This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?
PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.
India Policy Watch #1: Sedition, Blasphemy, Defamation
Insights on burning policy issues in India
- Pranay Kotasthane
A Delhi Court Session Judge’s admirable order granting bail to activist Disha Ravi in the #ToolKit case made me reflect on sedition as a concept. Here are a few initial thoughts emanating from that exercise. Fair warning: this is a conceptual discussion and not a legal one. If detailed legal critique interests you, head over to these two articles by Gautam Bhatia (1 & 2).
The “crimes” of sedition, blasphemy, and defamation lie along a continuum. They are categorically similar in that they punish the written or spoken word directed at some other entity. Where they differ is the targeted object. Defamation laws punish verbal or written attacks against a person or a group of people. Blasphemy laws punish utterances against something considered sacred by a group of people whereas sedition laws punish utterances that can threaten the State.
A Few Definitions
Before wading in any further, understanding three political science terms — nation, state, and government — is important.
State is a political construct, an abstract political institution. Max Weber’s instrumental definition of the State as “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” is especially relevant here. To ensure that all its individuals’ liberties are protected, a State is invested with the powers to use violence or force to prevent other belligerent groups from terrorising individuals. It is for this reason that a State maintains armed institutions like the police and the army.
Going by this definition, an anti-State act would be the one that challenges the State's monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force. In other words, an act of violence or the use of force by anyone other than the State becomes anti-State.
Government is a temporary governing body of the State. If the State is like a corporation, the government is like its management. State is semi-permanent. It will live on until it is overthrown or replaced and a new social contract is established. Unlike the State, the government is composed of a set of people organised into a hierarchy. When the electorate vote, they choose their government and not the State.
By this definition, an anti-government act would be the one that criticises the policies, strategies, and directives of the governing body in power.
Nation, on the other hand, is a mental construct. Ernest Gellner defines this concept precisely yet comprehensively thus:
“Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artefacts of men's convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non-members.”
In other words, nations are imagined. People belong to the same nation only if they consider themselves to be so.
An anti-national act thus could be of two types. One that denies the existence of such an imagined community. For example, libertarians could argue that only individuals matter and not the groups these individuals are a part of. And the other view imagining a nation along lines different from the dominant belief. For example, communism sees workers across the world as one “nation”.
What is Sedition then?
With these key differences out of the way, we are now in a position to understand sedition and blasphemy laws.
Sedition laws can lie on a continuum. In dictatorships and party-states, sedition laws are applied wantonly to criticisms of the government. That is, being anti-government itself is being seditious. In most modern democracies, however, sedition laws punish only those anti-State actions which have the capability to directly challenge the State’s authority. Thus, criticism of the Republic of India would not count as sedition but inciting violence against the police would count as sedition. Crucially, being anti-national is not the same as being seditious.
On the other hand, blasphemy laws penalise a subset of anti-national actions, the ones that call into question something held sacred. As the idea of individual freedom has gained prominence, blasphemy laws have been repealed in many places. Not in India though.
The Indian Sedition Law
Now we are in a position to understand sedition in India. India’s sedition law i.e. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has colonial origins. Unsurprisingly then, being anti-government was reason enough to be labelled seditious. Tilak, Gandhi and scores of other leaders were tried for sedition.
After independence, the stated aim was to get rid of sedition laws altogether. That never happened. Sedition law continued in its colonial avatar. What did happen is that the application of such laws reverted to a stricter interpretation. Anti-State acts were penalised and not anti-government ones as a result of a right to freedom of speech and expression. In subsequent court rulings, the scope of sedition was further truncated. Only those anti-State acts that had the tendency to incite violence or disturb law and order were deemed to be seditious.
This dissonance between the original definition and application continues to this day. See for yourself. The sedition law says:
“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1.-- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.--Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3.--Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Note how wide-ranging this law is. Even disloyalty and all feelings of enmity count as sedition. Now read the qualifier that the Supreme Court added in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar 1962.
“..the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.”
In non-legalese, for an action to count as seditious, its connection with violence is necessary according to the Supreme Court but not so according to the original framing in the penal code.
This dissonance is a problem. To such an extent that the same judge presiding in two similar cases (Disha Ravi’s and Safoora Zargar’s), referring to the same 1962 judgment, reached two diametrically opposite conclusions! In Safoora Zargar’s case, bail was denied on the grounds that the connection of an act with violence is not necessary. In the Disha Ravi case, bail was granted on the grounds that the connection of an act with violence is necessary.
The other problem is the political economy of India’s sedition law. Because it is construed as a grave anti-State offence, it is cognisable i.e. investigation and arrest can happen based on just an FIR, and non-bailable i.e. bail is subject to the decision of a sessions judge. Such strict provisions mean that the police slap sedition charges indiscriminately and by the time charges are cleared, many years pass by. The process becomes the punishment.
Clearly, this needs fixing.
The Way Forward
Broadly, there are three ways out. The first method would be to revise the sedition law to end the dissonance between the text and its subsequent interpretation. Make the link with violence a necessary condition for the application of sedition.
A second way is to scrap the law altogether. If the tendency to cause violence is what triggers sedition, there are enough and more laws in place to address such actions. Even if this law were to be struck down, provisions to punish acts inciting violence against State, government, or other people will still be applicable.
A third way out is to address the political economy question by making sedition a bailable and non-cognisable offence. With nothing to gain by slapping the additional charge of sedition, its usage is likely to decline. A solution with a similar effect is to make police personnel comply with additional requirements before arresting a person for sedition. The Bombay High Court tried to do this in the Asim Trivedi case by issuing guidelines to police personnel listing specific preconditions. A failure to adhere to these guidelines made the police officer liable to dereliction of duty. To what extent these guidelines been adopted since then, I do not know.
Given my biases, the second solution is the ideal one. But it’s also the most unlikely one in the current situation. We in fact run a real risk of going the other way — sedition laws might well revert to punishing anti-government utterances and blasphemy laws might be used more frequently. Given this reality, focusing on changing the incentives of police might be more practical.
For now, I’ll leave with these lines in Disha Ravi’s bail order that need to reach far and wide:
“Citizens are conscience keepers of government in any democratic Nation. They cannot be put behind the bars simply because they choose to disagree
with the State policies. The offence of sedition cannot be invoked to
minister to the wounded vanity of the governments. Difference of opinion,
disagreement, divergence, dissent, or for that matter, even disapprobation, are recognised legitimate tools to infuse objectivity in state policies. An aware and assertive citizenry, in contradistinction with an indifferent or docile citizenry, is indisputably a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy.”
India Policy Watch #2: The Coming Inflation
Insights on burning policy issues in India
- RSJ
Last week Pranay wrote about the Domar rule and how to think about public debt sustainability. Pranay and I have long held economic growth is a moral imperative for India now. Domar’s paper, like Pranay wrote, makes it clear that growth is necessary even if you favour a big government. The argument is simple. Governments are free to borrow and spend on their favoured programmes. They can run deficits without worrying about today’s deficits turning into tomorrow’s higher taxes or higher inflation only if the national income (r) grows at a rate faster than the interest rate (i).
That is if “r” > “i”, we are fine with deficit spending.
The logic is simple. If you grow faster than the interest rate, you can keep your debt to GDP ratio at a constant level. So, please go ahead and spendbut choose wisely. Spend in areas that will yield higher growth rates in future. Growth will take care of your debt burden.
Since we are in the territory of public debt sustainability and role of government spends, I thought it would be useful to bring the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level (FTPL from here on) into this discussion. So, consider this an addendum to Pranay’s piece.
Price stability or inflation control is a key goal for all governments in a democracy. Why? Because they want to win elections and nothing irks public than price rise. So, there are two questions in public policy on this issue - a) how do we tame inflation and b) is there an optimal level of controlling it?
Now, the usual macroeconomic explanation offered to the first question was simple. Inflation is managed by the monetary policy of the central bank. An independent central bank focused on price stability will manage it by controlling the supply of money. If the total output grows at x per year and the money supply grows at y, then over a period of time the prices will grow at (y-x) per year. That’s your inflation rate. Simple.
