Steps to Strengthen Panchayat Raj System

As ‘Panchayats’ is a State subject, the Panchayati Raj system is primarily the responsibility of the States. The Ministry of Panchayat Raj supports strengthening of Panchayats through its various schemes. It operates the Backward Regions Grants Fund (BRGF) in some identified backward districts of the country. Under the Scheme, untied funds are given for meeting critical gaps in local infrastructure and other development requirements. BRGF also aims to strengthen Panchayats through its capacity building component. Under the Scheme of Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Yojana (RGSY) financial assistance is provided to the non BRGF districts for capacity building and construction of Panchayat Ghars. The e-Panchayat scheme strengthens Panchayats by e-enabling. Panchayat Mahila Evam Yuva Shakti Abhiyan (PMEYSA) focuses especially on Elected Women Representatives. The Ministry also rewards States which devolve powers to the Panchayats to encourage State Governments to strengthen Panchayats.

Schemes for Welfare of Overseas Indians

The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs has initiated various schemes for welfare of Overseas Indians:

I. Indian Community Welfare Fund (ICWF)

The ‘Indian Community Welfare Fund’ (ICWF) provides contingency expenditure incurred by the Indian Missions for carrying out welfare activities for Overseas Indian Citizens who are in distress. The ICWF scheme has the following objectives:

(i)     Boarding and lodging for distressed Overseas Indian workers in Household / domestic sectors and unskilled labourers;

(ii)   Extending emergency medical care to the Overseas Indians in need;

(iii) Providing air passage to stranded Overseas Indians in need;

(iv) Providing initial legal assistance to the Overseas Indians in deserving cases;

(v)   Expenditure on incidentals and for airlifting the mortal remains to India or local cremation/burial of the deceased Overseas Indians in such cases where the sponsor is unable or unwilling to do so as per the contract and the family is unable to meet the cost;

(vi) Providing the payment of penalties in respect of Indian nationals for illegal stay in the host country where prima facie the worker is not at fault;

(vii)           Providing the payment of small fines/penalties for the release of Indian nationals in jail/detention centre;

(viii)         Providing support to local Overseas Indian Associations to establish Overseas Indian Community Centres in countries that have population of Overseas Indians exceeding 1,00,000; and

(ix) Providing support to start and run Overseas Indian Community-based student welfare centres in Countries that have more than 20,000 Indian student’s presence.

Up to June 2012, around 36 crores has been spent to benefit over 27,000 Overseas Indians in distress.

II. Mahatma Gandhi Pravasi Suraksha Yojana (MGPSY)

The Government has launched Mahatma Gandhi Pravasi Suraksha Yojana (MGPSY) on 01.05.2012 on a pilot basis. The objective of MGPSY is to encourage and enable overseas Indian workers having Emigration Check Required (ECR) passports going to ECR countries, to (a) save for their return and resettlement and (b) save for their pension. They are also provided Life Insurance cover against natural death, during the period of coverage, without any additional payment by them.

The Government also contributes, for a period of five years, or till the return of workers to India, whichever is earlier, as under:

·         Rs.1,000 per subscriber who saves between Rs.l,000 and Rs.12,000 per annum in their National Pension Scheme(NPS)-Lite account;

·         An additional contribution of Rs.1,000 per annum for overseas Indian women workers who save between Rs.1,000 and Rs.12,000 per annum in National Pension Scheme(NPS)-Lite account;

·         An annual contribution of Rs.900 per annum per subscriber who saves at least Rs.4000 per annum towards Return and Resettlement fund;

·         Rs.100/- for life insurance cover of Rs.30,000 per year against natural death and Rs.75,000 against death by accident through the Janshree Bima Yojana of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).

There is an integrated enrolment process for the subscribers who will be issued a unique MGPSY account number upon enrolment. On their return to India, the subscriber can withdraw the Return and Resettlement savings as a lump sum. However, the subscriber would be able to continue savings for their old age in the NPS-Lite in line with the Swavalamban scheme. Alternatively subscriber can withdraw pension corpus as per the guidelines prescribed by the Pension Fund Regulatory Development Authority (PFRDA).

III. Pravasi Bhartiya Bima Yojana (PBBY)

The Pravasi Bharatiya Bima Yojana is a compulsory insurance scheme for overseas Indian workers having Emigration Check Required (ECR) passport going to ECR countries. The premium along with other benefits effective from April 1, 2008 are detailed below:

Item	PBBY 2008
Maximum sum for which insured under the PBBY	Rs.10 lakh
Hospitalization (Medical Expenses) covering injuries / sickness / ailment / diseases	Rs.75,000
Repatriation covers for medically unfit	Actual one-way economy class air fare
Family Hospitalisation in India	Rs.50,000
Maternity	Rs.25,000
Attendant	Actual one way economy class air fare
Legal expenses	Rs.30,000
Actual Premium to be charged (without any hidden costs)	Rs.275 for 2 years policy period Rs.375 for 3 years policy period (+ taxes)

IV. Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card Scheme

The Scheme was introduced in 2006 by amending the Citizenship Act. A registered OCI is granted multiple entry, multi-purpose, life long visa for visiting India and is exempted from registration with FRRO for any length of stay in India. OCI Fee- is $ 275 or equivalent in local currency. In case of PIO card holders, it is $ 25 or equivalent in local currency.

11,02,570 PIOs have been registered as OCIs as on 09.11.2012.

V. Know India Programme (KIP)

Know India Programme (KIP) of the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA) is a three-week orientation programme for Diaspora youths (between the age of 18-26 years) of Indian origin conducted in partnership with one State Government with a view to introduce India to them and promote awareness on different facets of Indian life and the progress made by the country in various fields e.g. economic, industrial, education, science & technology, communication & information technology and culture.

This programme provides a unique forum for students and young professional of Indian origin to visit India, share their views and to bond closely with contemporary India. After end of KIP, Indian Diaspora Youths become Youth Ambassadors of art, culture, heritage and positive image of India.

Twenty one editions of such programmes have been organized having participations of 659 PIO youths from more than 36 countries.

VI. Study India Programme (SIP)

First ‘Study India Programme’ (SIP) was launched for the first time from 25.09.2012 to 23.10.2012 in Symbiosis University, Pune, Maharashtra with participation of 9 youths of Indian origin from four countries like Trinidad & Tobago, Malaysia, Fiji and South Africa. Like KIP, SIP has immense potential of connecting youth Indian Diaspora with India through the channel of educational institutions. SIP will be held twice a year for a period of 4 weeks involving maximum 40 diaspora youths in the age-group of 18-26 years.

It will enable overseas Indian youth to undergo short term course in an Indian University to familiarize them with the history, heritage, art, culture, socio-political, economic developments etc. of India.

The focus of the programme is on academic orientation and research. Cost of boarding, lodging, local transportation & course fee during the programme to be borne by GOI. 50% of the cost of air-ticket by economy class would be borne by GOI. Gratis Visas by Indian Mission are granted to the participants. SIP will be organized twice a year.

VII. Scholarship Programme For Diaspora Children (SPDC)

Scheme launched by MOIA in 2006-07 to make higher education in India accessible to the children of overseas Indians and promote India as a centre for higher studies.

Under the scheme, 100 scholarships up to US $4000/- per course per annum are offered to PIO and NRI students (50 each) for undergraduate courses in Engineering, Science, Law, Management, etc. The scheme is open to NRIs/PIOs from 40 countries with substantial Indian Diaspora population.

Under this scheme, over 468 PIO/NRI students have benefited since inception & 100 students have been selected in the current batch.

VIII. Overseas Indian Youth Club (OIYC)

MOIA has also launched a new scheme named ‘Overseas Indian Youth Club’ through our Missions abroad. Purpose is to keep the overseas Indian youth in touch with the developments in India & create a sense of belongingness towards their Country of origin.

In order to continue the momentum of affinity and networking of the Diaspora youth with their ancestral motherland, MOIA has supported opening of Overseas Indian Youth Club (OIYC) in CGI Durban, South Africa, HCI Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, HCI Colombo, Sri Lanka, HCI Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago and HCI Port Louis, Mauritius. Similarly, opening of OIYC is making headway in CGI Melbourne, Australia and HCI Singapore.

IX. Tracing the Roots

Tracing the Roots Scheme has been launched by MOIA in October 2008. Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) desirous of tracing their roots in India may fill up the prescribed application form enclosing relevant information/documents available with them and deposit it with the concerned Indian Mission located in that country along with a fee of Rs.30,000/-. In case the attempt is not successful, the Indian Mission is authorized to refund Rs 20,000/- to the applicant.

Based on the details furnished by the applicant, MOIA entrusts the job of tracing the roots to an agency empanelled with it who in turn may take the help of the concerned State Govt./District Admn. etc. to successfully complete the job.

The traced details of roots in India, i.e. name of close surviving relative(s); place of origin of their forefathers (paternal and maternal side); and a possible family tree, are made available to the applicant. 

X. Scheme for Legal/Financial Assistance to Indian Women Deserted / Divorced By Their NRI Husbands

The scheme is for providing legal/financial assistance to the Indian woman who have been deserted by their overseas Indian / foreigner husbands or are facing divorce proceedings in a foreign country.

This assistance will be limited to US$ 3000 per case for developed countries and US$ 2000 per case for developing countries and will be released to the empanelled legal counsel of the applicant or Indian Community Association / Women`s organization / NGO concerned to enable it to take steps to assist the woman in documentation and preparatory work for filing the case.

Assistance will be provided to meet the legal and other costs, by the Heads of Indian Missions/Posts overseas directly to the applicant`s legal counsel empanelled with the concerned Indian Mission/Post, or through the Indian Community Associations / Women`s organizations / NGOs acting on the woman`s behalf in an overseas legal institution.

Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing

Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) is a new international treaty adopted under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan in October, 2010, after six years of intense negotiations. As a megadiverse country rich in biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge, and with a rapidly advancing biotechnology industry, India has contributed effectively in ABS negotiations. The objective of the Nagoya Protocol is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies. The Nagoya Protocol provides a transparent legal framework on how researchers and companies can obtain access to genetic resources, and how benefits arising from the use of such material or knowledge will be shared. India has signed the Nagoya Protocol on 11 May 2011 and ratified it on 09 October 2012. The number of signatories to the Protocol is 92, and so far nine countries have ratified the Protocol. These are Seychelles, Rwanda, Gabon, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mexico, India, Fiji and Ethiopia.

There have been several instances of misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge from the country, despite having taken necessary action at the national level. Once the Nagoya Protocol enters into force, the user country measures enshrined in it would oblige all Parties to provide that users of genetic resources within their jurisdiction respect the domestic regulatory framework of Parties from where genetic resources have been accessed, thereby addressing the concerns of misappropriation.

Quotes

“It is disgraceful to live at the cost of one's self-respect. Self-respect is the most vital factor in life. Without it, man is a cipher. To live worthily with self-respect, one has to overcome difficulties. It is out of hard and ceaseless struggle alone that one derives strength, confidence and recognition.

“Man is mortal. Everyone has to die some day or the other. But one must resolve to lay down one's life in enriching the noble ideals of self-respect and in bettering one's human life... Nothing is more disgraceful for a brave man than to live life devoid of self-respect.”

– B.R. Ambedkar

More brain, O Lord, more brain ! or we shall mar
Utterly this fair garden we might win."
– George Meredith

 “What we must do is not to content ourselves with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there is at the base of it, a social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items. They form a union in the sense that, to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.”  
-B.R. Ambedkar 

“When men are full of envy, they disparage everything whether it be good or bad.”  
-Tacitus  

Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

This law states that persons with disabilities have equal rights, and that the government should make possible their full participation in society. The government has to provide free education and integrate children with disabilities into mainstream schools. This law also states that all public places including buildings, schools, etc., should be accessible and provided with ramps.

