‘Centre Has No Interest in Inclusive Decision Making or Debate, I Oppose NMP’: Tamil Nadu FM

In conversation with The Wire, the Tamil Nadu finance minister who recently presented a revised budget for the state, for 2021-22, came out strongly against the lack of dialogue and debate between the Modi government and states. 

Palanivel Thiagarajan, the Tamil Nadu finance minister, has vehemently opposed the Union finance ministry’s decision to roll out the NMP or National Monetisation Pipeline. 

“We are against the privatisation of Chennai or Trichy airport. Of course we are going to take it up with the Central government. The fundamental problem today is that the Union government today is not interested in inclusive decision making or debate as the precursor to outcomes. The functioning of the parliament has been there for everybody to see – the proportion of bills that are sent to Committee, the extent of debate on a bill, the flexibility before anything has been made into a law, all this has suffered greatly over the last few years,” Thiagarajan said.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has also opposed the idea of an NMP and indicated that he would write to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to give up the plan. The Tamil Nadu finance minister has also, additionally, been vocal in his criticism of GST.

Speaking to The Wire, he pointed out that he saw the GST conflict between states and the Union government as a more fundamental issue.

“This notion that you can have one nation one tax is a contradiction in terms. If you think you can homogenise policy across the country, one nation one x – all of these are inherently a contradiction in terms because the extent of variability is so high across states, not just on their linguistic and cultural basis but because the development between them has separated so far. For example, the doctor patient ratio in Tamil Nadu is 7 times than that of the poorest states in the Hindi belt. So when you start looking at such great divergence, you realize how flawed this notion of ‘one law’ is,” he said.

The finance minister pointed to a recent instance: “In GST, at the 43rd Council, one issue that came up for consideration was for ease of doing business should it be considered that for small businesses ( below Rs 5 crore turnover) who right now have to file every quarter but pay dues every month, should that restriction be eased so that they can pay every and file every quarter for ease of business. It is the exact states who earlier said no we can’t be seen as small vs big stat.es, immediately protested. They said no, we can’t afford it. Most of our payers are below Rs 5 crore. If they pay every 3 months, our liquidity model would get damaged. In Tamil Nadu, my estimate is that less than 15% of my GST payers is below the Rs 5 crore level. So if it were in the national interest, though it would cause some constraints, I am okay with it. But that is precisely why it is so different for different states.” 

Thiagarajan added, “The rush to get GST done, not only left limitations in the design, it also left serious limitations in the implementation and it is still functioning, in my opinion, sub-optimally even for the design that exists. We have data why don’t we use it ? Doesn’t seem to ever come to the meeting.”

Modi’s Asset Monetisation Bonanza Must Avoid the Ownership Concentration Trap

In effect, perhaps four or five big corporate groups with access to bank funds will bid for airports, ports, coal mines, gas pipelines and power generation projects for long term lease operations.

The Narendra Modi government does not seem to have fully thought through the myriad conceptual and operational problems it might face in its mega public asset monetisation programme to raise Rs 6 lakh crore over the next four years.

Public assets in sectors like airports, railways, roads, power, ports, gas pipelines, mining and telecom have been built painstakingly with the taxpayer’s money over the past 70 years. Now suddenly, these assets, which form the nation’s backbone infrastructure, are being offered to private players via long term leases of 25-50 years. It is tantamount to the government fully appropriating today, future cash flows to accrue over 30-50 years from these assets.

Whether it is 28,600 circuit km of power transmission lines run by Power Grid Corporation or 8,154 km of gas pipeline built by GAIL, or 160 coal mining projects ― which together are valued at close to Rs 1 lakh crore ― the government is offering these assets to private sector management on long lease but realising the entire bulk rental value today. On paper, the government says it will own the assets during the long lease period, which will be operated by the private sector. But effectively, they will be fully depreciated to zero value at the end of the period.

Watch: ‘Bearish on India’s Economic Outlook, Never Seen These Fiscal Deficit Levels’

The key conceptual issue here is this: the Modi government wants to appropriate at once all future earnings from assets owned by the taxpayer, but there is no clarity on the compensation offered to the taxpayer. Imagine that as a taxpayer, you own a small portion of a gas pipeline or mineral deposit. Your earnings from it for the next 30 years are being captured today by the government. What you get in return is not clear at all, except a vague promise that this money will be used to create more infrastructure assets. In a hugely mismanaged revenue deficit financing framework, a large part will go towards paying salaries and meeting other current expenditures.

There is a major issue of inter-generational equity here. The government must clearly articulate it in an official document. How will the government compensate subsequent  generations if it appropriates all their future earnings today? A clear framework of inter-generational equity needs to be spelt out to justify such a massive monetisation of public assets, listing new assets to be created or promising national debt reduction.

And what of implementation, Modi’s weakest link? The government has failed to achieve simple PSU divestment and privatisation targets so far. It is unable to find a buyer even for a blue chip oil company like BPCL. One can imagine what will happen in a complex 30-40 year outsourcing project to the private sector.

