Pradeep Thakur's Blog

Young adult novels reigned over the top halves of the print and Kindle bestseller lists for the first six months of the year. John Green’s unstoppable The Fault in Our Stars was the bestselling e-book on Amazon from January to June, and its various editions occupied three spots on the print list. Green shared the leaderboards with Veronica Roth, whose novel Divergent, the first book in her enormously popular trilogy of the same name, hit #1 on the print list for the year to date.

Both Divergent and TFIOS were adapted into much-anticipated films, which were released in March and June, respectively. The remaining titles in Roth’s series will also get the film treatment, and it was recently announced that John Green’s Looking for Alaska is heading to the big screen, as well. (The novel, first published in 2005, came in at #7 on the print list.)

At #9, Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling was the highest-ranking nonfiction title on the print list for the first half of 2014. As for digital, the bestselling nonfiction book was Twelve Years a Slave, Solomon Northrup’s 1853 biography, which was adapted into a 2013 film that won the Oscar for best picture.

While many of the titles on both lists enjoyed boosts from the releases of film adaptations, five books on the print list were adapted to the page from the movie Frozen, the highest-grossing animated film of all time.

Looking at literary fiction, Donna Tartt’s 2014 Pulitzer win for The Goldfinch put the novel at #20 on the print list for the year, and at #5 on the e-book chart.

Nielsen Top 20, as of June 29, 2014

1. Divergent by Veronica Roth (HarperCollins/Tegen)

2. The Fault in Our Stars (paperback) by John Green (Penguin/Speak)

3. Insurgent by Veronica Roth (HarperCollins/Tegen)

4. Allegiant by Veronica Roth (HarperCollins/Tegen)

5. The Fault in Our Stars (hardcover) by John Green (Penguin/Speak)

6. The Fault in Our Stars (Movie tie-in) by John Green (Penguin/Speak)

7. Looking for Alaska by John Green (Penguin/Speak)

8. Hard Luck by Jeff Kinney (Abrams/Amulet)

9. Jesus Calling: Enjoying Peace by Sarah Young (Thomas Nelson)

10. Frozen by Victoria Saxon (Random House/Disney)

11. Heaven Is for Real by Todd Burpo (Thomas Nelson)

12. Oh, the Places You’ll Go! by Dr. Seuss (Random House)

13. Frozen: The Junior Novelization by Sarah Nathan (Random House/Disney)

14. Heaven Is for Real (Movie tie-in) by Todd Burpo (Thomas Nelson)

15. Frozen: Journey to the Ice Palace by Frank Berrios (Random House/Disney)

16. Minecraft: Redstone Handbook by Scholastic (Scholastic)

17. Minecraft: Essential Handbook by Scholastic (Scholastic)

18. Frozen: A Tale of Two Sisters by Melissa Lagonegro (Random House/Disney)

19. Frozen: Big Snowman, Little Snowman by Tish Rabe (Random House/Disney)

20. The Goldfinch, A Novel by Donna Tartt (Little, Brown)

[Courtesy: Publisher’s Weekly; by Clare Swanson; Jul 04, 2014]

We are approaching the 67th anniversary of our Independence. Sixty seven years is a long time in the life of man – indeed, it is about the average Indian’s life expectancy today. Since life expectancy was shorter at the time of Independence, it is safe to say that most Indians born just after independence are now no more. It is useful to take stock at such a time. Did we achieve the dreams of our founding fathers for freedom’s first children? Or have we fallen woefully short? What more do we need to do?

Clearly, our founding fathers wanted political freedom for the people of India – freedom to determine who we would be governed by, as well as freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. They wanted justice and equality, of status and opportunity. And they wanted us to be free from poverty.

We have made substantial progress in achieving political freedom. Our democracy has matured, with people confidently choosing to vote out governments that lose touch with their needs. Our institutions protecting the freedom to vote have grown stronger, with the Election Commission and the forces of law and order ensuring free and largely fair elections throughout the country. Political parties, NGOs, the press, and individuals exert checks and balances on public policy. And the judiciary has taken important steps to protect individual freedom.

Our economy is also far richer than it was at the time of independence and poverty has come down substantially. Of course, some countries like South Korea that were in a similar situation then are far better off today but many others have done far worse. Indeed, one of the advantages of a vibrant democracy is that it gives people an eject button which prevents governance from getting too bad. Democracy has probably ensured more stable and equitable economic growth than an authoritarian regime might have.

