There will be a lot written over the next few days by those who know a lot more about these things than I do. So, let me get my two bits in right away.

I can’t recall an American presidential election, I have been following them pretty closely since 1968 (when youthful America last spoke up) and have been a participant since 1990, as multidimensional as this one. Yes, the Bush economy had a lot to do with this one. Race had both more to do with this election and less than people may think. The people to whom race matters a lot don’t matter a lot. Not anymore. And, there were a host of other factors, including the great red herring, experience.

Some key factors were just not spoken out aloud. I am not talking about race, but about McCain’s intelligence, competence and temperament. I read that he graduated 894^th in a class of 899 at the Naval Academy, after being cited and disciplined numerous times for unacceptable and unruly behaviour. Seems to me that anyone else would have been kicked out, the Academy is a tough place. But, they don’t give the boot to a grandson and son of an admiral. When he graduated and his behaviour didn’t change much, he just couldn’t be fired. They just don’t do that to a grandson and son of an admiral. When his plane was shot down, more out of recklessness than anything else, his record didn’t point that out. He acquitted himself with extraordinary courage and discipline during the five-plus years that followed. For that, all was forgiven. Others who had suffered similarly returned to a hateful country, (I lived in America then), but he received a hero’s welcome. He wasn’t the only naval officer to have been imprisoned and tortured for five years. But, can you recall a single other such hero’s name? One just doesn’t speak ill of a genuine hero, not when he is a grandson and son of an admiral.

He married, after cheating on his wife, a rich and powerful heiress from Arizona and chose to enter Congress. Under the circumstances, he couldn’t have been beaten. No wonder he has decades of experience in Washington. Ted Stevens of Alaska has even more. Nevertheless, McCain’s Senate career can’t be dismissed summarily. He certainly doesn’t rank in the bottom percentile.

His temperament has always been questioned, though not enough. The questions became louder as he started to trail seriously and so were those on his judgment - it’s OK to question a hero’s judgment, particularly after Palin. The average American voter is generally viewed to be a dunce who can’t even find his cap, mostly by people who don’t live there. They tend to forget that more Americans voted for Gore than Bush. Adlai Stevenson, a certified intellectual whose sentences were not merely complete but long, won 44.3% of the vote against Eisenhower in 1952. So, these voters can figure out what’s what and, I strongly suspect, they figured out in increasing numbers that McCain didn’t have what it is going to take to tackle America’s problems. The financial collapse merely clarified that.

America’s economic problems had become evident much earlier, when Obama was running against Hillary Clinton (most economists predicted early in the second quarter that a recession would begin in the third). Race was clear from day one. Yet, Obama the inexperienced beat Clinton the inevitable. Obama the black beat Edwards the white prince in pristine white Iowa. All that was so long ago that we have forgotten.

The Bush years, after a promising start, continually set new lows for presidential performance. They would have set new lows for character as well, but even Cheney can’t beat Nixon. An extraordinarily good Republican candidate could have won this election. A mediocre Democratic candidate could have lost it – Democrats are skilled at losing elections even without extraordinarily bad candidates. Neither McCain nor Obama fit the bill for a Republican victory. Clinton didn’t either, but many would have found it easier to dislike her than Obama.

McCain will lose because he fully deserves to do so. Obama will win comfortably – 360 electoral votes? - because he promises to be extraordinarily good. Time will tell if he fulfills that promise. I sincerely hope he does, for the sake of all concerned.

Labels: Barak Obama, election, McCain

War of all against all - this is what Thomas Hobbes considered to be the human condition within the state of nature. Had he visited Chennai this month, he would have received final proof, if proof were needed. Incidentally, this Hobbes was a philosopher. The livery stable owner who offered the Hobbesian take-it-or-leave-it choice was Thomas Hobson. I am not that stingy, you may have this trivia, that which follows, or both.

First, we had the people’s leader Vijayakant’s call for a grand kickoff of his political campaign. Hundreds of thousands of supporters were summoned, clothed in bright yellow tee-shirts, paid and transported to the city to demonstrate their entirely voluntary support of his movement, the payment was merely to cover their expenses. surely. They arrived by the bus-load, lorry-load, van-load, SUV-load and taxi-load – spilling out of the sides and overflowing to the top of each vehicle. They expressed their enthusiasm by dancing on the tops of buses. When these caravans stopped, stopping just about every other vehicle in the city, they climbed down from their lofty perches and danced on the street. Inured and impotent police watched silently. The people fumed in vain.

