‘We’re not in politics to win’

cholar-turned-politician Ewa Alicja Majewska explains the political mobilisation that informs the new Left Razem Party in Poland, and why it shuns ‘professional politicians’

After Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece, Poland’s Partia Razem, or Razem Party, is the newest entrant from the Left to electoral politics in Europe. Formed barely five months before Poland’s parliamentary elections on October 25, 2015, it represents the culmination of various grassroots mobilisations and the coming together of social activists under a single political umbrella. With no sponsors, little media coverage, and no institutional backing whatsoever, Razem surprised mainstream political pundits by grabbing a 3.65 per cent vote share, which has made it eligible for state funding of €3 million for the next four years.Ewa Alicja Majewska, 37, is a feminist philosopher who contested the parliamentary elections as a Razem candidate. In an email interview with The Hindu, the Berlin-based scholar-politician speaks candidly about her journey so far at Razem, the parallels between Syriza and Razem, and the challenges facing the Left in the age of “neo-liberal brainwashing”.

G. Sampath

How did Razem happen?

It was a long process, going back at least 10 years. Many of those who would become members of Razem were for several years involved in the non-parliamentary Left, in social organisations, or in the youth wings of Left parties. Early in 2015, there was a call from some of these entities for the Left to unite. An open letter was circulated, inviting people to join a new, genuinely Leftist entity. Hundreds of people signed up. They now constitute the core of Razem. In May this year, some 300 participants joined the first ever convention of the Razem Party, in Warsaw. The party was officially registered in July 2015.

What was it like to make the jump from academia to politics?

I’ve been involved in politics for much longer than in academia — since I was a kid, in fact. I grew up in a family that was very active politically. My father was involved in the Solidarity movement of the 1980s in Gdansk. I went to my first demonstration when I was three, carried by my dad. I participated in the earliest protests against neo-liberal politics when I was 14. You could actually say that I jumped from politics to academia.

How was your experience in campaigning, asking people to vote for you?

Being a bit reserved and modest, I could never ask anyone to vote for me. I mostly maintained an active social media profile, counting on the fact that people might remember me from my publications, political activism, and television and radio appearances in the early 2000s. My activist background helped some people to understand that even as a political party, Razem could represent the typically excluded — the poor as well as the queers, the trans, the gays, the lesbians, the artists, and the cultural producers.

What was your politics before you joined Razem?

I come from a section of the radical Left where the power of the state is as much criticised as the phallogocentric powers of capital. This radical, anti-authoritarian, queer-feminist position is, I think, necessary for any left wing party today if it is not to surrender to authoritarian tendencies. This also brings on board a human rights orientation and a sharp feminist optic. I have been active in the alter-globalist movement, and in grassroots queer and feminist networks.

How would you rate your party’s performance in the recent parliamentary elections?

I think that for a party that was born in May and registered in July, crossing the 3 per cent vote share mark (5,50,000 votes approximately) in October and qualifying for the state subsidy of €3 million is a tremendous achievement. Whenever I have doubts about party politics, I always repeat to myself that we need this money — while all kinds of right wing parties have used these funds to strengthen their conservative politics, progressive politics could also do with this support.

What do you think is the reason for the failure of the Left parties in Poland?

I do not think we have had Left parties in Poland since the collapse of the Polish Socialist Party, which was forcibly dissolved in 1948. We’ve had great socialists in the anti-communist opposition (I know how paradoxical this sounds), in the liberal Social Democrat party, and above all, in the social movements, workers unions, and academia. Now all these people have come together within Razem, and hopefully we will overcome the last 25 years of neo-liberal brainwashing and institutionalised neglect of human rights.

How do you see the future role of Razem? Is there a realistic chance of it forming a government, as the Syriza did in Greece?

The Law and Justice Party that won the elections had showcased its moderate leaders during the campaign. But after winning, it appointed hardliners to the prime ministership and other key posts. This could alienate their voters and fuel conflict, which could destabilise the government. It may be somewhat impolite, but for the sake of my compatriots, our country and myself, I sincerely hope this scenario comes to pass. If we manage to continue the current growth in popularity, we could end up rallying a great number of people behind us.

I understand that Razem does not have a leader as such. How then is the party structured? The media feels a need to identify every party with a personality. How do you address this requirement?

The Razem Party’s ‘management’ consists of 30 people — a 10-member Board and a 20-member Council. This is the largest leadership team for any party Poland has seen, and also the most egalitarian. There is no chief or president of the party. During the electoral campaign, there were press conferences practically every day in many Polish cities, precisely to showcase the many different ‘leaders’ to the public. There are also many brilliant people in the party who did not become candidates in the parliamentary election. But they are great activists and workers.