Yet a dispassionate view of both our democracy and our economy would suggest some concerns. Even as our democracy and our economy have become more vibrant, an important issue in the recent election was whether we had substituted the crony socialism of the past with crony capitalism, where the rich and the influential are alleged to have received land, natural resources and spectrum in return for payoffs to venal politicians. By killing transparency and competition, crony capitalism is harmful to free enterprise, opportunity, and economic growth. And by substituting special interests for the public interest, it is harmful to democratic expression. If there is some truth to these perceptions of crony capitalism, a natural question is why people tolerate it. Why do they vote for the venal politician who perpetuates it?

A hypothesis on the persistence of crony capitalism

One widely held hypothesis is that our country suffers from want of a “few good men” in politics. This view is unfair to the many upstanding people in politics. But even assuming it is true, every so often we see the emergence of a group, usually upper middle class professionals, who want to clean up politics. But when these “good” people stand for election, they tend to lose their deposits. Does the electorate really not want squeaky clean government?

Apart from the conceit that high morals lie only with the upper middle class, the error in this hypothesis may be in believing that problems stem from individual ethics rather than the system we have. In a speech I made before the Bombay Chamber of Commerce in 2008, I argued that the tolerance for the venal politician is because he is the crutch that helps the poor and underprivileged navigate a system that gives them so little access. This may be why he survives.

Let me explain. Our provision of public goods is unfortunately biased against access by the poor. In a number of states, ration shops do not supply what is due, even if one has a ration card – and too many amongst the poor do not have a ration card or a BPL card; Teachers do not show up at schools to teach; The police do not register crimes, or encroachments, especially if committed by the rich and powerful; Public hospitals are not adequately staffed and ostensibly free medicines are not available at the dispensary; …I can go on, but you know the all-too-familiar picture.

This is where the crooked but savvy politician fits in. While the poor do not have the money to “purchase” public services that are their right, they have a vote that the politician wants. The politician does a little bit to make life a little more tolerable for his poor constituents – a government job here, an FIR registered there, a land right honoured somewhere else. For this, he gets the gratitude of his voters, and more important, their vote.

Of course, there are many politicians who are honest and genuinely want to improve the lot of their voters. But perhaps the system tolerates corruption because the street smart politician is better at making the wheels of the bureaucracy creak, however slowly, in favour of his constituents. And such a system is self-sustaining. An idealist who is unwilling to “work” the system can promise to reform it, but the voters know there is little one person can do. Moreover, who will provide the patronage while the idealist is fighting the system? So why not stay with the fixer you know even if it means the reformist loses his deposit?

So the circle is complete. The poor and the under-privileged need the politician to help them get jobs and public services. The crooked politician needs the businessman to provide the funds that allow him to supply patronage to the poor and fight elections. The corrupt businessman needs the crooked politician to get public resources and contracts cheaply. And the politician needs the votes of the poor and the underprivileged. Every constituency is tied to the other in a cycle of dependence, which ensures that the status quo prevails.

Well-meaning political leaders and governments have tried, and are trying, to break this vicious cycle. How do we get more politicians to move from “fixing” the system to reforming the system? The obvious answer is to either improve the quality of public services or reduce the public’s dependence on them. Both approaches are necessary.

But then how does one improve the quality of public services? The typical answer has been to increase the resources devoted to the service, and to change how it is managed. A number of worthwhile efforts are underway to improve the quality of public education and healthcare. But if resources leak or public servants are not motivated, which is likely in the worst governed states, these interventions are not very effective.

Some have argued that making a public service a right can change delivery. It is hard to imagine that simply legislating rights and creating a public expectation of delivery will, in fact, ensure delivery. After all, is there not an expectation that a ration card holder will get decent grain from the fair price shop, yet all too frequently grain is not available or is of poor quality.

Information decentralization can help. Knowing how many medicines the local public dispensary received, or how much money the local school is getting for mid-day meals, can help the public monitor delivery and alert higher-ups when the benefits are not delivered. But the public delivery system is usually most apathetic where the public is poorly educated, of low social status, and disorganized, so monitoring by the poor is also unlikely to be effective.

