[sacw] sacw dispatch #3 (30 Nov.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch #3
30 November 1999
---------------------------
#1. Amartya Sens' new book reviewed
#2. Message from Journalists Against Nuclear Weapons, Chennai (JANW)
#3. Management Offensive against Workers In India
#4. FBI planning Office in India ?
---------------------------
#1.
The New York Times
Book Review
November 28, 1999

BEYOND MONEY
A NOBEL LAUREATE QUESTIONS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN INCOME AND WELL-BEING.

Review by FAREED ZAKARIA
(Fareed Zakaria, the managing editor of Foreign Affairs, is working on a
book about the future of democracy.)

DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM
By Amartya Sen. 366 pp.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf. $27.50.

Amartya Sen was an odd choice for the Nobel in economic science in 1998. In
a field increasingly obsessed with narrow technical virtuosity, Sen has
persisted in asking big, messy questions, mixing ethics with his equations.
The choice was also unusual because, unlike most Nobel laureates, he was
not associated with a single grand idea - a ''killer theorem,'' in the
language of the field - having written across a range of topics, even
disciplines. But with his new book, ''Development as Freedom,'' Sen, who is
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, has brought together many of his
ideas and put them under one theoretical umbrella.The result is a somewhat
disjointed work, part collected essays, part magnum opus.

If there is an underlying theme in Sen's work - and it takes up a few
chapters here - it is skepticism that money is the measure of all things.
He has persistently posed this question: What do we mean when we say that a
person or a group or a country is better off? The conventional answer -
higher incomes - is not enough for Sen. He points out that many places with
low per capita incomes, like Sri Lanka, China and the Indian state of
Kerala, have achieved higher life expectancies and literacy rates than much
richer lands like Brazil, South Africa and Namibia. In fact the people of
these poor countries (and there are others, like Costa Rica and Gabon) can
expect to live longer than some groups in industrial countries, like
American black men, who in monetary terms are much richer. Sen recognizes
that in most countries higher incomes do produce improvements across most
measures of the quality of life. But in looking at the exceptions he forces
us to examine the connection between income and well-being, between money
and happiness.

Some of the other chapters contain reprises of Sen's justly famous studies.
Perhaps his best-known paper argues that democracy is crucial to the
prevention of famine and points out the striking fact that there has never
been a famine in a functioning multiparty democracy. Another makes vivid
the neglect of women's health in Asia and North Africa by calculating the
number who are ''missing'' - that is, who would have lived if given the
same care and attention as men; it is close to 100 million.

Another chapter, more polemical than scholarly, rejects claims made by
Singapore's founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and others that
development in poor countries often requires tough decisions and the
ability to delay gratification, both of which generally require ignoring
popular pressures. Sen observes that this analysis rests on the success of
a few East Asian countries, not the full range of autocracies, many of
which have proved to be disastrous at economic development. He correctly
notes that more complete studies are inconclusive as to whether, on
average, dictatorships outperform democracies. To put it simply, if a
country gets an autocrat there's no way of ensuring that the autocrat will
be Lee Kuan Yew and not Mobutu Sese Seko.

But Sen is much too dismissive of the interesting case of East Asia's
''tigers.'' They are, after all, the only third world countries to move
from poverty to near plenty - and in one generation! It might be worth
considering, for instance, that these countries adopted more
free-market-oriented policies than other third world countries did,
policies that were wildly unpopular until very recently. The easiest way to
win an election in South Asia or Africa during the 1960's and 1970's was to
brand your opponent a capitalist.

Sen lauds the East Asians for investing in human capital through health
care and education because these policies not only produced growth but also
improved people's quality of life. But again, in most third world countries
organized political and labor groups insisted on a very different course.
They demanded large-scale employment projects, often through
nationalization; huge subsidies; and tariff protection for local
industries. Politically powerful farmers prevented land reform and other
interest groups still block cuts in subsidies and deregulation. In Chile,
for example, it was Pinochet's military government that pushed through the
land reform policies of the socialist Salvador Allende. Today central
planning is in disfavor and capitalism seems irresistible, so perhaps good
economics also makes for good politics. But this has not always been so and
may not be so in the future.

Sen's claims for democracy, however, are not really about economic
performance. He argues that democratic government is an end in and of
itself because it furthers human freedom. This is a powerful,
well-established statement that few would disagree with. Sen places it at
the center of his overall theoretical framework. But this governing idea,
which takes up several chapters, has neither the originality nor the power
of Sen's more specific insights.

