Mint | Political thinking has become an unattractive career choice in free India

Economic incentives and India’s education policy have limited the space for new political thought. An opportunity for political thinkers in India lies in envisioning our experience with diversity and pluralism for the Information Age.

By Nitin Pai

Read the full article here.

Mint | Remodel higher education: Just fixing exams won’t help

The supply of professional education cannot keep up with demand unless there is a much greater role for private and for-profit institutions.

Read full article here.

Insurgencies are defeated by democratic politics, not force

The debate over providing Indian armed forces with special powers to carry out domestic counter-insurgency operations has been rejoined following the terrible killings at Oting, Nagaland. It is an important debate, not only to hold state authorities accountable for their actions, but also, more fundamentally, to review how the democratic Indian republic holds together its mind-bogglingly diverse population. Yet, decades after the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was legislated and invoked, we are no closer to a reconciliation of objectives, a constitutionally defendable consensus, or even a fresh new approach to handling the problem. Since many of the political ingredients of grievance, disaffection and separatism are still out there, the AFSPA has become a lightning rod for popular opposition to the way the Indian republic fights insurgencies, and in the extreme, to the republic itself. We can no longer afford to let such sore wounds fester and proliferate.

The contest to create the web's third generation has intensified

There are now three broad visions for the future of the internet. The first is a transformation into what Tim Berners-Lee calls “Web 3.0", a network that understands natural language and, depending on who you ask, will be open and ubiquitous, allow users to take back control from corporations and governments, and include billions of Things like sensors, robots and kitchen sinks. This vision is promoted by veterans and purists who believe that Big Tech’s dominance undermines open protocols that enable the internet, and also by many in the tech community who resent the market power of Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon. For their part, the world’s biggest tech companies see that it will be harder to grow at the giddy rates they are used to, and sprawling across various sectors can only take them so far. That’s why Mark Zuckerberg is promoting the second vision, that of a “metaverse", an immersive 3-D virtual reality world where everyone will have to wear goggles to plug in. Beyond Meta (previously Facebook), Microsoft, Roblox and many other companies are throwing their weight behind this vision while trying to get to the head of the queue.

Time for a Global Ban on Satellite Destruction Tests

Russia is a top-rung space power. In terms of technological capabilities, it ranks alongside the US and even surpasses it in some areas. The Russian establishment has a highly sophisticated understanding of the space domain. Moscow’s intellectual horsepower in space science, economics and strategy is outstanding. The Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, have demonstrated no less responsibility towards the preservation and protection of space for human activities than any other power. That is what makes Moscow’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test surprising.

Pledges at Glasgow could change the Global Distribution of Power

This article was originally published in The Mint, as part of Nitin Pai's fortnightly column, The Intersection. India was perhaps the only big country at the Glasgow CoP-26 meeting whose commitments were entirely driven by environmental considerations, and which came at a substantial cost to its medium-term economic prospects. Other major players had upsides. The transition from fossil fuels to modern renewables, for instance, presents China with a massive economic opportunity, given its dominance in solar, battery and nuclear power. Europe can protect its domestic industries from foreign competition by imposing green standards and tariffs. Given its advanced research and development ecosystem, the US is sure to derive economic benefits from the emerging global market for green technology.While energy transition will certainly create opportunities for Indian firms and consumers, the challenge of raising the living standards of hundreds of millions of our people has become even more daunting. It is uncertain if high economic growth at the scale required to create the 20 million jobs we need every year is possible within the parameters of India’s carbon commitments.Moreover, it is hard not to be sceptical about rich countries’ promises to ease the decades of pain and sacrifice the rest of the world has to bear. The righteousness of the West’s most ardent climate advocates must be seen against their abject failure to make covid vaccines available to billions of people in need of them today. The pandemic, like climate, is an indivisible collective threat to humankind. So countries, societies and leaders who are effectively refusing to come to the aid of billions of real people in this generation can hardly be relied upon to help future generations. Talk of $1 trillion in green financing and assistance from rich countries must be taken with liberal pinches of organic salt, given that we are still waiting for them to part with the $100 billion per year they promised at Paris six years ago.New Delhi can neither rely on the rich countries keeping to their emission commitments nor on receiving compensation for sacrificing growth. Financial Times columnist Megan Greene warns that, “There are inevitable short-term economic costs that risk generating a backlash against efforts to fight climate change." Rapid decarbonization is likely to cause a supply shock, raise prices and raise public debt. It will create winners and losers, and the latter could push back, as they have done against globalization. Yet, the pain that rich country populations will suffer is a trifle in comparison to that in the developing world, where well-known growth paths are to be abandoned and unknown, risky routes embraced. Lacking power in the international system, governments of developing countries will be compelled to require sacrifices from people too weak to mount backlashes.This is only partially a story of the hypocrisy and self-serving righteousness of powerful countries. If agreements like Paris’s and Glasgow’s are inadequate and unreliable, it is because the political structure of the world is not optimized to formulate solutions for humankind as a whole. Most of the 200-odd independent nation-states that exist today do so on the basis of national self-determination, the idea that people who share a lot of things in common and have their own homeland have the right to govern themselves. Whether or not people are better off under this dispensation is debatable. We have seen nation-states trample on the liberties of minorities and individuals. Their international conduct wilfully threatens the very existence of humanity. Addressing common global challenges was not even part of the design specifications of nation-states, which is why a collective front against a virus or a holistic approach to tackling climate change is touch-and-go at best.Our failure to adopt coherent global approaches to a growing number of important issues, such as international terrorism, public health, environment, weapons of mass destruction, transnational technology platforms and cyberspace governance, is in large part due to political structures. The best we can do under the current international system is to evolve a stable balance of power that creates an global order that permits global solutions for global problems. This long chain of hope, tenuous at best, is broken in many places. Xi Jinping’s absence at Glasgow indicates that no serious effort is on to try fixing this.As unprecedented are the risks to human survival and prosperity today, so are the opportunities for overcoming them. But we need to rethink political structures. Within countries, mechanisms of representative democracy and bureaucratic administration need overhauling. Across countries, there is a case for large, thin continental federations like the Indian republic and European Union. And what do we do with the United Nations?Let us hope that CoP-26 will achieve its goal of reducing carbon emissions. But in doing so, it will exacerbate other geopolitical and economic problems. Imagine a world where some other country replaces the Gulf as the global hub of energy. Fuel we will get from the sun and the air. But the supply of technology and raw materials to convert it to electricity may be dominated by China. Such a world is a decade away and will arrive well before we update our political structures. So, in whose image will the 21st century be constructed?

A ‘bubbles of trust’ approach

An asymmetric globalisation favouring China allowed Beijing to attain power. It is now using that power to undermine liberal democratic values around the world. The Chinese market was never open to foreign companies in the way foreign markets are to Chinese firms. This is particularly true in the information and communications technology sector: foreign media, technology and software companies have always been walled out of Chinese markets. Meanwhile, Chinese firms rode on the globalisation bandwagon to secure significant market shares in open economies. President Xi Jinping now formally requires Chinese firms to follow the political agenda of the Chinese Communist Party. But even before this, it was not possible to tell where private ownership ended and the party-state began.We are currently witnessing a global retreat from the free movement of goods, services, capital, people and ideas. But this should not be understood as a reaction to globalisation itself, but of its skewed pattern over the past four decades.Read the full article here.

US-China Missile Rivalry opens up New Opportunities for India

China has been showing off its hypersonic missiles for the past several years. That Chinese scientists have been publishing papers reporting their advances in such a sensitive field indicates that Beijing wants the world to know that it is developing these weapons. The US government is quite obviously aware of this. So one would not expect Washington to be greatly surprised to find that China has tested hypersonic missiles a couple of times this year.Yet, reports in the Financial Times and elsewhere have had US officials expressing shock at this development and comparing China’s hypersonic missile tests to a “Sputnik moment", a Cold War reference recalling how the Soviet Union surprised the world in 1957 by being the first to put an artificial satellite in orbit. We do not have the full details and Beijing’s missile is bound to be innovative in some ways, but the official reaction in Washington seems to be exaggerated.Read the full article on The Mint

The regulation of social media can be an opportunity for India

This article was originally published in The MintChina gives us an estimate of how many people you need to effectively monitor content on the internet. The Great Firewall employs over 100,000 people to prevent around a billion Chinese internet users from accessing content Beijing considers undesirable. That is one censor for every 10,000 users. In contrast, according to Frances Haugen, a whistleblower who released internal company documents to the media recently, Facebook has around 40,000 employees keeping an eye on content posted by its 2.5 billion users around the world, or a ratio of roughly 1:70,000. Thus, the company would need to employ seven times as many people to match the Beijing standard. In fact, if we account for the fact that Facebook would need to monitor conversations in over 100 languages, it might need as many as half a million censors.Sure, artificial intelligence can perhaps reduce the headcount requirements, especially if clever humans don’t stay a step ahead of censorship rules as they generally have throughout history. Even so, if social media networks come to be mandated to monitor user content as part of the ongoing scrutiny by the world’s governments, the world will need millions of censors in the coming years. They will be called content oversight officers, online safety managers, country compliance executives, forum moderators and suchlike, but the job scope will essentially be to prevent certain types of content from spreading on their networks.There is one problem, though: Good censors are hard to find. In a speech to parliament in 1644 opposing the censorship of books, poet John Milton said: “He who is made judge to sit upon the birth or death of books... had need to be a man above the common measure, both studious, learned, and judicious. If he be of such worth as behooves him, there cannot be a more tedious and unpleasing journey-work, a greater loss of time levied upon his head, than to be made the perpetual reader of unchosen books and pamphlets... we may easily foresee what kind of licensers we are to expect hereafter, either ignorant, imperious, and remiss, or basely pecuniary." In other words, good censorship demands wise and learned people, but ends up attracting only the wrong sort. This problem will not trouble authoritarian governments very much, but social media networks concerned about free speech are bound to hit a human-resource crunch pretty soon.The demand for “a person above the common measure, both studious, learned, and judicious" is not restricted to just content moderators for social media companies. Given how deeply and profoundly the tech industry already impacts society, everyone from engineers and developers to chief executives and investors will need to have a better understanding of a range of disciplines in the social sciences. Facebook’s current troubles demonstrate how difficult it is to retrofit social responsibility and ethical considerations on business models and corporate cultures that were designed for different goals. If you are building a startup today, you are better-off paying less attention to cynical industry veterans who’ll tell you to ignore the idealistic stuff and chase the money. The next few years will likely see legislation in several major countries designed to hold big tech companies accountable for social ills caused by the use of their products.Negative and harmful content is usually more contagious, and this phenomenon is amorally exploited by growth-seeking business models to the detriment of society. Haugen’s testimony to the US Congress last week contained nothing we didn’t already know, but it is nevertheless an important milestone in the growing political realization that the negative social consequences of social media have become too serious to ignore. If lawmakers in the United States knew what to do about it, they would perhaps have done it. Unfortunately, they do not, yet. In the meantime, expect piecemeal legislation over specific issues flagged by whistleblowers and activists, tempered by the tech industry and its lobbyists.The emerging new balance between public interest, tech-industry business models and online behaviour is an opportunity for India’s tech industry and its people. In addition to technical skills, an aspiring tech entrepreneur or employee will need to be broadly educated and capable of making value judgements. Let’s be honest: Too little in our education system prepares us for this. Our smartest people can solve calculus problems, but are unlikely to know much about the ideas of Bentham or the Bhagavad Gita. Encouraging new liberal arts universities and including social-science subjects in engineering and science curriculums at the undergraduate level is part of the answer.I am also optimistic that market forces will drive companies and individuals to invest in training in ethics, responsible strategy and social impact analysis. (Full disclosure: I teach courses on these subjects at the Takshashila Institution). India’s competitive advantage in the tech economy has always been high- quality human capital at scale. The challenge now is to create millions of people who can exercise good judgement in addition to writing great code. 

India should invest in ever more sophisticated cyber armaments

A century ago, the declaration of war was a formal exercise. Diplomats in frock coats would turn up at chancellories to first serve ultimatums and subsequently to hand-deliver notices of war. Some would even insist on reading them out aloud for the benefit of bemused recipients, who would then make arrangements for the safe departure of the enemy’s embassy. These age-old courtesies were abridged by the time of World War II and terse telegrams replaced frock coats. The advent of the Cold War, nuclear weapons and proxy wars of the 20th century put an end to the custom of formal war declarations. In recent times, an incoming missile or fighter aircraft announces war. Even so, we are used to wars that have a starting point and an end date.Not anymore. Information warfare is an ongoing affair. Cyber warfare, its technical aspect, has already been militarized. It is global and continues regardless of whether or not states are in armed conflict. We cannot pinpoint the date, month or even the year it started. And, unfortunately, we also cannot say when it will end, if ever. States have no choice but to wage it. Gloomy as this sounds, at least so far the pursuit of politics through these other means has avoided large scale bloodshed that characterized armed conflicts of the Industrial Age.Read the full article in The Mint

Organic farming should not be an article of faith

Earlier this month, the Rajapaksa government imposed a state of emergency in Sri Lanka after its bungled response to a brewing foreign exchange crisis cascaded into food shortages. An army general has been put in charge of catching both hoarders of food and holders of foreign currency. Like a Greek tragedy, we know how things will unfold, but well-wishers of the Sri Lankan people are powerless to stop the avoidable suffering that lies ahead.

Running out of foreign exchange amid an economic downturn and with looming debt-servicing obligations, the Sri Lankan government imposed a slew of import controls earlier this year. Banning the import of automobiles, toilet fixtures, Venetian blinds, toothbrush handles and turmeric is one thing, but a complete ban on fertilizers is entirely another. Domestic production is critical for any food-importing country facing a foreign exchange crisis. In Sri Lanka’s case, it is even more important because it is a major exporter of tea. The fertilizer ban has left Sri Lanka both short of food and US dollars.Read the full article here.

Xi Jinping’s CCP is daring to go where even Taliban wouldn’t — separate kids from smartphones

The strongest of the four fundamental forces known to modern physics is called, well, the strong force. At the same distance it is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism and 10³⁸ times more powerful than gravity. The strong force keeps sub-atomic particles attached to each other.

Modern physicists who are also modern parents know better. The strongest force in nature is the one that keeps teenagers attached to smartphones.

A lot of energy is required to separate them and the outcome is exothermic, exosonic and often explosive. I have written about my experiments with this area of physics in a Debates with my Daughters column.So when some of my colleagues wondered whether the Taliban 2.0 regime in Kabul would ban smartphones, I responded that it would be quite unlikely. Telephone penetration in Afghanistan in the 1990s during Mullah Omar’s days was negligible. It is over 70% today in a country where half the population is less than 18 years old. The Talibs themselves are probably more addicted to smartphones than the other addictive substances available in their country; although like people around the world they are bound to claim that they need the phone for work-related purposes.

It makes sense to extract value from underutilized public assets

This article was first published in The Mint.HLL Biotech, a government-owned company, has a state-of-the-art vaccine manufacturing plant near Chennai. It has been mothballed since 2012. Last week, the Supreme Court heard a petition pleading the court to direct the government to use it to produce Covaxin, amid the current shortage. Across the country, public assets like roadside parking slots, municipal grounds and advertising surfaces are free-for-all, often captured by the rich, powerful and unscrupulous. The police and defence services have parade grounds in city centres that are used only a few days every year. The true cost of these parades may not be visible to accountants but is staggering for economists.

I could cite more examples, but the scale at which India wastes its public assets boggles the mind. Imposing parking charges on a mere 1.5% of Bengaluru city roads could add 5% to its annual budget. Yet, oblivious to their own wealth, or unable to monetize it, India’s governments rely on taxes and devolved funds to fill their coffers.It is easy to blame corruption and inefficiency for the poor state of public services like policing, health, education, transport and so on. What a lot of people miss is that there’s only so much you can do when you are cash strapped. The simple truth is that governance and public services cannot improve unless public finances are substantially bolstered.That is why the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP), announced by the finance minister last week, should be welcomed. Ambitious financial targets apart, to the extent that it creates public awareness that the government should extract value from its assets, it marks a desirable shift in thinking. Niti Aayog’s policy documents show how the monetization model can be adopted by state, municipal and rural governments. If the idea catches on, post-pandemic revenue-starved governments across the country could find new resources to finance higher demands on public expenditure.I know what you are thinking. What about corruption and cronyism, right? Well, yes, however well intentioned the policy is, however well designed the contracts are, corruption is inevitable. But if we allow this objection to have a veto, then we will only have corruption, cronyism and sanctimony, but no public policy of any kind. The practical solution, therefore, is to make the policy design corruption-resistant, insist on transparency, promote market competition and punish wrong-doers.‘Monetize assets but do not assign monopolies’ is a good rule of thumb. There are sensible things that can be done to prevent egregious outcomes: Do not shelter companies from competition, do not give away exclusive rights and do not fix prices. Some of these can be built into contracts, while others are broader statutory and regulatory issues.By leasing out assets instead of selling them outright to private investors, the NMP strikes a middle ground between statists and reformers. But this political compromise might be its biggest economic limitation. As anyone who has rented out a home knows, the tenant somehow takes less care of the property than the owner would like. The friend who borrows your vehicle somehow seems to return it in a poorer condition. Some of this is to do with the psychology of ownership, but some of it is objectively true. Owners and tenants have different incentive structures.Now the government faces the remarkable situation of ensuring that a private-sector lessee maintains an asset to standards the public sector itself is not capable of. Competition and market forces can help to some extent, but the private-sector management can just as well decide to cut costs by skimping on the maintenance of assets it doesn’t own. So the NMP implementation should allocate assets in a way that the lessee has a natural incentive for their upkeep.Ownership matters in other ways as well. If you determine that your asset is unprofitable, you could split it and sell the parts, reconfigure them in different ways, merge them with other parts, or perhaps even scrap them all. Where such creative destruction is necessary for viability, a long-term lease is a poor substitute for ownership.We are also likely to find that defining an asset clearly and delineating it physically is a tricky affair. The legal and physical boundaries of public assets are often unclear. Most assets are often surrounded by grey areas. These grey areas have well-developed interest groups that are invested in the status quo. Questions on asset boundaries and the resolution of ownership of grey areas can be vexing and time-consuming. Among other things, they will determine the kind of investor who will bid for the asset.When considering long-term relationships, getting good investors is more important than getting the highest price. This is something that our administrative system will struggle with. It is zealous about extracting the last paisa, but has few ways of ensuring discretion and good judgement.Ultimately, the NMP will deliver public value to the extent that the government shows itself to be a law-abiding player. It is just as well that the ghastly retrospective tax law was done away with before this new policy was announced. It has a better chance now.Nitin Pai is co-founder and director of The Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy

Make China accountable for Taliban's actions

Going by international media reports on recent developments in Afghanistan, you would be forgiven for thinking that this is all about the United States. Sure, the spectacular collapse of the Ashraf Ghani government and the US-nurtured republican regime over the past few days certainly demonstrates the failure of Washington's two-decade-long policy to build a modern state in the country. The ignominious exit of the last of its officials and troops shames the Joe Biden administration. The popular view is that a declining superpower has taken a beating. The truth is that it is nothing of that sort.The United States pulled out because there is bipartisan political consensus in Washington that further presence does not serve its interests. Osama bin Laden is long dead and Pakistan dare not conspire in international terrorist plots. Washington has sophisticated air power to destroy militant infrastructure anywhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan should it be necessary. Failure of its expensive state-building side-project in Afghanistan apart, the United States has acted to avoid the sunk cost fallacy.Read the full article here.

What Pegasus says about Cyber Power and our National Security

Public discourse around the Pegasus reports alleging government surveillance of politicians, media persons, public officials and business people is understandably focused on its political and civil liberties dimensions. Yet, the affair also has crucial national security and geopolitical dimensions that must enter the national debate. The 130-year-old governance mindset and administrative processes that the Indian state employs in such matters is not tenable in the Information Age. Pegasus is another reminder that the Indian republic is more vulnerable than ever to information offensives by adversaries.

Information governance in liberal democracies has two key goals: first, to protect the fundamental rights (privacy included) of citizens; and second, to defend the national information sphere from hostile state and non-state adversaries. These goals are sometimes in conflict. There is a trade-off between liberty and national security. Liberal democracies achieve a balance by codifying the trade-off, placing limits on the state’s powers, defining due processes, and subjecting government actions to parliamentary and judicial review. While the Indian state has managed a balance in many areas, privacy and surveillance have remained in a grey zone since the Constitution came into force.Read the full article in The Mint

Not Swadeshi, Samarthya is the answer to India’s Economic Nationalism

The roots of swadeshi lie in the triple whammy encountered by 19th century India.

First, European colonialism resulted in the loss of political power to a foreign race and a sense of being dominated by the British overlords. The Raj was resolute in keeping Indians as subjects and away from the corridors of political, bureaucratic and military power. Britain saw itself as lord and the Indian colonies as subject – and the people of India were clearly aware of it. The seeds of Indian economic nationalism lay in the resistance to being ruled by foreign overlords and in the rejection of their norms.Second, the era of globalisation and free trade of the mid-19th century affected economic players in different ways. Traders from communities that were capable and did not impose social restrictions on travel could benefit from national and international trade. The majority of the population, however, was unable to adapt to the changes in the international economic pattern and faced intense competition from foreign imports. The colonial government was unconcerned about helping this population make the transition and improve its productivity and competitiveness.

Third, the Industrial Revolution transformed the relative competitiveness of goods produced in Britain and India. Not only were imported goods better than domestic products, they were cheaper. India did not industrialise in the 19th century because the colonial government either actively discouraged it, or failed to create the environment for it. Another reason is that Indian society was unable to create effective mechanisms to convert savings into capital and allocate it effectively.It was in this broad context that the disempowered elites of a subordinate polity sought to change consumer preferences – the only area they had influence over. We see this in the early phase of swadeshi, which was mostly pursued through increasingly organised social mobilisation.Read the full article in ThePrint

How India can guard its Interests should Kabul fall to the Taliban

As the prospect of Taliban bands fighting their way to Kabul becomes more likely with the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, there is a growing perception in New Delhi that, as a newspaper editorial put it, for India the situation “holds no glad tidings, good options or even a silver lining." The concern is that if the Taliban regain power, not only will India lose influence, but also that battle-hardened Islamist militants will turn their attentions to Kashmir, just as they did 30 years ago after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan.

Well, as much as these fears and concerns are genuine, they are also overblown. International politics is vastly different today from what it was in 1991 or even 2001. The return of the Taliban will be terrible for the people of their unfortunate country, but it does not automatically follow that they will pose the same kind of threat to India as they did in the 1990s. Even then, their hostility towards India was found to be driven more by the agenda of the Pakistani military-jihadi complex and less by any intrinsic animosity towards us. In recent times, their adversarial position towards New Delhi has been in response to India’s support for the Afghan government and, until recently, the refusal to talk to them.Read the full article in The Mint

The Pandemic has shown how Dysfunctional our World Order is

What is the best way to fight a pandemic in an era of intense globalization? The answer, clearly, is for humanity to throw its combined resources against its common adversary. Since no one is safe until everyone is safe, the longer it takes for the world’s population to acquire immunity against the coronavirus, the greater the risk that whatever protection immunized populations currently enjoy will be broken by new variants.

And what would a common global response to a common threat look like? Here too the answer is clear: temporarily suspend intellectual property rights restrictions, lift export controls, remove trade barriers and eliminate regulatory friction on vaccine supply chains. Essential drugs and medical equipment should flow unrestricted to wherever they are necessary. Amid a firefight with a common enemy, it makes no sense to demand payment from an ally who urgently needs bullets.Read the full article in The Mint

The banal geopolitical fallout of the laboratory leak hypothesis

On 11 September 2001, the US suffered four coordinated terrorist attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives, injured over 25,000 people and caused at least $10 billion in property damage. Within hours, the US National Security Agency had intercepted phone calls that led them to suspect Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda of having planned and carried out the attacks. On that same evening, the CIA director confirmed this assessment to the US president. In two weeks, the FBI identified the specific attackers, and by the end of the month had published photographs and nationalities of all 19 terrorists who carried out the attacks. Of them were 15 Saudis, two Emiratis, a Lebanese and an Egyptian. Bin Laden himself was a Saudi national and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, a key conspirator, was Pakistani. The US authorities knew Bin Laden and his outfit quite well, for they had together fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, along with the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence agencies. So it is fair to say that one would have to have one’s head firmly buried in the sand to miss the glaring Saudi and Pakistani links to—and possible complicity in—the attacks.Read the full article in The Mint

Focus on getting on most of India vaccinated as quickly as possible

Let’s say a Mr Melon Rusk, one of the world’s richest billionaires, approaches the Indian government and makes an offer to deliver 2 billion doses of a covid vaccine within 2 months for ₹2 trillion. At ₹1,000 per dose, Mr Rusk’s price is at least three times that of domestic vaccines, and would make an incredibly rich man with a flashy lifestyle even richer. Should the government take the offer?

The right answer is yes, it should. Mr Rusk’s wealth, opportunism and lifestyle choices are irrelevant details and ought not to cloud our mind. Last year, the Indian economy shrank 8% due to disruptions caused by the pandemic. By this estimate, the ₹195 trillion Indian economy might be currently losing ₹300 billion every week. The financial cost of vaccinating everyone will be ‘recovered’ by the Indian economy in less than two months. The government’s own ‘business case’ for vaccination is an open and shut affair. If the economy shrinks by 8% this year, the Union and states together would suffer a revenue loss of ₹2.3 trillion (as the overall tax-to-GDP ratio is around 15%). The government should thus pay Mr Rusk ₹2 trillion to avoid suffering a bigger revenue loss.These rough estimates highlight three important points. First, that it makes abundant sense for the government to finance the cost of universal vaccination. Second, at this time, how much the vaccine costs is less important than how much and how fast it is available. Third, it does not matter which government—Union or state—is paying, as long as the citizen gets the vaccine free.Unfortunately, a lot of the public and political discourse in India is still caught up with pricing, the level of profits that manufacturers are making, and which government should bear the fiscal burden. The behaviour and utterances of some vaccine manufacturers have not helped either. Most importantly, the Union government has not bothered to explain the rationale of its vaccination policy, thereby both isolating itself and preventing public debate from being more constructive.A democracy is only as good as its discourse. If it is misdirected, the political priorities go askew and public outcomes suffer. This is not a time to obsess about prices, image or narrative. The most important national priority is to vaccinate everyone as fast as possible. Like China, India can achieve 10 to 20 million jabs per day if we recognize our strengths and play to them. So how do we get that many doses, and how do we administer them fast?In the past few weeks, the government has taken the crucial step of opening the Indian market to all vaccines approved globally. The types of vaccines available has gone up from two to eight, and the government expects over 2 billion doses to be available by December. Given that there can be many a slip between the cup and the lip, the government must focus on making more vaccines available, and available faster.We need more than 300 million doses a month. Will compulsory licensing and patent waivers help? The historical discourse on this topic has been focused on lowering the cost of essential drugs. In our case and at this time, the issue is not cost, but quantity. It is unclear that compulsory licensing will by itself lead to additional manufacturing capacity coming online fast enough. But there is no harm in trying.There is a ready case for the government to let Covaxin be manufactured by more companies, with free licensing for domestic markets until the pandemic has ended. Bharat Biotech should be compensated if necessary. This will enable state governments and private manufacturers to explore how they can create or use existing plants to produce vaccines. The Indian government will be justified in doing the same for Oxford/AstraZeneca and other vaccines, but it is prudent to start with the partly-publicly funded indigenous vaccine.Some of the heartburn over the liberalized vaccination strategy is unwarranted. Equity considerations can and should be addressed by the government making vaccines available to everyone free of cost. As long as this baseline is ensured, there is no equity argument against private and decentralized vaccination. Also, the government’s vaccination programme can respond to epidemiological triggers by redirecting its supplies to where they are needed most.Finally, it is misplaced thinking that government channels alone can take us to 10 million jabs per day. Remember, large-scale covid testing took off only after private labs were allowed to carry them out. The Indian healthcare model is a mixture of the public and private, the Union, state, municipal, panchayat, NGO and, yes, unfortunately sometimes the shady and underhand. But now is not a time to pass judgement on it or attempt its reform—now is a time to put it to work. The government’s role is to enable the system, not fight it.Mr Melon Rusk, by the way, is a fictitious character. But if we agree that it is sensible to accept his offer, we need not begrudge paying our domestic manufacturers ₹300-400 per dose. For a billion people, the cost is a mere 0.4% of GDP and incurring it could allow the government to recover 2.5 times that amount in otherwise lost taxes this year.This article was originally published in ThePrint