My publicity agent

Thu Mar 24 2011, 00:45 hrs

Another scam . . . Inquiry into disinvestment of VSNL” — the papers proclaim. The announcement has been preceded by stories along similar lines in two magazines, a planned build-up to the announcement.

The government does seem to have surrendered its judgment to a bully. And it will be sorry for it. But I will come to that in a moment. The charge is that as the minister of disinvestment in the NDA government, as part of disinvesting government equity in VSNL in 2002, I “gifted” 774 acres of prime land in four cities to the Tatas.

The facts are the exact opposite.

During due diligence of VSNL, it was discovered that the company had been buying land over the years. Technology had changed. It was now possible to provide the same services with infrastructure spread over significantly less land. VSNL, working with advisors, identified 774 acres of land as “surplus”, in the sense that it would not be needed in the future to provide the services for which VSNL had been constituted

Accordingly, in the agreements governing disinvestment, it was provided that whoever won the bid for the company would not get this land. The company was valued by excluding this land. Indeed, the article in the agreement was framed in such extreme terms that at one stage the potential bidders said that they would not go through with the bids at all. The officer who was handling the disinvestment — one of the strongest officers I had the good fortune to work with, P.K. Basu (now agriculture secretary) — told them to go home, and forget the disinvestment. The article would not be diluted one bit, he told them, disinvestment or no disinvestment.

Eventually, they came round and the disinvestment went through. It was one of the most hotly contested cases. On the one side was Reliance — Dhirubhai Ambani was still alive, and was calling the shots. On the other side were the Tatas. The Tatas won, by a whisker. That outcome firmly established the credibility of the disinvestment process. “Even Dhirubhai Ambani could not find out what was going on in your ministry,” observers told us.

The article that Basu and his colleagues incorporated is worth reading. It is a short one. It could have been accessed by anyone from half a dozen sources — but by now it is no surprise that sections of the media will deliberately not read!

Please read the article, and then I will set out its implications. Here it is:

4.7 LAND

(a) (i) The strategic partner confirms that it shall cause and procure the company to hive off or demerge the land into the resulting company pursuant to a scheme of arrangement in terms of the provisions of Section 391 to 394 of the act.

(ii) The strategic partner confirms its understanding that it will transfer all such shares in the resulting company to the government as it may acquire as a consequence of this transaction, that is a minimum of 25 per cent of the resulting company’s issued equity shares or a higher number which shall include shares in the resulting company that it may further acquire as a consequence of any further sale of the equity shares in the company by the government to the strategic partner, prior to the demerger, as part consideration of transfer of the transaction shares and any subsequent sale of the company’s shares by the government to the strategic partner, pursuant to this transaction.

(b) The strategic partner confirms that:

(i) it shall do and cause to be done all and any such acts, matters, deeds and things as are necessary, usual or expedient including voting in favour of the item of business relating to the approval of the scheme of arrangement to implement the hiving off or demerging of the land into the resulting company;

(ii) it shall not directly or indirectly do or cause to be done any acts, matters, deeds or things which may adversely affect or delay the hiving off or demerging of the land into the resulting company.

(c) (i) If for any reason the company cannot hive off or demerge the land into the resulting company then, subject to Article 5.6 (b) (iv) and (xiv) hereto at any time when the company sells or transfers the land or agrees to sell or transfer or otherwise develop the land, the strategic partner shall pay to the government within seven days of the sale or transfer of the land an amount equivalent of 25 per cent of the benefit accruing to the company pursuant to such sale or transfer or otherwise development of the land, as determined by the appraiser, after taking into account any impact under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(ii) Subsequent to this agreement and the share purchase agreement, if the government sells more than 25 per cent of its equity shareholding in the company to the strategic partner, then the percentage of amount to be paid to the government by the strategic partner on account of sale or transfer or otherwise development of the land under Article 4.7(c)(i) shall increase in proportion to the percentage of such further sale of equity shareholding in the company by the government to the strategic partner. For the purpose of this article the term “transfer” shall include sale, lease, licence, grant of development rights or the parting of physical possession of the land or transfer of any interest, whatsoever, in the land.

