Setting an Ideal Retirement Age

In this article*, Sibin Sabu, looks at the factors that policymakers need to take into consideration while deciding the retirement age. The article busts certain myths related to retirement age and suggests that the traditional notion of retirement must be delinked from age. 

In the years to come, retirement age will play an increasingly important role in the framing of public policies of governments across the world.

Retirement age has direct and indirect implications on the economic and social conditions in a society. Today, we can find that it varies from a minimum of 45 years in Turkey to 70 years in Australia.¹

Determining the age for retirement is a tricky job for any employer – whether it is the government or a private firm. Several factors play a role in it.

Demography

Increasing the retirement age allows a state to make use of the productivity of the elder citizens. In fact, there is no point in forcing a healthy and experienced employee to retire early.

The term old age dependency ratio becomes relevant in this context. In simple terms, it represents the ratio of percentage of old age population to the working age population. This dependency ratio should be as low as possible and increasing the retirement age is one way of increasing the number of people in the working age population.

Countries with rising old age population would be the biggest beneficiaries of a higher retirement age. In India, states like Kerala are likely to gain most by raising the retirement age since it has the highest percentage of old age population in the country and by 2050 one out of two in the state would be over 60.²

Fiscal Burden

In India, the fiscal cost of ageing is currently at 2.2% of GDP and it is steadily increasing.³

The decline in joint family system and increasing life expectancy would place a greater responsibility on the government to provide for the old. This would have repercussions on the fiscal conditions of a state or country.

Kerala, which has the largest share of old age population in the country, spends around 35% of revenue receipts on pension. The amount spent for health care and support of the elderly would further inflate the figures. Thus, the fiscal cost of ageing in Kerala could be several times more than the all India average.

Retirement age could be adjusted to combat these costs and this will be an important tool in easing the fiscal pressure on the state.

Post Retirement Life

It is important to understand how the retired spent their time in retirement. The vocation taken up by the retired are closely linked with social factors such as culture, traditions, social security net and family system prevalent in a society.

For example, in places where a joint family system is prevalent, the retired may prefer spending their time with their family. In the absence of a joint family system, the retired would try to keep themselves preoccupied and busy by taking up some profession in their retirement.

Availability of such data will provide government with insights on the needs of the retired and their potential. However, there has been little research carried out on that front. Such a study could be included as a part of Census or in National Sample Survey Rounds.

The retirement age should be set after taking into consideration these social factors as this will enable employers and governments to leverage their potential and meet their needs to a greater extent.

Health

The life expectancy of an Indian was 32 years at the time our independence while the retirement age of Central government employees was 55 years at the time.

Today, our life expectancy has more than doubled while the retirement age has increased only by five years. As a result, the average expected time in retirement for Indians is close to 25 year and it is going to increase further in the coming years.⁴

It must, therefore, be ensured that workers who are fit are not forced out of the system. The retirement age must be in tune with the expected life expectancy and quality of life.

Nature of Profession

Some professions like mining has a lower retirement age owing to risks involved if an older person works in the mine. In contrast, MPs and MLAs do not have any retirement age. There are also some professions like Sports and Arts which do not have a formal retirement age. 

At times, years of experience is the most dominating factor in the professions - say, for example, in the case of lawyers. In such instances, it can be considered that wisdom increases with experience (i.e.,age) and hence, no formal retirement age is usually set.

Thus, different professions must have different retirement age considering the impact aging has on a particular profession.

Fears of Youth Unemployment

Often, governments are unwilling to increase the retirement age because of fear of harming the prospects of youth employment. Such a belief is based on what is popularly referred to as the ‘lump of labour theory’. The belief is that if we allow the older workers to continue, the employment prospects of the youth would be affected.

Historically, this fear has had a big influence in decisions pertaining to retirement age. Moves by the Central Government and many State governments in India to increase retirement age has faced stiff resistance from the opposition and didn’t fructify following protests and fears of hampering the employment prospects of the youth.