In the context of Gandhiji's views on the matter explore, on an evolutionary sale, the term 'Swadhinata', 'Swaraj' and 'Dharmarajya'. Critically comment on their contemporary relevance to Indian democracy.

Swaraj

Like all other aspects of life, the political and social organisation of society in India is supposed to be governed by sanatana dharma. Society in the Indian conception is an organic formation composed of myriad groupings of people that emerge spontaneously around a locality, a profession, a kinship community, or a religious faith. These groupings work according to dharma that inheres in them. The king or the state in this conception is constituted to protect and preserve the dharma of these diverse groupings, to guarantee the harmonious functioning of these organic groupings of the society according to their own inherent laws. The state does not lay down the law; it only protects the law, the dharma, that is inborn to society, that already exits. It is the understanding of sanatana dharma that all aspects of creation have their inborn dharma, their inherent harmony and balance; the state that preserves this inborn dharma in all organs of society is what in Indian is known as swaraj.

Mahatma Gandhi while leading the struggle of the Indian people for independence from the British rule repeatedly emphasised that his ultimate aim was not merely the overthrow of alien rule, but the establishment of swaraj in India. Even before finally arriving in India in 1915 to plunge into the national struggle for freedom, he wrote a small but seminal book by the name of Hind Swaraj to set down his conception of swaraj and the means he proposed to employ to achieve it. Hind Swaraj was published in 1909 and has been reprinted several times since. Below, we shall have occasion to refer to several of the precepts of this book. But, for giving a glimpse of Mahatma Gandhi’s conception of swaraj, we turn to the beautiful and evocative picture of his dreamed polity of “oceanic circles” that he drew in 1946, when independence for India was just around the corner. Offering a “broad but comprehensive picture of the Independent India of [his] own conception” for the benefit of the Congressmen who “in general certainly [did] not know the kind of independence they want”, he wrote:

Independence of India should mean independence of the whole of India... Independence must mean that of the people of India, not of those who are today ruling over them. The rulers should depend on the will of those who are under their heels. Thus, they have to be the servants of the people, ready to do their will.

Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without. Thus, ultimately individual is the unit. This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be free and voluntary play of forces. Such a society is necessarily highly cultured in which every man and woman knows what he or she wants and, what is more, knows that no one should want anything that others cannot have with equal labour.

This society must naturally be based on truth and non-violence which, in my opinion, are not possible without a living belief in God, meaning a self-existent, all-knowing living Force which inheres every other force known to the world and which depends on none and which will live when all other forces may conceivably perish or cease to act. I am unable to account for my life without belief in this all-embracing living Light.

In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.

Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it. I may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought. If Euclid’s point, though incapable of being drawn by human agency, has an imperishable value, my picture has its own for mankind to live. Let India live for this true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something approaching it. If there ever is to be a republic of every village in India, then I claim verity for my picture in which the last is equal to the first or, in other words, no one is the first and none the last.

In this picture every religion has its full and equal place. We are all leaves of a majestic tree whose trunk cannot be shaken off its roots which are deep down in the bowels of the earth. The mightiest wind cannot move it.

Mahatma Gandhi was, as he admits, drawing a deliberately Utopian picture of a society of selfless men deeply seeped in the sanatana principle of seeing divine dignity and therefore equality in all creation. He wanted to place a high ideal before the soon to be independent India. But his vision of an India composed of “the oceanic circles” consisting of the individual and his self-sustained locality at the centre and expanding into ever widening circles to create larger and larger structures that draw their sustenance and legitimacy from the locality is by no means Utopian. There is evidence to show that Indian polity before the arrival of the British was in fact based on locality-republics that coalesced to create and provide for the regional and larger structures of the polity.

We happen to know in some detail about the functioning of about 2000 localities in the late eighteenth century in the region around Madras in south India. This region, referred to as the Jaghire in the early British records and later constituted as the Chengalpattu district, was one of the first parts of the country to come under British subjugation. Before setting up new administrative arrangements in the area, the British tried to investigate the structures that already existed there. The investigations involved an intensive survey of all aspects of life covering almost all localities of the region. The records of the survey, conducted between 1767 to 1774, are available both in the original Tamil accounts written on palm-leafs and in the English summaries prepared for the British administrators in India and their principals in London.

The polity described in these records is indeed like the “oceanic circles” polity of Mahatma Gandhi’s conception. The localities of the region functioned like autonomous republics that budgeted and provided for the administrative, military, economic, cultural and educational services for the locality and also for the larger polity of the region around it.

The main instrument of political and economic organisation in these localities comprised of an elaborate system of allocating shares in the produce of the locality for a variety of functions and beneficiaries. The survey records list about a hundred distinct services and institutions for which shares were taken out from the produce of different localities, and on an average, each of the localities took out shares for about thirty of these. The beneficiaries of such shares included cultural institutions and functionaries like temples, mathams and chatrams, scholars and teachers, musicians and dancers; economic services like irrigation and measurement of corn; and administrative services like registry and militia. Some of these institutions and services were entirely local; the village temple, or the barber and washerman, functioned for and received shares from a single locality or at most from a neighbouring group of two or three. Others like the great temples, the high scholars, the regional registrars, and the more important of the militia leaders functioned at a level that extended far beyond the locality. Several of these regional institutions and functionaries received shares from hundreds of localities in the region.

