!-- Begin Web-Stat code 2.0 http -->

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Precious




Precious


Precious means valuable and to be guarded to be sure. But it also means, in another context, a self regard disproportionate to circumstance. A stance which is irritating and irksome to others, but the person in question, and in this context the country he or she represents, is oblivious to the discomfort his or her attitude is causing.

A lot of our babudom and politico inspired schemes and proposals that hover in the air threatening to turn into laws bear such description. User friendliness is not their objective. Perhaps an urge to bully and dominate born out of a neo-colonial rule book animates their conception.

And this preciousness of attitude has been there from the start of our journey as an independent nation. Remember the infamous Krishna Menon harangues from an assumed Socialist pulpit that lasted for a record number of hours at the United Nations? Or Mr. Nehru lecturing the United States on non-alignment. Even as we begged them for military assistance as China overwhelmed our forces in 1962. And remember the food assistance from JFK as we ran short?

Though we have come a long way, the preciousness persists to date, now into the second decade of the 21st century, in place of  the reasonable global outlook that would have made better sense. Foreigners and NRIs find it very difficult to do business with it, but our Government seems to need it for its own self esteem. Or is it the imperial influence of sitting in the North and South Blocks, up on Raisina Hill, flanking the way to Rashtrapati Bhavan, where the very stones breathe of ICS satraps and Viceroys?

And it isn’t as if everyone who is a citizen and “ordinarily resident” is entirely at peace with the routine highhandedness, arrogance and pomposity of Indian governance either, even though we may be used to it and perhaps resigned to our lot.

The preciousness does incalculable harm, both to our near-term and longer horizoned prospects, and damages our reputation as a country. The flip flop on GAAR (General anti-avoidance rules) with its burden of proof shifting from the tax authorities to the tax payer  and back again, along with its grandiose postponement for a year as a concession to the protests it sparked, is a case in point.

Happily, postponement of implementation in the Indian context may mean dropping the notion altogether. The strenuous argument that several other countries have clauses in their tax laws similar to GAAR and impose them retrospectively did not cut much ice. Besides do we want the investment we don’t have in-country, estimated at several trillion US dollars, for infrastructure development alone, or don’t we? And if we do, it makes sense to be attractive about it, does it not?

 But meanwhile, because we took our time over calling it off for the time being, global observers have had a field day questioning the “India Growth Story” afresh, in the absence of a “dependable economic environment” for FDI (Foreign direct investment).  

US rating agency Standard and Poor (S&P), too have dropped our sovereign rating a notch to “negative” from “stable” based on the drooping state of our economy, the precipitous fall in our annual GDP forecasts, our burgeoning deficits, our stalled industry and business climate, our falling agricultural outputs etc. As it is India’s rating is BBB- which is the lowest investment grade rating offered by S&P.

Of course, the carping aside, the foreigners will come, because of the substantial opportunities offered by the huge and growing Indian market, in a world that is stagnating in many of its parts. But the GAAR attracted so much criticism because of its jingoistic tone and its retrospective focus. Besides having a natural advantage is not an excuse for gracelessness.

Another irritant in the same vein is the law-making in Delhi with regard to GPA (General Power of Attorney) transfers of property with retrospective effect from October 2011, when the Supreme Court of India pronounced on the matter. It might set off a quick-fix revenue garnering option in other states too.  

Property and its development in the face of considerable demand is a propellant of both employment and the industries it draws upon. And yet, even in an economy buffeted by high oil prices, high interest rates, and rampant inflation, the Court and Government proceeds to score yet another self-goal.

In a property market slowed by high-interest rates and tight credit, making transfers tough and more expensive is probably ill-timed. But then, the Supreme Court upholds the law without much regard for ground realities when it gets around to it, and the Government seems to flex its muscles and set about putting pressure on others particularly whenever its own performance leaves much to be desired. At other times, it amends the law to suit itself and outflank the judiciary.

The GPA transfers of leasehold, or indeed freehold property, has gone on for years with the transfers duly registered by the Government without murmur. Why then should it open up a can of such succulent worms all of a sudden, that too retrospectively, using a Supreme Court order to protect itself? It wants the extra revenue by way of stamp duty of course. Hence a new attempt to right a neglected wrong.

Never mind that the finding, let alone obtaining the cooperation of people whom one has bought the property from on an irrevocable GPA, may be difficult. This notwithstanding, the Government wants not only that we should do so, but first have the seller pay to convert the properties to freehold if they qualify per criterion of “authorised” and “unauthorised”, and then effect a sale with the buyer paying for the Government’s applicable stamp duties.

The bogey of “unauthorised” construction has always been good for extractions of tribute. It gets built in the first place because of such lubrication, and then it comes apart because of eventual court orders.

The demolition squads come by years after the fact, on “unauthorised” properties or extensions. One may well ask why so much unauthorised construction comes up regularly. But we all know it does so with the connivance of the relevant authorities, and under their protective watch.

One may also ask why no attempt is made to punish those in the Government who have connived at such law-breaking. And why only the owners of the unauthorised construction should have their property demolished, that too at their own expense.

One can ask, but don’t hold your breath if you want any replies, because the bribery and corruption trail leading towards the authorities is not anything if not fairly inpenetrable.
 

(1,108 words)

10 May 2012
Gautam Mukherjee


Published as Leader Edit under title" Waking up a little late" on Edit Page of The Pioneer on 17th May 2012 and also online at www.dailypioneer.com

No comments: