric information would be the least intrusive and will have relatively less exclusion errors. Fourth, the architecture of Aadhaar removes the accountability of any lapses from the executive and puts the burden on those whose rights are compromised.

Earlier blog posts on Aadhaar by the author

Right to Physical Existence Matters

Idhar, Udhar, Aadhaar

Aadhaar: Privacy, National Security and Democracy

Nir-Aadhaar

Neither for you, nor for me

Creative Identification

Right to Privacy, Aadhaar and Democracy (also re-posted at LSE blog)

Aadhaar Interim Order Calls for Some Clarification

If a Lie is told Three Times

Aadhaar, Radiagate and Cablegate

[The views expressed are that of the author and not that of the institutions/organisations that the author is associated with. Some of the arguments that are not elaborated here may be found in the earlier related blog posts. The author comes from a non-legal background and the final outcome of the Aadhaar hearing would depend upon the arguments put forth by the petitioners and the respondents and their considered interpretation by the honourable judges. Comments are welcome.]

Right to Physical Existence Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 23:42:00 +0000

On day 20 of the Aadhaar hearing by a five-judge bench in the Supreme Court of India, the Attorney General made a submission. There is a case that calls for analytical separation between exclusion and inclusion errors. Once this is done, the contrast between the Right to Physical Existence and Right to Privacy disappears.

The submission cites the Rangarajan Poverty report (paragraph 1, footnote 3) to state that 30 per cent of the Indian population is still poor. Does this mean that the Union of India has accepted the Rangarajan report? As an aside, I may mention that this method of calculating poverty has concerns, which I have raised earlier in my reading between the poverty lines.

The submission referred to Type I (exclusion) and Type II (inclusion) errors (paragraph 15 b ii). In jurisprudence terms the errors are similar to punishing an innocent (Type I) and letting the perpetrator go unpunished (Type II). I had also shared earlier on exclusion and inclusion errors in Aadhaar. Of course, any system (governance or otherwise) would like to minimise both the errors. However, as the two seem to be intertwined in such a manner that, more often than not, reducing one may increase the other. Hence, the preferred mode is to try and reduce Type I errors and in the process they may increase the Type II errors.

All said and done, Aadhaar (at least the way it has been designed and is being articulated) is meant to address inclusion errors. The Attorney General's submission referring to various leakages and how they could be reduced was also evidence for reducing inclusion errors, but were used interchangeably to buttress an argument in favour of exclusion errors. This not only questions the reasonableness of the premise that analytically distinguishes between the exclusion and inclusion errors, but is also a serious affront on democratic polity, as elaborated in an earlier discussion.

While reducing inclusion errors are important, but that is not likely to reduce exclusion errors. What is more, the argument to that effect was seemingly paternalistic - the sarkar is mai-baap. Rather, any and every effort on reducing leakages (inclusion errors) needs greater concern, understanding and sensitivity to a possible increase in exclusion errors. In fact, Aadhaar itself can be a basis for exclusion, as has been cited by petitioners.

The Attorney General contrasts Right to Physical Existence (or, Right to Life) with Right to Privacy and points out that the former is more important than the latter. This position follows from the premise that reducing inclusion errors will also reduce exclusion errors. Once one accepts the analytical separation of the two errors then the conflict between Right to Physical Existence and Right to Privacy does not hold. This is so because the people whose Right to Physical Existence is violated will also have their Right to Privacy violated.

Yes, your honour, Right to Physical Existence matters. And, Right to Physical Existence should not be held hostage to Biometric authentication.

Earlier blog posts on Aadhaar

Idhar, Udhar, Aadhaar

Aadhaar: Privacy, National Security and Democracy

Nir-Aadhaar

Neither for you, nor for me

Creative Identification

Right to Privacy, Aadhaar and Democracy (also re-posted at LSE blog)

Aadhaar Interim Order Calls for Some Clarification

If a Lie is told Three Times

Aadhaar, Radiagate and Cablegate

[The views expressed are that of the author and not that of the institutions/organisations that the author is associated with. Comments are welcome.]

Idhar, Udhar, Aadhaar

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:19:00 +0000

The hearing on the Constitutionality of Aadhaar has been going on in the Supreme Court of India since 17 January 2018 by a five-judge bench. The honourable judges will listen to both sides and then take a decision. The purpose of the current note is to visualise Aadhaar through Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act and its importance in the recent interim order of 13 March 2018 by the Supreme Court. It will also raise some concerns on democracy, sovereignty and republicanism.

Section 7 of Aadhaar

"The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, for the purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India, require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar number has been assigned, such individual makes an application for enrolment:

Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service."