Razem’s candidate selection policies have also attracted a lot of attention.

Yes, apart from our consciously egalitarian approach, I am also proud of the fact that our electoral list had as many women candidates as men, and they were from every social stratum. There were single mums running small businesses, teachers, computer programmers, workers, academics, local activists. We had no ‘professional politicians’ — people whose only domain of expertise is institutional politics — for we believe that this kind of professionalisation has a destructive impact on the quality of political life.

With the Left in India proving ineffectual, there is no real parliamentary alternative at the national level to neo-liberal politics. How is the scenario in Poland?

Frankly, my knowledge of contemporary Indian politics is limited. Therefore, all I can offer is a historical perspective. While Poland and India have little in common, the various systems of what Immanuel Wallerstein aptly called ‘European universalism’ apply to both countries. Many aspects of the Western ideologies embraced by these two countries can be identified as forms of this ‘universality’, which structurally maintain the economic and political hegemony of the West.

The West’s use of resources and labour from Poland and India is actually similar. But there are important differences: Poland has never been a regular colony, and colonial prejudice has not been unleashed on such a brutal scale here as in India, or the other countries colonised by the West. As much as both countries could be seen as semi-peripheral, they also differ in scale, social divisions, and forms of political exclusions.

So what are the options for the working classes and minorities when the only electoral alternatives on offer are varying shades of neo-liberal politics?

There has always been one option for the working class and the excluded anywhere in the world: to organise; to work across artificially built ethnic, religious and gender differences; to fight for their rights, and build new forms of production and redistribution, so that capital is tamed in its anti-social effects.

A recent Left political formation in Europe that raised a lot of expectations, only to disappoint its supporters, is Syriza. How can Razem ensure it avoids the same pitfall?

I must say I am quite concerned about the all-too-easy satisfaction that some on the Left take in Syriza’s failure to embrace the political responsibility for Grexit. I think this satisfaction is a perverse symptom of some Leftist frustration, wherein the biggest celebrations are always in the moments of failure. Syriza has shown that another election is possible, that another politics is possible, that a non-corrupt government is possible in Greece, which really is a caste society for European standards.

I can’t help smiling when I think of Yanis Varoufakis’ first statements in the EU negotiations, when I remember the moment when Syriza first entered the Greek parliament, and I was there interviewing their shadow education minister, the great academic and architect, Theano Fotiou. I was so proud to see that someone from a similar socio-political background as mine was actually capable of doing state politics in another European nation. I would rather cherish these aspects of Syriza’s political presence than seek to compensate my frustrations with the easy pleasures of looking at the failures of others.

Coming back to Razem, we are currently in this comfortable position where we do not have to worry about the country’s budget deficit. We have another problem: people living in austerity that’s far worse than in Greece or Portugal, and practically since 1989. While Poland does not have a sovereign debt crisis like Greece does, the price paid for it was to adopt the kind of sharp neo-liberal policies that south-western Europe hasn’t seen until now. In this context, it needs to be stressed that the poverty, instability, and precarisation in Eastern Europe surpasses anything known in Western Europe in the last 40 years.

It should be said over and over again: we are not in politics to win. People who only want to win should take up some sport, join the army, or participate in beauty contests. For us, politics is a domain in which equality is at stake in a highly mediated world of conflicting value systems, and diverse traditions. In these conditions, politics should be perceived not as a popularity contest but as a field of work, one in which the perspective is always in plural.

After years of neo-liberal brainwashing that has sent all centralised forms of state management to the dustbin of history, we embrace anew the vision of the state as a way of mediating differences in order to bring about equal rights and access for everyone. This is a revolutionary change in itself, but to also see people mobilising around such ideas, especially in Poland, where state communism was rejected as totalitarian, and where the media, universities, and churches smashed any remnant of socialism, is a revolutionary moment.

In a world where national sovereignty is increasingly undercut by global capital — via international trade agreements and entities such as the WTO — is there much scope for a party like Razem to make a difference?

Our party has not yet worked out the details of our international policy. However, we are against these so-called “international trade agreements”, which in fact constitute an official acceptance of the hegemony of corporate capital, and should be confronted with democratic resistance and harsh critique from legal, political and environmental standpoints. We are in favour of taxation of ‘big capital’, especially in Poland, where several multinational companies operate without paying their due taxes in our country. We are for a responsible and egalitarian wage system, and protection of workers’ rights, which contradicts practically everything the WTO has opted for.