Some argue that this is why the middle class should enjoy public benefits along with the poor, so that the former can protest against poor delivery, which will ensure high quality for all. But making benefits universal is costly, and may still lead to indifferent delivery for the poor. The middle class may live in different areas from the poor. Indeed, even when located in the same area, the poor may not even patronize facilities frequented by the middle class because they feel out of place. And even when all patronize the same facility, providers may be able to discriminate between the voluble middle class and the uncomplaining poor.

So if more resources or better management are inadequate answers, what might work? The answer may partly lie in reducing the public’s dependence on government-provided jobs or public services. A good private sector job, for example, may give a household the money to get private healthcare, education, and supplies, and reduce their need for public services. Income could increase an individual’s status and increase the respect they are accorded by the teacher, the policeman or the bureaucrat.

But how does a poor man get a good job if he has not benefited from good healthcare and education in the first place? In this modern world where good skills are critical to a good job, the unskilled have little recourse but to take a poorly-paying job or to look for the patronage that will get them a good job. So do we not arrive at a contradiction: the good delivery of public services is essential to escape the dependence on bad public services?

Money liberates and Empowers…

We need to go back to the drawing board. There is a way out of this contradiction, developing the idea that money liberates. Could we not give poor households cash instead of promising them public services? A poor household with cash can patronize whomsoever it wants, and not just the monopolistic government provider. Because the poor can pay for their medicines or their food, they will command respect from the private provider. Not only will a corrupt fair price shop owner not be able to divert the grain he gets since he has to sell at market price, but because he has to compete with the shop across the street, he cannot afford to be surly or lazy. The government can add to the effects of empowering the poor by instilling a genuine cost to being uncompetitive – by shutting down parts of the public delivery systems that do not generate enough custom.

Much of what we need to do is already possible. The government intends to announce a scheme for full financial inclusion on Independence Day. It includes identifying the poor, creating unique biometric identifiers for them, opening linked bank accounts, and making government transfers into those accounts. When fully rolled out, I believe it will give the poor the choice and respect as well as the services they had to beg for in the past. It can break a link between poor public service, patronage, and corruption that is growing more worrisome over time.

Undoubtedly, cash transfers will not resolve every problem, nor are they uncontroversial. A constant refrain from paternalistic social workers is that the poor will simply drink away any transfers. In fact, studies by NGOs like SEWA indicate this is not true. Moreover, one could experiment with sending transfers to women, who may be better spenders. Some argue that attaching conditions to cash transfers – for example, they will be made provided the recipient’s children attend school regularly – may improve the usage of the cash. The danger of attaching conditionality is that if the monitor is corrupt or inefficient, the whole process of direct benefits transfers can be vitiated. Nevertheless, it will be useful to monitor usage carefully where automation is possible, and automatically attach further benefits to responsible usage.

A related concern is whether cash transfers will become addictive – whether they become millstones keeping the poor in poverty rather than stepping stones out of it. This is an important concern. Cash transfers work best when they build capabilities through education and healthcare, thus expanding opportunity, rather than when they are used solely for inessential consumption. The vast majority amongst the poor will seize opportunities, especially for their children, with both hands. Nevertheless, if there is evidence that cash transfers are being misspent – and we should let data rather than pre-conceived notions drive policy — some portion could be given in the form of electronic coupons that can be spent by the specified recipient only on food, education or healthcare.

Another set of concerns has to do with whether private providers will bother to provide services in remote areas. Clearly, if people in remote areas have the cash to buy, private providers will find their way there. Indeed, a particularly desirable outcome will be if some of the poor find work providing services that hitherto used to be provided by public servants. Moreover, implementing cash transfers does not mean dismantling the system of public delivery wherever it is effective – it only means that the poor will pay when they use the public service.

The broader takeaway is that financial inclusion and direct benefits transfer can be a way of liberating the poor from dependency on indifferently delivered public services, and thus indirectly from the venal but effective politician. It is not a cure-all but will help the poor out of poverty and towards true political independence. But financial inclusion can do more; by liberating the poor and the marginalized from the clutches of the moneylender, by providing credit and advice to the entrepreneurial amongst the poor, and by giving household the ability to save and insure against accidents, it can set them on the road to economic independence, thus strengthening the political freedom that good public services will bring. This is why financial inclusion is so important.