Recent Interim Order
A recent interim order (13 March 2018) by the five-judge bench extends the relief provided in an earlier interim order (15 December 2017) on linking of Aadhaar to the receipt of entitlement and various service providers (banks account holders and mobile phone subscribers). The order also accepted a submission with regard to Section 7 of the Act. The relevant portions of the recent interim order read as follows:

"...On a query being made, Mr. K.K.Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India submitted that this Court may think of extending the interim order. However, the benefits, subsidies and services covered under Section 7 of the The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 should remain undisturbed. We accept the same.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we accept the submission made by the learned Attorney General. Subject to that, we direct that the interim order passed on 15.12.2017 shall stand extended till the matter is finally heard and the judgment is pronounced. That apart, the directions issued in the interim order shall apply as stated in paragraphs 11 to 13 in the said order. For the sake of clarity, we reproduce the said paragraphs which read as under:-

"...

13. Consistent with the above directions, we also direct that the extension of the last date for Aadhar linkage to 31 March 2018 shall apply, besides the schemes of the Ministries/Departments of the Union government to all state governments in similar terms. As a consequence of the extension of the deadline to 31 March 2018, it is ordered accordingly.”

..."

Two Possible Interpretations
There could be two possible interpretations of the recent interim order. One interpretation, based on paragraph 13 of the earlier interim order, implies that the Aadhaar linkage to recipients under various schemes gets extended till a final judgement is taken.

Another interpretation, based on the submission by the Attorney General that the benefits, subsidies and services under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act should remain undisturbed, implies that the extension on Aadhaar linkage to recipient under various schemes is limited. This is so because almost all schemes draw their expenditure from the consolidated funds.

Decoding Section 7
A cursory reading of Section 7 of the Act may suggest that the use of Aadhaar is for identification of a recipient of a subsidy, benefit or service and if an individual does not possess Aadhaar than other alternate and viable methods should be offered. Now, if this is the case then there was no need for the Attorney General's submission requesting that "the benefits, subsidies and services covered under Section 7... should remain undisturbed." This calls for a greater scrutiny.

A careful reading of Section 7 of the Act points out that other alternate and viable methods of identification are perhaps available only to those who have applied for enrollment to Aadhaar. In effect, at the implementation stage this could likely be a one-time exemption only.

Furthermore, Section 7 is silent on denial of benefits, subsidies or services on account of failure of identity authentication. There have been instances where individuals have been denied their genuine entitlements that have been due under employment guarantee or food security or as pension among others. In fact, there have been instances when retired employees have not been able to withdraw their provident fund for want of a life certificate because of a failure in identity authentication through Aadhaar. One may point out that the withdrawal of provident fund may not be directly linked to Aadhaar, as it is part of public accounts and not drawn from consolidated funds. The fact of the the matter is that it also has been dependent on Aadhaar.

Now, a pertinent question is why did the Attorney General bring in Section 7. One possible conjecture is to guard against inconvenience (and perhaps contempt of court) arising out of acts by implementing agencies that leads to denial of entitlements and also to facilitate business as usual. The executive should continue to do that they have been entrusted with. Another possible argument is to prevent misuse of public expenditure. Maybe, there are some other reasons. Whatever it may be, it does provide a long leash to the executive with an articulation that inclusion errors matter more than exclusion errors. Imposing a moral imperative, excluding a deserving person from her entitlement is more serious than including a non-deserving person.

The moot point is that by accepting the submission by the Attorney General that Section 7 should remain undisturbed the paragraph 13 of the earlier order has lost bite and seemingly redundant. Given this and in view of possible denial of entitlements, the honourable five-judge bench may reconsider accepting the submission in its entirety.

Possible Affront
The denial of legitimate entitlements is serious. It is in this context that one raises a concern on the usage of the term 'benefit'. In a democratic polity by the people, for the people and of the people, the benefits and services rendered by the state either in cash or kind are entitlements. The usage of the term benefit (as also for services) seem to connote a largess. Seeking public health service or public education will no more be a matter of right; rather, it would be a charity by the state. This is an affront on democracy. What is more, this affront seems to have a legislative sanction.

Even the use of the term 'subsidy' may not be appropriate. First because entitlements ought to be facilitated through grants. Technically, all grants may be considered as subsidies, but in plain-speak a subsidy has a Fund-Bank connotation leading to a discussion on market distortions and inefficiencies. While not denying the relevance of markets, any discourse that implicitly or explicitly concedes that it is the only institution that matters is an affront on sovereignty.

