Show Me the (Black) Money

The more things change, the more they remain the same. A cliché, no doubt, but that is what came to my mind when the NDA government informed the Supreme Court that “…it cannot disclose such details [about tax evaders] given by countries with which India has double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA)” (see here). To remind those who might have forgotten, this is what the UPA Finance Minister, Pranab Mukherjee had said some time back “The government has names of Indian account holders in Liechtenstein's LGT Bank and information given by German banks, but the government cannot reveal the names right now because of the secrecy clause” (see here).

One still remembers the tirade launched against the UPA government by the BJP in the years leading up to the elections of 2014:

• L.K. Advani in 2011: “The Congress-led UPA government is functioning in a dishonest manner by not making public the names of those who have stashed black money abroad...Congress fears it will be exposed as most of the illegal money belongs to the party leaders” (Economic Times).
•  After this, Modi picked up the same issue and, being a master of demagoguery, went even further: “Advani Ji is only seeking repatriation of black money, but only the Congress is getting the current. Why does the Congress not want to bring back black money? Is it because it belongs to them?” (DNA India).
• Yashwant Sinha promised that the BJP would reveal names of all tax evaders who have stashed money abroad if it came to power. Referring to double taxation treaty he stated: “…these names have been with the Government of India for the last two years. They say that the double taxation avoidance agreement prevents them from disclosing”; and further “The question is why you haven't been able to prosecute them in two years. Disclose 10 names, 20 names, but how does [sic] all these 800 names remain a secret for two years. That is where there is some mystery…” (Hindustan Times).

The storm-troopers of the BJP in the social media went after the UPA with all their might. Using the most vituperative language, all UPA leaders, including the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, were reviled and torn to pieces. Alas, the chickens have now come home to roost. The NDA is using the same reason as the UPA for not revealing names.

Of course, in this embarrassing imbroglio, the Congress still has to be blamed for this so as to keep pure the well-cultivated image of the NDA. Finance Minister Jaitley has already set the ball rolling by stating: “Tax pact signed by Congress government in 1995 with Germany is constraining Centre from declaring names of persons having black money account” (Times of India). 

Article 26 of this agreement with Germany reads as follows: 

ARTICLE 26 - Exchange of information - 1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Agreement. Any information received by a Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) involved in the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes covered by this Agreement. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions (emphasis added).

The segment in bold above is the offending item which has prevented the government from disclosing the names of tax evaders.

Are we to understand that a Cabinet Minister in Modi’s government did not know provisions of this agreement? If he did, all the earlier rants against the UPA, before and during the elections, were just show-biz designed to hoodwink the electorate into thinking that the UPA had something to hide. Of course, if Jaitley – a high profile lawyer – did not know the provisions of the law, then surely the competence of the minister should be questioned. The agreement with Germany from which I have quoted above has been in the public domain for a long time. I found the location of this information and the relevant article in about 15 minutes of search on the internet. Who, in his or her right mind, can possibly believe that the NDA did not have access to this information?  This, of course, means that all the BJP leaders quoted above (Advani, Modi and Sinha) were being dishonest in their criticism of the UPA government. My own belief is that the BJP all along knew perfectly well that the double taxation avoidance agreement prevented the government from disclosing details of tax evaders; at the very least it must have known all this from the time it assumed power. But it chose to keep quiet about this lest it dilute its propaganda against the UPA. After all, the UPA had to be vanquished not only at the Centre but also in Assembly elections, especially in Maharashtra. Is it just a coincidence that the government gave this information about the non-disclosure clause to the Supreme Court after the elections had concluded in Maharashtra?

Now, as this tragi-comedy unfolds, I wait for some sign of contrition from the NDA government: contrition for having unfairly targeted the UPA; contrition for having misled the electorate on a matter of grave importance for the Indian economy; contrition for the smoke and mirrors of instituting an SIT at the behest of the Supreme Court when it knew all along that genuine progress would hit the wall of double taxation treaty.