Five Ps of Financial Inclusion

Let me end with a vision of how the RBI can speed up and enhance financial inclusion of the kind I have just outlined. Financial inclusion in my view is about getting five things right: Product, Place, Price, Protection, and Profit.

If we are to draw in the poor, we need products that address their needs; a safe place to save, a reliable way to send and receive money, a quick way to borrow in times of need or to escape the clutches of the moneylender, easy-to-understand accident, life and health insurance, and an avenue to engage in saving for old age. Simplicity and reliability are key – what one thinks one is paying for is what one should get, without hidden clauses or opt-outs to trip one up. The RBI is going to nudge banks to offer a basic suite of Products to address financial needs.

Two other attributes of products are very important. They should be easy to access at low transactions cost. In the past, this meant that the Place of delivery, that is the bank branch, had to be close to the customer. So a key element of the inclusion program was to expand bank branching in unbanked areas. Today, with various other means of reaching the customer such as the mobile phone or the business correspondent, we can be more agnostic about the means by which the customer is reached. In other words, ‘Place’ today need not mean physical proximity, it can mean electronic proximity, or proximity via correspondents. Towards this end, we have liberalized the regulations on bank business correspondents, encouraged banks and mobile companies to form alliances, and started the process of licensing payment banks.

The transactions costs of obtaining the product, including the Price and the intermediary charges, should be low. Since every unbanked individual likely consumes low volumes of financial services to begin with, the provider should automate transactions as far as possible to reduce costs, and use employees that are local and are commensurately paid. Furthermore, any regulatory burden should be minimal. With these objectives in mind, the RBI has started the process of licensing small local banks, and is re-examining KYC norms with a view to simplifying them. Last month, we removed a major hurdle in the way of migrant workers and people living in makeshift structures obtaining a bank account, that of providing proof of current address.

New and inexperienced customers will require Protection. The RBI is beefing up the Consumer Protection Code, emphasizing the need for suitable products that are simple and easy to understand. We are also working with the government on expanding financial literacy. Teaching the poor the intricacies of finance has to move beyond literacy camps and into schools. Banks that lend to the entrepreneurial poor should find ways to advise them on business management too, or find ways to engage NGOs and organizations like NABARD in the process. We are also strengthening the customer grievance redressal mechanism, while looking to expand supervision, market intelligence, and coordination with law and order to reduce the proliferation of fly-by-night operators.

Finally, while mandated targets are useful in indicating ambition (and allowing banks to anticipate a large enough scale so as to make investments), financial inclusion cannot be achieved without it being Profitable. So the last ‘P’ is that there should be profits at the bottom of the pyramid. For instance, the government should be willing to pay reasonable commissions punctually for benefits transfers, and bankers should be able to charge reasonable and transparent fees or interest rates for offering services to the poor.

Let me conclude. One of the greatest dangers to the growth of developing countries is the middle income trap, where crony capitalism creates oligarchies that slow down growth. If the debate during the elections is any pointer, this is a very real concern of the public in India today. To avoid this trap, and to strengthen the independent democracy our leaders won for us sixty seven years ago, we have to improve public services, especially those targeted at the poor. A key mechanism to improve these services is through financial inclusion, which is going to be an important part of the government and the RBI’s plans in the coming years.

(Edited address by Dr. Raghuram Rajan at the Twentieth Lalit Doshi Memorial Lecture on August 11, 2014 at Mumbai)

Courtesy: rbi.org.in

The prime minister’s Independence Day speech exhorted India Inc to adopt the mission of providing modern sanitation facilities nationwide. Just as the I-Day weekend got over, India Inc promised to spend big money to clean up India.

TCS, Bharti, HUL, Aditya Birla Group, ITC, Adani and Dabur are among major companies that announced big CSR spends or promised to upgrade existing programmes for building sanitation facilities, especially for girl students and women in rural India. These announcements and promises look substantial. TCS, India’s largest software services firm, said it will spend Rs 100 crore building sanitation facilities for girl students in 10,000 schools.

Bharti promised a Rs 100-crore budget, too, but kept the focus on Ludhiana. The Punjab district of Ludhiana is the home base for Bharti’s founders, the Mittals. The company has named its CSR initiative, which will be run by the Bharti Foundation, ‘Satya Bharti Abhiyan’.

Gujarat-headquartered Adani Group said its already existing CSR project on sanitation in Gujarat will be extended to states where the group is present — Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. It also said Adani Foundation will look at new states for this CSR project.