The article provides, first of all, that whoever wins the bid — and there could have been no plan to pass on a favour to the Tatas, etc, for no one knew who would win the keenly contested bidding process — shall not get the surplus land. The excess land would be detached from VSNL. A new company would be formed, and the land would be transferred to it.

Second, that the shareholding of this new company would be what the shareholding of VSNL was before disinvestment. That is, the bidder who won would have no share in it at all. The government would have the proportion that it had before disinvestment — about 52 per cent. Employees would have the proportion they had. The rest — about 47 per cent — would be with the general public that held shares of VSNL, the company was listed in both India and the USA. In a word, a government company would be set up. And this government company would acquire the land.

Third, in case such a company could not be formed and the disinvested VSNL decided to part with the land, it would be able to do so only if the government agreed to the proposal. The reason for this was that, even after disinvestment, the government would continue to hold 26 per cent of VSNL’s equity. The sale of land, or disposal of any rights in an asset such as land, can only be done by a special resolution of the board and that resolution cannot go through unless the party that holds 26 per cent of its equity agrees.

Fourth, if that new company could not be formed for some reason, and if the government approved the proposal of VSNL to sell the land, the entire proceeds would be distributed in accordance with the pattern of shareholding that prevailed before disinvestment — that is, the winner would get absolutely nothing; the proceeds would be divided between government, employees and the general public in the proportions in which they held the shares before disinvestment.

There was a fifth factor which was especially important, as it caused the greatest heartburn among potential bidders. This is contained in clause (c) (ii) reproduced above. This clause provided that if government shed more than 25 per cent of the equity it was holding of VSNL, then the share of the proceeds that the disinvested VSNL and the winning bidder would have to pay to government out of any sale or transfer of land or rights in it would increase proportionately.

Sixth, the hands of the prospective bidders were tied tighter by incorporating a very comprehensive definition of “transfer”. The article had used the term “transfer” of land, etc. In the last sentence, it was provided that “for the purpose of this article the term “transfer” shall include sale, lease, licence, grant of development rights or the parting of physical possession of the land or transfer of any interest, whatsoever, in the land.” All proceeds from any form of transfer would go to the government and the original shareholders and not a penny would go to the successful bidder.

Finally, a series of interlocking clauses tied the prospective winner in perpetuity! Privatisation agreements have “call” and “put” options. That is, after a specified period — say, three years — the winner can “call” on the government to sell its residual shares. Similarly, the government has the right to “put” its shares for sale. But in the VSNL agreement, we provided that even if the government parted with all its shares through either option, it would always retain one share — known as “the golden share”; and that by virtue of this single share, all the rights it had in regard to the surplus land would remain with the government!

In other words, the agreement provided that neither the surplus 774 acres nor any right in them whatsoever shall go the bidder who succeeded in winning the contest. So, where does the minister get this notion, parroted by some magazines, that 774 acres were gifted to the Tatas?

“But why was the land not just taken out of VSNL before disinvestment?” the innocent ask. VSNL was a listed company — it was listed both in India and the US. If such a substantial asset was taken away, any shareholder could have gone to court and halted the whole process on the charge that his interests had been harmed. On the other hand, if it was not taken away, the government would be accused of making “priceless” land over to whoever succeeded in winning the bid. Hence a solution was devised: the land would be taken out of VSNL, but the interests of pre-disinvestment shareholders would not be impaired. The land would be turned over to a new company in which the shareholding pattern would be what it was before the disinvestment of VSNL. That was an excellent solution that Basu and his colleagues devised, and it has stood the test of time. The winner did not get the land. The shareholders did not go to court!

“But didn’t VSNL have enormous amounts of cash? Wasn’t this just handed over to the Tatas?” Yes, VSNL had a cash reserve. The fact is that this cash was drawn down before the company was disinvested. The government had VSNL declare a special dividend of 750 per cent! As a result, the winning bid along with this dividend secured for government a P/E ratio of 11 as against the measly 6 at which VSNL shares were trading before disinvestment.