As an aside, our concerns on the usage of the words would mean that in the title of the said Act "Targeted Delivery of Entitlements through Grants" should have been used instead of "Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services". This would perhaps also mean that the Act ought not to have come through as a Money Bill.

One may also mention that the World Trade Organisation also distinguishes subsidies as green, amber, blue and red boxes. Meeting entitlement through grants are those that fall under the green category. Articulating them to be 'subsidies' per se could attract them under amber, blue or red leading to a call to withdraw them in some not so distant future. If that happens that would be an affront on the marginalised and the vulnerable, and in that sense an affront on the republic.

Concluding Remarks
Reading between the lines, a view through the prism of Section 7 of Aadhar Act gives a perspective that plays hide and seek - idhar, udhar, Aadhaar. In addition, we invoke a moral imperative indicating the seriousness of exclusion over inclusion errors and raise concerns on possible affront to democracy, sovereignty, and republicanism. We end with a call on caution. No more idhar, udhar, Aadhaar.

Earlier blog posts on Aadhaar

Aadhaar: Privacy, National Security and Democracy

Nir-Aadhaar

Neither for you, nor for me

Creative Identification

Right to Privacy, Aadhaar and Democracy (also re-posted at LSE blog)

Aadhaar Interim Order Calls for Some Clarification

If a Lie is told Three Times

Aadhaar, Radiagate and Cablegate

[The views expressed are that of the author and not that of the institutions/organisations that the author is associated with. Comments are welcome.]

PK mode to India's Growth

noreply@blogger.com (Srijit Mishra) — Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:01:00 +0000

India at 70 in a PK mode

Recently, Rahul Gandhi of INC had an interaction on India at 70 discussing a number of issues at LKYSPP. An informed polity should be discussing the issues raised, but the larger discourse has been limited to a question by one PK (not the vintage PK, those interested for a Sunday tête-à-tête may have a peek here). While I should not be spending my Sunday in a PK mode, but got a bit carried away. Hence, if you find something incoherent, then you know whom to blame. In the same vein, and in all fairness, the credit to any coherence will have nothing to do with being reborn (Asian or otherwise).

An analysis of comparing India's growth with that of the world has already been done by Maitreesh Ghatak (of LSE) and Amitabh Dubey. I thought of exploring the numbers further either because I had nothing else to do or because I wanted to avoid doing something else. True, I wanted to play around with the numbers to give some benefit of doubt to PK. However, I unequivocally state that this has no conflict of interest because of being stuck in a PK mode on a Sunday.

Benefit of Doubt

Having done some work on decomposing poverty change by bringing in population or because of the call for MANUSH in measuring HDI (see its IvU version), I had a feeling that the reference to growth or was it to PK (even if not of the vintage type) was perhaps in per capita terms. This is my first PK benefit of doubt.

I resort to the data provided by the World Bank through World Development Indicators. I make use of GDP per capita in constant 2010 US$ terms with data available from 1960 to 2016 providing us with simple annual average growth rates. From the 56 years of GDP per capita growth rates, India has been having a growth greater than that of the World in 40 years and it has been doing so continuously since 2001.

While it is true that Rahul Gandhi's family has not been in the helm of powers (as Prime Minister of India) since 2001, but then there are phases when Inida has fared well when their family was in the helm of affairs than when others were at the helm of affairs. For instance, in Table 1 as per column Pr1 (proportion of years when per capita growth rate of GDP for India was greater than that for World) Jawaharlal Nehru (JN) and Indira Gandhi's first term (IG1) fare better than that of Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS+) and this seems to hold even for the annual average per capita GDP growth rate for their respective periods (Gr1). This takes me to my second PK benefit of doubt.

I have a queasy feeling that the comparison was not about the forefathers of Rahul Gandhi and those of others because that sounds inappropriate even in a PK mode. In fact, the other day, I overheard some people in a PK mode discussing among themselves that, at times, being in a PK mode may lead to some nuisance, but under no circumstances would they hit below the belt. And, pitting someone's forefathers with some others' forefathers is so below the belt. In any case, it does not prove any point to discuss the growth performance under Lal Bahadur Shastri when the country had to face a war and drought in that period and that too by pitting one Congress Prime Minister by another. One is of the opinion that the intention was perhaps to compare growth regimes between Congress and Non-Congress Prime Ministers.