The Aditya Birla Group’s CSR arm — Aditya Birla Centre — plans to build 10,000 facilities this year, the centre’s head Rajashree Birla said. States in focus are MP, UP, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.

FMCG major HUL plans to construct 24,000 facilities by 2015, the company said. This is a branded CSR activity — the initiative is being powered by the Domex Toilet Academy launched nine months ago; Domex is HUL’s toilet cleaner brand.

ITC also plans to build 10,000 facilities, hoping to hit this target by next year. It is strengthening its current CSR activity in this area, ITC said, adding 800-plus facilities for low-income households had been built in the last financial year in areas adjoining ITC factories in several states.

Dabur’s CSR arm Subdesh, the company said, already has rural sanitation as one of its priorities. The focus will be stronger. Fifty facilities in five villages have been made the first target. Dabur said its goal is to build 80-100 facilities a year.

India’s record in providing proper sanitation is abysmal. According to census data, almost 70%-plus rural households lack any facility. Even in India’s cities, one out of five households does not have in-house sanitation facility.

Narendra Modi, as the Gujarat chief minister, had launched Nirmal Gujarat, a sanitation provision campaign that had received good response from the state’s companies. The PM’s stress on clean public spaces is well known. His ‘toilets before temples’ remark as chief minister had made headlines and his speeches frequently make equate prosperity and progress with clean public spaces.

Courtesy: ET: 18 Aug, 2014

The country’s youngest political start up is looking to develop its own model of ‘good governance’. And for this, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is seeking the help of some of the brightest young minds in the country.

AAP has announced a two-month internship programme for youngsters to help Arvind Kejriwal shape the party’s vision of good governance. The party says it has already received 31,000 applications for 20 internship positions. They have shortlisted 100 candidates out of the 31,000 who had applied over the last two weeks. More than half of them (shortlisted) are students from IITs and IIMs. They have been called for interviews. The internship begins next week.

Political internship is a concept more popular in western democracies where B-schools accord importance to one’s work experience with a politician or a party. Although bigger parties in India are still relatively closed in their operations, smaller outfits have been opening up to hiring political interns.

So why does AAP need to hire interns when it already has a strong army of youngsters volunteering for it? They want inputs from people with strong academic background. Party believes many IIMs and IITs and also other colleges are offering courses on good governance. They could use the perspective of students who have students and researchers who are familiar with the field.

This isn’t AAP’s first attempt at roping in interns for help. The students had helped AAP design its Delhi election campaign.

Courtesy: The Economic Times; 13 Aug 2014

In an attempt to ensure plurality of news and views, broadcast regulator Trai today suggested restriction on political bodies and corporates entering the television and newspaper business.

It also recommended a single independent media regulatory authority comprising predominantly of eminent non-media persons for TV and print media to check and impose penalties for “paid news”, “private treaties” and issues related to “editorial independence”.

“The entities (political bodies, religious bodies, urban, local, panchayati raj, and other publicly funded bodies, and Central and State Government ministries, departments, companies, undertakings, joint ventures, and government-funded entities and affiliates) to be barred from entry into broadcasting and TV channel distribution sectors,” Trai said.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has said that an exit route option should be provided in case permission to any such organisations have already been granted.

Commenting on corporates entering media, it said: “On grounds of the inherent conflict of interest, the Authority recommends that ownership restrictions on corporates entering the media should be seriously considered by the Government and the regulator.”

With respect to the “media regulator”, Trai said: “Government should not regulate the media; There should be a single regulatory authority for TV and print mediums; the regulatory body should consist of eminent persons from different walks of life, including the media. It should be manned predominantly by eminent non-media persons.”

Besides, it said, strengthen arm’s length relationship between Prasar Bharati and government and take measures to ensure functional independence and autonomy.

In its recommendations on issues relating to media ownership, Trai said the news and current affairs genre is of utmost importance and direct relevance to the plurality and diversity of viewpoints and, hence, they should be considered as the relevant genre in the product market for formulating cross-media ownership rules.

For restriction on corporates entering media, it said: “This may entail restricting the amount of equity holding/ loans by a corporate in a media company, viz., to comply with provisions relating to control.”

Trai said that pending enactment of any new legislation on broadcasting, disqualifications for entities, including political bodies and religious bodies which it has recommended to be barred from entering media, should be implemented through executive decision.