But, he is for the people and an honorable man. How can we blame him for the actions of his avid supporters? So what if all pertinent laws were waived for the duration, isn’t that the norm?

A few days later, all our political leaders concluded that the only way to stop the “massacre of innocent Tamils” in Sri Lanka was to form a sixty kilometer long human chain. It poured cats and dogs that day, more like rhinos and hippos actually. That wasn’t much of a surprise, the monsoon has set in after all. So, our leaders – for they are all, all wise men – roped in (should that be chained in?) children. These children were pulled out of their schools and colleges and made – oh, sorry, they volunteered out of concern for their fellow Tamils – to stand in the rain for hours. As expected, traffic in the city came to a grinding halt. Little children took four hours to get home from school, returning at 8 PM. Half hour drives and commutes turned into three-hour long endurance tests. Exhaust fumes from all the stalled vehicles enveloped the city. The senior most leaders weren’t affected – for they are all, all clever men. They had been driven to their ceremonial spots in the chain in cars adorned with swirling red lights and brought back to their dry homes minutes later.

It didn’t seem to bother anyone that these deeply concerned and wise leaders had been essentially silent when those Tamil brethren were killing innocent Sinhalese, when women and children were being forced into terrorism and when a country with great promise was stopped dead on its tracks. They had wisely concluded then that it was not for them to interfere in the internal affairs of a tiny neighbour. We will not interfere now either, but that was never the intent. A meaningless, but nevertheless grand display of solidarity was. If that made the lives of millions of local Tamils miserable for a day, well, that’s a small price to pay. Particularly when the senior most leaders paid none at all.

We the people follow our wise leaders, as all obedient people should. For they are all, all wise men.

Deepavali was once a festival of lights, until the Chinese invented firecrackers. Even with firecrackers, Deepavali used to be healthy fun. But, when the country’s population triples over all and quadruples in major cities, when disposable income has grown steadily in real terms and when imports bring in firecrackers far more explosive than any seen or heard earlier, healthy fun turns into a horrifying mix of intolerable noise and suffocating smoke. The very young are terrified, the very old distressed. Animals cower in fear and those that have to fend for themselves go hungry. Public roads become private fire-grounds and overflowing drains are clogged by millions of bits of paper.

But, how can we deny Mahabali the wish that Lord Vishnu Himself had granted him? So we do it, year after deafening year – with all the consideration for our fellow citizens and beings that our wise leaders display.

Considering religion, gender, age and income levels, odds are that a minority of Indians are inflicting this pain annually on the majority, overwhelming majority counting Indian animals. Is this how we should celebrate the triumph of good over evil? Or, is it merely a case of omnium contra omnes?

Labels: India, Indian heritage, Indian politics

With long nights and longer nightmares fast approaching, this may not seem the time for daydreaming. Even less so when the nebulous dream's protagonist is Senator McCain. But then, isn't a realistic daydream an oxymoronic waste of time?

Senator McCain recently pulled his campaign staff out of Michigan. RealClearPolitics’ poll of polls shows that he trails Senator Obama by just over 10 percentage points there. The recently released New York Times-CBS News poll shows him trailing Senator Obama by 14% nationwide, against the RCP poll’s 8.2%.

It may be unseemly and premature for Senator McCain formally to concede the presidential race at this stage, the consequences for future Republican candidates would be severe. And, the Grand Old Party certainly does not deserve to become the Capitulate And Run Party.

Nevertheless, I dream of him calling off his campaign, returning his unspent federal funds as his symbolic contribution toward shrinking the ballooning deficit and announcing in a national address that he will work with Senator Obama and his party colleagues in Congress in putting the country first.

It seems almost a certainty that Senator Obama will be the next president, one with an almost unassailable majority in Congress. That majority is likely to be far more left-leaning than any congressional majority in recent memory. There is a clear and present danger in that. Senator Obama’s apparent tendency toward sensible economic policies, even when the stimulus of a large deficit is warranted, could well be overwhelmed by Speaker Pelosi’s strong leftward lurch.

However vociferous the Republican opposition may be to such pulls, it is unlikely to be effective and will sound like the whines of sour-grape losers.