The shares that the various institutions and functionaries received were not merely nominal. On the average about 30 percent of the produce of a locality was taken out through such sharing. The shares of different services and institutions were such as would provide for their proper maintenance and upkeep. The arrangement was in fact akin to the budgeting mechanism of a state; through such sharing the locality allocated resources for different functions essential to it, as well as provided for the larger polity of the region around it. The locality within itself was thus indeed the state that arranged and provided for its internal cultural, political, economic and administrative functions. And, at levels of polity beyond itself, the locality was not only the basic constituent unit, but also the constituting authority. By setting aside shares for the trans-locality institutions and services, the localities together provided for and created the larger levels of polity. Such was the polity that had functioned in India from times immemorial. Mahatma Gandhi while presenting his vision of the “oceanic circles” polity in 1946 on the eve of independence was only reminding India of her own practices before the disruption caused by alien rule.

Besides the allocation of shares from the produce of the land discussed above, the Chengalpattu localities also practised another kind of sharing. This consisted in assignment of revenue from parts of the cultivated lands to essentially the same set of institutions and services that received shares in the produce. Such assignments, called manyams, were very common. Almost a quarter of the cultivated lands in the region was classified as manyam lands. But since about one-third of the produce of a locality was already taken out as shares of different institutions and functionaries, the fraction of the produce that the lands paid as revenue could not have been very significant. And therefore, unlike the share in the produce, this share in the revenue was probably of no great economic value to the recipient.

The manyam arrangements, it seems, were constituted to give effect to another important aspect of the polity. To have a share in the right to receive revenue is to share in sovereignty; and sharing of sovereignty amongst many is a cherished ideal of the classical Indian polity based on sanatana dharma. These arrangements of sharing the produce and the revenue in the Chengalpattu polity covered all institutions and all households, except those of the direct producers of wealth – the cultivators, the traders and the weavers. The producers of wealth, and especially the cultivators, of course, provided for themselves and for all others, and thus were sovereign in their own.

Such wide dispersal of sovereignty is natural and essential in a polity constructed on the principle of organic units and groupings functioning according to their inherent dharma. In such a polity every individual, every household, every locality and every other grouping of the people partakes of the sovereignty; every household and grouping has the sovereign right to decide what is right and what is wrong according to its own inborn laws. From this right to discriminate between right and wrong follows the duty to refuse to obey commands that are perceived to be wrong, are against the dharma of the group or household concerned – a duty from which Mahatma Gandhi derived his concept of satyagraha.

Dharmarjya
 
In Gandhi Smriti, Birla House, New Delhi and at several other places associated with the memory of Mahatma Gandhi there is displayed a talisman given by Gandhiji to his countrymen. It reads:

I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test:

Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you have seen and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it... Will it restore him to control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?

Then you will find your doubts and yourself melting away.

This striving to care for the last one, to create a polity that would take into account and provide for the “the poorest and the weakest”, formed the polestar of Mahatma Gandhi’s thought and action. He returned to it again and again, and he was willing to sacrifice almost everything else for this one aim. Swaraj for him meant nothing if it could not ensure that everyone unto the last was fed, clothed and housed in dignity. And, the first task of independent India for him was to quickly provide for the dignified fulfilment of the basic needs of everyone. Speaking to students from Santiniketan in April 7, 1947, barely months before the departure of the British from India, he said:

In the end I would only say that under swarjya efforts should be made for providing everyone at least with a square meal, enough clothing to cover himself and a house to live in. At present while some have utensils of gold and silver, others have not even pots of clay – some have garments of silk and brocade whereas others have not even enough clothing to cover their nakedness.

Mahatma Gandhi at that time was staying in a Bhangi colony, a habitation of scavengers. Towards the latter part of his life he more and more preferred to live amongst the poorest and the lowest. His insistence on caring for the deprived and the depressed was in some ways similar to the ideas of Tolstoy and Ruskin, and in general to the socialist ideal. But for him such caring was also part of the Indian tradition; it was the essence of Ramarajya, the reign of the ideal king, Sri Rama, which defines the ideal of good times for the Indians. And Ramarajya was, of course, dharmarajya, a reign based securely in the precepts of sanatana dharma.

For Mahatma Gandhi swarajya, dharmarajya and Ramarajya were synonymous. He used the three terms interchangeably, and the essence of all three for him was in securing peace and plenty for all, including the last person. Thus in 1936 we hear him praying that it may be given to the Maharaja of Mysore to approach more and more to Ramarajya in Mysore and emphasising that “in olden days, Ramarajya meant a government in which everyone in the country, including the lowest ryot, had peace and plenty.”

In defining Ramarajya as the era of peace and plenty for all, Mahatma Gandhi was closely following the classical Indian understanding. At the very beginning of Srimad Valmikiyaramayana, the great epic narrating the story of Sri Rama, Ramarajya is described as the age when:

There is happiness and cheer all around. All are contented. All are well-nourished. All follow dharma. All are in good health. All are without disease. And, all are free from fear and hunger.

Prahrishtamudito lokastushtah pushtah sudharmikah
niramayo hyarogasca durbhikshabhayavarjitah

And to ensure that all partake of such plenty and peace, the king is enjoined to take special care of the poor and the weak. In this context the Mahabharata advises the king thus:

Always arrange for the welfare and the livelihood of those who have no resources, those who have no one to look after them, those who are afflicted by old age, and those who have lost their husbands.

Wiping away tears from the faces of the destitute, the orphans and the old, and spreading cheer amongst all ...this is known as the dharma of the king.

Taking care of the destitute and the weak, the king in fact becomes the “the strength of the weak and the orphaned, the eyes of those who cannot see and the legs of those who cannot walk.” Such is the Ramarajya that Mahatma Gandhi was trying to revive.