In other words, this is a form of discrimination in which governments prefer having an elderly unemployed than an unemployed youth.

In this context, it is important to look at whether the notion of older employees driving out younger employees is based on scientific evidence. Studies show that the belief is a mistaken one and one to be dispelled.

Researchers worldwide have failed to establish any direct correlation between a higher retirement age and youth unemployment. In fact, some studies have reported a decrease in youth unemployment with an increase in labour force participation of those above 55.^5,6,7 Therefore, contrary to popular fears increasing the retirement age can lead to a decrease in the youth unemployment rate. However, the evidence is not conclusive enough to be certain about that.

Supply of Labour Force

There have been instances when governments have been compelled to increase the retirement age due to shortage of labour force for a particular profession.

For example, the retirement age of scientists is 2 years higher than the other employees in the Central government. In West Bengal, the retirement age of Doctors was increased owing to shortage of qualified doctors in the state.

Thus, retirement age also reflects the labour supply for a particular profession. Retirement age may be raised or lowered depending on the labour supply for a particular profession.

Performance

The biggest question would be whether we need a retirement age at all. Ideally, the labour force should be given the opportunity to work as long as they are fit and performing. If retirement is linked to performance instead of age, this could lead to greater efficiency and productivity.

The same can be said about our Public Sector Undertakings. While the BSE Sensex returned 127% between 2009 and 2014, the BSE PSU Index gave a meager return of just 20% in the same period.⁸ One of the major reason is the security that these jobs offer which has led to a lack of emphasis on performance. Thus, a person getting into a government job will usually continue until he retires irrespective of his performance.

Setting a formal retirement age, therefore, has several unintended negative consequences. It can be argued that the traditional notion of retirement must wither away.  Retirement must be delinked from ‘age’ and linked to ‘performance’.

By,

Sibin Sabu

Research Assistant

Centre for Public Policy Research, Cochin

*The article was first published by Centre for Public Policy Research

References:

1.      http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/07/top-10-countries-with-a-low-retirement-age-2712562.html

2.      Kerala Development Report by Planning Commission, Government of India (2008)

3.      Crisil: When India Ages, Whither Pension for All? http://www.crisil.com/private-sector-pension-coverage/PPT/private-sector-pension-coverage.pdf

4.      Pensions at a Glance 2011, OECD  http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8111011e.pdf

5.      IZA WOL:

http://wol.iza.org/articles/effect-of-early-retirement-schemes-on-youth-employment.pdf

6.      When Baby Boomers Delay Retirement, Do Younger Workers Suffer? http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/EMPretirementdelaypdf.pdf

7.      Releasing jobs for the young? Early retirement and youth unemployment in the United Kingdom http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4746

8.      http://www.firstpost.com/business/money/psu-etfs-why-would-you-want-to-own-a-basket-of-govt-owned-stocks-1963623.html

9.   http://lawyerslaw.org/supreme-court-ruled-no-retirement-age-for-lawyers/ 

Syrian Refugee Crisis: Lessons from the Nordic

The civil war in Syria, sparked in 2011 by the Arab Spring, continues to get worse. An estimated 4 million Syrians have already fled their homeland and four times the number is in need of assistance - inside and outside Syria. Discussions on the best course of action to deal with the situation are ensuing around the world. There are many who feel that refugee influx could place a greater stress on government finances and even pose a threat to national security. There are others who believe that countries should have an open door policy towards refugees out of humanitarian concern. 

At this juncture, it would be of interest to note how some countries have dealt with refugees in the past and the repercussions it caused in their economy. Lessons can be drawn from their experiences. Nordic countries, sometimes referred to as the Scandinavian countries, are a compelling case study.

Introduction to Nordic Development Model

 Before going further, it is important to have a basic understanding about these countries. Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden – have almost everything that any country would aspire to have. They have a highly successful mixed model of development. The Economist considers them as ‘The next supermodel’ – one which ‘injects market principles into a welfare state’.