McCain, given his earlier well deserved reputation and stature, is in a strong position to convert a partisan donnybrook into a laudable, bipartisan “Country First” effort. In fact, no one else can come close.

In return for abandoning his incredibly ill conceived tax plans, he could help ensure that all incentives for wealth creation aren’t wiped out by a vengeful Congress. In return for completely abandoning the fundamentalist fringe of the Republican party, he could assist in pulling the Democrats away from their irresponsibly populist fringe, if populist is the right term for it. He could permanently banish Appallin Palin to political oblivion and work on the sensible energy and environmental policies that America and the world need with desperate urgency. He could work to convince his party colleagues that unless America works hard at educating and training tomorrow’s workforce, so they can be more productive and value-effective than those of all other countries, both the relative and absolute declines in the real wages of blue-collar and service workers cannot be arrested. He could even join the president in convincing the world that few Americans are as innately bellicose as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. He may even be helpful in convincing the world that American exceptionalism is at best a ridiculous notion, not a defensible doctrine.

There is just so much he could do, if only he were to choose to do so. I strongly suspect that he will find a willing and highly capable collaborator in another losing senator, Hillary Clinton. Imagine Obama, Biden, McCain and Clinton working together in serving the country.

Oh well, a recumbent retiree can dream, can’t he?

Labels: Barak Obama, McCain, US Elections

I wrote this in November 2004. Somehow, it doesn't seem to have aged much. This time however, I feel pretty confident that the Blue candidate will win.

Pundits without Purple Patches

Events that others handle with elegant ease often leave me confused and befuddled. What they see with crystalline clarity, is as clear as mud to me. It must be due to some combination of chronic intellectual myopia and accelerating visual presbyopia. This irritating condition is rendered more so by elections.

I had been left totally muddled by Indian elections over the past couple of years, despite perspicacious punditry. I consoled myself saying that this is India and befuddlement is the norm, except among pundits. Now, it’s America’s turn. During the months leading up to the elections, the pundits said that the key issues were jobs, the economy, Iraq, America’s standing in the world, terrorism, healthcare, Social Security, incompetence, inconsistency, etc. Poll projections did their yo-yo swings – hardly conducive to clarity. But, one thing was clear, it looked like 2000 all over again.

The pundits came up with a tidy device to aid people like me, a map with each state brightly coloured red or blue depending on the candidate who was going to capture its electoral votes. I was duly impressed by their prescience and ingenuity, Madame Montessori would have approved. Understandably, they could not colour all the states, some were “just too close to call”. Nevertheless, major steps had been taken toward clarity.

I was up with the roosters that Wednesday to watch the results and be elucidated by pundits on why the electorate voted the way it did and what the results would portend for the nation and the world. The Red-Blue map, with a few intervening white blocks, appeared on TV along with the pundits and all was well. The numbers flowed in viscously and the pundits were pleased to reconfirm their earlier colouring.

Chadless Florida punched Red, Pennsylvania went Blue, leaving Ohio to settle matters. Ohio wouldn’t oblige, but Kerry wisely did. The colouring could now be completed, though corny Iowa had to wait. The pundits were alarmed. There were contiguous patches of blue along the entire West Coast, the northeastern coast (the pundits’ East Coast starts at Washington D.C.!) and around the Great Lakes. The rest of America had gone homogeneously Red. The nation had been irreparably “cleaved”. I was lost.

The pundits weren’t. They said that “moral values” had been the deciding issue that cleaved these formerly united states into a gigantic red blob of bible thumping bubba states in the middle and a blue rim of enlightened liberal states. I didn’t get it. “Moral values” hadn’t been mentioned as a major election issue up to that moment. Do people get “values” while they are standing in line to vote? What about all the other issues? What did I miss and when?

I attacked my laptop in search of answers. All the data that I gathered just left me more befuddled. What the pundits viewed with chromatographic clarity, I saw as dichromatic diffusion. Except for the District of Columbia, which had cast over 90% of its votes for Mr. Blue, all the states looked decidedly purple to me. As I see it, very minor swings would have dramatically changed that Montessori map.

Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington – are constituents of “the rim”. If a total of just 283,000 voters in these states – representing less than 1.8% of the votes cast there and 0.25% of nationwide votes – had voted Red instead of Blue, “the cleavage” would have shriveled. Mr. Red would have won 349 electoral votes to Mr. Blue’s 189 and the pundits would have declared a Red landslide, with negligible change in the total popular vote.