While calling upon India to cherish and revive her tradition of caring for all and ensuring dignified plenty and peace for even the poorest and the weakest, Mahatma Gandhi repeatedly emphasised two further aspects of the Indian understanding of Ramarajya. First, that such taking care of the poor and the weak was not the responsibility of the king alone; all resourceful people in the society shared in the responsibility. In the verses quoted above and elsewhere in classical Indian literature, references to the king in such contexts obviously include all grahsthas, all responsible householders. Secondly, such caring for the Indians was not a matter of charity or personal benevolence; it was a matter of dharma, of proper behaviour according to the order of things. In an article in the Navajivan of March 22, 1931, Mahatma Gandhi offered a particularly succinct exposition of these two aspects of his conception of Ramarajya:

Satyagraha is an attempt to make the possible real. Truth implies justice. A just administration implies an era of truth or swaraj, dharmaraj, Ramarajya or the people’s raj (democracy). Under such a government the ruler would be the protector and friend of his subjects. Between his way of life and that of the poorest of his subjects, there would not be such a gulf as there is today. There would be an appropriate similarity between the king’s palace and the hut of his subject. The difference between the needs of the two would be slight. Both would enjoy pure air and water. The subjects would get sufficient food. The ruler would give up eating fifty-six different kinds of delicacies and be satisfied with only six. If the poor use utensils made of wood or mud, the ruler may well use utensils made of such metals as brass. For the ruler who wants to use utensils of gold and silver must be robbing his subjects. The poor should be able to obtain sufficient clothing. Let the king have more clothes, but let the difference be not such as to cause envy. The children of both should be studying in the same primary school. The ruler should become a senior member of the family of the poor. If he does anything for the good of the poor, he should not regard it as a favour that he has conferred upon them. Benevolence has no place in dharma. It is the dharma of the ruler to serve his subjects. What has been said in regard to the ruler applies to all wealthy persons; likewise it is the dharma of the poor not to bear malice towards the rich. ...

Early British records indicate that the kings of India indeed followed the ideal desired by Mahatma Gandhi above. They maintained a lifestyle similar to that of their subjects; their personal expenses were often rather frugal, while they spent liberally on feeding and otherwise caring for the needy. However, what is of particular relevance for our present purposes is Gandhiji’s assertion that such caring for the subjects arose not from benevolence, but dharma.

According to the Indian understanding, the universe is a great cycle of give and take between different aspects of creation. Whatever is earned or produced by man is in fact taken from other aspects of creation and it may rightfully be consumed only after returning the shares of all, only after propitiating and fulfilling all other parts of creation. Consuming for oneself without having thus propitiated others is indeed stealing. Brahman, the creator, while initiating this great cycle of the universe enjoins upon human beings to keep it moving through yajna, disciplined action that propitiates and fulfils all aspects of creation. The one who does not keep this cycle of mutual dependence – the dharma chakra, as it is often referred to – moving is a sinner immersed merely in the pleasures of the senses. The living of such a one is a waste.

The imperative of caring and providing for the poor and the weak flows from this essential understanding about the universe. The foregoing paragraph is a free paraphrase of verses 10-16 of the third chapter of Srimadbhagavad Gita, also known simply as the Gita. All classical Indian literature, the vedas, the upanishads, the itihasas and the puranas, present the same understanding of the universe in diverse ways and forms. The Gita’s exposition is however probably the simplest. It is therefore not surprising that Mahatma Gandhi used to persistently refer his listeners, and especially young students, to these verses of the Gita. Particularly during his visit to south India in August-September 1927, he took these verses of the Gita as the text of his speeches. During this visit, he spoke in several cities and towns, and almost everywhere he referred to these verses as forming the core of the Gita. Below, we quote from a speech he gave to the students of the Hindu High School at Madras on September 4, 1927:

Those of you who know Sanskrit should tomorrow, if possible today, buy the Gita – and I understand you can get the book for a very small price – and begin to study the book. Have private Gita classes for yourselves. Those of you who do not know Sanskrit should study Sanskrit only for the sake of the Gita. If you have not got that much facility, then you should read Gita written in English or Tamil, if there is a Tamil translation of it. I tell you that it contains treasures of knowledge of which you have no conception whatsoever. I suggest to you that at first you may begin to read the third chapter of the Gita. You will find there the gospel of selfless work expounded in a most convincing manner. Selfless work there is described characteristically by one beautiful word called yajna. If you will read the book with my eyes you will find charkha also described there. There is one passage which says that “He who eats without serving, without yajna, is a thief (III.12).”

The association of the charkha, the spinning wheel, with the wheel of creation, with the great cycle of mutual give and take described in theses verses of the Gita is indeed interesting. For Gandhiji believed that charkha by empowering the poorest and the weakest of the Indians would restore dharma, would set the cycle of give and take moving again.

It is not a mere coincidence that the Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, whom we have referred to earlier in the first section, reminded the Indians, on the day of Independence, of the same verses of the Gita, the same cycle of creation, that Mahatma Gandhi had made into his mantra for the attainment of swaraj. And the Paramacharya saw the cycle of creation, the Chakra of God, as he called it, reflected in the wheel of Ashoka that is placed in the centre of the Indian flag. In his blessings to the people of India on the 15th August 1947, the Paramacharya said:

On the occasion of our Bharath attaining Independence, all the people of this ancient land should pray to God with sincerity. ... It is praiseworthy that by good fortune our flag bears in its centre the Chakra of God who is himself Dharma incarnate. Also, the Chakra connects us with the tenets of emperor Ashoka known as Devanampriya. It also involves us with the spiritual precepts handed down to us by God Himself in the Bhagavad Gita. As Bhagwan has declared in the sixteenth sloka of the third chapter of the Gita, His words, ‘Evam pravarthitham chakram’, aptly shine today in the form of the wheel. ...Our independence which begins with the high ideals of emperor Ashoka, may grant us the rare fruits of dharma, wealth, happiness and salvation. ... Let us pray to God that our country may prosper, that famine is relieved, that the people may live in harmony...

The Ramarajya that Mahatma Gandhi struggled for and wanted to re-establish in India was based on such fundamental understanding of the universe and of the relations between its different aspects. In this understanding, which is also the foundation of sanatana dharma, all have a share in the creation, and all have a responsibility to ensure that no part of creation is deprived of its proper share, that ‘no one is forced to suffer from hunger and disease, or from the extremes of heat and cold’, as Apastamba Dharmasutra puts it. The imperative to care and provide for everyone covers within its fold not only all human beings, but also all animals, birds and ants.

