The media: a ubiquitous threat to democracy

Proliferation of media has led to a manic outpour of news, that is more often than not, a quest for misconstrued or misrepresented versions of facts. The Oxford Dictionary defines “post truth” as the “public burial of objective facts by an avalanche of media appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Under the garb of Freedom of Speech and Expression, we are living in a warped version of a post-truth world today. Historically, media has been a great boon for society but in its current form, it is fast losing trust and credibility, a danger that can prove catastrophic for any democracy.
 
Edmund Burke, during a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons in 1787, claimed that those in the reporters’ gallery represented “the Fourth Estate.” Thus, Burke argued that the press was the most powerful of all the forces, driven by the compulsion of seeking the truth and nothing but the truth, underpinned by an ethos of public good. Historically, the press has functioned on the currency of “trust”, of the people it serves, for holding up a mirror to society, complete with all its warts, evils and fallacies as well as ensuring that the powerful are held accountable for their actions. More often than not, the press has done this right.
 
From the Pentagon Papers to the UK MPs expenses scandal and the Panama Papers lifting the lid on how the wealthy and powerful hide their money without paying taxes in off shore tax havens are all excellent examples of investigative journalism on a global scale. Aside from these global media powerhouses, there have been many unsung heroes from local papers and stations who have often challenged the power and unveiled atrocities of big business, politicos and bigots, despite being threatened or worse, killed. They have lived up to the best ideals of the Fourth Estate as the “force for good” that aims to improve lives and also strengthen democracy. Over the course of the 20th century, Burke’s prophecy has stood the test of time, with the information revolution and proliferation of technology, infusing an almost unparalleled power into organised media.
 
Lord Melbourne, the former British Prime Minister, in a debate in 1817, argued that “remind the conductors of the press of their duty to apply to themselves a maxim which they never neglected to urge on the consideration of government that the possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.”
 
As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, it seems as if the leaders in the media industry have failed to live up to this maxim, be it Fox News, CNN, NDTV, Republic, The Economist or The Financial Times. Trust in the media is falling to a new low. Moreover, far too many people instinctively believe that the media, instead of being a defender against the post-truth world, has become an enabler and participant of old-fashioned lies, hot air talk, willful exaggerations, buffoonery, biased reporting, “alternative facts” and so on. Bluff and bluster hides from public attention issues that may be less “news-breaking.”
 
The Freedom of Speech and Expression, enshrined in most democratic constitutions worldwide, has been and is undoubtedly a cherished ideal in society. However, journalists have been using this democratic right pervasively to function as the world’s “judge, jury and executioner.” The President of the Republic India used these words in a recent speech and urged the media to be more responsible.
 
Interestingly, many journalists accept this reality of a crisis of trust. This perspective was best presented by Rajdeep Sardesai, a renowned journalist when he told the DW,”I think there is a credibility crisis, in that television news media in particular, is driven by a tendency to put sensation above sense in the search for ratings.” Similarly, on Fox News and CNN, we hear commentators and journalists alike call out exaggerations or willful misconstruction of the truth. However, these are not mea culpa moments. Instead, they only call out those who they believe do not share their “biases.”
 
Unfortunately, these incidents therefore exacerbate the lack of trust in the media in general, across the world’s two largest democracies and democratic societies elsewhere as well.They reinforce the idea that media is not as interested in pursuing facts, but keener about pushing particular narratives that suits its biases. The mediated to use the doctrines of “Freedom of Speech and Expression” to pursue ratings and their own agenda even if that means hurting or tarnishing the reputations of innocent individuals to harming national interests.
 
The issue of post-truth is not a Left Vs. Right issue. While politics and society have historically paid the price of misinformation and manipulation of fact, resulting in full-fledged wars as well, the phenomenon of post-truth today, has assumed disastrous proportions. The access to technology and information, supposed to prevent people from remaining oblivious to happenings in society, has made it close to impossible to discern fact from fiction. It has become dangerous to believe anything written or shown in the media.
 
That is inherently a clear and persistent danger to democracy.
 