The existing entities in the media sector which are in breach of the rules, should be given a maximum period of one year to comply with the rules, it added.

On “paid news”, Trai said that both media organisation and persons like an MP or MLA paying for favourable news should be held liable and not only the politician.

It also recommended that in case “advertorials”, a clear disclaimer should be mandated, to be printed in bold letters, stating that the succeeding content has been paid for.

The regulator has suggested that media organisation should submit reports to licence issuing authority and the proposed regulator which should disclose information related to shareholding pattern, foreign investments, board of directors, loans etc in public domain.

Trai said media organisation must also disclose to licensor and regulator their top ten advertisers, subscription and advertisement revenue and advertising rates.

There would still exist the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the legislative and legal framework in order to establish a robust institutional mechanism for the long term, it said.

By PTI | 12 Aug, 2014; NEW DELHI

Just ahead of World War II, there was a radical invention that shook the foundations of book publishing. It was the paperback book. This was a time when movie tickets cost 10 or 20 cents, and books cost $2.50. The new paperback cost 25 cents – it was ten times cheaper. Readers loved the paperback and millions of copies were sold in just the first year.

With it being so inexpensive and with so many more people able to afford to buy and read books, you would think the literary establishment of the day would have celebrated the invention of the paperback, yes? Nope. Instead, they dug in and circled the wagons. They believed low cost paperbacks would destroy literary culture and harm the industry (not to mention their own bank accounts). Many bookstores refused to stock them, and the early paperback publishers had to use unconventional methods of distribution – places like newsstands and drugstores. The famous author George Orwell came out publicly and said about the new paperback format, if “publishers had any sense, they would combine against them and suppress them.” Yes, George Orwell was suggesting collusion.

Well… history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Fast forward to today, and it’s the e-book’s turn to be opposed by the literary establishment. Amazon and Hachette – a big US publisher and part of a $10 billion media conglomerate – are in the middle of a business dispute about e-books. We want lower e-book prices. Hachette does not. Many e-books are being released at $14.99 and even $19.99. That is unjustifiably high for an e-book. With an e-book, there’s no printing, no over-printing, no need to forecast, no returns, no lost sales due to out of stock, no warehousing costs, no transportation costs, and there is no secondary market – e-books cannot be resold as used books. E-books can and should be less expensive.

Perhaps channeling Orwell’s decades old suggestion, Hachette has already been caught illegally colluding with its competitors to raise e-book prices. So far those parties have paid $166 million in penalties and restitution. Colluding with its competitors to raise prices wasn’t only illegal, it was also highly disrespectful to Hachette’s readers.

The fact is many established incumbents in the industry have taken the position that lower e-book prices will “devalue books” and hurt “Arts and Letters.” They’re wrong. Just as paperbacks did not destroy book culture despite being ten times cheaper, neither will e-books. On the contrary, paperbacks ended up rejuvenating the book industry and making it stronger. The same will happen with e-books.

Many inside the echo-chamber of the industry often draw the box too small. They think books only compete against books. But in reality, books compete against mobile games, television, movies, Facebook, blogs, free news sites and more. If we want a healthy reading culture, we have to work hard to be sure books actually are competitive against these other media types, and a big part of that is working hard to make books less expensive.

Moreover, e-books are highly price elastic. This means that when the price goes down, customers buy much more. We’ve quantified the price elasticity of e-books from repeated measurements across many titles. For every copy an e-book would sell at $14.99, it would sell 1.74 copies if priced at $9.99. So, for example, if customers would buy 100,000 copies of a particular e-book at $14.99, then customers would buy 174,000 copies of that same e-book at $9.99. Total revenue at $14.99 would be $1,499,000. Total revenue at $9.99 is $1,738,000. The important thing to note here is that the lower price is good for all parties involved: the customer is paying 33% less and the author is getting a royalty check 16% larger and being read by an audience that’s 74% larger. The pie is simply bigger.

But when a thing has been done a certain way for a long time, resisting change can be a reflexive instinct, and the powerful interests of the status quo are hard to move. It was never in George Orwell’s interest to suppress paperback books – he was wrong about that.