When no other tack is left, critics are led to ask, “But why has the new company not been set up even though nine years have passed since VSNL was disinvested?” The fact is that the government and the winners — the Tatas in this case — tried to work out a solution. The attempts couldn’t get past disagreements. For instance, the Tatas said that as the land did not belong to them, and as it was to be transferred to a company that would in essence be a government company, the government should pay the stamp duty that would be incurred in such transfer. Similarly, as the monopoly of VSNL in regard to international calls had been curtailed by two years, a compensation package was announced by the government. They felt that this was inadequate. As the issues could not be resolved, they proposed that the matter be referred for arbitration. I had no problem with that proposal, but my colleagues in the ministry correctly counselled that as the proposal had revenue implications, we should send it to the finance ministry. That is what was done.

The government changed. Since then, I see from what has appeared in public that the Tatas kept writing to the government requesting the latter to settle the matter. They wrote that there were three alternatives, and that any one of the three would be acceptable to them. The government — the UPA government, that is — kept saying that it was examining the issues and would get back to them. It did not.

Kapil Sibal says this delay has been very costly to the people of India, and that is why he has ordered an inquiry. I say — “Bravo! Excellent!” He should institute an inquiry into the conduct of ministers whose negligence has cost the country so much.

The ministers? P. Chidambaram and Pranab Mukherjee, the finance ministers of the UPA governments! For, remember, the department of disinvestment has been under the finance ministry since the UPA formed its government in 2004. Maybe they are the real targets of this buccaneer? No?

Why else would Kapil this time round entrust the inquiry not just to a handpicked judge but to a handpicked officer working directly under him?! As for me, far from being my inquisitor, Sibal is my publicity agent! He keeps me in the news. And gratis!

The writer was Union minister for telecom and for disinvestment in the NDA government

Quota is not the way: Arun Shourie

CNN-IBN

Published on Sun, Jun 25, 2006

Karan Thapar: Hello and Welcome to Devil’s Advocate. My guest today is one of the sharpest critics of India’s reservation policy. In a book published this month Falling Over Backward, he exposes its intellectual hollowness and its moral two-facedness. But is he against reservation specifically for the Scheduled Castes? And if he answers this as yes, then how does he think India should respond to the centuries of discrimination they have suffered? Those are the two key questions that I would put today to Arun Shourie.

Mr Shourie, let me start with a simple question to establish your position. When you say you are against reservation per say, are you also including reservation for the Scheduled Caste?

Arun Shourie: Yes, I think so. Because reservations are not meant to compensate for historic wrongs. They are meant for helping people at the moment.

Karan Thapar: Well, that’s what I want to put to you. The Scheduled Castes have been treated as untouchables for centuries. In fact, even their shadow was considered to be polluting. Their dignity has been trampled upon. Their individuality and humanity has been questioned. Why do you believe that reservation is not an appropriate way of giving them confidence and status?

Arun Shourie: Firstly, these are clichés without particular examination of historical records. Because a passage occurs in something called Manu’s doctrine or Manu’s compilation, I mean I have not met a person who realises or who acknowledges the fact that this compilation was done over 700 years.

Karan Thapar: Let's leave Manu Smriti out.

Arun Shourie: No.

Karan Thapar: When you are saying these are clichés, are you saying that in fact the untouchables have not been treated in the way that history acknowledges?

Arun Shourie: No. They have been in parts of India. Let's say in some districts of the South. And the real remedy to that has been in modernisation. In overcrowded trains... Indians make five billion railway journeys every year. Five times of our population. In overcrowded buses, are you first verifying what is the caste of the person standing next to you?

Karan Thapar: But what happens when you get off the bus? It’s an argument in your book.

Arun Shourie: No. No.

Karan Thapar: Equality may be forced upon you in a bus, because you have no choice. But when you get off the bus, inequality reigns supreme. It is that inequality that I am talking about.

Arun Shourie: It doesn’t. That’s not the argument in my book at all.

Karan Thapar: I am not saying it is the argument in your book. I am countering your position that reservations are not justified for Scheduled Castes. I am asking you why you believe that centuries of discrimination should not be countered by reservations?

Arun Shourie: You asked me that and I gave you the answer that reservations were and are not meant in the Constituent Assembly as a compensation for historic wrong.

Karan Thapar: They can be used for that?

Arun Shourie: But… My friend, let me answer. Because there are better ways to lift people. Poor must be helped, they must be lifted. That’s the duty of society, but reservation is not the way and that’s why I argued.