Shamit Ghosh and Aditi Rukhaiyar
February 3, 2020

source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-media-a-ubiquitous-threat-to-democracy/

The Ideas For India conference: diverse conversations around India’s growth story

Bridge India, a London-based think tank, has conceptualised a unique Ideas For India conference. The inaugural three-day event will be held in London from April 22-24, 2020. Ideas For India will bring together business, policy and diaspora leaders from the UK, India and Europe, to collectively deliberate upon the next wave of India’s growth as a formidable global economy and nation.

Who is Bridge India?

Bridge India is a progressive and not-for-profit think tank, dedicated toward delving into public policy discourses for the betterment of India. Often, the “India Story” is presented through a narrow lens in the international community, with limited viewpoints on the business environment, economy or policy landscape. However, India’s massive scale and diversity renders it as a land of juxtapositions. Within this context, Bridge India seeks to highlight and celebrate this nuanced perspective, in order to facilitate a better understanding for the India-watchers.

A glimpse into the inaugural conference

The Ideas For India event is likely to bring afield 400+ attendees, including, 50+ foreign delegates and representatives from 10+ countries, across 12+ sessions, keynotes, panel discussions, focused roundtables and exclusive breakfast briefings, to curate and create a distinctive configuration of a million ideas for India.

Ideas For India has been designed in a manner that Day 1 will take place in the British Houses of Parliament; Day 2 will contain focused, parallel business and policy dialogue sessions; and Day 3 will include an all-day business conference followed by an invite-only black-tie dinner. A vast range of topics will be encapsulated across the various sessions to provide a 360-degree view of the India Story. Some of these relate to: India’s attractiveness as an investment destination, India’s energy security, fake news in India, artificial intelligence, data privacy and security, India’s position in the world, delivering for the bottom 90% of India, to list a few.

Some esteemed speakers who have confirmed their presence at the event include: Lord Karan Bilimoria (President, Confederation of British Industry), Mohandas Pai (Chairman, Manipal Global Education), Karan Thapar (TV news anchor), Nakul Saxena (Head of Policy, iSpirt Foundation), Sitaram Yechury (General Secretary, CPI (M)), Abhinandan Sekhri (CEO, Newslaundry), Dinesh Dhamija MEP (Chair of India Caucus, European Parliament), Siddarth Zarabi (Executive Editor, Business Television India) and Nitin Mantri (President, ICCO).

Rohini Lakhani, a team member of Bridge India said: “The event space in the UK-India corridor is a crowded one, but what is unique about Ideas For India is that it brings together senior stakeholders from business, policy, academia and elsewhere, not just from the bilateral corridor and on one side of the political spectrum, but in a genuinely diverse manner to explore collaboration opportunities between Europe and India, as well as globally. Our big focus will be to debate and discuss the big ideas that could drive India’s growth both as an economy and nation over the coming decades.”

According to Speaker Nakul Saxena, Director of Public Policy at iSPIRT Foundation, “The nature of growth in India is changing. Capital and access to the internet has disrupted business models in India, creating a virtuous cycle of growth for many of India’s tech startups. As India rebrands itself and evolves as an economy, technology, innovation, data privacy and related topics will be at the heart of this growth. I’m delighted to be able to contribute to such ideas for India at this conference.”

Pushparaj Deshpande, Director of the Samruddha Bharat Foundation opined that “The Indian diaspora has risen to the top of their professions globally and can contribute significantly to India’s growth as an economy as well as a heterogeneous democracy. I look forward to engaging in this unique forum to bring together leaders from just from India but globally, in a unique, diverse yet intimate forum.”

In order to convene and drive the debates and conversations across Europe and India, India Outbound has been brought on board as a media partner for the Ideas For India inaugural conference. All our partners have come together to ensure that this conference provides a unique, inclusive and focused forum and starts an annual conversation that yields invaluable insights into India’s current and future growth story.

For further information, please visit www.bridgeindia.org.uk/event/ideas-for-india-april-2020.

For details related to speakership, sponsorship, exhibition or any other event-related information, please email sanjana@bridgeindia.org.uk.

source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-ideas-for-india-conference-diverse-conversations-around-indias-growth-story/

Yes, Trump will possibly survive impeachment

The United States is currently in the middle of an upheaval. The chaotic aftermath of the US strike against Iran and a shock turn in President Donald trump’s impeachment drama are triggering a monumental Capitol Hill clash over trust and presidential power. Besides the raging uncertainty over the trial, the developments in the Middle East shifted the focus in Washington, even as Trump remains fixated as ever on the impeachment saga. He now faces a trial in the Senate, possibly in January, where he is likely to be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate.In theory, a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate would be required to convict Trump and remove him from office.
 