Did the Reds really find Mr. Blue’s values abhorrent? More voters in blood-red Texas voted for him than in all of New England. Conversely, Mr. Red received about as many votes in presumably libertine California as he did in the red blob stretching south from Montana and North Dakota to Nevada in the west and Kansas in the Midwest. These nine states gave Mr. Red 46 electoral votes, California gave him none. So, is California all Blue? Is Texas all Red? Both look purple to me, much like the rest of the nation.

To me, Mr. Kerry seems nowhere near as unpopular as the pundits imply he is. In fact, millions more voted for him than sent Mr. Clinton to his first term as President. Further, the Reds elected 85 Democrats as senators, congressman and governors. If I were truly concerned about America being split into “Two Nations Under God”, I would point out to Mr. Bush that 48.5% of voters, residing nationwide, preferred the Blue views and values. I would caution him not to be sanguine about a mandate from a sanguine blob of a country. But then, I am just a befuddled bystander. What do I know?

There has been a great deal of furor in India over the acquisition of agricultural land for industrial development. All agree that it needs to be done and insist that farmers must be adequately compensated, none specify what that means. The state of West Bengal purchased 1,000 acres from over 13,000 farmers in 2006 at over Rs 1,000,000 per acre for the Tata car project. There have been numerous reports suggesting that this compensation is inadequate. The table below should allow readers to judge for themselves. The data here are about five years old. Since then the prices of agricultural products and inputs have increased dramatically. Doubling the annual cash flow shown below may reflect current conditions more accurately. The annual interest on a long-term deposit of Rs 1,000,000 is Rs 95,000 at current rates. Further, Tata has offered to employ the ‘dispossessed’ farmers. Wages from day-labour constitute a substantial part of the income of most Indian farmers (equal to income from farming in WB). This income is not shown below, since it will be a small fraction of what Tata is likely to pay, excluding benefits.

When the total return from owning and operating an asset is less than that from merely providing an equivalent amount of labour, the economic value of the asset becomes negative. This is the tragedy of agriculture in India, caused to a large extent by the inexorable shrinking of farm sizes.

Farming Household Income: Operational Holding Class - 0.4 to 1.0 Hectares
(Rupees per annum)	India	Punjab	UP	WB	TN
Average Size: All Rural Holdings	0.718	0.918	0.643	0.302	0.313
Average Size: Within Holding Class1	0.734	0.703	0.722	0.715	0.744
Cultivation:
Value of Output
Main Products	12,563	29,715	15,543	19,184	11,110
Byproducts	1,096	1,880	1,553	1,215	680
Total Value2	13,659	31,595	17,096	20,399	11,790
Expenses
Seeds	924	851	1,419	1,245	1,155
Pesticides, etc.	350	1,324	247	681	495
Fertilizer & Manure	1,414	2,156	2,080	2,263	1,420
Irrigation	741	1,406	1,614	1,306	483
Hired Labour	1,315	1,812	1,002	3,539	2,075
Other	1,177	3,132	1,806	1,461	1,163
Total Expenses2	5,921	10,681	8,168	10,495	6,791
Income from Cultivation	7,738	20,914	8,928	9,904	4,999
Expenditure on Farming Assets	1,920	7,308	1,944	792	2,484
Annual Cash Flow from Cultivation	5,818	13,606	6,984	9,112	2,515
Farm Animals:
Receipts2	7,116	26,604	8,244	3,708	5,808
Expenses2	6,012	23,772	7,608	2,784	4,476
Income from Farm Animals	1,104	2,832	636	924	1,332
Annual Cash Flow from Cultivation and Farm Animals	6,922	16,438	7,620	10,036	3,847
Implied Annual Cash Flow per Acre	3,819	9,463	4,274	5,684	2,093
1. Holding class for average size is 0.5 - 1.0 hectares. Hectare = 2.471 acres. Average size for all rural holdings reflects households with zero holding. UP = Uttar Pradesh, WB = West Bengal, TN = Tamil Nadu (no glacier-fed rivers).
2. Value includes imputed value of output consumed by the household. So do farming expenses.
Source: NSSO reports 492 (Jan-Dec 2003) & 497 (July 2002 – June 2003), available online.