And despite what some would have you believe, authors are not united on this issue. When the Authors Guild recently wrote on this, they titled their post: “Amazon-Hachette Debate Yields Diverse Opinions Among Authors” (the comments to this post are worth a read). A petition started by another group of authors and aimed at Hachette, titled “Stop Fighting Low Prices and Fair Wages,” garnered over 7,600 signatures. And there are myriad articles and posts, by authors and readers alike, supporting us in our effort to keep prices low and build a healthy reading culture. Author David Gaughran’s recent interview is another piece worth reading.

We recognize that writers reasonably want to be left out of a dispute between large companies. Some have suggested that we “just talk.” We tried that. Hachette spent three months stonewalling and only grudgingly began to even acknowledge our concerns when we took action to reduce sales of their titles in our store. Since then Amazon has made three separate offers to Hachette to take authors out of the middle. We first suggested that we (Amazon and Hachette) jointly make author royalties whole during the term of the dispute. Then we suggested that authors receive 100% of all sales of their titles until this dispute is resolved. Then we suggested that we would return to normal business operations if Amazon and Hachette’s normal share of revenue went to a literacy charity. But Hachette, and their parent company Lagardere, have quickly and repeatedly dismissed these offers even though e-books represent 1% of their revenues and they could easily agree to do so. They believe they get leverage from keeping their authors in the middle.

Sudha Murthy and Penguin Books India are looking for 20 memorable & inspiring true-life tales.

If you have a real-life story that warms the heart and inspires people, or one which captures the hope, faith, kindness and joy that life is full of, all you have to do is write it interestingly and send it to us.

Penguin’s editors and Sudha Murty will shortlist and handpick the top 20. Then these will be published in a collection by Penguin Books India, edited by Sudha Murty.

Something Happened On The Way To Heaven

Contest closes 15th August 2014.

Submission Guidelines:

The 2014 Man Booker Prize longlist, which, for the first time in the prize’s 46 year history, includes writers outside of the U.K. and Commonwealth, has been announced. Americans Joshua Ferris and Richard Powers made the cut, but Donna Tartt’s Pulitzer Prize-winning The Goldfinch was notably absent from the first global longlist.

The longlist also featured four independent publishers, including Unbound, a crowd-funded publisher, which released Paul Kingsnorth’s The Wake.

The judges for the prize, AC Grayling, Jonathan Bate; Sarah Churchwell; Daniel Glaser; Alastair Niven and Erica Wagner, will announce the shortlist of six books on September 9. The shortlisted authors each receive £2,500 and a specially bound edition of their book. The winner of the prize, announced October 14, will receive another £50,000.

The 2014 Man Booker Longlist

Author (nationality) Title (publisher)

Joshua Ferris (American) To Rise Again at a Decent Hour (Viking)

Richard Flanagan (Australian) The Narrow Road to the Deep North (Chatto & Windus)

Karen Joy Fowler (American) We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves (Serpent’s Tail)

Siri Hustvedt (American) The Blazing World (Sceptre)

Howard Jacobson (British) J (Jonathan Cape)

Paul Kingsnorth (British) The Wake (Unbound)

David Mitchell (British) The Bone Clocks (Sceptre)

Neel Mukherjee (British) The Lives of Others (Chatto & Windus)

David Nicholls (British) Us (Hodder & Stoughton)

Joseph O’Neill (Irish/American) The Dog (Fourth Estate)

Richard Powers (American) Orfeo (Atlantic Books)

Ali Smith (British) How to be Both (Hamish Hamilton)

Niall Williams (Irish) History of the Rain (Bloomsbury)

By TK Arun

We need to support the Ministry of External Affairs proposal to allow cheaper import of chicken legs from the US in return for freer export of pomegranate and table grapes to that country. In fact, we can offer to lower the import duty on fresh apples, cereals and a few other things as well. Farm economist and former chairman of the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices Ashok Gulati strongly recommends lowering India’s high import duties on farm produce, to control food inflation, which leads consumer price inflation.

More openness in our farm trade is required not only to put downward pressure on India’s buoyant food prices but also to make Indian farmers reorient their crop selection and farming practices towards global competitiveness.

American consumers prefer chicken breast and wings and look down upon legs. So Americans can afford to sell chicken legs at a discount to the standard price of whole chicken. So India has levied an import duty of 100% on cut pieces, including legs, while the import duty on the whole chicken is 30%.