Will the storm-troopers of the BJP pause to think of what has happened and how they have been misled? Well, storm-troopers are useless if they begin to think on their own, so I doubt that will happen.

Should I hold my breath, waiting for this sign of contrition from the NDA government? I think I will choke long before that happens, if at all.

Mr. Modi Goes to Washington

If TRP ratings for TV programmes were provided for the period September 26 2014 to September 30 2014, I have very little doubt that TV News Channels (whether English or other Indian languages) will receive higher ratings than the usual channels, whether these be film or sports or entertainment channels. And it would all be due to one person who has, probably, caught more eyeballs than any contemporary world leader: Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India. No Indian leader, since 24-hour news channels began, has captured the air-waves in this manner. Mr. Modi’s agenda has been filled with very high profile meetings in New York city culminating in a couple of meetings with President Obama in Washington as well as a joint article with the President in the Washington Post. It is obvious that the USA attaches great significance to this visit by a man who was once denied a visa.

The pièce de résistance of Mr. Modi’s USA trip has undoubtedly been his Madison Square Garden (MSG) speech (though the event itself was very poorly organised with very ordinary dances and even worse rendering of the Indian national anthem). Mr. Modi’s oratory skills were on full display during the general elections, but the MSG event was different. During the elections, he had to vanquish a foe using his speaking skills. Here, he had to use those skills to move an audience already in love with him. It was very skilful and clever how Mahatma Gandhi – not exactly the darling of the Sangh parivar – was co-opted, instead of the usual favourites like Sardar Patel or Swami Vivekananda, to woo US-based Indians. The consummate performer that he is, Modi had the audience eating out of his hands and knew exactly the buttons to press to move the crowd, often to hysteria. But such adulation has its risks since expectations raised so high can easily turn to impatience and extreme disappointment. The risks are high since the announcements (can these be called promises?) made by Modi were bold in the extreme. The merger of OCI and PIO cards, while certainly helpful, is not path-breaking. The intention to merge the two cards was announced by the UPA in 2012 (See here). The headlines grabbing announcements were (a) providing toilets for all and cleaning the river Ganga within five years and (b) providing homes for all by 2022. The latter is reminiscent of the unrealistic overreach in the slogan of ‘Garibi Hatao’ (remove poverty) coined by Indira Gandhi. While no one can doubt the laudable vision behind these promises, feasibility of such endeavours must be established. It is not clear to me what the total resource cost of these objectives will be or how these resources will be garnered to bring this vision to fruition. I find it surprising that, in the euphoria of Modi’s performance, questions regarding the implementation of such bold promises have not yet been raised. Like the audience at the Madison Square Gardens, even veteran TV anchors covering the Modi visit seem mesmerised and have forgotten that healthy scepticism is a virtue as far as journalism is concerned.

The US administration has always accorded very cordial receptions to Indian Prime Ministers going right back to the time of Jawaharlal Nehru. During the last 30 years, most Indian Prime Ministers have been honoured by White House State Dinner. The White Historical Association states:

A state dinner honouring a visiting head of government or reigning monarch is one of the grandest and most glamorous of White House affairs. It is part of an official state visit and provides the president and first lady the opportunity to honour the visiting head of state and his or her spouse...It is an event that also showcases global power and influence.

In the last thirty years, the following Indian Prime Ministers have been so honoured:

1. Rajiv Gandhi when Ronald Reagan was in office
2. Atal Bihari Vajpayee when Bill Clinton was in office
3. Manmohan Singh when Barrack Obama was in office.

Further, four Indian Prime Ministers in the last thirty years have addressed a joint session of the US Congress: Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh (See here). Mr. Narendra Modi’s Washington DC visit is relatively low key with neither a state dinner nor an address to a joint session of the US Congress. But then not every Indian Prime Minister received this honour during the first visit to the USA. Mr. Modi’s initial meeting with President Obama has been quite like the first round of a boxing match between two heavy-weights, with much circling round each other, gauging each other’s strengths and weaknesses before making any long-term commitments. However, it was quite extraordinary that there was no joint press briefing by the two leaders at the end of their talks. Instead, a closed room briefing was preferred with no members of the press present. Was this done to avoid uncomfortable questions of the two leaders? This might well have been the case given that international press would have not pulled their punches unlike their Indian counterparts, which have become quite meek over the last few months.

President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – possibly the only two intellectual heads of state in the last 25 years – shared a special relationship built on Obama’s charisma and intellect which had carried him to White House and Manmohan Singh’s accomplishments. These accomplishments include his great track record as a bureaucrat/administrator par excellence, as India’s finest Finance Minster and his tremendous achievements as Prime Minister, especially with respect to the high rates of growth of the Indian economy over his entire tenure (possibly barring the last two years) and shepherding the Indian economy through the ravages of the Great Recession. At a personal level, there need not be any animosity between Obama and Modi since the original denial of a visa to him took place when Bush was President though the situation was not altered even after Obama assumed office. The general perception about Modi’s track record as the Chief Minister of Gujarat and his impressive victory in general elections of 2014 certainly provide him the strength and credibility to meet Obama on an equal footing.

Meetings between heads of state certainly make for a certain spectacle and provide the “optics” – a word that has recently become very dear to many TV analysts and anchors –, the question that must be asked is: what specific purpose do such meetings serve? The purpose of such meetings may be divided into political and economic benefits gained by each country. Political benefits, while undoubtedly important, are not easily measurable. Economic benefits, on the other hand, can be quantified to some extent and this is what I propose to do. While there can be many measures of economic benefits – foreign direct investment, migration into the USA from India, for example – I will only focus on trade. What I will try to examine is whether there was a change in the rate of growth of exports from India into the USA and rate of growth of imports from the USA into India before and after a Prime Ministerial visit to the USA. Given the data that are available, I consider the following visits:

1. Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in 1987
2. Narasimha Rao’s visit in 1994
3. A.B. Vajpayee’s visit in 2000 and 2001
4. Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2008 and 2010

Details of the data that I have used and how the growth rates were computed are given in the Appendix. The Appendix also gives details of the statistical results. A summary of results for Indian exports to the USA and American imports into India is given below:

1. Rajiv Gandhi’s visit did not have a significant effect, either on the rate of growth of exports or on the rate of growth of imports.
2. Narasimha Rao’s visit had an impact on both exports and imports with both rates of growth increasing significantly after his visit. One could say that Indo-US trade as a whole received a strong boost after his visit.
3. A.B. Vajpayee’s visits had no impact on Indian exports but rate of growth of US imports into India increased significantly after both his visits. This would imply that India’s balance of trade (export earnings minus import expenditure) would have worsened after Vajpayee’s visits.
4. Manmohan Singh’s visit of 2008 led to a significant increase in the rate of growth of Indian exports while there was no impact on imports. His second visit had no discernible impact on either Indian exports or imports. This would imply that India’s balance of trade improved substantially after Manmohan Singh’s visit of 2008 while the second visit seems to have had no impact.

The simple analysis carried out in this note shows that Prime Ministerial visits, apart from their political and diplomatic importance, have significant economic impact as well. As Mr. Modi winds up his trip to the USA, there can be little doubt about its political and diplomatic significance. The economic impact of his visit will play out over the next few years. Mr. Modi has aggressively promoted the ‘Make in India’ agenda with the objective of making India an attractive destination for manufacturing. Labour reforms – a political minefield – are being discussed. Simplification of bureaucratic procedures is in the offing and overbearing laws and regulations are being pruned. All of these changes were listed out by Modi, almost as promises, to the audience at Madison Square Garden. There is consequently a palpable feeling of hope and expectations among those who heard the speech. Corporate honchos in India have expressed the belief that these changes will significantly improve the environment for doing business in India. If the above changes do indeed materialise we should be able to see the following in the near future:

• Improvement in India’s ranking for ‘Ease of Doing Business’ as measured by the World Bank. Currently, India ranks a dismal 134 out 189 countries.
• Consequent to Mr. Modi’s visit to the USA, foreign direct investment (FDI) from that country should start flowing into India. The level of FDI from the USA for 2012-13 stands at $ 478 million way behind FDI from the UK ($1,022 million), Japan ($1,340 million) and the Netherlands ($1,700 million) (See RBI).