Labels: Agricultural land, Indian Agriculture, Singur

As I write this on July 28, India is justifiably enraged over the terrorist acts that killed fifty people in Bangalore and Ahmedabad. TV news channels have filled endless hours broadcasting pictures of the affected sites. Thirty-something anchors criticized our “bungling” security forces and so contorted their faces in anger that Amrish Puri would have been pleased. Political leaders have condemned, yet again, these acts of cowardice and vowed, yet again, that such acts will never crack India’s unity, even as unseen millions were quietly blaming an entire community for the acts of an abhorrent few. Talk shows were filled with clueless panelists airing ill informed opinions (what makes these channels think that a glamorous visage makes up for the total absence of relevant expertise?).

Yet, during the four days since the bombs first exploded serially in Bangalore, over ten thousand children have been killed. In India. After weeks of excruciatingly painful suffering. Unnoticed. Unreported. Unattended.

A posting on the UNICEF web site, dated July 17, says: The world cannot continue with business as usual …. children die before their fifth birthday from easily preventable and readily treatable causes …. What is baffling is that a vast majority of these deaths could be easily averted. ….. in India alone more than 1 million child lives could be saved from scaling up known and proven cost effective interventions …. Simple measures like exclusive breastfeeding for six months can prevent child deaths by a good 16%. It is believed that other easy measures could prevent 90% of diarrhea deaths, 62% of pneumonia deaths, 100% measles deaths, 92% malaria deaths, 44% HIV/AIDS deaths and 52% neonatal fatalities.

This has been known for years. So, we cannot blame just the current set of governments. Various organizations - the Indian Academy of Pediatrics, UNICEF, USAID, ICICI, the Gates Foundation and NGOs like Siru Thuli and the Naandi Foundation - have attempted to highlight this serious national issue and have spent considerable time, effort and money on it. Yet, the numbers keep increasing year after year.

Compare these deaths with those highly publicised deaths of the past few days. In one case, a person standing near a fruit vendor is hit by shrapnel from a bomb and dies instantaneously, with no prolonged suffering. In the other, a child suffers through weeks of debilitating and unbearably painful diarrhea, flesh and muscle shrinking down to the bone, as the poverty and sorrow stricken mother and siblings writhe in helpless horror. No one outside their village hears of the death, no one else mourns. No prime minister comforts them. No groomed, self-appointed conscience of the nation wails on TV. No promises are made, no steps taken. No column-inches are wasted.

Who are the culprits in search of whom we should launch a nationwide manhunt? Under which legal statute? Should we charge them with culpable mass homicide not amounting to murder? If there is no such crime in our penal code, why not? What crime do we charge ourselves with? When one hundred rupees or less can save a child’s life, should we be charged with mute complicity?

Our minister for Women and Child Welfare wants a defamation suit to be filed against the UP state government in the Arushi Talwar case. What suit should we file against her? Or, against the health minister?

There was a great national furor a couple of years ago when traces of pesticides were found in bottles of Pepsi. The head of the institute that tested those drinks has since become a major public figure. I wrote to her then and suggested that she turn her attention away from bottled drinks to the water that over 95% of Indians drink. I received a reply thanking me for the suggestion and saying that they would consider it when their then current slate of projects was completed. I had also suggested that her institute test the piped water in our cities and widely publicize the results. I have yet to see any such results publicized.

With good reason. There is no such thing as truly safe piped water (or well, lake, or river water) in India. Do you recall those televised bundles of currency? They were far outnumbered by bottles of safe drinking water. Tap water isn’t safe even in the Lok Sabha. Shame, shame! Contaminated water is the main cause of all the illnesses that rob our children of their lives.

The Indian Constitution says, under the Directive Principles of State Policy, (39) Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State – “… (f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner ……”.

We are giving our children the opportunity to die young, painfully.

