Währung: September 2018

Monday 24 September 2018

Could Anushka have been a better Cheer-leader?

Almost a year back, Virat kohli hand-picked a cheerleader for himself! What is more amusing that Ravi Shastri, henceforth known as Trace of bullet, tipped Anushka Sharma in the race!

Love for trace of bullet was so deep that Kohli first make sure that Anil Kumble, one of the best Indian cricketer, has to leave his role as coach. Anil Kumble, who has known for his work ethics¹, had tried to put same discipline to the current lot. There were many rumors but few retired players like Madan Lal spoke more freely – “Indian team needs a coach who keeps quiet: Madan Lal to India Today²”. As it turned out, Kumble had to resign from the post. Just like a true gentleman Kumble maintained dignified silence, but clarified that his position in a resignation letter.

Kumble said – “BCCI told him, Kohli has a reservation with his style and about his continuing as head coach.” Hence, as respected player he decided to move on. Kumble further added that “He see the Coach’s role akin to ‘holding a mirror’ to drive self-improvement in team interest”. Trace of bullet has completely opposite of this trait. Trace of bullet believes that he can deny any ground realities by making baseless arrogant statements. Perfect example can be seen in recent Eng tour. The height of high headedness can be seen in comments: “Best Indian team in 15 years: Ravi Shastri”. Forfurther comments click. Clearly, Trace of bullet was more interested in cheering up the India rather than coaching the team. As former Indian cricketer Chetan Chauhan Said –“Ravi Shastri should be removed as head coach before the Australia tour. Ravi Shastri is very good cricket commentator and he should be allowed to do so”⁴ Though, how trace of bullets fare as commentator is a debate for another day, but it seems he is using his commentary skills more than coaching skill, if they exist at all.

Some of quality in coach should be – “Complementary skills, Diverse views, discipline” It is note-worthy that Anil kumble used to bowl himself in nets and always known for his independent views. Mr. Ravi, who seems to perfect shape physically pun intended³, always known for party time rather than discipline.

A closer look to India’s playing 11 in test matches tells us. The management is horribly confused about team selection and regularly makes selection blunders.

India dropped Ajinkya Rahane in South Africa
India dropped Bhuvneshwar Kumar in South Africa
India dropped Pujara in England
India played only two fast bowlers in Lords.
India played injured Ashwin in Forth test against England
India did not play two spinner in first test in England

These are blunder to name of few. Though, at times their combination turned out to be correct but even a stopped clock shows correct time twice a day. These unnecessary chopping changes put unnecessary pressure on players, who always feel unsecured, fail to play up to their potential. Indian team has also been very arrogant about warm up matches, even in England Ravi reduced a four day game to three. Management felt warm up games are waste of times, then Mr. Ravi had asked to additional warm up games against Australia, a sign of unsure mind.

As Kumble clarified in resignation letter⁵, CAC had chosen kumble to continue but he resigned as Mr Kohli failed to work with him. It is also interesting that Mr. Trace of bullet did not apply for the post. But latter, claimed the job via wild-card entry. It was very well discussed by Ram Chandra Guha - Here

It also very clear that Ravi is just perfect in role of – ‘yes Virat as you say’ role. But may-be Anushka might be better.

Wednesday 12 September 2018

PM Ujjwala Yojana - Glass Half Full

Glass Half Full

“Each year, close to 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to household air pollution from inefficient cooking practices using polluting stoves paired with solid fuels and kerosene.”-WHO Report

On 1st May 2016, Prime Minister, Narendra Modi launched Ujjwala scheme. Ujjwala scheme intends to improve life of rural women by providing them LPG connections. In June 2016, baring seven states, less than 50% rural population has active gas connection1. Hence most of households are using firewood, biomass, and cow dung as source of fuel energy.

Pre-launch Status:

Most of rural households are using multiple sources of fuels for cooking purpose. As many of households have free supply of cow dung, bio fuel from agriculture waste and availability free fire-woods. It is note-worthy that these free supplies are not sufficient for overall demand of cooking fuels, hence household have regular expense towards cooking fuels.

Figure 1: Major Cooking Fuels1

Overall, rural households partly purchase cooking fuel and partly utilize free resources. In initial phase Ujjwala scheme should aim to be substitute paid cooking fuels.

Total Expense on cooking fuels

Figure-2 Total expenses on cooking fuels/month by households versus income levels1

As above figure depicts, average expense on cooking fuels across various income range. It is note-worthy that even for lowest income group, average expense in INR 334 per month on cooking fuel.

On an average Indian household uses nearly 7.2 cylinder per year, since each cylinder cost nearly INR 500 after subsidy. Monthly cost of LPG would be INR 300, which even lower than average household cooking gas expense of income below INR 2250. Despite being cost efficient, LPG gas usage has/had many barriers such as High initial cost, tedius application process, long waiting period to get the refill.

Figure-3 Barriers to LPG Connections1

As above figure depicts, major barrier is high initial cost, long time waiting time for connection and tepid process of application. It is also note-worthy that 83% respondent thinks, that LPG has high recurring cost. As discussed earlier, LPG is more cost efficient but household can purchase traditional fuel at for daily use INR 10 but they have shell out INR 500 for LPG refill (14.2 KG). Hence, household perceive LPG as high recurring cost.

Scheme Introduction

Against this back drop Ujjwala scheme was launched. Under this scheme, a new LPG connection issued in name of women household and government will pay INR 1600 for connection and user has to pay for stove, which can be paid in EMIs. More importantly, scheme tries reduce - long waiting time for LPG connection, making process of application smooth, increase awareness about LPG usage. Beneficiaries covered are Below Poverty Line, All SC/STs households beneficiaries of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana(PMAY) (Gramin), Antyoday Anna Yojana (AAY), Forest dwellers, Most Backward Classes (MBC), Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Tribes, People residing in Islands and People residing in river islands.

Though, there have been a number of previous schemes similar to Ujjwala, but key difference in government intent. For example, Government has pledged nearly INR 12,800 Cr from government funds tries to reach nearly 8 Cr rural household. It is note-worthy that previous scheme Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vitaran Yojana was originally to increase number distributor in the country, later it offered one time financial benefit to new user. The financial benefits were provided by CSR budget of OMCs, which would a mere fraction of Ujjwala budget. Even if, Ujjwala is not an eureka moment, coverage in certainly multifold of previous schemes.

Scheme Progress till Date

As per official government figure- 5,41,22,556 connections under Ujjwala and across 715 districts.

Figure-4 LPG Connections under PMUY5

The scheme has high penetration in UP, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha. As shown in figure below, these states had below 50% penetration as on June 2015 (3).

Figure-5 LPG coverage1

As far as penetration as concerned, scheme has been effective as it has remove critical barriers towards LPG usage like upfront cost, waiting time for connection, awareness about the usage.

OMCs are responsible to cross-check de-duplication as government will refund INR 1600 only for first time connection. OMCs have also needs to insure that beneficiary has Jan-Dhan account and valid aadhar card. These reduces chance of misuse of scheme.

Consumption:

By own admission by government, consumption of LPG by PMUY beneficiaries is --close 4 per year against national average of 7-8 cylinder per year.

As discussed earlier, most of rural India has some free supply of cooking fuels. Expecting complete shift from free-cooking fuel to LPG would be a bit unrealistic given just 2 year to scheme.

Having said that, Government must look beyond numbers, should take complementary step to increase LPG connection.

Shreerupa, expert on UN, WTO, oil and energy wrote -“Behaviour change involves the one-time, unfamiliar dot behaviour (new LPG purchase), short-term unfamiliar span (new behaviour during first few weeks/ months of LPG usage) and long-term familiar path behaviour (effortful span behaviour turning into the spontaneous habit over time). Each of this requires different types of intervention — the Ujjwala scheme is primarily tackling the first type of behaviour.”

“Studies across Asia, Africa and Latin America have shown that in rural, poor communities with access to free fuel (wood, dung, crop residues), the transition to commercial fuels is neither fast nor easy. The cook needs to change the style of cooking, the household head needs to readjust family budget priorities to pay for an LPG cylinder and the family has to adjust to real/ perceived changes in taste and texture of the cooked food.”3

Government has initiated PM LPG Panchayat, which is a community meeting which will serve as a platform for LPG consumers to interact with each other, promote mutual learning and sharing of experiences. Through, this initiative government looks to build social infrastructure for Ujjwala scheme.

Give It Up Campaign:

More than 10 million Indian households have given up their subsidy. It has been a great initiative to channelizing government subsidy, which is used to fund Ujjwala scheme. Even by conservative estimates - 10 million household will fore-gone nearly INR 1250 Cr subsidy yearly. (Assuming 250 subsidy for 5 cylinder per year)

“The technological approach to this campaign is what makes it more accessible and appealing to its urban consumer base, and on the rural front, the campaign is expanding LPG consumer base by allocating a subsidised connection to a rural household for every subsidy that is given up. This provides rural households with the opportunity to switch to cleaner and safer fuel”4

For counter view - Glass Half Empty

References

Assessment report: Primary survey on household cooking fuel usage and willingness to convert to LPG – By Crisil
http://vikaspedia.in/energy/policy-support/pradhan-mantri-ujjwala-yojana
https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-nda-government-s-ujjwala-scheme-is-not-a-failure/story-iAOwdyPhbsFIE4vqgNxyCM.html
https://www.wlpga.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/give-it-up-campaign-case-study-final.pdf

Tuesday 11 September 2018

None Of The Above (NOTA)

None of the above (NOTA) is a concept where none of the representatives are acceptable to the voter and hence, he/she would press the button of NOTA. In 2009, the Election Commission of India has asked the Supreme Court to offer this option on electoral ballots, but the political parties opposed the idea and delayed it till 2013. In September 2013, the SC ruled that every voter should have the right to register a NOTA vote and this option has been given in the electronic voting machine (EVM).

Does it affect election results?

Current, NOTA feature allows voter to reject all the candidates and retain her secrecy. It is note-worthy, that NOTA will be treated as negative vote and will not have any impact on results. We can understand this definition by a simple example, suppose in an election only 2 candidates named A and B are fighting and there are 100 people who will decide their future. So on the EVM, there will be 3 options (A, B and NOTA). If 51 people cast their vote to NOTA and remaining 49 votes to either A or B, result will be calculated from 49 votes which are casted to either A or B. The NOTA votes are highest but it doesn’t give the right to reject option or any have any significance to the result of the election.

Section 49(O), NOTA and Difference between NOTA and Section 49(O)

Before the NOTA option came in existence, people casting negative votes were required to enter their names in a register and cast their vote on a separate paper ballot. Under section 49(O) of the conduct of the Elections Rules 1961, a voter could enter his electrical serial number in Form 17A and cast a negative vote. The presiding officer would then put a remark in the form and get it signed by the voter. This provision was, however deemed unconstitutional by SC as it did not protect the identity of voter.

In Section 49(O), poll officers have a chance to find out the reason behind the rejection of a candidate through the voter’s remarks in Form 17A. Through NOTA, the officials cannot find out the reason for the rejection. Moreover, it also protects the identity of a voter, thus keeping the concept of secret balloting intact.

In the Gujarat Rajya Sabha Election, Supreme Court said NOTA can’t be used in indirect elections and it should be used in closed ballot voting while in open election like in Rajya Sabha where the voter has to show his/her vote to Election Agent so this is not an issue of Secrecy. NOTA is not for open voting.

Positive Features of NOTA:

Right to Express: NOTA option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval with the kind of candidates that is being put up by political parties. When lot of people vote for NOTA, Political parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and bring out the candidates who are known for their work and integrity.

Right to secrecy is an integral part of a free and fair election, it is a right of the elector to cast his vote without any fear of reprisal or coercion.

Negative Features of NOTA: Symbolic but toothless

Currently, NOTA do not mean rejection. A Voter can vote NOTA but it has no impact on the result of the election. NOTA can work when it is paired with Right to Recall option where voters can recall candidates they have elected. This will instill fear in candidates to do well in office.

What does data tells us?

Data analyzed by FACTLY² from Sep-2013 till May-2018 shows vote share of NOTA has remained significantly lower as it crossed 3% mark only one election – Chhattisgarh 2013 out of 22 elections

Vote share of NOTA remained below 2% and even lower 1% in 14 elections out of 22 elections.

Above chart depicts percentage of constituencies where votes for NOTA were more than margin of victory. In 2018, 18 constituencies had more NOTA votes than margin of victory. So if, Had NOTA voter voted in favor second candidate the result may be changed.

As per Paper published in EPW³, there has not been strong correlation b/w increase in voting percentage and criminal association of candidates. Another finding suggests higher usage of % of NOTA votes in rural and illiterate regions. It is against popular construct that NOTA will be more used by educated Indian to show their dissent.

General Election 2014

In 2014, General elections more than 6 million, nearly 1% of valid votes, Indian voter choose NOTA option.

As above chart depicts⁴, nearly 90% of constituencies have less 2% NOTA votes. Only Meghalaya and Puducherry have more than 2% NOTA votes, when analyzed state wise. This data suggest that NOTA usage was relatively limited to start impacting results. But, as discussed earlier, in close election fights, it can really be result changing factor.

Conclusion

Often, people don’t vote because they feel none of the candidate standing in the election is good so they don’t want to waste their vote by giving to them. Since NOTA have been introduced, now India can make voting compulsory so that people can go out and vote as per their choices. In India where average percentage of voting is only 65-70%, compulsory voting can increase this number and make democracy more strong.

NOTA is good option but now it’s a time to make it more meaningful. NOTA can act as a right to reject if it gets highest votes or more than 50% votes to NOTA can be a reason of fresh election in constituency. it will force the election parties to bring better option in front of public. Apart from this, candidate and parties spend money from their pocket for the campaigning, rejection for their candidates will make impart on their pocket and on reputation of the parties.

Given multi-party election in India, the winning margins could be paper thin. In circumstance of less 2% winning margins, NOTA votes can become the major factor. Finally, hardcore party-line voters, who rarely shift to opposition camp, will have great choice of showing dissent and not voting to opposition party. It is note-worthy, that Mr. Narendra Modi led NDA government has been trying to share 2019 election as ‘Modi Vs Who’ and forcing voter to think that there no other choice then to vote for Modi. NOTA may well be the answer.

Reference:

Thursday 6 September 2018

PM Ujjwala Yojana - Glass Half Full or Half Empty

Glass Half Empty

Guest Author

The Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) is one of the flagship schemes of the Narendra Modi government. Officially launched on May 1, 2016, the government regards it as one of its greatest success stories. The official claim is that within a short span of 26 months, the scheme has achieved its target – “five crore LPG connections will be provided to BPL families with a support of Rs 1,600 per connection in the next three years”. The latest figure till 5 Sep is “54027085 connections” in 715 districts of India.

Modi’s Government has built upon the success of pre-existing Central Schemes as well as parallel schemes run by state government i.e. in south India. In October 2009, the UPA government launched the RGGLV (Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojana) with the objective of installing Liquefied Petroleum Gas distributors in remote and inaccessible areas to increase LPG penetration. In 2009, the government also started a programme of one “time financial assistance” for LPG connections to families below the poverty line (BPL). The assistance was provided through corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds of the government’s oil marketing companies (OMCs). Under this scheme, the security deposit for 1 cylinder and 1 pressure regulator is provided from the fund created for this purpose by contributions from CSR budget. IOCL, OIL, HPCL, BPCL are some PSUs which participated in this programme. Under this schemes, total of 69,32,322 free LPG connections were distributed to BPL families as on March 31,2016. It becomes clear that under PMUY, the concept of free connections remains the same as in the earlier schemes of giving the first cylinder and the pressure regulator.

Similar schemes before PMUY

Of course, Modi government pushed PMUY with more seriousness and used some emotional words like health and pollution which were absent before. Similar schemes have been in place before PMUY, run by different state governments which provided LPG connections to BPL Families. Three Southern states and Pondicherry (35,04,653 connections under Deepam Scheme in Andhra Pradesh, Free BPL connection Scheme in Tamil Nadu with 29,38,907 connections and 85,437 connections in Pondicherry) gave away 87,54,075 free LPG connections.

The Kerosene Free Delhi scheme was also launched by the Delhi Government in August 2012. In this scheme 1,83,842 eligible LPG Connections were released by the end of 2014. All the state governments schemes put together, a total of 93,05,747 free LPG connections were distributed to BPL families before the launch of PMUY. On 3 March 2016, RGGLV is discontinued to start PMUY.

Total Free LPG connections given before PMUY

As on March 31,2014, India had 16,932 LPG distributers including 3036 from RGGLY, by the time current government halted new allotments under RGGLVY in August 2015, 4987 RGGLVY were operation in most backward and poorest areas of the country. By the end of March 2017, the number of RGGLVY outlets grew to 5761. And total free LPG connections given to BPL Families stood at 1,62,38,609 before the launch of PMUY.

Interestingly, all the schemes started by state governments and previous central government were subsumed by PMUY and those numbers are now counted under PMUY. Apart from this, government make sure no Central assistance given to any state if they start their own schemes similar to PMUY, Karnataka government scheme known as Mukhya Mantri Anila Bhagya Yojana is the example of the same.

How PMUY is different from all other schemes started well before PMUY

Objectives of all other schemes are more or less same but there are some points which make it different:

1. The Modi Government had all the infrastructure and logistical support ready in form if 16,932 distributer. They just change the terminology to attracted people emotionally and not taking money from CSR they allocated the funds for this scheme.

2. They defined the target of 5 crore which is now 8 crore but also includes the 1.62 crore connections which is allotted through other similar types of schemes. The latest PPAC LPG profile take about PMUY Number which is 3,26,02,141 till 1 April 2018. Again if taken PMUY alone, 3.26 Crore connections distributed, which is low as per claimed data on PMUY website of more than 5 Crore.

Objectives of PMUY

Enhancing the status of women and caring their health.
Help to decrease air pollution due to use of fossil fuel.
Lessening the serious health risks related with cooking based on fossil fuels.
Reducing the number of deaths due to unclean cooking fuels, which is about 5 lakh every year in India.
Preventing young children from acute respiratory illnesses caused due to indoor air pollution by burning the fossil fuels.

Looking at the objective one can very well draw a conclusion that this schemes is very good for people who are cooking their food using fossil fuels and other resources. But these objective also arises some questions like:

a) Why people using fossil fuels will shift to LPG where they have to pay some money after some period of time.

b) Is government also informing about health issue to people by using fossil fuels or it’s just a target based scheme.

c) How government will measure the decrease in death/Illness in future which is currently happening through cooking through fossil fuels.

Stakeholders Analysis in PMUY

Below Poverty Lines Families – Beneficiaries covered are Below Poverty Line, All SC/STs households beneficiaries of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana(PMAY) (Gramin), Antyoday Anna Yojana (AAY), Forest dwellers, Most Backward Classes (MBC), Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Tribes, People residing in Islands and People residing in river islands

Gas Agencies and PSUs - Gas agency have the responsibility to identify the beneficiaries and distribute the connection. While PSU who provide the Gas Cylinder have to be provided free of cost under this scheme.