Big global pension funds refuse to buy into such a programme unless there is stability of long term contracts and assurance of independent regulation. The NITI Aayog has suggested forming sectoral Infrastructure Investment Trusts (INVITs) on the basis of the initial experience of leasing assets of Power Grid Corporation.

Also read: Here’s Why We Should Allow Liquidation of a Company as a ‘Going Concern’

The public assets will be transferred to a separate entity to be financed by such trusts, which will act like mutual funds in which global and local funds will have shares. However, global funds are demanding that their management should not be dominated by members of the public sector, which would create conflict of interest. Moreover, for fossil fuel assets like coal mines and hydro/thermal generation plants, there will be no long-term investors. Global finance is shunning such assets under their environment and social governance policies.

In effect, perhaps four or five big corporate groups with access to bank funds will bid for airports, ports, coal mines, gas pipelines and power generation projects for long term lease operations. This could lead to massive wealth concentration even if the government remains nominally the owner. This is the point Rahul Gandhi has raised ― that these public assets may end up with a few corporate groups which already enjoy some degree of monopoly.

There is also the larger question of political stability. If leasing is done without consensus ― as is the Modi government’s tendency ― a future government can renege on such contracts. The Modi government must take all stakeholders on board, whether it is the Opposition, trade unions, senior public sector staff or civil society in general. Seventy years’ worth of public assets cannot be leased out on a whim.

Kerala Congress MP Moves Supreme Court Against New Farm Law

T.N. Prathapan, who represents Thrissur Lok Sabha constituency in Kerala is ‘unconstitutional, illegal and void’.

New Delhi: A Congress MP from Kerala moved the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions of the contentious new farm Act.

T.N. Prathapan, who represents Thrissur Lok Sabha constituency in Kerala, has alleged that the Farmers’ (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 is violative of Right to equality (Article 14), the prohibition of discrimination (15) and Right to life and liberty (21) of the Constitution.

The law, which provides for contract farming and was accorded Presidential assent on Sunday, is “liable to be struck down as unconstitutional, illegal and void”, Prathapan claimed.

As per the government, the new law intends to provide a national framework for farm agreements to protect and empower farmers while engaging with agri-and food processing firms, wholesalers, exporters and large retailers for farm services and sale of produce at a remunerative price framework in a fair and transparent manner.

Prathapan, in the plea filed through lawyer James P. Thomas, referred to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Model Act of 2003 and said that it was introduced to fulfil two principles meant to ensure that no farmer is exploited by intermediaries and all food produced is brought to a common market to sell through auction.

Without APMC acting as a protective shield around the farmers, the market would ultimately fall to the corporate greed of multinational companies who are more profit-oriented and have no care for the conditions of the poverty-stricken farmers who are dependent on farming for their livelihood, the plea said.

Also read: Farm Reforms: Is This the 1991 Moment for India’s Agri-Business Sector?

The APMC deterred the exploitation of farmers by providing Minimum Support Price (MSP) which guarantees that the farmer who comes to the APMC would not leave empty-handed, it said.

“Indian Agriculture is characterised by fragmentation due to small holdings and has certain inherent weaknesses beyond control such as dependence on weather, uncertainties in production and an unpredictable market. This makes agriculture risky and inefficient in respect of both input and output management,” the plea said.

It said the challenges faced by farmers such as dependence on weather cannot be addressed by monetisation of the product to increase their income, instead of strengthening the APMC system by infusing more capital and effective management of MSP.

The plea said that the common man, agriculture and the Indian economy are umbilical to one another.

The promotion of agreements for farming produce will weaken the process of monetisation as per the current structure of the Act… Through the provisions mentioned in the above-noted act, de-risking of agriculture as claimed by the Government at various stages is wrong on the analysis of the provisions enacted, it said.

The petition challenged the constitutionality of various Sections of the farm law – 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18 and 19.

Some parts of the country have been witnessing farmer protests on the issue in view of the alleged apprehension that the law would pave a way for the dismantling of the minimum support price system, leaving them at the “mercy” of big companies.

Is a Life, Dominated in Every Moment by Work, Worth Living?

In this mode of being in a life dominated by work, one is guilty not only of not being as productive as possible but is also, witness to a constant impulse to get things done, making it impossible for one to experience things completely.

In this mode of being in a life dominated by work, one is guilty not only of not being as productive as possible but is also, witness to a constant impulse to get things done, making it impossible for one to experience things completely.

Workers Leaving the Factory Lithograph, 1903 by Théophile Alexandre Steinlen. Credit: www.famsf.org

Workers Leaving the Factory Lithograph, 1903 by Théophile Alexandre Steinlen. Credit: www.famsf.org

Imagine that work had taken over the world. It would be the centre around which the rest of life turned. Then all else would come to be subservient to work. Then slowly, almost imperceptibly, anything else – the games once played, the songs hitherto sung, the loves fulfilled, the festivals celebrated – would come to resemble and ultimately become, work. And then there would come a time, itself largely unobserved, when the many worlds that had once existed before work took over the world would vanish completely from the cultural record, having fallen into oblivion.