Mahatma Gandhi saw in the Indian veneration for the cow a symbolic acceptance of this sanatana imperative to care and provide for all creation. In the article on the discipline of a sanatani Hindu that we have quoted in the first section, he explained the position of the cow in Hinduism thus:

The central fact of Hinduism however is cow-protection. Cow-protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond his species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man through the cow is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives. Why the cow was selected for apotheosis is obvious to me. The cow was in India the best companion. She was the giver of plenty. Not only did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible. The cow is a poem of pity. One reads pity in the gentle animal. She is a mother to millions of Indian mankind. Protection of the cow means protection of the whole dumb creation of God. The ancient seer, whoever he was, began with the cow. The appeal of the lower order of creation is all the more forcible because it is speechless. Cow-protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hinduism will live so long as there are Hindus to protect the cow.

The establishment of Ramarajya or Dharmarajya, where all – including what Mahatma Gandhi calls the “dumb creation of God” symbolised in the cow – are provided for and all receive their proper share in the universe remains an unfulfilled dream. In the world today, there are large numbers who have to go without sufficient food and clothing, and without a roof over their heads. Even in the materially wealthy parts of the world many are forced to roam the streets, begging for food and shelter and often failing to receive it. According to the Indian understanding such a situation is intolerable. This is the situation of yugakshaya, the end of times. It is only when the current cycle of creation is about to end, when the world has moved far away from the ideal of Ramarajya, that “people are reduced to the selling of food”, and even “those who seek are refused food, water and shelter and are thus seen lying around on the roads”.

The situation of India in this regard is perhaps worse than that of most other countries of the world. A considerable proportion of the Indian people today fail to get two square meals a day, a majority of the Indian children are malnourished, a preponderant majority of the pregnant women are anaemic. The availability of food per capita in India today is such that for many people death from starvation is barely kept off the door. The situation is almost equally bad in the matter of water, clothing and shelter.

Where men are barely fed animals can hardly fair better. In the land that proudly made the humble cow the symbol of her civilisation, and serving the cow a fundamental precept of her religion, there is today little food available for animals. As the men and children, so do the cows and calves, roam the streets of India in a state of hunger, thirst and sickness.

India has not followed the discipline of caring and providing for all that the sanatana dharma teaches her and that Mahatma Gandhi sought to revive. India in fifty years of her independence has not been able to take the first step towards Ramarajya, that of ensuring an abundance of food for all. This aspect of Mahatma Gandhi’s thought and work therefore remains urgently relevant.

India needs to recall the Talisman that Mahatma Gandhi gave her, begin thinking once again of the poorest and the weakest, and begin organising her polity and economy so as to fulfil the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter for all. India gave the ideal of Ramarajya to the world. It is primarily her responsibility to begin realising the ideal. But, the ideal is relevant for the whole world. When India reverts to the discipline and begins establishing Ramarajya for her people, she shall once again be able to teach the world that peace and plenty for all is the fundamental condition of existence, that the hunger of even one human being or any other creature destroys dharma, and thus the whole world. Therefore, if the world is to be, it must be a world based on the ideal of Ramarajya. Mahatma Gandhi certainly believed thus.

Is 'Public-Private-Partnerships' (PPP) model development boon or bane?

Public Private Partnerships (PPP) model of development is no alien concept to India. In the age of the Chola kings as well the state used to give tax concessions and land grants to those who got tanks and canals built. Closer to our times, the construction of Indian railways is a classic example of PPP in operation. Post Independence, given our explicit preference for the state led development, the PPP took a back seat for some time. However, after liberalization PPP is back with a new vigor. Thus in the 10th Five Year Plan nearly 21% of the expenditure on infrastructure came from the private sector, this climbed to 33% in the 11th Five Year Plan and in the 12th Plan it is expected to be about 50%.

Clearly our planners think that PPP is the way forward, so we must pause here and examine the rationale behind preferring it.

The biggest rationale, perhaps, in favor of PPP is that the government simply doesn’t have enough money. After all, still not a generation has passed when one had to wait for years to get a landline telephone connection. Just imagine, would we have been able to scale up our education, power, roads, ports and airports to meet the demands of a rapidly growing economy like ours? Reliance on public funds alone would have choked off our growth even before it could have taken off.

Another reason for preferring PPP is that the governments are slow and tend to work in silos. Thus a project is broken into many parts and every part is handled by different people / departments. They tend to work in vacuum unmindful of what is happening to the other part. But a project is a project and needs the success of all its parts for it to bear fruits. A good example here is the case of roadways. While road development is a part of the ‘plan expenditure’, road maintenance falls under ‘non-plan expenditure’ and is often neglected. But what is a road without maintenance! PPP overcomes this by treating the project as a single unit. So the operator itself is required to maintain the road in a good condition.

Finally, PPP is attractive because it is in alignment with the twin pillars of modern economic logic. These pillars are -
Everyone should only do what he is good at or in other words everyone should assume only the risk one specializes in; and
Governments must step in to correct the market failures.
PPP enables separation of jobs. Thus the job of the government is to provide land, help the project in meeting various regulatory requirements while the job of the private party is to build and operate. Moreover wherever the social good is more and private benefit is less (for instance a road connecting a village to the highway), the government can always correct the likely market failure by its Viability Gap Funding Scheme.

Despite these, many criticisms are levied against PPP. Perhaps the biggest among them is that it breeds corruption and rent seeking. If there is any truth in the CAG reports on coal, 2G, GMR or in the joint parliamentary committee report on CDSCO then indeed there appears to be a serious flaw in the model. However, a closer examination tells us that the flaw lies not in the model per se but in the method of implementation of the model. The alleged corruption happened in coal and 2G because of opaque processes and in GMR and CDSCO because of the weakness of the regulator. If we had transparent processes in coal and 2G and strong regulators in GMR and CDSCO cases then the corruption would never have happened. Moreover, by no means is corruption limited to PPP only. Should we also close down MGNREGS and NRHM because there have been reports of corruption? No, clearly no. We should instead find ways to tackle such corruption.

