• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

IF one is not mistaken, the Union Budget speech of the Finance Minister, Mr Jaswant Singh, did not contain any reference to what may be described as the "quality of life", generally speaking. It dealt with the usual fiscal policy statements and their intended target of improving the citizen's "living standard". While the "living standard" points basically to economic criteria governing the daily life of the citizen, the "quality of life" parameter occupies a much wider space in the life of the nation and is all-pervading in nature.

Indeed, it can even be said that an improvement in the "living standard" — meaning an increase in the capacity of the populace to meet economic requirements, including more fulfilling ways of spending one's leisure time — can easily coexist with a decline in the "quality of life" and vice-versa.

But, then, what is this "quality of life" one is talking about — and to which so much importance is being given?

For our purposes here, a rudimentary idea can be got of the subject if we have recourse to two points made in recent times by two personages, one a Union Minister and the other the holder of a Constitutional office. The first point deals with elections which, as we all know, form the bedrock of Indian governance, establishing beyond all doubt and controversy the supremacy of the Indian citizen. Now what has the Chief Election Commissioner to say about Indian elections, generally?

In early February, the present incumbent minced no words when he said (obviously with a lot of regret): "Merely conducting elections is not democracy. Democracy is about governance, which is minimal. As things stand today, it's merely a question of money". He added: "Winning elections is just a lease to five years of permissiveness. There is not even an iota of tolerance in the winning party or respect for the rules of the electoral game".

The second point was made by a former Union Minister for Urban Development, who continues to be a member of the Vajpayee Ministry but in a different capacity. Ruing his experience of trying to clean up Delhi's urban mess, he said: "The aperture of our mind's eye has become so narrow that we are not even seeing the contradictions in what we are doing. Does it make any sense to become a part of a highly competitive globalised economy and simultaneously create conditions which cripple the productivity of our cities?" He added: "It is not only the stony rubbish but also the stony eyes and closed minds of present-day India that constitute the roots of its urban governance crisis".

The central point of this piece is: an improvement in the "quality of life" is far more important for the country than better "living standards".

In other words, the urge to break the law (on all fronts) with impunity must be given a higher priority than the effort to produce potential law-breakers who are better-fed, better-clothed and better-housed. But who will bell the cat? As the CEC in question said, albeit in a different context: "Politicians don't want to pass the law against themselves".

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Banking on swaps

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line