|
EDITORIAL
Why
Oil's Not Well
Forget
austerity drives-get specific on downsizing government
 In
the aftermath of the oil crisis, the government has raised prices and
simultaneously dug up the oldest shibboleth in the book: austerity drive.
As Petroleum Minister Ram Naik has pointed out, 50 per cent of India's
petrol consumption is courtesy the government. It's not just the petrol
bills that cause concern. India's over-bloated state--the Centre, provincial
governments and public sector companies employ 20 million people--is a
drag on the economy. Yet, other than resorting to verbal gymnastics-between
suggesting "downsizing" and "rightsizing"--no prime
minister seems to do anything about it. As always, the problem begins
at the very top. Atal Bihari Vajpayee's ministry has 70 members. Each
minister is entitled to a 10-strong personal staff. In turn, each Union
government secretary can hire five personal assistants. Elsewhere, the
phrase "underemployed employing more underemployed" may seem
a linguistic conundrum; in India it is state policy.
Public administration
analysts have long acknowledged that India's gigantic governmental machinery
is neither necessary nor cost effective. Yet, aside from a minor reduction
in the intake of IAS officers in the early 1990s--a step promptly reversed
the following year--little has come of such pious thoughts. This is why
the latest announcement about "a 10 per cent cut in budgetary allocations
for non-plan expenditure" will evoke only cynicism. If the government
wants to put its money where its mouth is, it would do better to indicate
a time frame in which it will abolish specific departments and reduce
its workforce. The pay commission's recommendation that government staff
be cut by a third could be recalled from the waste-paper bin. There is
no point drafting wordy austerity proposals when most ministers--the one
in Rail Bhavan being a good example--look upon job creation as the ultimate
in noble pursuits.
Sydney
Harbours Hopes
Focusing
on Indian sport's core competencies
 Despite
the collective depression that engulfed india after the hockey match against
Poland and after boxer Gurcharan Singh narrowly missed a medal, the country's
performance in the Sydney Olympics was clearly its best in a long, long
time. It wasn't just Karnam Malleshwari's bronze medal but also the fact
that an Indian hockey team has rarely looked physically fitter. At least
two of its boxers seemed world-class material and athlete K.M. Beenamol
came first in the 400 m heats, indicating her future potential if not
current prospects. Above all, expectations were so low and the hype so
limited that the honest effort of a clutch of sportspersons was genuinely
appreciated. It is such commitment that will, in time, win medals. The
lesson from Sydney is that India has to persist with its narrow-focus
approach-send modest contingents to international tournaments, stress
on specific disciplines and athletes and not waste limited resources on
non-starters. A model for india actually lies in China's sports policy.
The Chinese began their conquest of global sport with traditional strengths
like table tennis, badminton and women's volleyball. Today, they have
climbed the winners' stand even in fencing.
In a country
starved of sporting success, there is a tendency to over-publicise even
limited achievement. The number of talented sportspersons who are easily
satisfied with regional or Asian-level laurels and lack the hunger to
combat the best is long. No government agency can create this urge; it
is a product of social consciousness and individual initiative. What the
sports authorities can do is identify these sportspersons and give them
the resources. Already Beenamol is speaking of her plans for the 2004
Games. For a start why not send her, and others like her, abroad for training?
Top
|
In
India, youth is marked by impetuosity and prevented from getting ahead.
Elsewhere, of course, the young rule the world, says INDIA TODAY Deputy
Editor Swapan Dasgupta in 