Mr. Narendra Modi’s Washington and New York sojourn has sowed the seeds of change that may transform India. We now wait, with bated breath, for the green shoots of rejuvenation of the Indian economy to emerge.

APPENDIX

Trade data are sourced from the United States Census Bureau. We use data from Exports from India, Imports into India and India’s Balance of Trade.

A trend equation, with intercept and slope dummies, is estimated from each Prime Ministerial and each Presidential visit.

Table 1

Impact on Indian Exports after Prime Ministerial/Presidential Visits

Visit by PM or President	Growth rate of Exports before visit (% per year)	Growth rate of Exports after visit (% per year)
Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in 1987	4.84	No significant change
Narasimha Rao’s visit in 1994	8.85	8.85 + 2.35 = 11.20
A.B. Vajpayee’s visit in 2000	10.47	No significant change
A.B. Vajpayee’s visit in 2001	10.25	No significant change
Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2008	10.95	10.95 + 5.84 = 16.79
Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2010	10.71	No significant change
Bill Clinton’s visit in 2000	10.46	No significant change
George Bush’s visit in 2006	10.75	No significant change
Barrack Obama’s visit in 2010	10.73	No significant change

Table 2

Impact on Indian Imports after Prime Ministerial/Presidential Visits

Visit by PM or President	Growth rate of Imports before visit (% per year)	Growth rate of Imports after visit (% per year)
Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in 1987	-5.47	No significant change
Narasimha Rao’s visit in 1994	4.76	4.76 + 8.38 = 13.14
A.B. Vajpayee’s visit in 2000	6.01	6.01 + 10.67 = 16.68
A.B. Vajpayee’s visit in 2001	5.79	5.79 + 10.59 = 16.38
Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2008	8.66	No significant change
Manmohan Singh’s visit in 2010	9.06	No significant change
Bill Clinton’s visit in 2000	6.01	6.01 + 10.67
George Bush’s visit in 2006	7.16	No significant change
Barrack Obama’s visit in 2010	9.43	No significant change

READING THE TEA LEAVES: Recent Bye-elections in India

The recent bye-election results where the BJP lost in many constituencies has brought forth a flood of analysis.  None of these has been wholly convincing and much that has been spoken on the news channels has seemed like divining an explanation from the pattern of tea leaves left behind in a teacup. Before I plunge into my own analysis of the bye-elections, the question to ask is whether the results we have just seen are very different from the results of past bye elections.

In the table below, I confine my attention to bye-elections (both parliamentary and assembly) held within roughly six months of general elections. I look at the bye-elections performance of the leading party of the coalition which won the preceding parliamentary elections.

Year of General Elections	Lead Party in Winning Coalition	Number of Bye-Elections	Bye-Elections Won by Lead Party in Winning Coalition
1999	BJP	31	9 (29%)
2004	INC	46	16 (35%)
2009	INC	83	21 (25%)
2014	BJP	51	18 (35%)