Karan Thapar: Let's come to the better ways in a moment's time, I very much want to talk about them. But for most people listening to this interview, it will come as supreme shock that you believe reservations for the Scheduled Castes, who have suffered centuries of discrimination, are unjustified. Let me put to you why people disagree. Even today, Valmiki graduates are unable to get proper jobs and have to scavenge because they are considered untouchables. Even today, the Mushahars of Bihar are forced to eat rats and mice because they are too poor to access proper meal. Are you saying to me that reservations for such people are wrong?

Arun Shourie: Yes. Because the way to help them is to give them jobs and to give them access to education so that they don’t eat the damned mice. And the very fact that after 50 years of reservations, they are still eating mice is a conclusive argument against the compassion that you are showing.

Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that they don’t get jobs because they are untouchables.

Arun Shourie: Absolutely bunk. It is the other way round.

Karan Thapar: Why then are there Valmiki graduates scavenging for a living?

Arun Shourie: But there are Brahmin graduates who are doing it because of inadequacy of jobs.

Karan Thapar: But there is a difference. In one case, there is discrimination and in the other it is the inadequacy of jobs.

Arun Shourie: No. No. You just don’t let me speak. In China, people are scavenging and eating rats. Not because of caste, but because of 110 million of floating population who have lost their jobs.

Karan Thapar: Chinese eat snails, they eat eels, they eat snakes. There is a different culture and cuisine.

Arun Shourie: No. Just one second. I am talking of the 110 million Chinese who have been dislocated by modernisation. You read any Chinese text and you will find that. The point there is that I am all for the stopping of eating mice and elimination of poverty and giving people jobs, but it is wrong to presume…

Karan Thapar: Aren’t you missing the point here? There is difference.

Arun Shourie: No, I am not missing the point. You are not letting me make the point here. But when they are being discriminated against, the persons who are doing that most, who are beating them, who are responsible for the massacres as reported by Mandal himself are the so-called OBCs, who own land.

Karan Thapar: But that’s not the question I asked you.

Arun Shourie: But that’s the question.

Karan Thapar: No, that is not the question. The question is this. There is a difference in dislocation because of modernisation that affects people of all classes, of all castes. I am talking about discrimination due to untouchability, due to a wall of prejudice, which has affected people for centuries. Surely, today modern India has a moral obligation to atone and to recompense for the way it has treated the Scheduled Castes. You are denying that?

Arun Shourie: Karan, I completely would put aside this moral outrage that many of you put on.

Karan Thapar: It’s not put on, it is a reality for the people who are affected.

Arun Shourie: Just a second. Yes, but the so-called modern people do put on this compassion. The fact of the matter is that great progress has been made by our social reformers. That is the real way for dealing with this. Swami Dayanand, Swami Shraddhanand, Sri Narayan Guru in the South…

Karan Thapar: I am afraid it hasn’t changed the situation at the ground.

Arun Shourie: You are absolutely…How do you know the situation? Will you please just let me speak?

Karan Thapar: Can I just answer that?

Arun Shourie: No. First let me speak. Let me first answer your question when you assert that the situation has not changed, that is what I call a cliché. You have to listen.

Karan Thapar: Can I justify that?

Arun Shourie: No. Just one second, let me complete it. I will give you the documentary evidence. You see what Sri Narayan Guru reported in Kerala at the turn of the century. You see what Gandhiji found in the 1920s and you compare that with things today.

Karan Thapar: Compare it with 2006. Name one village out of India’s 6,00,000 villages where the Dalits are permitted to stay in the centre of the village. Not only are they banished to the outskirts, but in most cases, they are required to live in the south side so that the wind that blows over them doesn’t pollute the village. That is the extent of discrimination they still suffer.

Arun Shourie: And the wind in all of South India comes from the south my friend. I don’t know where you get this nonsense from?

Karan Thapar: Chandrabhan Prasad, perhaps one of the few Dalit intellectual scholars, who can easily confirm the facts to you.

Arun Shourie: Well, maybe. We have all got impressions about India. India is a large country. Almost every statement about India must be true, but the south business is quite silly because if you come to Goa my friend, you see the wind coming form the south. You come to Kerala, you see the wind coming from the south.

