What India wants

A very interesting picture revealing how Indians view their lives and the world has emerged from the results of a recent opinion survey conducted in India. The survey throws up some unexpected results, especially in terms of what they believe some of the biggest threats and challenges facing their country are.

 

Indians have a lot of expectations from their government, if the results of the survey — conducted by the Lowy Institute and the Australia India Institute — are anything to go by. However, there seems to be this huge gap between what the government thinks it needs to do and has done, and what people actually want it focus on.

 

Indians’ perceptions about threats to the country’s security are revealing. In sharp contrast to what this columnist (or several others) had assumed, Indians today believe that energy shortage is the biggest threat to the nation’s security, with 85 per cent of those polled believing so. One could be forgiven for having assumed that terrorism, extremism or external aggression from the likes of China and Pakistan would be the biggest cause of worry for Indians, but it is not. The next three big threats according to those polled were water shortages, environmental issues such as climate change and food shortages.

 

This is a remarkable sign, for it shows that a vast majority of Indians are most concerned about their own wellbeing and real issues that they are facing, as opposed to being driven by national pride and jingoism, or the forces that push these agendas. The threat of war, extremism and separatism could very easily have been seen as the biggest concerns expressed in a similar survey 15 years ago, but not anymore. Similarly, the threat posed by the Naxalite uprising, which has been on this administration’s agenda for the longest time now, is also not seen as serious a threat as energy, food and water shortages by a majority of the people.

 

This mindset is also reflected in Indians’ views on what are the most important domestic policy goals. Tellingly, 82 per cent of those polled believe that maintaining social peace and harmony was a very important policy goal, as compared to just about seven in 10 who believed the big task is to improve infrastructure such as roads, railways and electricity, or making the economy grow, or the protection of democratic rights. This is not to suggest these are not pressing issues, but people value stability and harmony more.

 

As India stands at an important juncture with general elections round the corner, these are important cues for the government as it looks to prioritise its objectives. Most people in the country are mainly concerned about the basic necessities in life. They want to live in an environment that is free of disharmony and disorder. Whilst there are obviously other concerns relating to security and other requirements in terms of policy goals too, it is clear that for now, Indians want their own houses and lives in order first.

 

It is not too much what the people are asking for. But first the government must acknowledge what it is that people are asking for.

 

(This was a column published in The Himalayan Times on 26 May 2013)

The sceptics have won

More than two months have passed since Khil Raj Regmi was sworn in as the head of Nepal’s interim government. Its singular mandate was to pave the way for another election to the Constituent Assembly by June 21. 

Regmi’s appointment of prime minister as a (largely) consensus candidate among the parties split opinion in the country, as most things in Nepal do. Some viewed it as an ingenious move of Bhattarai and the large political parties that could ultimately help resolve the rather longstanding limbo in the country. 

He was the Chief Justice and perceived to be a man of utmost integrity with no vested interests or political leanings. The move to appoint the Chief Justice as prime minister, certain legalities aside, was not without merit and offered a realistic possibility of getting things done. As a neutral of considerable public standing, Regmi was thought to be Nepal’s least bad choice for prime minister in the circumstances. Many alternatives had been tried, including a shambolic game of orchestrated musical chairs between the three key political parties, without yielding any results. 

Yet, his appointment had its share of sceptics. One kind, including this columnist, argued that his appointment could potentially create various conflicts of interest and scenarios that would become very difficult to resolve because the country simply did not have the mechanisms in place to address them. Were he to decide he quite liked his new title and post, there would be very few checks and balances on the power he enjoyed. Fortunately, his actions have largely been constitutional and not opposed to best interests of the country. 

The second bunch of sceptics believed that this was just an attempt by political parties to shift responsibility for the repeated failure to hold constituent assembly elections onto someone else. If anything, it would buy everybody more time and check increasing public discontent with the political parties. They believed from the beginning that the move to appoint the Chief Justice as the premier would only complicate things further and create another broker in a game that was already loaded with too many. 

The big doubt these sceptics have had is over the ability of chief justice — or any other institution of the state for that matter — to influence the ways and decisions of three big political parties. The political parties have refused to back down from their stated positions and the premier has been unable to set a date for the elections. An election that was supposed to be held by June 21 will definitely not happen by then and doubts are being cast over the likelihood of elections being held anytime this year. 

The political parties say they have still not been able to find common ground even after days of political parleys and meetings. Besides smacking of rather high levels of inefficiency, it is also hugely ironical that the parties want to arrive at common ground over everything before, rather than after the election. One would think the purpose of an election is for people to elect represent-atives who will stand for their different interests. Here, we are seeing a bizarre attempt by the political parties to go into an election with pretty much a common mandate. This is obviously beyond Regmi’s control. 

As we watch Nepal gradually become permanently interim, the sceptics have won. Yet again. 

(This was a column published in The Himalayan Times on 19 May 2013)

Recycling Capital

There is a buzz around venture philanthropy these days. It is an idea which, although developed almost a century ago, has only taken shape and obtained a structure over the last two to three decades, primarily in the West. It is now finally taking root in Asia, although it is still at a nascent stage.

There is an increasing focus on alternative models of development and an increasing acknowledgement of a few facts. The first is that most governments have neither the capabilities nor the means to meet social and economic development challenges on their own and hence, any help is beneficial.

Second, doling money out in the form of grants is not always helpful as is evident from the case of Nepal. Despite a few performance targets being put in place, the problem with grants still lies around the idea of accountability. Enterprises receiving grants are almost not accountable to donors. When there is a shortage of capital flowing into the lower end of the economy, there needs to be some degree of accountability to ensure that resources are effectively utilised.

Third, the other approach towards development has been that of loans. While bringing in a semblance of accountability, the issue with loans is that they often place a huge burden on the recipients who can struggle with the repayment terms.

In this light, venture philanthropy has the potential to play an important role. For starters, it brings greater participation of private capital. It is the idea that capital can be invested for philanthropic purposes, debunking the notion that only selfless giving can make a difference to the lives of others. Philanthropic investors also seek financial returns from their investment, but the capital they put to use will necessarily need to bring about some positive social impact. By actually investing in a business, investors retain a say in the management of the enterprise and hence, enterprises are made more accountable for the money they receive. Investors can also contribute to the success of domestic enterprises though providing technical assistance and helping train human capital.

For a nation as heavily dependent on aid as Nepal is, social venture capital funds or venture philanthropy funds can play a very important role in ensuring that small enterprises get access to capital they need. Gazaab Social Ventures, for instance, is one such organisation. The organisation seeks to create social entrepreneurs and to empower them economically such that they can help solve problems in their communities. There are other similar organisations in the country and the proliferation of the same could potentially reduce dependence on aid as it would bring more private capital into play.

The big challenge with venture philanthropy is finding the right opportunities to back, and subsequently, the right channels to exit enterprises once they have scaled. It is not as if there is no capital in Nepal – the big issue is not the unavailability of funds. Rather, it is that there are budding entrepreneurs cannot make use of capital markets to further their businesses. This is a gap that venture philanthropy and social investing can successfully fill.

Nepal already has a thriving non-profit sector focused on social activities. It is about time the pushed for something similar to focus on economic development. There will always be skeptics who will question the ethics of earning profits off social causes, but the importance here lies in scaling solutions and that is something that requires capital. What better way to do it than to have a model in place though which capital can be recycled?

(This was a column published in the Himalayan Times on 12 May 2013).