The results of the Table suggest that the performance of the BJP in the recently held bye-elections has been similar to such performances in the past. There does seem to be a tendency for the lead party to lose bye-elections held immediately after general elections. But there is one important difference: none of the lead parties in the elections of 1999, 2004 and 2009 had performed as well as the BJP had in 2014. The point has often been made but it’s worth repeating: the BJP won a majority on its own in 2014 unlike the INC in 2004 and 2009 or the BJP in 1999. In light of such exceptional performance by the BJP in the general elections in 2014, it is intriguing that it suddenly lost favour in many of the bye-elections held recently. This would have made sense if the BJP had committed some horrible blunder since forming the government in New Delhi. That is clearly not the case. In fact, the BJP government has done little wrong till now. Prime Minister Modi himself has been very dignified in his role so far. I don’t quite agree with the criticism that the Modi-magic has faded. It well might fade over the next few years but I don’t think that has happened just yet. Still, I do find amusing the strenuous efforts of the BJP spokesman (Nalin Kohli on NDTV) to protect Modi from any blame for the defeats in the bye-elections. As always, in India, the top leadership can never be blamed for poor electoral performance. In any case, the point I would like to emphasise is that there has been no reason for voters to have been disillusioned by the performance of the BJP.

Have the opposition parties suddenly been rejuvenated? The Congress still seems to be in complete shambles and, with Rahul Gandhi reluctant to take on any kind of responsibility, the party is bereft of any obvious leader. Some have suggested that it is the very absence of the Gandhis in the campaign for the bye-elections that might have helped the Congress. This might well be the case, but we might need to have the Gandhis remain absent from the next few elections to verify this hypothesis. Likewise, not much has changed as far as the Samajwadi Party is concerned. How could a party which was so reviled during and immediately after the general elections suddenly stage a comeback? 

Is it possible that the BJP suffered from over-confidence? Was the party hoping to ride on the momentum of the general elections results to see it through the bye-elections? My feeling is that there might have been some amount of over-confidence on the part of BJP, both, in its own ability, and in the lack of it among the opposition parties. The fact that none of the stalwarts of the BJP campaigned in the elections seems to point towards the possibility that these elections were perhaps taken lightly. I am, of course, discounting the whispers about some top leaders (e.g. Rajnath Singh) being miffed that their relatives were not selected as candidates. Certainly, the BJP’s biggest asset – Narendra Modi – was also missing in the campaigning. If the BJP suffered because of Modi’s absence, then this excessive dependence on him must be a cause of great worry for the party. With a full time day job as Prime Minister of the country, Narendra Modi will obviously not have the amount of time for campaigning that he had during the general elections. BJP will have to win with its B-team led by Amit Shah.

The final issue I want to touch on is the platform on which the bye-elections were fought. The general elections of April and May 2014 were fought on a strong platform of development and Modi never once wavered from it during the campaigning. What exactly was the electoral platform during the bye-elections? Was it governance, fight against corruption and development once again? If it was, none of it made any news. An important problem for the BJP was that its favourite punching bag – the Gandhi family and the failings of the UPA government –, that was so effective during the general elections, had now become irrelevant. A new target was required for their campaign and they reverted to the dangerous communal strategy. Thus, the ridiculous ‘love jihad’ campaign was conceived, which garnered much (adverse) publicity for Yogi Adityanath, BJP’s main propagandist in Uttar Pradesh. Since the Uttar Pradesh campaign was in the exclusive hands of Amit Shah, it is safe to assume that he had approved the ‘love jihad’ agenda of the rabid Yogi. This is where I begin to have serious misgivings about the BJP. Handing over the entire reins of the BJP’s electoral campaign to Amit Shah, who had fallen foul of the law even during the general elections, is a recipe for disaster. He might still win the forthcoming assembly elections for the BJP, but his presence runs completely against the development agenda that Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders have adopted for their government. It is in this context that another disturbing thought comes to mind and that is Modi’s acquiescence in the campaign run by Yogi Adityanath. By all reckoning, the ‘love jihad’ campaign contradicts the mantra of Sabka ka saath, sabka vikas that Modi has espoused so energetically since coming to power. Modi’s effort at inclusiveness is further reinforced in his recent interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN where he has been so strong in his support for the Muslim community that it would warm the cockles of the most ardent secular person’s heart. Given Modi’s style of functioning, which generally involves micromanaging as well as enforcing tight control over his colleagues and administrators, I cannot believe that Modi was unaware of the kind of campaign being run in Uttar Pradesh. Why then did he not put a stop to the regressive and puerile ‘love jihad’ nonsense that was being spewed out? His silence has been deeply disappointing and disturbing to all those who might have supported his secular development agenda and those who would have voted for him in the fond hope that divisive politics, as represented by the Hindutva groups, was a thing of the past.