Karan Thapar: Ok. Let's approach this matter differently. Let's not talk about it in terms of moral obligation or recompense and atonement. Let me put it like this. Do you believe that reservations are intrinsically wrong because they lower standards, because they sacrifice merit as a way of giving people access for the wrong reasons?

Arun Shourie: Yes, they are for all these reasons and many more. For instance, especially when they are caste-based, then they reinforce caste as they have done in South as they are now doing in the North.

Karan Thapar: That’s disputable. You can only fight caste discrimination in terms of caste. Leave the caste basis aside. Your concern is that it affects merit.

Arun Shourie: But why it is caste-based? All reservations in India are caste-based. How can you just put it aside?

Karan Thapar: Because you are correcting caste prejudice. If the Dalits have been discriminated against as untouchables, you have to be given reservation on that very basis to make up for it.

Arun Shourie: That was the argument my friend. That is how things were rationalised in the end when the Constitution specifically forbade caste-based reservations. Then there has been discrimination on the basis of residence. There has been discrimination in India, it has been alleged, on the basis of language as in every other society. On the colour of one’s skin.

Karan Thapar: Quite right.

Arun Shourie: Just one second. So why not have reservations on the basis of the colour of one’s skin?

Karan Thapar: Well let's not talk about hypotheticals. I am trying to understand your concern about reservations.

Arun Shourie: I am not talking about hypotheticals. You said that there is discrimination on the basis of caste.

Karan Thapar: It’s a fact.

Arun Shourie: So I said there is discrimination on the basis of the colour of one’s skin. Why not have reservations for that? You are not answering it.

Karan Thapar: Because I am saying to you that the level of discrimination that has been practised on the basis of caste and because of untouchability is infinitely and incomparably greater. The comparison doesn’t arise.

Arun Shourie: How do you say that, my friend? Where is the basis?

Karan Thapar: Let's come back to the question that I began with. The real reason, if you are not accepting the moral obligation, that you find reservations wrong because they undermine merit, that they sacrifice standards?

Arun Shourie: Yes. That is one of the reasons.

Karan Thapar: But can I then point out to you that special concessions on the grounds that we are talking about have been granted to Indians since at least the 1850s, upper castes were beneficiaries. Let me give you an example. When the first college was set up in Madras in the late 1850s, British records show that the pass marks had to be reduced form 40 per cent to 33 per cent and a whole new concept of third division was introduced to help the sons of Tamil Brahmins. If it can be done for them in the 1850s, why can’t the same concession be given to the Dalits today?

Arun Shourie: Firstly, we are in 2006. The demand for proficiency is much greater. You look at the range of jobs at that time and the skills required for those jobs and…

Karan Thapar: But the problem is the same?

Arun Shourie: No. Firstly if that was the case, it was wrong. Second, if I have to learn typing and you give me a concession on that as in the case of N M Thomas vs. State of Kerala, then it is one thing. But if the job that is required is a highly skilled job in a medical institution and you lower the standards, the consequences are much greater. It’s not typing that you are lowering the standards for.

Karan Thapar: But talking about lowering standards to give them admissions and entrance, we are not talking about lowering standards of graduation. What we are talking about is just creating an opening field.

Arun Shourie: My friend, you have just not studied the Constitution in which it has now been provided that standards will be lowered even for promotions and standards have been lowered for post-graduate courses for reservations.

Karan Thapar: No, I am not questioning the extent…

Arun Shourie: You are. You just said this and then you run away.

Karan Thapar: No, I am not. I am not questioning the extent to which reservations have been taken. I am questioning the position you began with which is that reservations at the very outset for Dalits and Scheduled Castes is wrong. I am putting to you that similar concessions were given to Tamil Brahmins. Let me add. As the Indian University’s Commission says they were even given in 1935.

Arun Shourie: To hell with Tamil Brahmins, man. I am not defending. Dekho Tum baat hi nahin karne detein. Tamil Brahmins be damned. I wouldn’t care two hoots of what the British did. My whole argument is that the British sowed many of these things like separate electorates to divide Indian society.