 They have one of the freest economies in the world. There is near zero government intervention or regulation of businesses. People are given maximum possible freedom to pursue their interests. For these reasons, the Scandinavian countries have consistently featured among the best in the world in almost all rankings measuring “liberal” parameters.

 At the same time, these countries have exceptionally high tax rates of around 50% and a very large government sponsored welfare system. These countries are known for their remarkable social security net offered to citizens.

 Unemployment allowances, housing allowances, affordable education and health care, generous paid leaves (including paternity and maternity leave), subsidized child care are some features of the Nordic model. To a socialists delight, these countries are the best performing in the “socialist” parameters as well. They have set the benchmark for the rest of the world with their very high HDI, very low economic inequality and very high social mobility.

Response to Refugee Crisis

 Their welfare model had one limitation – it was designed for a small and homogenous society. These countries had a relatively homogenous population and a close to utopian economy since late 1990s. They even withered the recent great financial crisis without hassles. But, things began to change when the Syrian civil war started and they began dealing with the refugee crisis. Each of the Nordic countries dealt with it differently. Sweden, for instance, decided to have an open door policy for refugees welcoming everyone. Norway on the other hand, went for a cautious approach – welcoming only select refugees.

 While Sweden’s open door policy was a great gesture from a humanitarian perspective, they did not guard their economy against the consequences arising from such an action – the stress it put on their welfare model. Their experience dealing with refugee crisis urges one to be cautious. 

Profile of Host Country

The first lesson that these countries provide is the need to identify how well equipped the state is in order to receive the refugees. To assess its capacity, a country would have to consider factors such as population density of the country, demographic profile, size of the economy and the size of public expenditure towards welfare.

 Countries having an unfavourable dependency ratio (shortage of labour force) should be more willing to take in refugees, so long as the refugees fit the requisite demographic profile (age and skill set). This could have a net positive impact on their economy.

 Countries which spent less for public welfare and entitlements might face lesser financial risk in accepting refugees.  However, Governments – like those in the Nordic – offering large welfare benefits are likely to experience greater stress on their finances due to refugee influx.

 Questions on how the refugees will earn their living needs to be answered as well – whether they would be able to find suitable employment and to what extent they will be reliant on state finances.

 Owing to the very high cost of living, it is virtually impossible to live in these countries without a job that pays decently. That is where some of the Nordic countries like Sweden failed. There weren’t enough jobs on offer for these immigrants to take up. As a result, unemployment rate shot up and this in turn placed great stress on their welfare model. The refugees contributed little back to the economy and had to rely on the state welfare system.

 Reliance on the tax funded government welfare machinery, led to dissent from some sections among Swedes who began to feel that that the refugees were getting disproportionate benefits out of the large taxes which they paid. This led to a whole new crisis which escalated to such an extent that immigration policy was the focal point of discussion during elections in Sweden last year. Dissent among citizens against refugees can have far reaching consequences –politically and socially.

Integration of refugees into local community

 This gives us the second lesson – the easiness with which refugees can integrate into the local community. That is, how the people in the state would respond to the new situation – or the preference and choice of the public. This would be pivotal when the government makes decisions regarding immigrants. At the end of the day, it is the public’s attitude that is reflected in the decisions taken by the government.

 The identity of the state and the attitude of citizens towards immigrants are of utmost importance. People in the Nordic countries are generally known for taking pride in their humanitarian efforts. Some aspire to be recognized as the ‘moral guardians of the world’. It would be easier for refugees to integrate into a community that welcomes them wholeheartedly, rather than treating them as intruders or outcasts.

The willingness of people to share their resources with the refugees should be taken note of. If the public shares such humanitarian concerns, it will be easier for the government to take proactive measures to welcome refugees.

 But at the same time, government funding is all about priorities. During a survey, majority of Danes opined that immigrants are coming to their country seeking welfare benefits on offer. This, they felt would leave little funds to provide pension entitlements for the poor Danes in their country. As a result, government decided to divert resources to fund the needy amongst their own citizens.