Table 1 India's Growth Rate in comparison to that of the World under different Prime Ministers: 1961-2016
PMs	Pr_In>Wo	Gr_In	Gr_Wo	Gr_LnM
JN	41.2	2.5	3.4	2.1
LBS+	35.9	-1.0	3.8	3.8
IG1	37.9	1.4	2.6	3.7
MD+	64.4	-0.1	2.2	1.8
IG2	82.6	3.1	0.4	0.7
RG	77.0	3.6	2.1	1.8
VP+	69.7	2.1	0.8	-0.1
PV	89.2	3.6	0.8	0.7
IKG+	45.6	3.5	2.0	2.9
ABV	83.8	4.2	1.6	2.8
MS	100.0	6.2	1.6	4.8
NM	100.0	6.3	1.5	2.7
Notes: PMs denotes Prime Ministers, Pr_In>Wo denotes proportion of period India's per capita GDP is greater than that for World. Gr_In, Gr_Wo and Gr_LnM denote the annual average growth rate of per capita GDP for India, World, and low and middle income countries, respectively, for the period that the PMs have been in office. JN refers to Jawaharlal Nehru from 01/01/61 to 27/05/64 (earlier years since 15/08/47 could not be included for data limitation). LBS+ refers to Lal Bahadur Shastri and two tenures of Gulzarilal Nanda as acting PM for 13 days each (the combined period is from 27/05/64 to 24/01/66). IG1 refers to Indira Gandhi's first term from 24/01/66 to 24/03/77. MD+ refers to Morarji Desai and Charan Singh (combined period is from 24/03/77 to 14/01/80). IG2 refers to Indira Gandhi's second term from 14/01/30 to 31/10/84. RG refers to Rajiv Gandhi's term from 31/10/84 to 02/12/89. VP+ refers to the terms of Vishwanath Pratap Singh and Chandra Shekhar (combined period is from 02/12/89 to 21/06/91). PV refers to PV Narasimha Rao's term from 21/06/91 to 16/05/96. IKG+ refers to the terms of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (first term of 16 days), HD Deve Gowda (324 days) and IK Gujral (332 days) and the combined period is from 16/05/96 to 19/03/98. ABV refers to Atal Bihari Vajpayee's second term from 19/03/98 to 22/05/04. MS refers to Manmohan Singh's term (from 22/05/04 to 26/05/14). NM refers to Narendra Modi's term from 26/05/14 to 31/12/16, that is, the period for which information is available. Source: Calculated by author based on data from World Development Indicators, World Bank and Former Primer Ministers, Prime Ministor's Office, Government of India.

One observes from Table 1 that there have been some Congress regimes that have been doing relatively better than Non-Congress regimes. Note that Indira Gandhi's second term and also the term of Rajiv Gandhi fared better than the terms of MD+ (Morarji Desai and Charan Singh), VP+ (Vishwanath Pratap Singh and Chandra Shekhar) and IKG+ (Atal Bihari Vajpayee's first term, HD Deve Gowda, and Inder Kumar Gujral). The term of PV Narasimha Rao and also of Manmohan Singh fared better than that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's second term. One also observes that the growth under the Prime Ministership of Narendra Modi in its initial years (for which we have data) has also done relatively better than the earlier regimes. While this is important, it is not the point of discussion in a PK mode. This is my third PK benefit of doubt - the question on comparative growth in India at 70 was not about scoring a political brownie point. At times, self goals can happen in a PK mode, but that is another matter.

Comparing India's growth with the World that would have a greater base may be advantageous for India to show a relatively higher growth rate. Hence, I concede my final PK benefit of doubt and propose comparing with growth rates for low and middle income countries also. It is observed from Table 1 that the the annual average per capita growth rate of GDP for India (Gr1) when compared with that of the World (Gr2) and low and middle income countries (Gr3) under different regimes shows that India has fared better since 1980s, that is from Indira Gandhi's second term and thereafter. Another moot point that emerges is that prior to the 1980s India's growth rate was always relatively lower than that of the World, but fared better than the low and middle income countries under Jawaharlal Nehru. Keeping that aside, a limited understanding of the data analysed indicates that a momentum or break from the past was initiated in the 1980s, the momentum continued in the 1990s (PV Narasimha Rao's liberalisation initiatives followed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee's India shining), and it gained further speed in the last fifteen years (Manmohan Singh in two Avataar's of United Progressive Alliance, and Narendra Modi's juggernaut). As the growth trajectory continues it will raise other concerns, particularly on the distributional front like the other juggernaut with farmers on their way from Nashik to Mumbai.

Firki remarks
The firki discussion above is from a PK mode. Those interested in a more serious and detailed discussion on episodes of growth along with a discussion of spaces earmarked for deals, rent and political should look up Sabyasachi Kar and Kunal Sen's The Political Economy of India's Growth Episodes (for a quick initiation to the book see this review).

Click on for an earlier note on PK and firki.