Center Government: All the funds for this schemes is realized by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Primary Health Care Center: No one is taking about role of PHC’s in this scheme while one the main objective of this scheme is to decrease the health risks happen to women. Assuming they are also a part of this scheme, they have to visit the households using the LPG under PMUY and take their feedbacks which is missing till date.

Schemes important points

1. LPG connection is released in the name of adult women of the BPL Family subject to that no LPG connection exists in the name of any family member of the household.

2. Eligible families are identified through the Socio Economic Caste Census.

3. Under this scheme, RS. 8000 Cr have been reserved by the government for providing 5 Cr LPG connections to Indian families living below poverty line, with 3 years ending 2019. Figure of 5 Cr is increased to 8 Cr now.

4. LPG Cylinders are available in India since 1960’s but still people are not using it because of several reasons like unawareness, financial burden, and easy availability of free resources. Government is doing this through marketing, creating LPG Panchayat etc which is good move in terms of making people aware.

Challenges in the implementation of PMUY

1. Correct identification of beneficiaries: Since number is defined for this scheme i.e. 8 Cr (Previously 5 Cr) and identification tool is only Census 2011 data, so Gas agency have to be identify the genuine stakeholders after document verification. It should not be the case that Gas agencies only fulfil the number allotted to them, which is currently going on (Will discuss on this in next section).

2. Rather than reducing the price of LPG cylinders, the government reduce the subsidy and pass the rest of the burden to oil manufacturing company. As per the report published in “the wire”, these companies now have to hope that beneficiaries under PMUY refilled their cylinders at least 6 times to cover their losses.

3. Government have change the mind set of people and make aware them about benefits of LPG cylinders, this is similar situation where people are still going out for toilet besides they already have toilets in their home.

Ground Reality about PMUY

If we look at the number achieved in this scheme one can say government has done very good job, Adding 3.6 Cr (Not 5 Cr as mentioned above) new BPL families as subscribers for a costly product like LPG in 2 years is very good.

But did this help in any way to achieve the welfare scheme? The answer is NO, The success of a welfare scheme is when objective of the scheme met, and not merely target numbers.

1. As on April 1, 2018, there were an estimated 27.72 Cr households in the country and 25.68 Cr households have an LPG Connection, that is 93% of the coverage (46.4% have double cylinders). But only 80% of households (22.43 Cr) have an active LPG connection as on April 1 2018. I.e. 13% Domestic LPG consumers are inactive. Study done by Prayas explains this better. It Shows that Chandigarh has nearly 40% inactive subscribes and Urban Himachal Pradesh has 157% households that use LPG. The main reason is the huge pressure by the government exerts on OMCs to achieve the targets. Apart from this, there is no local or district level reporting on PMUY, only state level data. This is likely to lead inflation of numbers.

2. Scroll pointed out in one of the study, while the number of LPG connections across India has increased by an impressive 16.26% since the scheme (PMUY) was launched, the use of gas cylinders increased by only 9.83%. This is even lower than the rate recorded in 2014-’15, when the scheme did not exist”.

Now what is happening here? OMCs pushed their distributers to enrol the maximum number of people under the scheme because of the pressure from government. As the initial payment of 1600 for the cylinder and regulator was waived off, the government asked OMCs to increase the reach.

The Modi government claims that the yearly refill average under PMUY is 4 whereas the normal national average is 7.2 cylinders. The government says that the dropout under PMUY is less than 20% and 60% had four or more refills. But the available data and related reports paint a different picture.

As the government is celebrating the “success” of PMUY by marketing of LPG connection they have released, there is very little discussion on reality behind those numbers.

To arrive at an accurate assessment of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojna, merely counting the number of new gas connections cannot be the only yardstick.

For Counter View - Glass Half Full

References