 From the perspective of refugees, they would be in dire need of state support to facilitate their integration into the local ecosystem – the local community and the local economy. Going into a country which does not offer any welfare support would be nightmarish for them. They would prefer countries offering greater welfare benefits.

Quality and Profile of Refugees

 The third important lesson is concerning the quality of immigrants being accepted – their profile, health conditions and background.

 Norway, despite having the largest sovereign wealth in the world, was cautious in accepting refugees. They admitted refugees only after a careful screening process. Some applications were rejected by the Norway government as their medical conditions were considered too serious for their health system to manage. They also deported some refugees over national security concerns.

 At the same time, it should be asked whether Norway could have borne greater risk and taken in more number of refugees – given their financial capacity. Moreover, there would always be refugees who are medically critical and who those are not in a position to earn a living by themselves. According to Washington Post, more than 46% of refugees are children, and a majority of them are under the age of 12.

Thus, countries which look for net benefit will not be keen to take in refugees. There is a case for equitable distribution of such refugees – possibly, by random selection – across different countries. The debate over Citizen Rights versus Human Rights assumes great significance in this context.

Role of International Organizations

 Thus, the fourth and most important lesson is that what is best for an individual country may not be the collective interest of the world at large. Amnesty International has reported that, as of September 2015, around 95% of the Syrian refugees are in just five countries - Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The responsibility of humanitarian action in the Syrian refugee crisis should not be limited to the EU countries or a select few countries in the vicinity. In our globalised economy, it is inevitable that countries share the risks involved when dealing with humanitarian crisis of this scale. Having a weak link (like Syria) is unaffordable as it puts the entire global economy at risk. This calls for greater role of international organizations like the UN.

 These organizations can try to come up with a framework assessing the refugee intake capacity of different countries and ensure more efficient distribution of refugees. They can consider setting up a humanitarian fund for such dealing with refugee crisis since a major concern would be related to financing the integration of refugees into the local economy. Countries presently unaffected by this crisis would also do well to be prepared for such contingencies that may arise in future.

By,
Sibin Sabu

sibin0409@gmail.com

National Games: The Curious Case of the Host State

*This article was first published by Centre for Public Policy Research

National Games is meant to identify and promote sports talent in the country while also developing sports infrastructure. With that objective in mind, the Central government and the government of the host state pumps a lot of money for the conduct of the National Games.

The recently concluded National Games in Kerala had a total budget of well over 600 crore rupees spent mostly on sports infrastructure. However, despite of all the facilities created for the games, the intensity and quality of the competition leaves much to be desired. Several prominent international players, especially those from Badminton and Boxing, gave the event a miss which is a matter of concern.

In other countries, it is common to see several World Records getting broken during their National Games. Over here, breaking a National Record itself is a very rare sight.

Making use of the Sports Infrastructure

It needs to be seen if the state government will be able to make good use of the sports infrastructure and other facilities that were created during the event. It is going to be a considerable challenge and it is inevitable that the government finds a way to use these facilities profitably.

Historically, the creation of such sports facilities has not made any difference to the development of sports in any state.

Delhi had organized the 2010 Commonwealth Games and sports infrastructure worth thousands of crores of rupees had been created in the State. Naturally, Delhi which finished sixth with 27 Gold Medals in the 2007 National Games would have been expected to put up a stronger performance in the current National Games because so much had been spent for the welfare of the sports in Delhi. However, they finished at a dismal 19th position after struggling to win even 5 Gold medals.

Anomalous Behaviour of the Hosts

On the other hand, Kerala which had finished 7th in the previous National Games has climbed to second spot in the medal tally and won 24 Gold Medals more when compared to the last National Games. While this is an indicator of sports talent in the state, this also provides an interesting insight on the performance of host states in National Games.

If we analyze carefully we can discover a strange coincidence. We can find that in recent times, whenever a state has organized this premier event, it has featured in the top 5 in Medal Tally.

Kerala had become the Champions when it hosted the event in 1987. The 1997 National Games was hosted by Karnataka and they won the largest number of medals.

Manipur which had finished 9th in the 1997 National Games, became the overall champions when they hosted the event two years later.

In 2001, it was the turn of hosts Punjab to become the champions. Meanwhile, Andhra Pradesh which had won only 11 Gold Medals in 2001 went on to become the Champions when they hosted it in 2002 winning a whopping 94 Gold Medals overall.

Assam had managed to win only a single gold medal and had finished a meager 21stposition in 2001. But, in the subsequent 2007 National Games that they hosted, they were the second runners-up winning a total of 38 Gold Medals. In 2011, Assam returned to oblivion finishing 15th overall and winning only 5 Gold Medals.

Jharkhand had been in the 15th position in 2007 National Games. However, they rose to the 5th position when they hosted it in 2011. Now, we see Kerala repeating this trend.

These statistics definitely prove that each state has enough talent to be the best performing state in the country. Yet, they choose to put it on display only when their state hosts the event.

Clearly, there is something amiss somewhere. What can explain this anomalous behavior of the host states in the National Games which spur them to perform only when the Games happen in their host state?

There are a number of reasons contributing to this trend. One major reason is the higher number of participants from the host state and comparatively lesser number of participants from other states.

For example, Kerala is fielding nearly twice the number of participants that it did in 2011 National Games.

The question arises as to why they were not able to participate in the previous edition if they were capable of winning a medal.

The answer to that question reveals an even more disturbing trend – sportspersons cannot meet the finances or they do not get leave from their employer.

In a country where sportspersons who excel in their field are taken away from sports and tied down to a government job, this could hardly be surprising. The medal winners of the current national games will also be given government jobs sooner or later. This is the greatest curse of the sports in India because it does more harm than good for the development of sports.

Old wine in a new bottle

If the government intends to bring about a change in the abysmal performance of our sportspersons in International Competitions including the Olympics, then it must make career in Sports an attractive option instead of handing out government jobs to them.

To make sports an attractive career option, the government must initiate steps to involve the corporate sector to a much greater extent and limit its own involvement to the bare minimum.

Until that happens, every effort to revive sports in this country would be like old wine in a new bottle.

What If...

Theoretically, there are a few things that happen by chance in our lives (we have no control over them) and there are some that happen because of our choices (we can control them).

But, may be, there is nothing called chances and choices! The choices we make are based on chance events.

I might choose to study engineering. But, my choice is influenced by other chance events, say, the attitude of my peers and the advice given to me by others. And, the attitude of my peers in turn depends on other chance events as well. Funny thought, really.

Perhaps, destiny is the word. May be, everything happens for a reason, and all our acts, irrespective of what we think, fall-in-line with some divine plan.

Everything we do have far reaching consequences. I recently read a fantastic novel, "The 5 people you meet in heaven". It is a different genre of short story that conveys the thought with great effect.

The way the world is inter-connected is fascinating. My decision today will affect the decision someone makes tomorrow. So, what if I took a different action today? We really have no idea.

With the decision I take at this moment, I am effectively, influencing the actions that many will take in future. An eerie thought, isn't it.

Steve Jobs, in one of the most motivational speeches recorded in history, said that life is all about connecting the dots. In the speech, Jobs shared 3 stories from his life to drive home this perception of life. For those of you, who haven't seen that video, make sure you see it because it is something that changes your attitude.

Here is a small excerpt from his inspiring speech:

"Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."

Connecting the dots simply mean that, all the events are inter-related and nothing happens without a reason. Once that belief sinks in, our perspective changes and we can learn more and understand life a bit more.

Now, applying this same thought to my life, I made a few discoveries. And I loved the exercise, because it was really comforting (:P). It might be fun (though meaningless) if you look at certain pivotal moments in your life and think of what would have happened had the decision been different.

Think of this-

• If you hadn't gone that particular way; you wouldn't have met that person.
• If you hadn't been there, it wouldn't have happened.
• If you had sat with a different person on the first day of your school/college, you would never have had that great friend.
• If you had marked that answer correctly in the entrance exam, you would probably have got admission in a different college

  T

These are thoughts on some of the seemingly minute incidents which would have shaped us into becoming what we are now.