Development, for Sen, is the process of expanding human freedom - hence his
book's title. Raising peoples' incomes is important, he says, but so is
giving them political rights like the ability to choose their governments
and express themselves without fear. Fair enough. But freedom for Sen goes
well beyond providing people with basic political and civil rights. True
freedom - ''substantive freedom'' is his term - requires ''economic
facilities,'' ''social opportunities'' and ''protective security'' - in
other words, state-funded jobs, services and income subsidies for the less
successful in society.

Now this might strike many as a familiar argument for redistribution, and
one that has been accepted by most industrial societies - they all
underwrite some version of the welfare system Sen seems to be advocating.
The philosophical rationale for this setup was also made, comprehensively
and brilliantly, almost 30 years ago by John Rawls in ''A Theory of
Justice.'' Sen believes he is different from Rawls, and more radical, but
in ways that strike me as quibbles. Sen considers his theoretical
innovation to be his expansive definition of substantive freedom as
whatever helps human beings fully exercise their capabilities - ''or, less
formally put, the freedom to achieve various lifestyles.'' He criticizes
Rawls for giving priority to the narrower, traditional conception of
liberty - freedom from physical or mental coercion. ''Why should the status
of intense economic needs,'' Sen asks, ''which can be matters of life and
death, be lower than that of personal liberties?''

But Sen's is hardly an original definition. T. H. Green wrote of ''true
freedom,'' in 1881, as ''the maximum power for all members of human society
alike to make the best of themselves.'' And he was far from the first to
propose this kind of broad conception of liberty. But if one seeks the
redistribution of wealth or the promotion of egalitarianism or any other
such value, why call it freedom? At the very least it confounds plain
discourse. And at worst, it can lead to the neglect of basic liberties in
the search for more extravagant ones. Philosophers like Rawls and Isaiah
Berlin, hardly libertarians, give priority to personal liberties for good
historical reasons; over the centuries, governments have routinely abused
them, often justifying coercion by claiming to be fulfilling some positive
vision of freedom.

In awarding Sen his prize, the Swedish Academy of Sciences noted that he
had ''restored an ethical dimension to the discussion of vital economic
problems.'' He has done this and more. His book is rich in insight and
moral imagination. Sen raises more questions than he answers. He almost
always handles thorny choices by declaring that we must balance values,
even when they are, as they often are, competing. So much of his high
intelligence is devoted to moving between subjects and fields - a little
public choice theory here and a little moral philosophy there - that the
book has a discursive and diffuse quality. ''Development As Freedom'' has
neither the comprehensiveness of the best political philosophy nor the
elegance of the best economics. It makes one long for a killer theorem.

---------------------------
#2.
30 November 1999
MESSAGE FROM CHENNAI, INDIA BASED JOURNALISTS AGAINST NUCLEAR WEAPONS (JANW)=
=2E

Dear Friends,
The English Booklet (Pokharan II, Kargil and the People) published and
released by the JANW on the occasion of its first anniversary in late July
this year, has now been placed in the JANW's Website
(http://www.pppindia.com/janw). Of course, last year's booklet (Media Bomb-
Review of Press Responses to Pokharan-II) remains on the site.

(R.Gopalakrishnan)

---------------------------
#3.
MANAGEMENT OFFENCE AGAINST WORKERS IN INDIA

[The below article describes a the widespread use of Voluntary retirement
schemes as part of management startegies to restructure the work force. The
Hindustan Lever workers and other are trying to fight back. It would be
useful to share information on whats happening at UniLever, Phizer & Glaxo
plants in Pakistan. Labour activists across the south asia can use this
information. SACW readers can send information which will be forwarded to
activists in Mumbai. Messages should be sent to aiindex@m...]

Outlook
6 December 1999

RETIREMENT, YES VOLUNTARY, NO
CONFLICTING VIEWS OF WORKERS AND MANAGERS ON VRS THREATEN TO SOUR
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
By Charubala Annuncio

Amajor discontent is brewing across companies and industries in liberalised
corporate India. Discontent among workers who have been offered the golden
handshake by their providers in an effort to be lean and mean in the
marketplace. Workers of companies ranging from Hindustan Lever (HLL) to
Pfizer and Nicholas Piramal (NP) to Biddle Sawyer (BS) have moved court to
fight a long battle over the voluntary retirement schemes (VRS) offered to
them. A fight that has every sign of turning bitter.