Likewise, Rajnath Singh’s apparently smart comment “What is ‘love jihad’?” was absurd. Something is seriously wrong if the home minister of the country has no information about such a divisive campaign being run by his own party. Even if he were derelict in his duties as home minister, surely, as a member of the RSS, he would have known about the campaign (See here). 

In conclusion, I have to confess that I am no closer to an answer as to why the BJP performed poorly in the bye-elections. There are many possible reasons, all with some element of truth. If I had to, I would focus on two possible reasons (apart from the fact that all leading parties perform poorly in bye-elections):

1. Modi has been and will remain a significant contributor to the BJP’s electoral fortunes but he was not available for campaigning in the bye-elections. Since he is unlikely to be available for campaigning even in future elections, the BJP will have to come up with a reliable B-team if it is do well in the absence of Modi as the lead campaigner.
2. The secular development platform had served the BJP well in the general elections and also attracted to their fold voters who did not share the religious and divisive agenda of the Hindutva parties. The BJP moved away from this platform in the bye-elections and possibly paid the price for this deviation. If the BJP is to consolidate the electoral gains of the general elections, Prime Minister Modi will have a huge role to play in keeping the BJP to the straight and narrow path of development for all. 

Ferguson, Missouri (USA): A Cautionary Tale for India

Ferguson, Missouri (USA) has been in the news almost continuously since an unarmed black teenager was shot dead by a police officer. As the city has lurched from one protest to another, the muscular action of the police has come in for fierce criticism. Weapons seen in the hands of the police in Ferguson are the same as those used in combat zones (e.g. Iraq) and have come from a Pentagon programme that gave half a billion dollars worth of such equipment to local law enforcement agencies (See here). Equally in the news has been the under-representation of the black community in the governing of Ferguson. The population of the city is 67% black and yet the mayor and the police chief are white; of the six council members, one is black; of the 53 commissioned officers on the police force, three are black (see here). To be fair, it has been argued that Ferguson is an outlier in that, in a large number of cities, the percentage of city council that is black is closely correlated with the percentage of population that is black (See here).  The under- representation of the black community in Ferguson is not an aberration. A similar pattern is discernible at various levels of government. 

Bearing in mind that black population in the USA is about 14% of the total, the following numbers are telling:

1. Out of 709 US cities with population in excess of 50,000 in 2010 (US Census), only 44 had black mayors (Black Demographics).  That is, about 6% of the cities had black mayors.
2. Currently, 3 out of 100 senators are black while 46 out of 435 (10.5%) representatives are black (History House).
3. Blacks make up 38% of the state prison population as compared to whites who are 78% of the population and 35% of prison population (CBS News). 

Do the events in Ferguson hold a cautionary tale for India? India, like the USA, has one strong dominant community and numerous other minorities. Muslims, the strong visible minority community, made up 13.4% of India’s population as per the 2001 census (Census India). Surprisingly, the data for the 2011 census on religious composition of India’s population is not yet available. However, it is fair to assume that the Muslim percentage may have now increased to about 14.5% (The Economist). It would not have escaped the reader that this percentage is very similar to the percentage of blacks in the USA.

Muslim Representation in Indian Parliament and State Assemblies

Among the various aspects of Muslim representation that I consider, the most important is how well is the community represented in the Indian parliament. Figure 1 below gives this information over all elections from 1952 to 2009. 