Some critics have argued that the age of Keynesian reformism is over and there is no going back to it for Europe. But Razem’s political programme is broadly social democratic — will it work?

Our supposedly moderate agenda is the most radically egalitarian political option ever realised — I am thinking of the short period of 30, perhaps 50 years, when the West was able to protect workers’ rights, offer reasonable pay, and social and health insurance. My choice to join this party does not exclude my firm belief in a much more radically egalitarian political program. However, unlike my many colleagues on the Left, I do not believe in eternal life. I believe I only have a few decades to try and change the world, not just by ideas, but also by actual political practice. And if this modest agenda can be achieved, and with Razem I do believe that some things can be changed, I want to participate and put some of my work in it.

Do you think the Left can sustain itself as a political movement within a nationalist framework or does it need to be necessarily international?

I think this is a very artificial way of speaking about the Left, and we should find more complex tools for analysis. Any Left, even if it tries to be the most international in the world, has participants embedded in local contexts. The nationalist framework is not a leftist framework. It is a fascist one, and I think this notion should be taken out of Left politics for good.

However, we live in nation states. We speak different languages. Our states differ in economic position, in access to power, in stability, in institutional tools for upholding human rights. We have to aim at an international formula without forgetting where we come from. We have to unlearn our privilege while at the same time being capable of putting pressure on our local governments, not just on some far away government somewhere else. We need to retain a very strong sense of responsibility for the abuses done by our own state institutions against the citizens of other states, where such abuses have occurred. Of course, we should hold accountable any power that exploits or attacks us. But none of it should take place under a nationalist paradigm.

This is particularly important, for supporting gay rights in Ukraine is not enough; one must at the same time address the centuries of Polish abuse of Ukrainian people and resources. We need to be local and international at the same time, trying to undermine nationalism and yet allowing people from oppressed ethnic groups to enjoy autonomy. This is not a simple matter altogether.

Would you recommend that more writers and artists and academics should get into politics?

I want single mothers to get more involved, and also the unemployed, and retired people. And writers, too, and anyone who wants to contribute toward a more egalitarian world. I see no point in promoting artificial solidarity with particular professions or groups.

Any final words for readers back in India?

Well, I would like to thank them for their interest in the politics of a minoritarian leftwing party in a country as distant from India as Poland. I am excited by the possibility of sharing some of our experiences and hopefully trying to make a similar connection with the Left in your country in the future. This is one of the many ways of practicing solidarity, and I really appreciate this opportunity.

Keywords: Ewa Alicja Majewska, Left Razem Party in Poland, Portland politics

‘Suu Kyi will play a critical role in Myanmar’

Historian Thant Myint-U explains how Myanmar could offer a powerful example of a peaceful transition from authoritarianism to democracy

The historic election in Myanmar on November 8 is the first step to a peaceful transition of power after decades of military rule. The people of Myanmar have given an absolute majority to the Aung San Suu Kyi-led National League for Democracy (NLD). In step, the military, which continues to exercise power over the defeated Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), seems committed to play by the norms of electoral politics. In an e-mail interview with Kallol Bhattacherjee, Thant Myint-U, author of Where China Meets India: Burma and the New Crossroads of Asia and chairman of the Yangon Heritage Trust, says the election marks the beginning of not just transition but also democratisation of Myanmar’s society where minorities are yet to find space. Excerpts:

Kallol Bhattacherjee

What is the significance of the Myanmar elections in the global context?

Myanmar’s elections are the first general elections since the beginning of political reforms in 2011. They are a test of the country’s democratic transition. Myanmar’s path to democracy, far from being complete, has been a top-down process, begun by the military elite, that has so far kept on board all parts of the political spectrum. The Constitution is hybrid: it has democratic elements, but still protects core military interests. The first step was the 2010 election (which was boycotted by the NLD), which ushered in a far more open political environment and competitive politics. In this second step, the main opposition, the NLD, will take over the reins of government, but within this hybrid constitutional framework. If successful in the years to come, Myanmar will offer a powerful example of a peaceful transition from authoritarianism.

What kind of ideological currents emerged during the election?

The election was a two-way contest between the ruling establishment and its party of ex-generals (the USDP), and the NLD. Neither has offered detailed policy agendas or has clear ideological moorings. They do not differ in any significant way on foreign policy either. But they do differ in their attitudes to Myanmar’s history of military rule, and in the speed with which they would like to see further democratic change.

Ms. Suu Kyi is disqualified from holding the top post of Myanmar. Is there an alternative line of leaders?

There are many capable people in Myanmar and in the NLD. But for obvious reasons, the only ones with actual experience in government are those in the old military establishment and existing bureaucracies.