To the workers, VRS is a new tool for top managers who want to skirt legal
norms and shut down a particular unit.

Because, despite certain legal verdicts, the crux of the matter-a proper
labour policy-is untouched. "Voluntary retirement schemes are neither
voluntary nor retirement schemes," asserts Bennet D'Costa, secretary,
Hindustan Lever Employees' Union. A charge to which there is no easy answer.

Workers say the schemes will be voluntary if an individual opts to quit.
But in many companies, the management decides unilaterally on VRS, as also
how many, and who, are surplus. This, they allege, is tantamount to
retrenchment. If the identified group doesn't comply=8A "they first take awa=
y
your work and then tell you that you are surplus," says a leader of the NP
union.

There's more. Unions allege that: Workers and machines are kept idle while
work is outsourced. Eighty to 100 per cent of work at companies like BS, a
Rs 40-crore firm bought out by Glaxo, and NP is sub-contracted or shifted
elsewhere. "This, although it's public policy that work of a permanent and
regular nature should be done by the permanent staff of the principal
employer," says a leader. Skilled workers refusing to go are given
unskilled jobs. Union leaders are made to sit in godowns to keep them away
from other workers. Psychological pressure: Managers meet one worker at a
time behind closed doors/visit them at home to hardsell VRS.
Vulnerabilities like health issues and financial contingencies are
exploited. Medical histories are studied and workers given jobs difficult
to carry out. A worker with a heart problem was told to sweep premises on a
fourth-floor tower. As there was no elevator, he had to climb up and down
four times a day. Financial liabilities are traced and, for instance, bank
loans are blocked so that workers opt for VRS to clear debt. Managements
defy agreements on paper. Transfers are offered when appointment letters
say they will be transferred to other departments but in the same
region/city. A drug company sanctioned leave to workers for a peaceful
demonstration and paid them for those days. But pay was arbitrarily cut the
following month. Workers rendered idle are penalised for not being present
at their seats. Five-year-old records are dug up and workers chargesheeted
for absenteeism. Many workers don't even know how the VRS amount is
calculated. There are no prior talks with the union. VRS is offered when
companies want to shift production to areas where wages are low and
government incentives available. Unions are tricked into agreements on the
promise that new facilities are meant for expansion and would be used only
after the existing ones are optimally utilised.

Workers allege that VRS comes in handy for companies to pare down costs and
not to offer value to the consumer or shareholder. Especially for
profitable, well-growing companies like Pfizer, Siemens, HLL, NP or Glaxo.
Glaxo bought BS because of its profitability and potential. Why then the
need to get rid of its workers? The NP union says despite production moving
to backward areas to cut costs, prices of Albucle eye drops and Orthobid
increased by 10-25 per cent. Managements, they say, want to shut down units
and do away with organised labour without taking recourse to the tedious
official procedure for closure.

But why wouldn't workers want VRS which offers a lump sum plus benefits
like pension? That's misleading, argue unions. Thanks to inflation, the
lump sum doesn't stay long. Take for example an HLL worker earning Rs 8,000
a month. If he opts for VRS, he gets a lump sum of Rs 5 lakh and a pension
of Rs 3,000. But he loses Rs 23 lakh if one adds up his balance service
pay, provident fund and gratuity. Ten years from now, his salary would be
Rs 21,000. Unions say 90 per cent of separated workers, driven to penury,
try to get their jobs back.

Most managements Outlook approached refused comments on the issue saying it
was "sub judice", "painful" or "would rake up the dead". Some others like
Irfan Khan, HLL spokesperson, were more forthcoming. Says he: "We identify
those we don't need but the scheme is completely voluntary and we give them
all help possible." And companies do have to get more competitive. Says
TISCO spokesperson Sanjay Singh: "New production facilities need a leaner
workforce. Modern technology with a higher degree of automation requires
different educational qualifications, skills and attitudes." Indian labour
is cheap but not too productive. In backward areas, the first-generation
factory workers are more productive than more expensive city workers. A
culture of lethargy, says Khan, prevailed in Tomco's units and HLL had to
separate 5,000 workers.

Managers put the blame on unions which, according to them, want to hold
back willing workers to retain clout.

HLL has eased out 15,000 workers from its own units and from
acquisitions-Lakme and Tomco. Why did they opt for VRS if they didn't find
it lucrative, asks Khan? Unions, feel managers, like to hold back workers
as they lose their strength otherwise. The Lever union bank balance runs
into crores of rupees and its leaders travel in luxury for court cases and
other union engagements. In '86, Datta Samant, then Mumbai's most powerful
TU leader, asked for a Rs 7,000 monthly raise when the norm was Rs 100-200
per three years. A deadlock with the textile mills rendered 2.5 lakh
workers jobless.