What is clear from Figure 1 is that Muslims have always been under-represented in all Indian parliaments. Even worse, as the share of Muslims in the population has risen, their representation in the parliament has fallen. Considering the consequences of woefully inadequate representation of blacks in the governing of Ferguson, the picture presented in Figure 1 must give cause for concern. Apart from the paltry number of Muslims holding office, not enough are even selected as candidates for elections. The argument has been made that rather than select candidates for elections on the basis of their religion, it is much better to select competent candidates to fight elections. The BJP’s position on this is best captured by the statement of Vijay Goel, President of Delhi BJP at the time of Delhi assembly elections in 2013: “We don't see the religious factor while picking candidates. We see the winnability of the candidates. We give ticket to those who are deserving” (Indian Express). On the face of it, this seems like a very progressive statement where religious considerations are eschewed and only competence is taken into account. But it does seem odd that the BJP could not find single competent Muslim candidate in Uttar Pradesh for the 2014 parliamentary elections despite the state having 18.5% Muslims in its population. In fact, the BJP has not fielded even one Muslim candidate in numerous Gujarat assembly polls (Hindustan Times). Is it believable that, for the last decade or more, Gujarat has not thrown up a single competent Muslim candidate? 

The situation with respect to representation of Muslims in the state assemblies is no different. Figure 2 below gives details for some states.

It will be noticed that the line depicting Muslim MLAs (%) lies entirely below the Muslim Population (%) line (except for Kerala). As before, this shows that there is under-representation of the Muslim population in the state assemblies as well.

Muslim Representation in Administrative and Police Services

Having considered the position of Muslim participation in Indian politics, I now turn my attention to administration. Even in administration, the representation of Muslims is woefully inadequate. Naseem Zaidi (Economic and Political Weekly, January 18, 2014) points out that barely 3% of those who pass the IAS exams are Muslims. In 2013, out of the 998 candidates selected for different administrative services, only 28 were Muslims.

Finally, I look at the Indian police. As per the National Crime Record Bureau's publication Crime in India 2013, out of 1,731,537 police personnel in Indian states and union territories, 108,602 were Muslims. In 2001, these numbers were 1,233,157 and 103,545, respectively.  Over the period 2001-2013, the strength of police has increased by 40% while the number of Muslims in the police force has increased by less than 5%. Little wonder that Muslim representation in the police force has declined from 8.4% to 6.2%.

Social and Economic Status of Muslims

Inadequate political representation of the Muslim community must also be seen in conjunction with its social and economic status. One measure of economic status is the level of income of individuals or households. However, since information on income tends to be unreliable, the National Sample Survey reports monthly per capita household consumer expenditure. The latest information available is for 2009-10 (See here). In addition, I also look at education levels, employment levels and prison population of Muslims. Interested readers may look at detailed tables which have been placed in the appendix.

1. Muslims have the lowest monthly per capita household consumer expenditure of Rs. 980 as compared to the level of Rs. 1,128 for all persons irrespective of religion. This is 13% below the overall level. Bearing in mind that consumer expenditure is closely related to income, this implies that income levels among Muslims are the lowest among all communities.
2. The percentage of urban male illiterates is the highest among Muslims at 19% as compared to 10% for all religions combined. The percentage of urban Muslims males who have had at least secondary education is 35%, much below the figure for all religions combined of 56%. The percentages for Muslim females are worse. The numbers become even more dismal for graduate levels and above. Clearly, this impacts the prospect for jobs for youth from the Muslim community. There are those who might point that the community is itself to blame for not encouraging education. While this may well be a valid charge, the fact remains that if a large number of youth are uneducated with little prospect of decent jobs, the society as a whole faces a problem.
3. 50% of urban Muslim males are self-employed as compared to the level of 41% for all religions combined while 30% of urban Muslim males have regular employment as compared to the all religions combined figure of 42%. The inability to find regular employment compels Muslim youth to take up self-employment which is possibly low paying.
4. Prison Statistics 2012 of the National Crime Records Bureau reports that 18% of convicts in prisons are Muslim, while the percentage of under-trials is 21%. This is much greater than the percentage of Muslims in India’s population. The parallel with the black community in the USA is unmistakeable. 