Will Ms. Suu Kyi’s personality cult grow over time in Myanmar?

It’s hard to imagine a Myanmar where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is not head and shoulders above all other political figures. I think she will play a critical role in Myanmar politics for many years to come.

Will the clause that disqualifies her be revised by the new government?

It would require a constitutional amendment; the armed forces would need to give their de facto assent. Only then would it be put to a referendum in which more than half of all the eligible voters nationwide would have to say yes. It will not be an easy clause to change.

Does it mean that Ms. Suu Kyi might end up as the real power behind the government?

I think so. She will clearly be in charge of her party. The party in turn will dominate Parliament. It is now in a position to choose the next President and one of two Vice-Presidents (and most but not all the Cabinet). What the exact working relationship will be between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as party head and the new President, who will be her selection, remains to be seen.

What will be the civil-military relation in Myanmar following this election?

The relationship between the current USDP government and the military has been a cooperative one. But the USDP is headed by recently retired generals, including the incumbent President. Many had been senior to the current army chiefs within the military hierarchy not long ago. A government led by former opposition leaders and civilians with no military background may have a far different relationship to the military, which will still control key offices.

Understandably the military in Myanmar has stakes in business. What is your opinion on armed forces having ties with business groups?

There are two large military-controlled business conglomerates. They operate in the same way as many other conglomerates in Myanmar. Since 2011, they have paid taxes on their income. The military has no formal ties otherwise with any specific business group. There may be many informal ties but these are not clear from the outside. Corruption is a big problem in Myanmar but again it’s difficult for an outsider to assess properly. It is certainly the case that people with connections to people in power have an easier time making lots of money, but I think we can all agree that that situation is not unique to Myanmar. Many leading businessmen are, I would think, politically neutral, though some clearly have USDP links whilst others have openly supported the NLD. It’s a complex business environment. It would be wrong to generalise about the top business class in Myanmar.

The junta has a record of not respecting the public mandate. Why do you think they supported the mandate this time?

It’s about a sense of history and a desire to see the country move in a different direction. The generals (now ex-generals) decided almost 10 years ago to take this path. They began to prepare for this transition 6-7 years ago when few believed them. They have actually done more or less everything they said they would do when they first set out on their “road map” in the mid-2000s. They have been saying repeatedly over the past few years that they would hold free and fair elections and respect the results. Many have said to me that they believe this is the role in history, to make possible this transition. There is an incredibly strong desire, across the political spectrum in Myanmar, including in the officer corps, to see Myanmar catch up with China, India, Thailand, and everyone else in the region, and see a better life for their children. We should not be too cynical about what is happening in Myanmar today.

Myanmar is also highly sought after in the global market because of its minerals, agro-products, and strategic importance. Do you think the world is eager to break into the Myanmarese resource basket and that the democratic movement is under pressure to oblige the global market forces?

There is a long history of wariness, going back to discussions around the India Act of 1919; a strong sense that Myanmar needs to be protected from exploitative forces from the outside. At the same time, the legacy of self-imposed isolation and then sanction have been so disastrous that I think most people do want to re-engage and see new, well-managed foreign trade and investment. But that’s the problem, as Myanmar really does not have the strong institutions that are necessary to properly reintegrate with the world economy. On the other hand, it cannot wait a generation or two needed to develop these institutions.

Myanmar is in the middle of a rivalry in the Southeast Asian region among various global powers. How do you think it will balance these various forces?

There is very little discussion of foreign policy in Myanmar. The country is extremely inward-looking with very little knowledge of politics, even in next-door neighbours such as India and China. A nascent democracy may be even more inward-looking. I think Myanmar should be much more proactive in its foreign policy, seek to build good relations with countries around the world, and be more involved in multilateral forums such as at the United Nations. The country’s natural foreign policy is a non-aligned one, and that is its instinct. But I think it will need a more imaginative approach if it is going to do well in this neighbourhood over the coming decades.

What is your assessment of the regional impact on Southeast Asia of this historic election of Myanmar? Will this election also send a message to the people of China?

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Expectations are sky-high. If a new democratic (or even quasi-democratic) country can really deliver on the economy and improve standards of living over the coming years, then yes, I think it will have an impact on people’s thinking in other authoritarian societies.

Do you think Myanmar will take remedial steps for the Rohingya under the new democratic government?

I think the current government has taken some important initial steps. We have not seen any repeat of communal violence for more than two years. There is still the specific challenge of displacement. I’m not sure how a new government will try to manage the situation. The regional Arakan National Party has done reasonably well in regional elections and Arakanese (Rakhine Buddhist) sentiment may have a stronger voice than in the past.

