Context:-
It is now celebrates 30 years since India’s economic liberalization programme began. Massive libraries can be built solely devoted to how the Indian economy and Indian lives have changed since 24 July 1991, but let us swim against the tide and go back several decades before 1991, and look at something that’s core to reforms, an area where much has changed, yet much may not have.
Mohammadali Carim Chagla, an extraordinary man who is largely forgotten today.
Chagla was chief justice of the Bombay High Court, was handpicked by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, to be our ambassador to the United States, was education minister from 1963 to 1966 and then briefly minister for external affairs in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet.
He went on to be a leading voice against the Emergency. Throughout his distinguished career, he stood for certain inalienable principles of liberty, nationalism and secularism.
Chagla saw from close quarters, the like of Muhammad Ali Jinnah to Nehru, John F. Kennedy to Fidel Castro. But lets confine to one episode, again largely forgotten today—the Haridas Mundhra affair, which was the first big financial scandal of independent India.
In 1957, Parliament was rocked by allegations that Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), under pressure from the finance ministry, had bought worthless shares in companies promoted by Calcutta-based businessman Mundhra for ₹1.24 crore—about ₹9,000 crore in current terms.
The finger of suspicion pointed towards then finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari and finance secretary H.M. Patel, both of whom denied any knowledge of the matter. Under fire in Parliament and in the media, Nehru appointed Chagla as a one-man inquiry commission.
Chagla submitted his report within a month, which must still be a record for Indian inquiry commissions. Though no direct guilt could be established, Nehru had no option but to ask Krishnamachari to take responsibility for the LIC scandal and resign. Mundhra went to prison.
The last section of Chagla’s report starts with the words: “If I may say so, without undue presumption, the following principles seemed to be established as a result of a careful consideration of all the material that has been placed before me…“
He then made some recommendations.
- One, the government should not interfere with the working of autonomous statutory corporations.
- Two, the chairman of the corporation should be appointed from among persons who have business and financial experience.
- Three, if executive officers of the corporation are to be appointed from the civil services, it should be impressed upon them that they owe a duty to the corporation, and that they should not permit themselves to be influenced by senior officials of government, or surrender their judgement to them.
- Four, the funds of LIC can only be used for the benefit of its policy holders and not for any extraneous purpose. If they are used for any extraneous purpose, that purpose should be in the larger interests of the country.
- Five, in a parliamentary form of government, Parliament should be taken into confidence by the relevant minister at every stage, and all the relevant material must be placed before it.
- Six, a minister must take full responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, and he cannot be permitted to say that his subordinates did not reflect his policy or acted contrary to his wishes and directions.
These recommendations were made in February 1958. Can anyone argue that they were wrong? And can anyone claim that they have not been extensively ignored by almost every government?
Politicians in power have routinely used the resources—in cash and kind—of public sector units (PSUs) to further their own narrow objectives.
Ability vs Loyalty
- By the 1970s, the heads of some of the largest and wealthiest of these corporations were being appointed for political loyalty rather than ability.
- Bureaucrats with no domain expertise were heading PSUs in sectors that needed specialized knowledge, and they would do the bidding of the bureaucrats they reported to.
- This was in their personal career interests, which may or may not have had anything to do with the company’s.
- LIC has traditionally been the favourite milch cow for governments. Its money has been used to shore up markets, buy useless stock in dead-end PSUs and help out crony capitalists.
- A significant part of the disinvestment figures claimed by governments has been one PSU being forced to buy shares in another PSU, which is nothing other than transferring money from one pocket to another without real economic or financial goals being met.
- On the other hand, several once-valuable PSUs have been sold off at a pittance after they had been systematically run into the ground.
Conclusion
Yes, an LIC public issue is said to be in the works, and a general insurance company is to be privatized. But there is uncertainty about when these could happen. The longer the government waits, the less money it will possibly end up raising. Meanwhile, as we celebrate 30 years of the economic reforms, Chagla’s recommendations remain as valid as they were more than six decades ago.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.