There’s a problem though. It assumes the demand for money among people today is uniform across. This isn’t true. Because all of us have different beliefs about the future. If our view of future inflation is different, our need to hold money today will be different. This means there could be many paths to price stability other than just the monetary approach. These paths are varied depending on households’ views about the economy’s future state. And that’s influenced by fiscal policy. So, according to FTPL, a tough and independent central bank is good to have but it alone cannot guarantee price stability. Fiscal policy will have to work in tandem. Government’s choice of how it finances its debt has a key role in how inflation plays out in future. The central banker must continue to convince the government to adopt the right stance on fiscal policy.
On the second question - how much inflation control is optimal - FTPL suggests allowing price levels to swing to any wild variations to the government’s budget. This gets a bit complicated but a simple summary is that in times of economic shocks like a pandemic it is efficient to allow prices to go up.
That done, let me move to add my nuance to Pranay’s explanation of Domar’s rule. No one can argue about “r” > “i” logic. The key questions about the deficit, however, are for how long and how much? If you have a fiscal deficit of one per cent for one year and you take the next five to grow higher than the interest rate to offset it, you’re fine. But what if you keep adding a five or six per cent deficit every year for a decade and more? As a somewhat laidback, retiring fiscal hawk, this is what worries me when I see unlimited deficit spending all around. A trillion here in stimulus and another trillion there and soon we are talking about some real money here. My worry is we have reached a stage where “r” > “i” cannot support the deficit spending. So inflation will come in.
That’s my view. A high inflation future is inevitable.
Addendum squared
RSJ makes an important point. “r” > “i” is a necessary but insufficient condition. The reality is that “r” needs to be sufficiently greater than “i”. That’s because the “r” > “i” condition rests on the assumption that the primary deficit is zero i.e. the government is only borrowing to pay interest on debts accumulated in the past.
That’s not the case in India. The primary deficit in 2019-20 was 1.6 per cent of GDP while it is estimated to be 3.1 per cent in the next financial year. This means a lot of borrowing is being deployed not just for capital investment but also for the day to day running of the government.
With higher primary deficits comes higher responsibility to restart economic growth.
Not(PolicyWTF): Delhi Government’s Singapore Ambitions
This section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?
— Pranay Kotasthane
Given how we keep going on and on about the urgency of economic growth, this line in the Delhi government’s budget came as a pleasant surprise:
“Our goal is that the per capita income of Delhi by the year 2047 is equal to the income of a Singapore citizen. To make this possible, we have to increase the income of our citizens by about 16 times which is a difficult target, but not impossible.”
It’s not new for Indian governments to aspire to be like someplace else. Isomorphic mimicry is in fact quite common. Vilas Rao Deshmukh wanted to transform Mumbai into Shanghai more than a decade ago.
What’s different this time is the Delhi government has set itself a measurable output target with a defined end date, something most governments refuse to commit to.
The Delhi Finance Minister even had a well-thought-out response to the question “Why Singapore?”. He said:
“Singapore has one of the most stable economies in the world, with high government revenue and a consistently positive surplus. As a result of its strategic geographical positioning in Asia, the socio-economic context of Singapore is relatable to that of India. In addition to this, Singapore is also a city state which has achieved substantial growth in the past 25 years. So, when we think of Delhi 25 years from now, we envision a Delhi which can stand at par with one of the fastest growing and developed economies in the world.”
Setting a clear, measurable income target against which performance can be measured is a welcome change. Hopefully, the other governments are watching.
HomeWork
Reading and listening recommendations on public policy matters
[Article] John Cochrane on fiscal roots of inflation. A great paper.
[Article] ‘Disaffection’ and the Law: The Chilling Effect of Sedition Laws in India by Siddharth Narrain is a good overview of the history of sedition in India.
[Podcast] Pranay and Saurabh discuss the impossibility theorem of affirmative action on Puliyabaazi.
Share this post