It is said that Ms. Suu Kyi has remained silent when it comes to resolving the issue of the Rohingya refugees.

I don’t think she’s been silent. And to be fair, she has not been in a position to do very much. But that will change by April and we’ll have to see if she chooses to move government policy in a new direction.

What kind of electoral participation has come from the conflict-ridden communities of Myanmar like the Karen, and minorities like the Han Chinese?

We’ll have to wait to see the final election numbers. I would only say that in many conflict-affected areas, the overwhelming desire of local people is more likely to be peace and freedom from the kind of semi-criminal exploitation they are often subject to, than any specific political programme.

What kind of peace initiatives will be taken by the democratic government for the warring ethnic groups of Myanmar?

The peace process is at a very delicate moment. The Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement was drafted by almost all the non-state armed groups that have been fighting the government over the years, but then only signed by eight. There are hundreds of other militia, primarily along the Sino-Myanmar border. In 1949 Prime Minister U Nu promised “peace within a year”. It should be a top priority, but it will not be easy. There are multi-billion dollar mining, logging, and narcotics operations at stake. There is also deep distrust, lack of institutions that could easily implement agreements, and issues of pride on all sides.

Do you think India’s working ties with the junta cast a shadow on future ties between New Delhi and Myanmar?

The junta was abolished in March 2011. I don’t think there has been a marked change of policy between 2011 and today, and I don’t think there will be one in the years to come. What’s needed beyond immediate security-related issues is a shared vision for the future of Northeast India and Myanmar, that will be beneficial to the people on both sides. I have a great desire to see strengthened people-to-people relations between Myanmar and India, in particular Northeast India, as well as greater economic ties. I think it’s important to work towards a shared vision and not make border security issues the be-all and end-all of bilateral ties.

kallol.b@thehindu.co.in

Keywords: Aung San Suu Kyi, National League for Democracy, Myanmar general elections

Source: The Hindu, 18-11-2015

ET Q&A - `World Won't Achieve Its Development Goals Without India Coming Through'

BILL GATES TECH MAGNATE & PHILANTHROPIST





"Sustainable Development Goals will be effective only if incorporated into national plans"