And how, in this world of total work, would people think and sound and act? Everywhere they looked, they would see the pre-employed, employed, post-employed, underemployed and unemployed and there would be no one uncounted in this census. Everywhere they would laud and love work, wishing each other the very best for a productive day, opening their eyes to tasks and closing them only to sleep. Everywhere an ethos of hard work would be championed as the means by which success is to be achieved, laziness being deemed the gravest sin. Everywhere among content-providers, knowledge-brokers, collaboration architects and heads of new divisions would be heard ceaseless chatter about workflows and deltas, about plans and benchmarks, about scaling up, monetisation and growth.

In this world, eating, excreting, resting, having sex, exercising, meditating and commuting – closely monitored and ever-optimised – would all be conducive to good health, which would, in turn, be put in the service of being more and more productive. No one would drink too much, some would microdose on psychedelics to enhance their work performance and everyone would live indefinitely long. Off in corners, rumours would occasionally circulate about death or suicide from overwork, but such faintly sweet susurrus would rightly be regarded as no more than local manifestations of the spirit of total work, for some even as a praiseworthy way of taking work to its logical limit in ultimate sacrifice. In all corners of the world, therefore, people would act in order to complete total work’s deepest longing: to see itself fully manifest.

This world, it turns out, is not a work of science fiction; it is unmistakably close to our own.

‘Total work’, a term coined by the German philosopher Josef Pieper just after the Second World War in his book Leisure: The Basis of Culture (1948), is the process by which human beings are transformed into workers and nothing else. By this means, work will ultimately become total, I argue, when it is the centre around which all of human life turns; when everything else is put in its service; when leisure, festivity and play come to resemble and then become work; when there remains no further dimension to life beyond work; when humans fully believe that we were born only to work; and when other ways of life, existing before total work won out, disappear completely from cultural memory.

We are on the verge of total work’s realisation. Each day I speak with people for whom work has come to control their lives, making their world into a task, their thoughts an unspoken burden.

For unlike someone devoted to the life of contemplation, a total worker takes herself to be primordially an agent standing before the world, which is construed as an endless set of tasks extending into the indeterminate future. Following this taskification of the world, she sees time as a scarce resource to be used prudently, is always concerned with what is to be done and is often anxious both about whether this is the right thing to do now and about there always being more to do. Crucially, the attitude of the total worker is not grasped best in cases of overwork, but rather in the everyday way in which he is single-mindedly focused on tasks to be completed, with productivity, effectiveness and efficiency to be enhanced. How? Through the modes of effective planning, skilful prioritising and timely delegation. The total worker, in brief, is a figure of ceaseless, tensed, busied activity: a figure, whose main affliction is a deep existential restlessness fixated on producing the useful.

What is so disturbing about total work is not just that it causes needless human suffering but also that it eradicates the forms of playful contemplation concerned with our asking, pondering and answering the most basic questions of existence. To see how it causes needless human suffering, consider the illuminating phenomenology of total work as it shows up in the daily awareness of two imaginary conversation partners. There is, to begin with, constant tension, an overarching sense of pressure associated with the thought that there’s something that needs to be done, always something I’m supposed to be doing right now. As the second conversation partner puts it, there is concomitantly the looming question: Is this the best use of my time? Time, an enemy, a scarcity, reveals the agent’s limited powers of action, the pain of harrying, unanswerable opportunity costs.

Together, thoughts of the not yet but supposed to be done, the should have been done already, the could be something more productive I should be doing and the ever-awaiting next thing to do conspire as enemies to harass the agent who is, by default, always behind in the incomplete now. Secondly, one feels guilt whenever he is not as productive as possible. Guilt, in this case, is an expression of a failure to keep up or keep on top of things, with tasks overflowing because of presumed neglect or relative idleness. Finally, the constant, haranguing impulse to get things done implies that it’s empirically impossible, from within this mode of being, to experience things completely. ‘My being,’ the first man concludes, ‘is an onus,’ which is to say an endless cycle of unsatisfactoriness.

The burden character of total work, then, is defined by ceaseless, restless, agitated activity, anxiety about the future, a sense of life being overwhelming, nagging thoughts about missed opportunities and guilt connected to the possibility of laziness. Hence, the taskification of the world is correlated with the burden character of total work. In short, total work necessarily causes dukkha, a Buddhist term referring to the unsatisfactory nature of a life filled with suffering.

In addition to causing dukkha, total work bars access to higher levels of reality. For what is lost in the world of total work is art’s revelation of the beautiful, religion’s glimpse of eternity, love’s unalloyed joy, and philosophy’s sense of wonderment. All of these require silence, stillness, a wholehearted willingness to simply apprehend. If meaning, understood as the ludic interaction of finitude and infinity, is precisely what transcends, here and now, the ken of our preoccupations and mundane tasks, enabling us to have a direct experience with what is greater than ourselves, then what is lost in a world of total work is the very possibility of our experiencing meaning. What is lost is seeking why we’re here.Aeon counter – do not remove

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.