With no direct negotiations between the Senate leaders, combined with John R. Bolton’s (the former White House national security advisor) willingness to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial indeed puts a new face to the process. According to many, Bolton’s statement could spur a dramatic turn that could alter the political dynamic of the impeachment trial in the Senate where Trump’s presidency hangs in the balance. But that appears unlikely. First, given that Trump enjoys an 80% approval rate among Republicans, it is hard to see mass defections among the Senate Republicans. Further, the approval rate suggests that the Republicans will double-down on their far-right vision of America and stick with Trump, irrespective of the malfeasance that came to light.
 
Even the fact that opinion polls among people have fairly remained immobile signifies the growing inelasticity of American politics and demonstrates the support that Trump enjoys outside Congress. Consequently, on a purely tactical level this move,could actually end up enhancing his support base,instead of eroding it. All of these do indicate that there is no way to send Trump packing. But the fact that he is poised to win in 2020 and serve another four years, is what makes impeachment a warranted move.
 
In this regard, the Democrats have rightly sounded the bugle by holding an impeachment procedure against him. At the heart of Democrats case is the allegation that Trump tried to leverage a White House meeting and military aid, sought by Ukraine, to combat Russian military aggression, to pressure Ukrainian President Volody mr Zelensky to launch an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Second, Trump also wanted Zelensky to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory, that Ukraine, not Russia, colluded with Democrats in the 2016 election. The premise on which the impeachment clause was included by James Madison and co. was to guard against the potential incapacity, negligence and perfidy of a President. Another dangerous possibility, according to them was that the “President might betray his trust to foreign powers.” Trump through all his high crimes and misdemeanors made his impeachment inevitable.
 
In all, impeachment nonetheless is a gamble for the Democrats as a full-blown trial distracts them from their core election agenda. But with the current dysfunction in American politics, impeachment almost becomes a shield against the dangers that a president like Trump poses. So even though impeachment might include partisanship, it ultimately asserts the supremacy of law in a political system.
 
India Outbound
January 9, 2019

source https://indiaoutbound.org/yes-trump-will-possibly-survive-impeachment/

End of the global trade order?

One of the pillars of the global trade order, the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) dispute settlement system is set to collapse quietly this week. Though its demise may not make headlines akin to the US-China trade war, but its demise entails moving further away from multilateral rules, designed to promote global free trade and towards a law of the jungle where the mighty wins.
 
The collapse has been in the making for over two years, driven by a US blockade on appointments to the WTO’s highest court, the Appellate Body. In fact, U.S President Donald Trump has rallied against the WTO, calling it a catastrophe and a disaster, based on the assertion that the United States loses cases due to a skewed proportion and representation of Americans in the court. It is not unknown that Trump faces a barrage of disputes, at the WTO against his trade policies, including global tariffs on steel, and a tariff war with China with no end in sight.
 
Since he came to power, Washington has blocked all appointments to the appeals’ chamber as existing judges’ terms end. Such absence of new appointments, which can only occur by consensus of all WTO members in December, the appellate body will shrink to only one member out of its standard of seven, two less to form a quorum of three necessary to hear appeals and settle trade disputes. In a matter of months, their rotation will become meaningless, placing an impossible workload on the remaining members. The next vacancies for the US and Indian members occur in December 2019, at which point the appeals process would be crippled.
 
Essentially, what is at stake is a unique system that has on balance safeguarded the interests of all WTO members, regardless of their economic size or diplomatic influence. Governments must settle trade disputes through the dispute settlement system, if other diplomatic means are exhausted. The dispute settlement mechanism often referred to as the “crown jewel” of the WTO provides governments the right to appeal decisions and the right to withdraw trade concessions and raise tariffs in the event of an adverse funding. The international legitimacy of the WTO dispute settlement system makes it an indispensable tool that governments can use to hold trading partners accountable and without entering a retaliatory mechanism in tariff escalation in a bid to change behaviour.
 
Without a multilateral architecture to hold rule-breakers accountable, international economic relations would revert to the law of the jungle where countries with economic heft would rule the ground. That reversion definitely sits ill with multinational businesses, the global economic framework and the rule of law, thereby potentially jeopardizing international economic stability.
 