Last week, the United Nations adopted 17 ambitious goals, known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to wipe out poverty, fight inequality and tackle climate change over the next 15 years. Tech magnate and philanthropist Bill Gates has been on the forefront of the global fight against extreme poverty, thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has an endowment of $ 41.3 billion. Gates has also lent his support to the Global Goals campaign, a brainchild of filmmaker Richard Curtis, which hopes to popularise the 17 SDG goals with 7 billion people in 7 days. In an exclusive email interview with ET's T V Mahalingam, Gates tells about these 17 audacious goals, why they are important and what India needs to do to achieve them. Edited Excerpts:How do the SDGs differ from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)?
When I first heard about the MDGs 15 years ago, I was cautiously optimistic that the eight specific targets with timelines, including goals to reduce extreme poverty, improve maternal health and cut child mortality, could catalyze global action on the issues that affect the most vulnerable communities. Over time, my optimism grew as they started to drive real progress. Today, it's clear that the MDGs have been instrumental in fostering global collaboration and accountability among wealthy and developing countries, the private sector and NGOs. In particular, the targets for maternal and child mortality have been critical in focusing the world's attention on the most urgent problems.
Child mortality has been cut by half since 1990 globally. Maternal mortality has been reduced by nearly as much. India is a great example of the progress made. In 1990, 3.3 million children died before their fifth birthday. Last year, that number was down to just over 1.3 million. Keep in mind that over that time, the population of India has grown by 400 million people, which makes the achievement even more impressive.India's record on maternal health is just as strong. The maternal mortality rate is down 62%.
Building on the progress the world has made over the last 15 years, the SDGs put forward a shared vision of a world where -by 2030 -we will eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, foster inclusive economic growth and combat climate change.This is an extremely ambitious aspiration, but given what has been achieved over the last 15 years I am optimistic that the next 15 will be even better.
Where is the funding going to come from for these 17 goals?
Unlike the MDGs, the SDGs are not a largely aid-driven agenda. There are three sources of finance for the SDGs: domestic in-country re sources, traditional aid and private finance. The main source of financ ng for the SDGs will be resources from developing countries themselves, through domestic revenues ike taxes which should be applied towards development outcomes.Even assuming that they will grow, these resources will not be enough to self-finance poverty reduction for the foreseeable future in many countries. Aid therefore remains very important, especially for the poorest countries and for the poorest people. Unfortunately, we see aid plateauing and in fact current trends show aid to the poorest countries actually declining. This should be reversed, especially given that there has been so much progress. Finally, private finance is increasingly seen as a crucial source of financing the SDGs. The level of ambition is high and all sources need to be tapped.
What's your take on how the MDGs have fared?
never viewed the MDGs as a test the world was meant to pass or fail.To me, they were like a report card.Without the MDGs, we would not have the clear, measurable goals that have proven so helpful in focus ng the world's attention on the biggest challenges. Not would we have an honest measure of where we are succeeding and where we are falling short. Despite all the progress, our work is far from complete. More than 6 million children under the age of five still die each year, and preventable causes such as diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria and pre-term birth complications account for 83% of these deaths. Hundreds of millions of children are still chronically undernourished. The most important thing with the SDGs is to keep the focus on what we know works, and to finish the job in eliminating extreme poverty and its related effects -hunger, malnutrition, women dying in childbirth and children who die young or don't have a chance to grow up healthy. One thing the SDGs make explicit is the promise to “leave no one behind.“ This is a big change from the MDGs, where averages were measured and often the most vulnerable including women, rural or marginalized populations were not reached. All eyes are on India. India is to the SDGs what China was to the MDGs: .e., the world could not have achieved its poverty reduction targets without China coming through he world will not achieve many of ts SDGs targets without India com ng through.
What are going to be the biggest challenges in achieving SDGs?
The SDGs will require strong ownership by countries, robust implementation plans for each country, and enough financing. They will be effective only if they are incorporated into national plans. In India, for instance, an effective national plan, along with sub national plans, will be crucial to address the variation in maternal and child mortality rates from state to state. The Indian health care system will not only need to deliver on the unfinished agenda of MDGs, but also be prepared to address the rapidly emerging burden of non-communicable diseases, and ensure better financial protection from health shocks, all this in the context of greater fiscal devolution.
How will the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation realign itself to help achieving these goals?
At the Foundation, our mission will not change. Our focus has always entered on the needs of the poorest, and therefore our resource investments after September will con inue to emphasize the “unfinished agenda“ of the current MDGs: key manifestations of extreme poverty including health, agriculture and nutrition, and sanitation.
What are the areas where India can make the most progress in help achieving the SDGs?
India has made significant progress in achieving some of the MDG targets, particularly in education and health, aided by clear, quantifiable targets and regular monitoring of progress. The SDGs present the Government of India with an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to providing quality primary health care to all. What we have seen is that this requires setting robust national and sub-national level plans while targeting the most vulnerable. Investments must be made to develop strong, resilient primary healthcare systems which have the requisite infrastructure and are fully functional.
Don't 17 goals make things too unwieldy?
The MDGs included eight goals, with 21 measurable targets, which helped focus the world's attention on the most urgent problems. The SDGs have 17 goals and 169 targets.This reflects a more comprehensive set of aspirations and a broader consultative process. At the same time, a broader agenda carries the risk of a diminished focus on the highestpriority challenges. As developing countries start to think through the implementation of this agenda, the priorities of the poorest should remain central. On the plus side, the fact that SDGs have such broad support from the beginning will help with the implementation of the agenda.
(For complete interview, log onto economictimes.com)

Source: Economic Times, 30-09-2015

ET Q&A - India is So Big, We Can't Ignore It, We Always Keep It on Our Radar

SEVERIN SCHWAN CEO, ROCHE





Schwan says India's healthcare spend relative to GDP is very low, compared to economies such as China which spends about 5% to 6% of its GDP on healthcare. In India, it is 1% to 2%