You can also apply the same idea to a larger scale, to events since stone age or even earlier.

What could be the reason behind all those massacres and bombings and killings? What could be the 'reason' behind all the atrocities committed by the IS? What reason could there be behind Holocaust? These are questions which no one can find an answer to.

Connecting the dots at a macroscopic level would be impossible considering all the variables involved. However, at a microscopic, that is, personal level, one can always apply this and see how our life has been shaped by chance events or choice whatever one calls it.

There are other aspects to this line of thought. We read daily of unfortunate accidents taking away the lives of many. The fact that we are still living is a miracle, when we think about it. We just don't appreciate that fact enough.

The fact that I was born into this world is another miracle, given the chances of my parents finding each other. Why didn't Hitler get killed in a road accident or suffer a heart attack while they were young? Or, what would have happened if Einsteins dad had married someone else - would Einstein have happened?

If I had been born and brought up in the ecosystem like that in Afghanistan or Iraq, would I have become another Ajmal Kasab? What would have happened if Bin Laden was born here in India - would he have become a terrorist?

Likewise, am I what my ecosystem has made me? Why am I here? Is there someone out there controlling everything, moving the pieces as in a chessboard, planning my life and my future?

Life is full of questions; questions without answers. That is what makes it so exciting to many. No one can ever know what could have happened, had one made a different choice or if something else had happened. Again, the truth is that, nothing is in my control, but the present. That too, only partially.

We might have no idea as to how our decisions are influencing that of others'. We will be clueless as to why certain things have happened in our lives. But, we can take comfort in the thought that it is happening for a reason, whatever that reason might be.

T

If you believe in God, great! Because, the belief that God is in-charge and that whatever happens is for my best, is the best that can ever happen. Nothing else makes sense.

The belief that I am here not without reason stems from the fact that there is too much mystery and too many coincidences to believe otherwise. I didn't just happen to be here. I was 'placed' here, among these people, in this part of the world and at this point of time.

My life is the product of the choices man has been taking since his creation in response to all the chance events.

Whatever it may be, believe. Believe that nothing is a coincidence.

The word coincidence is not found in the dictionary of believers. There is a reason for everything. There is a reason why you are reading this.

Believe.

An Incredible Tale of Names, Namesakes and Opportunists...

Last week my relative returned from the US to attend his elder brother's marriage. And the day before the marriage, there is a tradition existing in our part of the world, or rather our community. All the close relatives of the bride would gather together and each one had to narrate a funny incident which happened in their lives in the past year. And, if they fail to make everyone laugh, he/she would have to do a 'dare' others demanded.

It was a fun occasion and a lot of funny incidents were discussed and a few funny dares were also done. But, being a recent passout, the incident that my cousin from US narrated appeared incredibly funny, ridiculous and amusing.

I would rather narrate the incident in his own words, with a few explanatory sentences added so you get to know him better.

"After four long years studying electrical engineering, 3 years in an IT Company and another two years of MBA, I decided I had seen enough of India. I went to the US of A (my parents live there) searching for jobs.

I applied for several openings and tasted success only in my 13th attempt. The job application process and the nature of interview are so different from that over here in India. And I still remember one such interview, my 9th attempt. The interviewer was a charming young lady with a pleasing personality and a warm smile.

After the preliminary pleasantries we started talking about my academics. She asked me from which university I graduated (apparently, the westerners don't refer to college name. They only inquire about the university we belong to). So, I said, 'Mam, I graduated from the Mahatma Gandhi University, which is one of the pioneers in engineering education in our country'.

What happened next came as a surprise to me. She said, "Oh.. Mahatma Gandhi University!! Wow, that's nice.. I am a huge admirer of Gandhi, though I didn't know a university existed in his name. Must have been a great place to study, eh". She also showed me Gandhiji's talisman as well as Gandhiji's portrait which she had hung on the walls of her office.