India Outbound
Nov 22, 2019
 
 

source https://indiaoutbound.org/end-of-the-global-trade-order/

The noble fight against poverty

The 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer reaffirms the value of evidence-based policymaking in addressing intractable problems. Even as the pursuit of capital accumulation is underway in the international sphere, the world continues to be plagued with multiple distressing phenomena. Instances such as 700 million people trapped into poverty, or 50% children leaving schools without basic skills in literacy and numeracy are grim reminders of how policymaking at a macro-level could prove inadequate to address such crises.
 
Often, in instances such as global poverty, economists tend to rely on a macro-level understanding to alleviate poverty. Ideas related to immigration and economic growth are recognized as tools to improve the quality of life among the world’s poor. On the contrary, the relative narrowness of the scope of this year’s winner’s work is owed in part to their method of analysis. Mr. Banerjee and Ms. Duflo explicitly reject big thinking about big questions in their 2011 book “Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty.”
 
What is unique about the duo’s work is the employability of the approach; Randomized Control Trial (RCT) has been the buzzword among development economists for almost two decades. Inspired by the impact of the RCTs in medical science, the trio has used this technique to test the effect of small interventions on individual behavior. Such trials involve selecting two sets of individuals at random, out of which one is then exposed to policy intervention. The experiment examines the impact of such interventions, often over long periods of time, to gauge the impact of policy and whether or not, it justifies the costs associated with it.
 
This has proven exemplary in areas such as education and healthcare. For instance, the Nobel Committee highlighted how their “experiment-based approach has transformed development economics over the past decades.” They specifically mentioned the result of one such randomized trial wherein “more than 5 million Indian children have benefited from programmes of remedial tutoring in schools.” Further, the results of another experiment suggest that multi-topic medical training of informal healthcare providers may offer an effective short-run strategy for improved healthcare.
 
Nonetheless, the effect of such rigour in policy analysis is considerable and as a consequence, the RCT approach has taken over the field of development economics. For Duflo and Banerjee, an important part of their work has been ensuring that the agency of the beneficiaries, usually in developing countries such as India, is put at the centre of any policy design. This is a crucial method in which experimental results often provide better outcome than large-scale data-based inference.
 
However, this approach is not without its critics. For instance, Angus Deaton, who won the 2015 Nobel prize in economics noted that while RCTs can play a role in building scientific knowledge, they can do so only as part of a cumulative program. While the approach has enamored a large number of development economists for its simplicity, where inferences of what works or not are drawn from field experiments, it has also been criticized for reducing the study of poverty to small interventions unconnected to the life experiences of the poor. But, despite the conditional nature of these studies, it is difficult to deny that policy interventions require better understanding to ensure efficient outcomes, especially in countries with finite state capacities. Thus, in a country like India, where billions in money goes into formulating policies to help the poor, which are often unaccompanied with the real scenario, such research can be enormously valuable in informing public debate and can thus aid in policy making.
 
India Outbound
october 24, 2019
 
 

source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-noble-fight-against-poverty/

Brexit, deal or no deal?

The fact that even a long gloomy night breaks into dawn is nothing short of a miracle. Although, the word miracle might not sound apt here, but the Brexit conundrum that has been lingering for more than three years seems to have made some sort of a breakthrough. After months of confusion, the negotiating teams of the United Kingdom and the European Union have reached a consensus on what could transpire as a no-deal Brexit if this gets approved. Both the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker have announced their mutual agreement over the deal, where Juncker reportedly stated that it is a “fair and balanced agreement for the EU and the UK.”
 
The deal after the announcement still must clear several hurdles, including getting approval from Europe’s leaders and most crucially passage in the British Parliament, where an agreement reached by Johnson’s predecessor May suffered three successive defeats in the Parliament. The Brexit deal comes just ahead of the two-day EU summit starting Thursday and holds the possibility of removing some of the uncertainties that have dogged the EU-UK relationship since 2016.
 