Roche, the world's biggest seller of biotech drugs and dignostics, is preparing to launch a raft of nnovative products that work by activating the body's immune system to fight cancer cells. These drugs, popularly termed immunotherapies, demonstrate a paradigm shift in cancer treatment and experts believe it will transform the way cancer will be perceived in the next decade.Most of Roche's $48-billion turnover (in 2014) at present comes from a small portfolio of cancer products led by Avastin, which clocked sales of nearly $6.5 billion. Herceptin, its breast cancer drug, grossed about the same level of sales. At a meeting to showcase its future pipeline earlier this week at Basel, senior Roche executives underlined that its potential offering in mmunotherapy are industry-leading.
Roche Global CEO Severin Schwan said that while India will be on the company's radar, government steps towards healthcare allocation and a protected environment in intellectual property will help attract investments. In a wide-ranging conversation with ET's Vikas Dandekar, Schwan discussed the company's business outlook in India, pricing, access issues and the recent volatility in emerging markets, and much more. Edited excerpts:
The world of Big Pharma seems to be divided on the issue of drug pricing -while some companies believe pricing of medicines should not pose a barrier to access, others emphasize that research for newer drugs needs to be sustained. How does Roche see these changes, given its significant presence in cancer medicines?
I think this is a very valid point. What's all the nnovation for, if it does not reach the patients?
But what I would say is the question of access is not limited to pricing. Pricing is an important element but typically it's a much bigger issue.Very often, the healthcare infrastructure would not be in place -you need labs, you need educated decisions of doctors and patients, then there is need for surgery, infusions, and all these need infrastructure to be able to help with those mportant medicines.
Therefore, if we look at access we try to nclude all the stakeholders and we try to work with NGOs and with political decision makers to make sure that the overall nfrastructure is in place to provide medicines. Pricing is also an important component and that is something where we continue to work. We actually go for a much more differentiated approach in pricing. It's an ongoing paradigm shift. Five years ago, the industry had more or less uniform global prices for patented medicines.Today, we see the industry -and Roche is one of them -doing much more differentiated pricing according to the purchasing power of the respective countries.
How do you plan to make your cancer drugs available in India?
We always keep India on our radar. The country is so big that you cannot ignore it. There is however high political volatility, and political decision making isn't always easy. But trust builds over time. If volatility goes down a bit, if the government invests in healthcare, if IP is protected, I can guarantee every (healthcare) company in the world will come to India. India is all about talent and the country has really highly educated people.Also, Indians understand both the west and the east, so it is almost like a vital link to both sides of the world.
In India, our market position is relatively small and the reason is two-fold. One is we are facing challenges of intellectual property protection.There is a patent law in place but the execution is challenging from our perspective. I hope Indian companies invest in research and development and then there could be more interest from the country to provide an environment that protects intellectual property. The same thing is happening in China. That country wants to build a local life sciences industry and so they protect their IP, which is also attracting others to the country. h is also attracting others to the country.
Next, in India there is limited money for overall health expenses. As a result, the penetration of high level healthcare is also limited. The very rich people from India fly to the UK or US to get treated, and then there is a vast majority that does not have any access to healthcare.
Coming to emerging markets, there's been high volatility recently and some big companies have even seen a slowdown. How does Roche react to this and where do you place India?
I am optimistic of the development of emerging markets. Volatility is there, but the long term trend is clearly a positive and I am convinced that we will see above average growth rates in emerging markets.
For India, the observation that I would share is that apart from discussions on pricing of specific medicines, one fundamental topic is how much India wants to spend on its overall healthcare system. It is not for me to make that judgment but from outside, what I observe is that the healthcare spend relative to GDP is very low compared to economies such as China which spends about 5% to 6% of their GDP on healthcare. In India, it is 1% to 2%. Even if you double the healthcare budget over time in India, it will still be lagging to comparable economies.
How does Roche see the quality of research in India? It did a deal earlier this year with Curadev, a relatively new outfit.
We go where we see innovation and it can happen anywhere. A lot of it happens in the US.Most are still in the US, but increasingly we have opened discussions elsewhere for collaborations and licensing agreements and India is certainly on our radar.
Immunotherapy has arguably emerged as the latest frontier in oncology research and Roche is a big player. With products already in the market from your competitors, how do you see Roche reacting to competition?
I certainly believe we are one of the leaders in this very promising area of immunotherapies.We are leading in certain indications like in bladder cancer where our molecule is in the lead and will be the first company to launch a new medicine in this very important area.
We recently presented data on lung cancer, so while certain companies have already launched their medicines in this area, we have a good chance to be the first in first line lung cancer treatment and I would also like to point out that in our portfolio, we have seven new molecular entities in clinical development and there are 20 programmes in total. We are well positioned to take a leading role in this exceptionally interesting area.
Given the rapid changes in this segment, do you foresee suitable changes in the regulatory guidelines that are directed at speeding up the drug development process?

Five years ago, I heavily complained about the US Five years ago, I heavily complained about the US FDA being slow in their approval timelines. Then the regulators, industry, patients and the US Congress got involved saying it cannot carry on like this. Now, it has completely turned around and the FDA is now almost pushing us as a company. If they see innovation, they are extremely supportive and collaborate. The authorities are interested to bring true innovations to patients from the regulatory point of view.
(The writer was in Switzerland on an invitation from Roche)

Time has come to make a woman United Nations chief: Irina Bokova

Your country Bulgaria has now announced your candidature for the UN Secretary General’s post that will go up for election in 2016. How hopeful are you of becoming the first woman UNSG?