Surprised that I was, I didn't show any of it outside (atleast I think so). To think that the name of my university would have such a profound impact on the interviewer was unimaginable.

I had heard tales of how names of people make interviewers ask questions in a particular direction. I had a friend named Minesh Happy. Whenever he went for an interview, during introduction he would say, 'My name is Minesh Happy. People call me Happy.'  Inevitably, interviewers would then ask him about his intriguing, strange, funny and amusing name. And the interview would go along nicely in that direction. He always made the interviewers ask the questions he wanted them to ask and he was often successful in doing so because of his 'good name'.

However, I was not blessed with any such fancy names to play with and here was an opportunity that I could never possibly imagine. I decided to impress her further. Somehow, an urge for creativity grew inside me. An idea came to my mind suddenly (dimag ki bathi jala di)..

I told her, "As a matter of fact, this university was founded by Gandhiji himself in 1937 and it is one of the biggest in India. Some even call it modern Takshashila......." and so I went.

For the first time in my life I felt good for studying in such a 'great' university which provided me the opportunity to exploit its great name. The creative genius in me dished out even more fantabulous tales about it. I congratulated myself for not overdoing it.

The interviewer was clearly impressed with my academic background and the whole interview was going on very nicely. I thought I had nailed a job at last and I felt great about myself.

But, as it happens, what happened next was something I didn't foresee. The ardent fan that she was, she couldn't resist learning more about this great university. She opened her laptop and Googled to know more about my great university..... "

The rest, I leave to your imagination. :D

100 not out and counting...

I am speaking about our new BJP govt, and in particular the captain of the team Narendra Modi here.

I was among the many who were quite anxious as to how the new govt would treat different religions and to what extent saffronisation would be done. So far, it has been so good.

The first 100 days were amazing with a lot of new energy and direction coming in. At least, that is what I felt as an outsider interested in these things..

Positives:

A lot of factors have worked in favour of BJP at the moment. The US economy is reviving. So it has triggered an early recovery and growth in our economy as well. The govt has not faced any major crisis in the past 100 days- No scams, No natural disasters and No major allegations against the govt. They have been helped further by the fact that the Congress party is now weaker and no one has been able to rise to the position of the opposition party. Also, they control most of the seats in the Lok Sabha which means that need not depend on coalition politics to get bills passed.

Less Talk and More Work- That is what Modi has been doing in the past 3 months. He vowed not to interact with the Media until atleast 3 months in the office was over. According to newspaper reports, the secretariat is working more punctually and more systematically now. Ministers are working late and coming quite early. Modi appears to be a no nonsense man and I have begun to respect him enormously.

Policy wise, I think this govt is going to achieve a lot more than the previous UPA govts. This govt has set apart a significant amount for the development of the MSME sector and in particular the export industry. Modi said in his highly acclaimed independence speech that the youngsters must look at each items that are being imported into the country and see how they can be manufactured here. There is a lot of encouragement given to aspiring entrepreneurs and our economy has exceeded expectations in the last quarter as far as GDP is concerned, reaching a 10 quarter high of 5.7% while the prediction was 5.5%.

The new govt is also likely to bring in the Goods and Services Tax policy which would imply that exporters/manufacturers would need to pay only one single tax instead of around 12 different indirect taxes in different categories. The UPA govt had tried to implement that Tax system but BJP had opposed it then. But now, the BJP are the ones trying to implement it. One might wonder why this change of heart now. Politics is something which only the politicians can understand. Whatever it be, if the GST is implemented it would augur well for our country.

So far apart from a few isolated instances where Party members tried to impose/proclaim Hindutva, there has been nothing to worry. Modi send a strong message against communal politics in his independence day speech, which was a very good thing.

Negatives:

If there is anything to criticise, I think it would be the resignation of non-BJP (affiliated) governors in different states of the country. That could have been avoided or better managed.