Labels: child mortality, India, water

If that sounds like a prolonged ohhhhh, that’s because that is how the response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Central Educational Institutions (CEI) Act of 2006 sounded to me. Everyone is either upset by the ruling, or with those who are. TV news channels added to the furor, with talk-shows belching out a miasma of vituperation and acrimony. There was no contribution to an informed debate, not even from the print media. All the discussions were centered around the IITs, the IIMs and AIIMS. These institutions admit fewer that 5,500 students a year, with AIIMS admitting fewer than fifty into their undergraduate programme. We need a national law, sanctified by a supreme court ruling, for 1,500 youngsters? No, the Act covers all CEIs. Twenty NITs are CEIs (another 9,000 seats) and institutions such as the IISc, JNU, etc. are as well, but I can’t find a definitive list, with data on number of entrants, enrollment, etc. So, what number should I multiply by 0.27? Is it closer to 20k, 200k or 2 meg? No one seems to know, but everyone has a strong opinion on the Act! Our governments and the court haven’t helped – after over five decades of discussion (the Kalelkar and Mandal reports were submitted in 1955 and 1980 respectively), no one has laid out the facts and made a case, either way. The fundamental argument is that we Indians discriminate on the basis of caste and that such discrimination leads to the weaker castes being denied their rightful opportunities. Most of us would shamefacedly concede the first point and add creed and complexion. We must also concede the second point as far as SCs and STs are concerned, there are just too many horrific incidents to refute it. The argument on OBCs is murky, however. Most of us don’t even know precisely who they are, but they account for over a third of us, made up of well over a thousand castes. These castes and their prevalence vary widely across our states (see table), suggesting that the issue is better addressed at the state level. What is least clear is the extent of discrimination against them and the impact of such discrimination. The Act presupposes that they are denied their rightful place in society and that granting them reserved seats in CEIs will provide redress. Since CEIs come directly under the HRD ministry, is the government confessing that highly educated government employees discriminate on the basis of caste and that it needs an Act to act?

Table Legend:
Col. 2 - Other backward castes as % state's rural population.
Col. 3 - Monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) of rural OBC households, rupees
Col. 4 - Col. 3 as % of corresponding average for rural India.
Col. 5 - Average MPCE of all rural households in state, all castes, rupees.
Col. 6 - OBC MPCE as % MPCE of all castes
Col. 7 - % of state's rural and urban adult population with degrees.

State	Col. 2	Col. 3	Col. 4	Col. 5	Col. 6	Col. 7
AP	45.4	439	92.6	454	96.7	4.8
Assam	18.7	436	92.0	426	102.3	3.1
Bihar	51.4	385	81.2	384	100.3	3.3
Gujarat	32.5	530	111.8	551	96.2	6.1
Haryana	25.3	641	135.2	714	89.8	7.1
Karnataka	39.2	507	107.0	500	101.4	5.5
Kerala	51.1	724	152.7	766	94.5	5.8
MP	41.5	418	88.1	401	104.2	5.4
Maharashtra	30.3	490	103.4	497	98.6	7.3
Orissa	31.6	395	83.3	373	105.6	4.3
Punjab	14.7	652	137.6	742	87.9	6.5
Rajasthan	36.3	560	118.1	549	102.0	4.4
Tamil Nadu	63.1	548	115.6	514	106.6	6.6
UP	44.8	442	93.2	466	94.8	5.2
WB	6.8	516	108.9	454	113.7	5.8
India Rural OBC	37.5	474	100.0	486	97.5
India Urban OBC	30.4	735		855	86.0
India OBC	35.7	530		579	91.5

Note: Source – National Sample Survey Organisation reports. MPCE = Monthly per capita expenditure

All data, except those in the bottom two rows and the last column, pertain to rural populations only.

The accompanying table sheds some dim light on the topic. It shows that the disparity in income across states (81% - 157%) is far greater than that between each state’s OBC average and overall average (88% - 114%). It also shows that there is no correlation between each state’s OBC percentage and either its MPCE or its percentage of people with degrees. Other NSSO data show that across both rural and urban India, the distribution of OBCs by MPCE class is clearly skewed more toward the poorer end as compared to non-backward castes, but not relative to the total rural and urban populations; this is less true within each state. The middle third of any of population will obviously be poorer than the richest third, perhaps this is all the data reflect. All of this suggests that being an OBC may not, ipso facto, be an insurmountable bar to college admissions. The table also suggests (confirmed by statistical tests) that the correlation between average income and degrees is higher. Other NSSO data show that the variation across states in the percentage of households with MPCE great than Rs 1,155 explains a major part of the variation in the percentage of adults with degrees. I have no access to the data required to study these issues in greater detail.

The government and its commissions do, can test all relevant hypotheses and act on the basis of knowledge. The NSSO is exceptionally well equipped to gather the data and conduct the analysis. All the government needs to do is ask. Oh, that would leave no room for political posturing. Stupid me!