Another criticism levied against PPP is that often the ‘public purpose’ in the PPP is pushed to the background and private operators work simply to maximize their own profits. A case can be made out of the many ‘super profitable’ toll roads like the Jaipur – Kishangarh one and the KG gas basin project.

While this is a meritorious criticism, it must be emphasized that it is again specific to the implementation of the model. If the terms and conditions of the project clearly link the rewards to the private operator to certain well defined public good then such a situation will not arise. For instance, while auctioning the coal fields to power producers, we should award the coal to the party which will provide electricity at the lowest cost. There will be no contradiction between transparency and public good then.

Next a case is made out that in PPP mode there is information asymmetry. Because the operator is closest to the project, he can take the government for a ride. An example here is the KG basin project where now the wells are full of water. ‘Coincidently’ the operator is also demanding that the gas price be raised from $4.2 per mmBtu to $14 per mmBtu.

The government has appointed the Rangarajan committee for that. And one of its ToRs is to specifically look into ways to monitor the project more effectively. Perhaps making the initial terms and conditions of the project clearer and having more regular and better audits can help here.

Then some argue that the infrastructure projects require high end technology and have long gestation periods and hence are not suitable for private operators. While in the 50s and the 60s this argument could have held great merit, today our companies own some of the most sophisticated technologies and have finished some massive projects.

Finally before writing PPP off, one should think of what really is the alternative? Clearly a return to the public funding is ruled off due to the reasons mentioned earlier. Similarly total reliance on private markets would generate their own complications as well. There would be massive market failures – there would be no PURA, no electricity in our villages and who will teach our children? A good example of what can go wrong in private markets is the case of micro finance in Andhra Pradesh while that of what can be right with PPP is the case of self help group based finance in Assam. Here the state government assists these SHGs by providing easy credit from the Rajiv Gandhi Vikas Nidhi.

Thus what we need is transparency in procedures and strong, independent regulators. The functions of policy planning, implementation and regulation must be separated. It may also be a good idea to make these regulatory bodies report directly to the parliament. After all, isn’t the parliament the supreme regulatory body in our country? Then to check the information asymmetry problem, we need better terms and conditions and audits.

Science and Mysticism: Are They Compatible?

Without doubt, the twentieth century has been called The Revolutionary Century. Hardly any field of human endeavor has escaped some major upheaval. There have been political revolutions, economic revolutions, social revolutions, revolutions in technology, in transportation, in medicine, in communication—even in our everyday manners. For the spiritual seeker, none of these can compare in importance to the twin revolutions which have occurred in the fields of science and religion.

When the twentieth century opened, science and religion were locked in a protracted war in which it seemed no compromise was possible. There were two primary reasons for this. The first was epistemological, involving different notions about what constitutes truth and how it can be known. While science boasted that scientific truths could be tested and verified through empirical experiments, religion apparently demanded that spiritual truths be accepted on blind faith.

The second reason was ontological. That is, science and religion were founded on diametrically opposed views concerning the fundamental nature of reality. Religious believers insisted that, ultimately, the nature of reality was spiritual, and that, apart from this Spiritual Reality, nothing would or could exist. On the other hand, science adopted a strictly materialist position, arguing that everything could be reduced to, and explained by, the interactions of independently existing atoms and the physical forces which acted on them.

Faced with two such irreconcilable worldviews, it appeared that any thinking person would have to choose sides—and many did. But for those who admired science, yet also intuited there must be more to life than the "wiggling and jiggling of atoms,” the apparent intractability of this historical conflict presented something of a personal dilemma. To pursue a spiritual path while simultaneously maintaining a scientific outlook required a kind of philosophical schizophrenia. How else could one pray for divine guidance by night and then take one's automobile to a mechanic in the morning? The underlying paradigms upon which these two actions were based simply refused to mesh.

Early of twenty first century, however, the situation in both science and religion has changed dramatically—so much so, that we must now rethink the terms in which the whole controversy between them has been cast.

First, in the field of religion, the last hundred years has seen a veritable explosion in our knowledge of humanity's great religious traditions. A plethora of new translations of sacred texts from around the world is expanding and re-shaping our basic understanding of what it can mean to be religious and to lead a spiritual life. In particular, we have discovered that, at the core of all the major religions, there exists a current of mystical teachings which, when compared to one another, exhibit a startling degree of cross-cultural agreement.

What's especially interesting about these mystical teachings is their epistemology, which in many respects resembles that of science. For instance, while mystics recognize that faith is, indeed, a significant part of a spiritual path, they also maintain that faith alone is not enough. In fact, according to the mystics, if faith solidifies into dogmatic belief, it will actually become an obstacle to further progress.  As Simone Weil wrote: "In what concerns divine things, belief is not fitting. Only certainty will do." It was out of this same concern that his disciples not rest on mere faith that the Buddha admonished them:

As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it (on a piece of touchstone), so are you to accept my words after examining them and not merely out of regard for me.

This is also why Sufis (the mystics of Islam) who have reached the end of their path are called al-muhaqqiqun, which means "verifiers." They, too, have examined the teachings and verified their truth for themselves.

Moreover, just as science incorporates a well-defined methodology for testing its theories, so do mystical traditions. Thus, while scientific theories can be verified by observation made within the context of various kinds of physical experiments, mystical teachings can be verified by insights gained within the context of various kinds of spiritual practices. In fact, engaging in such practices is considered essential in mystical traditions, because, as the anonymous author of the Christian Cloud of Unknowing warned: "you will not really understand all this until your own contemplative experience confirms it."