Is a Ferguson-like Episode Possible in India?

Ramachandra Guha had written in 2008 “Far from being ‘dominant’ or hegemonic, most Muslims are poor farmers, labourers, artisans and traders. They are massively under-represented in the professions – few, too few, of India’s top lawyers, judges, doctors, and professors are Muslim. The proportion of Muslim parliamentarians and of Muslim civil servants has been steadily declining over time”. It should come as no surprise that my analysis demonstrates that Guha’s statement remains valid even today.

Neither of the two national political parties – the Congress or the BJP – has done much for the genuine improvement of the status of Muslims. The Congress used the community as a means of winning votes but did little for it between elections. In the process, the great democratic idea of secularism become a much abused epithet during the 2014 elections. The BJP’s approach of “Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikaas” (participation of all, development for all) brings in the idea of non-discrimination which is most welcome but, when the playing field is not level for all communities, something more is needed. Also, while it (especially its Prime Minister) espouses a secular development agenda, the BJP’s affinity for aggressive Hindi nationhood (Hindutva) is never too far below the surface. Alongside the mainstream politics in India, there are also widely prevalent and, disturbingly, widely supported, extreme political views with a strong communal agenda. Some of this degenerates into actual violence against the Muslim community. The most recent example of such violence was the fatal lynching of the Muslim tech professional in Pune (See here). Equally disturbing has been the views of organisations closely associated with the BJP, namely, the RSS. While the NDA government and Prime Minister Modi in particular have constantly emphasised the development agenda, their allies have divisive agendas of their own. Consider for example the recent comment about Hindu nation by Mohan Bhagwat of the RSS (See here).

Taking into account the current economic and social status of Muslims, the views of right-wing religious groups and the sporadic violence that targets members of the community, it is not too far-fetched to believe that a Ferguson-like situation may suddenly arise in some part of India. Even worse, the alienation of individuals in the Muslim community could have some extreme consequences not just for the community itself but for the entire Indian society. As Christophe Jaffrelot points out “Most of SIMI’s cadre were…educated Muslims” . It is also extremely disturbing that some youth from the town of Kalyan (near Mumbai) have gone to Iraq to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (See here). As radicalisation of Muslim spreads around the world and as more and more western youth have joined the jihadist movements in Syria and Iraq, will India remain immune to such developments? 

APPENDIX TABLES

Table 1

Monthly Per Household Consumption Expenditure

RELIGION OF HOUSHOLD	RURAL AREAS (Rs.)	URBAN AREAS (Rs.)	RURAL + URBAN AREAS (Rs.)
Hinduism	888	1797	1125
Islam	833	1272	980
Christianity	1296	2053	1543
Sikhism	1498	2180	1659
Others	880	2074	1402
All religions	901	1733	1128

Table 2

Education Levels across Religious Communities

	Hinduism	Islam	Christianity	Sikhism	Others	All
	Not Literate (%)
Rural Male	26	31	14	26	21	26
Urban Male	9	19	6	14	6	10
Rural Female	51	53	23	40	43	50
Urban Female	22	35	12	24	15	24
	Secondary Education and Above (%)
Rural Male	29	19	38	33	29	28
Urban Male	59	35	63	60	71	56
Rural Female	15	9	31	28	16	15
Urban Female	46	27	55	51	55	44

 Table 3

Employment in Urban Areas

	Self-employed (%)		Regular Employee (%)		Casual Labour (%)
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Hinduism	40	39	44	40	16	21
Islam	50	60	30	22	20	18
Christianity	29	28	45	61	26	11
Sikhism	44	52	35	37	20	11
Others	41	34	44	45	15	21
All	41	41	42	39	17	20

Table 4

Prison Characteristics in 2012

	Hindu	Muslim	Sikh	Christians	Others	Total
Convicts (%)	71	18	5	4	2	100
Under-trials (%)	70	21	4	4	1	100
Conviction Rate (%)	51	42	62	57	61	50