Our governments could also have promoted schemes to eliminate entirely the need for reservations. Let me suggest one.

Render Reservations Redundant

The population of 21 and 22-year-olds in India is about 50 million. Yet, the annual number graduating with professional degrees is less than 1% of this. Industry leaders say that over half the 215,000 engineering graduates we produce each year are not employable as engineers. This not because the brightest 1% of our youngsters are dumb. It is because our educational system stinks. If Mr. Arjun Singh would spend his time visiting rural, municipal and corporation schools across the country, he would learn where the problem lies. Our fundamental problem is that hundreds of thousands of children who are not only bright to enough to enter the best institutions on merit alone, but do exceptionally well there, are waylaid by poverty well before they get that far. My father was one such child.

The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme instituted by the central government makes an excellent start. However, it is aimed at quantity and lacks tests of quality. Odds are that most of the funds will slide into unintended pockets. Yet, the programme can provide an excellent base.

The government must first institute tests for quality. Rigorous, standardized national tests must be developed for children completing classes V and VIII. The intent is not to test the children per se, but the schools and the performance of the programme. Based on the results of these tests, states where children have not attained specified educational levels must be taken to task and risk loss of funding.

A new programme, within SSA, called Uttama Shiksha Abhiyan (USA) should be instituted. An educational trust should be established in each state (eligible for deductible donations). Funding for these trusts should come from the centre, the states and private industry – perhaps in a 55-35-10 split. People employed by these trusts ought not to be considered “government” employees. To attract and retain high quality faculty, they must be paid slightly more than their counterparts in the better private schools. In return, they must be held accountable.

The primary object of the USA trusts would be to ensure that the brightest 2% of children from poor and lower middle-income households are provided the best possible education and do not become flowers born to blush unseen, wasting their sweetness in the desert air, to paraphrase Thomas Gray.

USA would build approximately one school per taluk, with a hostel and quarters for some faculty members. These schools shall admit children who have completed Class V and educate them through Class XII. The curriculum from Class X to XII should be on par with the CBSE curriculum and the quality of the teachers, facilities and education must be comparable with those of the country’s better private schools. These schools must be coeducational, with girls representing slightly over 50% of the students. I would suggest that the medium of instruction should move toward being entirely English in Classes X – XII. The student-to-teacher ratio must be well below the Indian norm, especially in Classes VI – VIII.

Admission to these schools ought to be based solely on: performance in the above mentioned Class V tests, annual family income being under Rs 120,000. An overwhelming majority of these children will therefore be from the disadvantaged classes. Annual fees for day-scholars should be set at Rs 3,000 and hostel accommodation should be provided, at an additional Rs 3,000 a year, to children who are from environments inimical to proper development or for whom the daily commute would be infeasible. Free transportation to and from the school should be provided. Donations should be solicited, in India and abroad, to fund need based scholarships.

Cost

I am aware of two wonderful charitable institutions providing free education to poor children. One is run by the George Foundation, founded and funded by Dr. Abraham George, an Indian-American. He is attempting to prove that children from dirt-poor families can compete with the best in the world if they are given proper care and education. His foundation admits selected children at the LKG level and provides free housing and education for them through to Class XII. Their school is comparable to the best schools in developed countries and its annual operating costs are about Rs 40,000 per child. The other programme is run by AIM for Seva, a trust established by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. This trust runs multiple schools providing good education to children from poor families. Their annual cost per resident child is Rs 15,000. Based on these data points and scale economies, it should be possible for USA to provide excellent education at Rs 24,000 ($600) per resident child and Rs 15,000 per day-scholar.

The nationwide annual intake would probably be around 400,000 children. The annual cost per batch of children, net of fees and donations, should be under Rs 600 crores ($150 million). The Centre’s share of this would be under Rs 330 cores, about 1.5% of the 2007-08 budget for education. This is a manageable, but not insignificant cost. We can choose to tackle the issue head-on and bear the necessary cost, or mollify ourselves with meaningless gestures.

Rewards

After seven years of operation, the system will produce 400,000 children a year, predominantly from the disadvantaged classes, who will be able to compete with their cohorts from anywhere in the world. Our USA children will be able to beat children from the USA; with neither reservation nor stigma, they will compete on merit alone. They will be the pride of our nation.