In Mysticism, then, we find a type of spirituality which has close epistemological parallels to science—a spirituality that begins with faith but ends in a certainty which each of us can and must discover in our own practice. Thus, for seekers who cannot accept religious doctrines on faith alone, the recovery and dissemination of these mystical teachings is good news, indeed.

In the field of science, the last hundred years has wrought a revolution that has been, quite literally, world-shattering. The revolution we are talking about is quantum physics, and the "world" it shattered was the materialist world which the older classical physics seemed to support. Here is how Werner Heisenberg, one of quantum physics' founders, describes it: "Quantum theory has led the physicists far away from the simple materialistic views that prevailed in the natural science of the nineteenth century." In short, materialism is no longer a scientifically tenable paradigm.

This, too, is good news for modern spiritual seekers who cannot ignore the evidence of science. The fact that quantum physics has rendered the materialist paradigm scientifically untenable means that an otherwise insurmountable barrier to a rapprochement between science and religion (at least in its mystical aspect) has been removed. And while quantum physics does not "prove" mystical teachings (as some overly eager enthusiasts have claimed), the fundamental reality which it describes is not at all incompatible with the fundamental reality testified to by the mystics.

One example of this can be seen in the similarity between the modes of description which both scientists and mystics have been forced to adopt. In order to give a complete account of the properties of physical systems, quantum physicists have had to resort to a paradoxical form of expression called complementarity. For instance, sub-atomic phenomena can be thought of both as "waves" and as "particles." As Heisenberg points out, however, these two concepts are:

...mutually exclusive, because a certain thing cannot at the same time be a particle (i.e., a substance confined to a very small volume) and a wave (i.e., a field spread out over a large space), but the two (taken together) complement each other.

Likewise, attempts by mystics to communicate what their spiritual practices have disclosed always result in one of those paradoxical statements for which mystics have become so famous. To give but one example, listen to the way the great Sufi shaykh, Ibn `Arabi, characterizes what he calls the "Reality of realities:"

If you say that this thing is the [temporal] Universe, you are right. If you say that it is God who is eternal, you are right. If you say that it is neither the Universe nor God but is something conveying some additional meaning, you are right. All these views are correct, for it is the whole comprising the eternal and the temporal.

An even more striking example of how science's and mysticism's perceptions of reality intersect concerns the relationship between subject and object. For quantum physics, deciding where one begins and the other ends presents something of a quandary. Here is how physicist-mathematician, John S. Bell, sums up the problem:

The subject-object distinction is indeed at the very root of the unease that many people feel in connection with quantum mechanics. Some such distinction is dictated by the postulates of the theory, but exactly where or when to make it is not prescribed.

For a mystic, however, the fact that quantum mechanics cannot tell us where or when to draw the line between subject and object comes as no surprise at all. This is because one of the most fundamental truths—attested to by mystics of all traditions—is that the distinction between subject and object is purely imaginary. It has no real existence to begin with! Thus, Ibn `Arabi writes, "know you are an imagination, as is all that you regard as other than yourself an imagination." So, too, the Hindu mystic, Anandamayi Ma, says, "Seer-seeing-seen—these three are...modifications created by the mind, superimposed on the one all-pervading Consciousness." Likewise, Tibetan Buddhist master, Longchen-pa, declares: "There is no duality of mind and its object, and the perceiver is void in essence."

The discovery of such ontological points of convergence between science and mysticism is intellectually very exciting. Not only does it abolish our philosophical schizophrenia, it also holds out the possibility of creating a sacred worldview in which both science and mysticism would be seen as distinct yet complementary ways of exploring the same underlying reality. The importance of this task for establishing a future global civilization on genuine spiritual and moral values cannot be over-estimated.

Here, however, a word of caution is in order. For even if the rapprochement between science and mysticism does, indeed, lead to a new worldview, there still is, and always will be, one big, big difference between them.

The truths which science yields are conceptual truths, arrived at through a combination of thinking and experiencing. As such, they are also and inevitably relative truths, subject to revision and change as our thoughts and experiences change.

But the Truth to which mystics bear witness is an Absolute Truth—one which, as the Hindu sage, Shankara, says, "is beyond the grasp of the senses," and which, Ibn `Arabi writes, "cannot be arrived at by the intellect by means of any rational thought process." This Absolute Truth can only be known through a third mode of cognition—called variously Enlightenment, Realization, or Gnosis—which transcends both thinking and experiencing. In fact, it is precisely our ordinary ways of thinking and experiencing that veil this Truth from us, for as Buddhist master, Huang Po, writes:

Blinded by their own sight, hearing, feeling and knowing, they do not perceive the spiritual brilliance of the source substance. If they would only eliminate all conceptual thought in a flash, that source-substance would manifest itself like the sun ascending through the void and illuminating the whole universe without hindrance or bounds.

And, at the opposite end of the spiritual spectrum, here's what Dionysius the Areopagite says of the Christian mystic's Enlightenment:

Renouncing all that the mind may conceive, wrapped entirely in the intangible and the invisible, he belongs completely to him who is beyond everything. Here, being neither oneself nor someone else, one is supremely united by a completely unknowing inactivity of all knowledge, and knows beyond the mind by knowing nothing.

In other words, the Truth to which all Mystics testify is of an entirely different order than the truths formulated by science. When Jesus said, "Know the Truth and it shall make you free," he wasn't talking about the theory of relativity. And when the Buddha said, "The gift of truth is the highest gift," he wasn't referring to quantum physics.

We stress this because there are quite a few seekers out there today who think that discovering mystical Truth is simply a matter of "shifting our paradigm," or learning a "new worldview." And while it is certainly valuable to examine our worldview and to investigate new paradigms, it is also crucial to remember that, no matter how revolutionary a worldview may seem, or how compatible with mysticism a paradigm may be, worldviews and paradigms always remain conceptual constructs. But the Absolute Truth revealed by Gnosis lies beyond all concepts, all paradigms, and all worldviews, whatsoever!