Also, there is no Leader of Opposition or an Opposition Party at the moment. This could mean that democratic discussions may not be as effective as it should be. Whether the Congress Party deserved to hold the Leader of Opposition post is another question. However, it is my opinion that Congress Party could have been given that post, even though it is impossible considering the political mileage the BJP can get if the Congress doesn't hold that post.

Another issue would be the appointment of Amit Shah as the BJP President. I strongly feel that it sends the wrong signal. Amit Shah was arrested a few years ago and even recently action was taken against him for hate speech. Appointing such a person is not the right thing to do, isn't it? That is what I feel about it.

Lastly, there is the Modi-fication of BJP with senior veterans being left out of the mix. Is BJP becoming a one man army? If so, is that a good thing? Democracy should mean distribution of power. If power gets concentrated in one man's hands, it can turn bad. Will Modi become a Dictator in a Democracy? Both his Party and Government has been completely Modi-fied. It is the attribute of the strong leader that Modi is. However, the question is will other opinions be shut out?

A thin line separates Strong leadership and Dictatorship.

Is it fair?

Back to blogging...

Okay, so this will be about the Israel Palestine Conflict. This is one of the most interesting issues at hand. It is a very complicated case and I myself don't know what to conclude or what is just.

The question is, is it fair to get back what belonged to you a long time ago?

Think of this. You own some property, say, xyz hectares of land. This property means everything to you. The property obviously belonged to someone else initially. But, you bought (conquered) it. Centuries later, your family members still occupy the land. But, then someone comes and steals it from you. No one could stop them. There was no United Nations and everyone minded their own business. You conceded defeat. Now after several generations, centuries later, you are in a position to get it back. But, the current occupants won't give it to you. In the meantime, the world has changed. All world is one nation. Your business is everyone's business. They interfere. War is Humanitarian Crisis today and rightly so. Everyone wants it to stop. Yet, when the place was invaded and annexed from your possession centuries ago, it was private matter. No one interfered. It was your business to protect your land and failing to do so, you yield it to your enemy. That was the rule back then. So, is it fair if you try to win it back again, using the same brute force that your opponents used to take it away from you?

This is in essence the simplified story of Palestine or Israel. Palestine used to belong to Israel for several until 7th Century when the Islamic Empire conquered it. Israel used to own the land for several centuries prior to that. And yeah, in the very beginning the land belonged to no one, right. :-P

Look at the two images below. Pay attention to the timeline given.

I will add to your confusion. Add religion into the mix. Jerusalem is the holy place of both Jews and the Arabs, not to mention the Christians. Both the countries seek control over it. And, it is the capital of both Israel and Palestine.

Jerusalem Temple was the most important place of worship of the Jews. It was destroyed twice (after it got destroyed once, Israel rebuilt the temple again because it meant the world to them) and now on the same site stands the Dome erected by the Islamic Empire. So, what should be done about it? Who is to blame? Blame History!

To make matters worse, both Palestine and Israel want control over each other's location because only then can they be fully satisfied.

Now, coming back to the original question. Is it fair to annex what belonged to you long ago? Should Israel forget all about it? This goes in circles, like a dog trying to bite its tail. This war will not stop. It cannot, i.e, unless either Israel or Palestine yields ground. And that will never happen voluntarily. So, brute force and classic invasion tactics will continue to be used.

Prophecies in the Bible and Quran are very much interesting in this case. For the time being, let us stop here.

Hope I have made your day!

_____________________________________________

PS: I have ignored a lot of facts in this brief write-up. There are a lot of questions that needs to be asked. For example, Why can't neither countries agree to a ceasefire? Who violated the ceasefire first? Who started the war first? Who ousted whom first? Who inhabited the land first? Who is the rightful owner of the land? You will have to do your own research to find out answers to these.

Here are a few links that will help you:

1. Temple in Jerusalem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_in_Jerusalem

2. https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100607174314AAKjRUx

3. https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090224192028AAIQY1y

4. Wikipedia pages of Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem and Israeli Palestine Conflict