However, the latest onslaught came from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in Ireland who refused to support the deal as “things as stand.”Their concern is over the backstop arrangement, which if made redundant, would establish a hard border between the Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland. Currently, there are no physical borders between the two parts. Johnson, a hard Eurosceptic in a sense, apparently junked the vexed backstop arrangement that had fluttered Brexiters all along. For Tories of that school, the purpose of Brexit is liberation from a regulatory yoke, imposed by the Brussels bureaucracy. Hatred of the backstop has its origin in the ambition to extricate the UK economy from the social protections preferred by many European countries. The theory is that a competitive edge is achieved by reducing the cost of doing business in Britain.
 
Mr. Johnson’s frantic rush to strike a Brexit bargain by October 31 has forced a focus on technicalities of withdrawal, but it also serves his agenda to distract his attention from the bigger picture. Largely, Johnson has portrayed himself as the man who would get Brexit done, a phrase he had often used as a weapon to stir the hysteria of Brexit and play down Theresa May’s deal.
 
But, it is important to remember that Brexit is not a game or a play to advance one man’s ambitions. Though Brexit was conceived and supported by the people who want the EU to fail, a government that seeks to uphold the notions of multilateralism will want the EU to survive. An outcome of the deal will shape the strategic direction of the country for generations and affect millions of livelihoods. What matters is for Johnson and his government to not play poker with the deal and strive towards an outcome that would co-opt both the UK and the EU in a favourable manner.

source https://indiaoutbound.org/brexit-deal-or-no-deal/

Why India needs a female boardroom revolution?

Over the years, the issue of gender diversity in business organizations has become particularly relevant in the international corporate governance arena. For proponents of more women to secure seats at the boardroom table, this marks a remarkable moment of the shattering of the glass ceiling. Here, the glass ceiling is used as a metaphor to represent an invisible barrier that prevents a given demography, in this case women, from rising beyond a certain level of hierarchy.
 
Research on gender diversity has often invoked sundry perspectives on how to efficiently solve problems that companies face. To this end, India had this epiphany only back in 2013 where the 2013 Companies Act made it mandatory for listed companies as well as companies with a turnover of INR 300 crore to appoint atleast one woman director. But often, companies would induct a women member from their promoter families to meet the requirement. This was largely tied to the objective of protecting business interests.
 
While this broadened women’s representation, this also led to a small cohort of women accumulating directorships. So, to ameliorate this concern and to make the boardroom truly diverse, in October 2017, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) mandated that there should be atleast one independent woman director in all listed companies.
 
Research evinces that companies with truly diverse boards perform better than their peers over a long period of time. So far, the legal provisions have managed to trigger off a right trend where according to Prime Database (which explored and analysed data for the boards of 500 top companies listed on the National Stock Exchange or Nifty500) found that female representation increased to 13.8 % in 2017, from 5% in 2012, indicating a 8.8% increase. However, the gain is not significant as per data shown by the 2019 edition of the Credit Suisse Gender 3000 report wherein Indian female representation in boardrooms has risen to 15.2% in 2019, falling below the global average of 20.6 %.
 
Apart from the normative argument that suggests both men and women should have an equal opportunity to attain leadership positions, what explains the logic of having a gender-diverse boardroom? Simply put, does investment in women actually translate to better financial results for firms? The broad answer is yes. There is a significant body of research, which suggests that gender diversity can have a positive impact on financial performance as well as brand perception.
 
Further research shows that companies with atleast one woman on board have a higher return on equity, higher earnings and stronger growth in stock price than companies with all-male boards. In fact, the evidence abounds. According to a research brief produced by Mckinsey, companies in the top quartile of gender diversity are 15% more likely to financially outperform those in the bottom quartile. Similarly, multiple surveys have also linked companies with more women on their boards to better corporate governance and more ethical behavior.
 
Meanwhile,another survey published in the International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics pointed out that firms with at least one woman on the board have a 20% lower risk of bankruptcy. These stark figures should in themselves serve as an incentive for businesses to see female representation as a commercial imperative.
 
The quota for female representation, albeit motivated by both ethical and social responsibility also produces better economic yields. Since boards appoint and monitor the executive positions such as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and guide the firm’s strategy, boardroom composition has a strong impact on firm performance. Naturally, a gender diverse boardroom will positively affect the economic performance of the firm and Indian businesses would do well to co-opt women in boardrooms to ensure a successful business.
 
India Outbound
October 16, 2019
 
 

source https://indiaoutbound.org/why-india-needs-a-female-boardroom-revolution/