Karan Thapar: All right. Let me give you a modern example. Yogendra Yadav did a study this month (in June) of 315 key positions in journalistic organisations and he chose 37 national journalistic organisations -- both television and print -- and he discovered that not one of the top 315 positions is manned by a Dalit. That is an example surely of the manner in which discrimination keeps out people of talent only on caste.

Arun Shourie: Absolute bunk. I cannot believe that Karan Thapar is not going to employ a proficient person whether it is for camera or for assisting him just because of caste. Karan Thapar is not like that.

Karan Thapar: Then how do you explain 315 top organisations and 37 media houses, including the papers you have worked for?

Arun Shourie: Because it takes time for that kind of competence to be acquired. Journalism is one of the freest professions as sports are, as entertainment industry is.

Karan Thapar: So, you are saying to the Dalits wait a century? Wait two centuries? Do you think time is on their side? You don’t think they need a helping hand?

Arun Shourie: Of course they do. But you don’t let me tell you what the helping hand has to be. Not reservations.

Karan Thapar: Why?

Arun Shourie: Because I have answered it 10 times and you keep going back to the same question. Repeating the very words. Just look at your own recording Karan, you are just repeating. You are taking up time.

Karan Thapar: You have answered it in terms of the moral obligation. Let me point out to you the efficacy between ’47 and ’97. In those 50 years alone, the number of Dalits who as a result of reservations went to schools and colleges grew from 1.74 million to 27.92 million. During the same period, the number of Dalit graduates jumped from 50,000 to over 5.5 million. That’s an example of how reservations have helped and you are denying this to them.

Arun Shourie: You have just picked up a few statistics.

Karan Thapar: Very meaningful ones.

Arun Shourie: Just one second. For the total number of persons going to school, what is the statistics from 1947 to 2006?

Karan Thapar: What do you mean the total number?

Arun Shourie: Irrespective of Dalits. The total number of school-going population in India from 1947 and now. Tell me.

Karan Thapar: I don’t know the answer, but the point that I am making is that the percentage of both has increased. I am saying the percentage of Dalits has increased because of reservations. Otherwise the system would have kept them out.

Arun Shourie: How do you say the last sentence?

Karan Thapar: I will illustrate it by taking government employment.

Arun Shourie: No. But firstly, you did not know what was the total growth.

Karan Thapar: Do you know it?

Arun Shourie: No.

Karan Thapar: You don’t either. You are simply trying to question whether the two have increased equivalently. I am saying that in fact the reason why the Dalits have increased. It's because of reservations and not because of general improvement in society.

Arun Shourie: That is just an assertion of yours.

Karan Thapar: It is a fairly valid one that most people would accept.

Arun Shourie: How do you say this? Then we have two contradictory assertions.

Karan Thapar: So you neither accept the logic in terms of morality or in terms of efficacy?

Arun Shourie: Yes.

Karan Thapar: On both grounds, you think reservations are wrong?

Arun Shourie: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: Arun Shourie, since you are implacably opposed to reservations for the Scheduled Castes, what is your preferred way of tackling the discrimination they have suffered for centuries?

Arun Shourie: Firstly, I am not against reservations only for the Scheduled Castes, but for everybody. Second point is yes, if they have suffered that kind of discrimination and we have got good records of this kind of thing happening in the South, for instance in many parts of Tamil Nadu, then the best way is social reform and these great reformers who have made an enormous difference to India in the last 200 years as testified to by the Christian missionaries themselves.

Karan Thapar: Is there a second way beyond social reforms?

Arun Shourie: Yes, there is. Second is economic growth and modernisation.

Karan Thapar: Third?

Arun Shourie: Third is to find out what is the real reason for the poor performance of the child. For instance, he cannot retain what he learns in class because of poor nutrition, give him four free meals a day.

Karan Thapar: Individual attention?

Arun Shourie: Yes, absolutely.

Karan Thapar: Is there a fourth?

Arun Shourie: Yes. There are many things. He doesn’t have a place to study, make free dormitories. He needs free textbooks, he needs training and education.

Karan Thapar: That’s all part of individual attention. But is there yet another measure you would like to implement to help the Dalit? Because let me tell you why I am asking you all the things you have talked about -- social reform, economic growth, individual attention, they are very slow. They are unenforceable, they are difficult to monitor, they are certainly not transparent and in most cases, they are voluntary. The reason why people prefer reservations is because they are transparent, they are enforceable, and they are monitorable.

