New jobs, new worries

Sir ? M. Damodaran had admittedly done a fine job of turning around the Unit Trust of India when it was caught playing hanky-panky with investor funds. But he will be needed to play a similar firefighter?s role as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (?Damodaran is new Sebi chairman?, Feb 18). This is because even though the stock markets boom and foreign exchange reserves spill over, small investors continue to remain sceptical. Sebi?s decision to relax norms of appointment of co-managers and advisers of initial public offers is one cause of investor discomfort, as these officials have a hand in managing small investor funds. Besides, many of Sebi?s rulings in recent controversies over mutual funds have been overturned by the Securities and Appellate Tribunal. It is also good to hear that Sebi has permitted property funds for the first time, but how far will it really benefit investors, and who will guarantee they are not mismanaged?

Yours faithfully,
Aashish Majumdar, Calcutta

More the merrier

Sir ? Pratap Bhanu Mehta is right in observing that ?...when it comes to Shivaji and Savarkar, the Congress and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra can band together? (?Figure it out?, Feb 14). But not in saying that none of the smaller parties, except for the left, have real ideological compunctions about allying with anyone else if their interests require so. In a way, the Marxists too have no ideological compulsions to remain distinct. Why, for instance, do they need six parties ? the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Revolutionary Socialist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party of India, the Forward Bloc (Marxist), the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)? Especially when all of them swear by Marxism, though all of them have long discarded the true spirit of Marxism. Why do they continue to function separately when their goals of socialism and secularism are common?

Yours faithfully,
Asoke C. Banerjee, Calcutta

Sir ? The inherent weaknesses in the Indian political system have been brought out vividly by Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Indian political parties possess no single ideology, they are unsure of what they really believe in and never seem to have specific policies or plans. The only thing they have in common is populism, and in toeing the populist line, they have often divided the Indians on the basis of caste, class or religion.

True, the diversity in India?s political parties has little to do with the real diversity of the country. A diverse society like the United States of America functions with two main political parties and so does the United Kingdom. But in India, all the political parties seem to be functioning with the sole objective of opposing the government in power, no matter what policies they adopt or implement. One wonders when the people will realize that they have been cheated for the past 58 years, and continue to be misled by the parties.

Yours faithfully,
Aruni Mukherjee, Coventry UK

Sir ? Ramachandra Guha?s ?Not that simple? (Feb 5) begins, as expected, in the time-worn Bengali way of reviewing an entire history ? ?ta holey shuru thekei boli?? and proceeds, predictably, in the current Indian fashion of referring to the US and the UK. Nevertheless, Guha does a very important analysis to suggest that a country as large as India cannot have its political ambitions and needs met by only two viable political parties.

The need for more than two parties is supported not merely by the country?s large population but, more importantly, by the diversity of its population. The UK, still in the thrall of its past imperial glory, and the US, with its utterly simplistic notion of the American (supported by a virulent policy of absorption or rejection of the alien), simply do not provide comparable cases for India. On the other hand, modern Canada, a country with a very small population but a strongly celebrated diversity policy, has already shown the inadequacies of the two-balanced-parties system it had once inherited from Britain and later imbibed from its mighty southern neighbour. Here, the policies spearheaded by the progressive, but minority, New Democratic Party and its forebears have created a sense of national ethos so well among the people that not a single national party today dare seek votes by asking for a reversal of such policies as multiculturalism, universal healthcare, abolition of the death penalty, and so on.

A secure political system, especially a democracy, must either move towards a risk-taking diversity or towards the centralized two-party system which at best offers a mock show of democratic choice to its citizen. Also, the largest single party in parliament should be able to form a stable government even when it does not have numerical majority in the house, and without having to get into any formal alliance with another party.

The ruling minority Liberal party pursues a fairly independent and progressive policy ? as proven by the introduction of the same-sex marriage bill in the house recently ? without having to include members of other parties. The opposition parties, fearing public anger, would rather not bring down the government for frivolous reasons.

One hopes that the people of India ? much more diverse and more numerous than Canada?s ? will before long demand full satisfaction of their democratic rights from elected politicians.

Yours faithfully,
Shyamal Bagchee, Edmonton, Canada

Sir ? I have to disagree with Ramachandra Guha?s apprehensions that India is too large and unwieldy to be represented by two parties alone. Look at the poor track record of the regional parties here. A growth-oriented society must strike a balance between the ideologies of its political parties. But perhaps that is too much to expect from our ever-warring regional representatives?

Yours faithfully,
Arvind K. Pandey, Allahabad