P.V. Nayak, director with BS group and Glaxo, explains that since BS'
systems and procedures had to be aligned with that of the parent company, a
VRS was offered. In companies, the issue can be resolved by offering
part-time work to a larger group of workers, but it's not possible in a
factory. They sound off the unions, albeit informally. Nayak says it's
futile to discuss with external unions-BS workers have aligned with TU
leader R.J. Mehta. But Khan and Nayak agree that VRS is the only legal
method open to companies seeking to restructure. "That the government has
exempted payment of income-tax under approved VRS shows it supports
restructuring through one-time separation payment," says Nayak.

Contesting the charge that HLL is trying to cut its labour force, Khan says
the number of workers has gone up from 10,000 to 35,000 in the past few
years. "We grow jobs. For every employee we hire, we generate 80 jobs
outside HLL," he adds. Managements claim they sincerely help workers and
try to retain employees by transferring them to other job functions or
locations, which is not acceptable to workers. HLL tried to transfer people
to a site near Nashik but the union took the matter to court. Siemens has
helped set up a cooperative for separated workers and gives them job work
earlier given to contractors. It's going to lease its machinery and tools.
Of the 300 workers who took VRS, 51 were accommodated in the first phase.
TISCO, known for its sound industrial relations with not a hitch in 70
years, offers medical facilities, refundable loan, house rent allowance,
education facilities for children, besides pension and severance package.
"No other company, I think, offers such a liberal scheme," says TISCO's
Singh. Between '96 and '99, TISCO separated 22,000 workers.

But workers dismiss the Siemens deal as a carrot to ease out staff. HLL
union sources claim that whatever the public postures, managers use terms
like "go unilaterally and rely on money power", "make life difficult and
uncertain" and "create insecurity" in internal e-mails. A Glaxo internal
memo dated November 3, '97, marked "strictly confidential", from one senior
manager to a director asks whether the company should follow its advocate's
advice to delay the BS merger. The director's handwritten reply on the memo
reads: "We'll delay merger as long as it takes to sort out the=8Aemployees.
Can't sacrifice the long-term for short-term benefits." BS workers say that
as long as the formal merger is delayed, they can't make claims on jobs in
Glaxo. And Glaxo argues that since BS workers don't belong to it, why
should it house them?

The only solution: a clear exit policy. It has been a touchy issue for
every government. Especially in the absence of social security schemes for
the jobless. But short of taking the bull by the horns, there seems to be
no end to this golden tangle.
-----------------------------
#4.
=46BI PLANNING OFFICE IN INDIA?
NEW DELHI, Nov 29 (PTI)
Senior BJP member K R Malkani, along with Left Opposition members, today
demanded in the Rajya Sabha that the Government should not allow the FBI,
the US investigating agency, to open its office in India ''as it will
compromise the sovereignty of the country.``

Raising the matter through a special mention, Mr Malkani said as per
newspaper reports FBI was earlier working in India unofficially but had now
sought permission from the government to open an office.

He was supported by Mr Gurudas Das Gupta (CPI), Mr Mohd Salim (CPM) and
many others.

Leader of the House Jaswant Singh said there was no FBI office in India yet
nor was there any application pending before the government for this
purpose.

However, Mr Gurudas Das Gupta demanded a categorical statement from Mr
Singh who is also the external affairs minister, that FBI would not be
allowed to open an office even if it sought it.

To this the minister replied, ''whatever happens it will be in the interest
of the country and not for dishonouring the country.``

Opposition members, however, asserted they were not satisfied by the
minister`s assurance.

Mr Malkani said the FBI had documented history showing that it had
interfered in the internal affairs of many countries.

He said that after the Kanishka air crash it was found during
investigations that ''the persons suspected to be responsible for the crash
were trained in the US by an organisation funded by the FBI.``

Therefore, he said, the government should not allow FBI ''to open up its
shop in India.``

Mr Das Gupta said if the government allows FBI to set up its office in
India it would tantamount to compromising India`s sovereignty.

The CPI member said according to his information the issue of FBI office in
India figured during recent talks in London between Mr Jaswant Singh and US
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott.

However, Mr Singh denied the matter was discussed during the talks.
____________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996.