Arun Shourie: And for 50 years you have not monitored them? Even the government.

Karan Thapar: But that’s not the failure of reservations? That is the failure of the administration.

Arun Shourie: No. No. You don’t understand. Reservations are going to be implemented by whom? By the Americans in India?

Karan Thapar: Reservations have been implemented badly. That’s not an argument against reservations per se?

Arun Shourie: That is the usual argument of Five-Year Plans. Plan was good, but was not implemented properly.

Karan Thapar: But in this case, it is the truth?

Arun Shourie: It is not the truth. It is an assertion that you keep making. The fact of the matter is that these free lunch programmes, midday meals have helped a great deal in reducing dropout rates, in retention of what is learnt. We should do that. That is what requires painstaking work and the very fact that things are not being monitored…

I will give you an example if you please permit me. Recently in the Standing Committee of the Parliament on Social Welfare, there was a report available in May, in which the Secretary of Social Welfare was asked: "You have a backward classes of financial corporation, how do you distribute the money between he states?" He said: "Madam, we distribute it according to the proportion of OBC population in different states." She said: "How do you know the number?" He said: "We don’t know the number." She said: "What is the total number of OBCs in India?" He said: "We don’t know." "What is the total number of Scheduled Caste people?" He said: "We don’t know." If we don't know the number, we don’t know the distribution, we are not monitoring who is getting what.

Karan Thapar: It is a little facile to knock down reservations on the ground that the administrators who are responsible for administrating them are fools. That’s what you are proving. You are proving the administration, not the policy of reservations, is wrong.

Arun Shourie: I am saying more. Many commentators are just assertives. I will not listen to…

Karan Thapar: The assertion could be on fact?

Arun Shourie: What is the fact?

Karan Thapar: I can argue that your refusal to accept this is based on prejudice.

Arun Shourie: No. The caste people…

Karan Thapar: I being the asserter, you could be the prejudiced.

Arun Shourie: Could be. The Scheduled Caste people are saying that the benefits of reservations are being hogged by a Creamy Layer within Scheduled Caste.

Karan Thapar: But at least they are getting it. The Creamy Layer didn’t have it 50 years ago.

Arun Shourie: It is impossible to argue with that.

Karan Thapar: Why? It is a fact.

Arun Shourie: What is the Creamy Layer?

Karan Thapar: Once the Creamy Layer has benefited, you can remove them, but let them benefit before you remove them.

Arun Shourie: But you can benefit the people by having an economic criterion for identifying the individual. Why not?

Karan Thapar: You know that each time milk boils, it forms a Creamy Layer. You just remove it. Each boiling brings a fresh layer to the top.

Arun Shourie: Milk could be made to boil many time over, provided you identify the state policy by the unit of the individual and you identify the beneficiary individual by economic criteria. You would then not be fortifying precisely the types of regressive institutions within Indian society like caste, which you want to get rid off.

Karan Thapar: Except that the people who are untouchables were not created untouchables because of their individual character but because of the group. That’s why the group is being focused upon.

Arun Shourie: It reinforces the kind of group. This was Panditji’s view. I believe that this has been vindicated by time that we have reinforced that group identity to the great evil of society, to the ill results of society.

Karan Thapar: This will unfortunately have to be my last question. That many Dalits listening to you will say that ‘he may be a liberal in many matters, but he is a hard-hearted, callous man who simply doesn’t understand what it’s like to be oppressed under centuries of discrimination.’

Arun Shourie: They said that to me when I wrote about Bhindrawala. He is a Hindu, Arya Samaji, does not…

Karan Thapar: The two situations don’t equate.

Arun Shourie: They do. When I wrote about the Shariat and the consequences of Shah Bano, everybody said he is communal, he is Hindu. And now? So wait for time.

Karan Thapar: So the verdict of your peers or the verdict of the majority of society is water off a duck's back as far as Arun Shourie is concerned.

Arun Shourie: I don’t know what the majority of the society. Karan Thapar doesn’t speak for them either.

Karan Thapar: Arun Shourie, a pleasure talking to you.

Arun Shourie: Thank you.