On fresh apples, the import duty is 50%, while it is 30% on most fruit. As Indians move out of poverty in droves, they want to eat better. They drink more milk, eat more fruit and vegetables, besides protein foods like pulses, meat, eggs and fish. The supply of these superior foods is not going up in tandem with demand. At the same time, farm wages are rising as increasing demand from higher paying construction lures unskilled labour away from the farm. The result is higher wage costs. Other input costs have gone up, too. The result of both such cost-push and demand pull is higher food prices. The only way to ensure that it does not spiral out of control and that our farmers are forced to raise productivity is to lower import duties across the board.

Indian poultry farmers will cry foul. So, they should be offered cheaper maize, which is the biggest component of chicken feed (the common fowl has this uncommon capacity to eat starch and convert it efficiently into protein). That is why it makes sense to accompany a lower import duty on chicken legs with a lower import duty on cereals as well.

While we are at the job of lowering import duties on food, and leading with lower duties on chicken tangdi, it would be a shame if we do not lower the import duty and countervailing duties on scotch as well!

(Courtsy: Economic Times)

By Justice Markandey Katju

[This expose is by Justice Markandey Katju, who was chief justice of Madras high court before becoming a Supreme Court judge. He is now chairman of the Press Council of India.]

There was an additional judge of the Madras high court against whom there were several allegations of corruption. He had been directly appointed as a district judge in Tamil Nadu, and during his career as district judge there were as many as eight adverse entries against him recorded by various portfolio judges of the Madras high court. But one acting chief justice of Madras high court by a single stroke of his pen deleted all those adverse entries, and consequently he became an additional judge of the high court, and he was in that post when I came as chief justice of Madras high court in November 2004.

That judge had the solid support of a very important political leader of Tamil Nadu. I was told that this was because while a district judge he had granted bail to that political leader.

Since I was getting many reports about his corruption, I requested the Chief Justice of India, Justice RC Lahoti, to get a secret IB inquiry made about him. A few weeks thereafter, while I was in Chennai, I received a call from the secretary of the CJI saying that Justice Lahoti wanted to talk to me. The CJI then came on the line and said that what I had complained about had been found true. Evidently the IB had found enough material about the judge’s corruption.

Since the two-year term as additional judge of that person was coming to an end, I assumed he would be discontinued as a judge of the high court in view of the IB report. However, what actually happened was that he got another one year’s appointment as an additional judge, though six other additional judges who had been appointed with him were confirmed and made permanent judges of the high court.

I later learned how this happened. The Supreme Court collegium consists of five most senior judges for recommending names for appointment as a Supreme Court judge, and three most senior judges for dealing with high courts.

The three most senior judges in the Supreme Court at that time were the Chief Justice of India, Justice Lahoti, Justice YK Sabharwal, and Justice Ruma Pal. This Supreme Court collegium recommended that in view of the adverse IB report the judge should be discontinued as a high court judge after his two-year term was over, and this recommendation was sent to the central government.

The UPA government was at the Centre at that time. Congress was no doubt the largest party in this alliance, but it did not have a majority in Lok Sabha, and was dependent on the support of its allies. One such ally was the party in Tamil Nadu which was backing this corrupt judge. On coming to know of the recommendation of the three-judge Supreme Court collegium they strongly objected to it.

The information I got was that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was at that time leaving for New York to attend the UN general assembly session. At the Delhi airport, he was told by ministers of the Tamil Nadu party that by the time he returned from New York his government would have fallen as their party would withdraw support to the UPA (for not continuing that additional judge).

On hearing this, Singh panicked, but he was told by a senior Congress minister not to worry, and that he would manage everything. That minister then went to Justice Lahoti and told him there would be a crisis if that additional judge was discontinued. On hearing this, Justice Lahoti sent a letter to the government of India to give another term of one year as additional judge to that corrupt judge, (I wonder whether he consulted his two Supreme Court collegium members ), and it was in these circumstances this corrupt judge was given another one-year term as additional judge (while his six batch mates as additional judges were confirmed as permanent Judges).

The additional judge was later given another term as additional judge by the new CJI Justice Sabharwal, and then confirmed as a permanent judge by the next CJI Justice KG Balakrishnan, but transferred to another high court.

I have related all this to show how the system actually works, whatever it is in theory. In fact, in view of the adverse IB report the judge should not even have been allowed to continue as additional judge.