Irina Bokova: It’s for the future, of course. The procedure is yet to start officially, and for the moment I am totally focussed on UNESCO and my work here. There’s so much work to be done and I feel my campaign is my work at UNESCO. What I am doing here in terms of the reform of the organisation, and from the political challenges for the world, youth radicalisation and extremism, destruction of heritage by ISIS and others…these are my focus. Lets see for next year how the process (for UNSG) goes, and my government will take the next steps for this.

Even so, do you think it is time for a woman to become UN Secretary General in this election?

Yes I think so, it is an idea whose time has come.

While it’s early in the game, have you spoken to the Indian leadership for support?

Not yet, it is early. But if someone would speak it would be not me, but the Bulgarian government and diplomacy.

It is a challenging post, though, and I would like to ask if the UN itself is in danger and need of reconciliation, as we see polarisation between West and East, US and allies vs Russia and China… is the UN in need of reform?

What I can say is that I am a firm believer in the UN and in multilateralism. With globalisation and connectivity, the UNs role is critical, whether you see the post-2015 agenda or conflict, UN has a critical role. I am following all the discussions on UN reforms, they are important discussions and as I said I am a firm believer.

And what about India’s role, given that India has bid for a place in an expanded security council? Would you support a bigger role for India?

Oh yes, I think India plays a hugely important role at the UN. India is a continent in itself. I think UNESCO and India will succeed in all of our ambitions for sustainable development. I think India’s contributions are critical. And I am always happy to come there as I have had the pleasure of having done on several occasions.

Ahead of the UNGA, UNESCO has played a big part to shift the world from Millenium Development goals to Sustainable Development goals that you want adopted. What will this shift mean?

The process the UN has followed in post-2015 agenda is the most important process. UNESCO has been heavily integrated in the process to set the new course for global development. It will be universal, and people-centric. I know there is a debate about whether 17 goals is too big, or 169 targets are too ambitious for the global community, but I do believe we have to aim high. The challenges we have don’t leave us the time to postpone them. I hope the summit in September will pass the agenda. Later this year we have the COP21 climate change conference in Paris. We cant look at one without the other.

You’ve pointed to the criticism, that the number of goals are too many. Arent you diluting the core principles, that instead of basic goals like poverty alleviation, the UN are going for value-laden goals like democracy governance, human rights, inequality, even conditionality of aid for these. How do you answer those criticisms?

I don’t agree. Firstly poverty alleviation is still a goal. We cannot move forward without education for example. But now we are targeting more, we are looking at quality of education, which was not a goal earlier. So apart from 150 million kids who aren’t going to school, we have 250 million kids who have been to years in school but cannot actually read and write. So we do need to integrate these into the goals we are already aiming for.

PM Modi visited UNESCO headquarters earlier this year. What are the most important projects that you are working on with India?

We were very happy to have Mr. Modi come to UNESCO this year as we have very strong relations with India. His speech on April 10th was historic. We all remember PM Nehru when he said UNESCO is the conciousness of humanity. At UNESCO we are more than a development partner, we set the global vision to protect culture, promote science and as a result build peace. Through this lens we can give a different perspective on what makes sustainability and what makes peace. One wonderful initiative of the PM was to introduce June 21 as Yoga day, and now we have welcomed India’s proposal to submit Yogaphone inscription onto the representative list of intangible cultural heritage. This will mark the contribution of this very unique tradition of India in harmony with nature. We work with India also in the area education. In India we have the first UNESCO institute on peace and human rights education. India has been one of the leaders on literacy and women’s education. The Indian Ambassador to UNESCO Ruchira Khamboj has also just informed me of two candidacies of two cities Varanasi and Jaipur to be part of our creative cities network.

India also had a petition to make Delhi a heritage city..but had to withdraw it over concerns it would have an impact on development…

Well that is a debate worldwide now. Delhi is a wonderful historic city with the Red Fort and others monuments needing protection and express by themselves the dialogue amongst cultures. I know that UNESCO is criticised for being too rigid on rules about how heritage must be protected. On the other hand we see so much pressure on monuments, from urbanisation, pressure of economic development, from the environment, and then from wars and fighting and wilful destruction we have seen in Syria and Iraq from ISIS.

Many would argue that they cultural and monumental destruction doesn’t compare to the human destruction- deaths, rapes, women and children sold into slavery by ISIS…and that UNESCO’s concerns may not be as urgent.

It is a false choice. The humanitarian disaster is of course huge. We condemn all these deaths and terrible crimes perpetrated. But destruction of heritage is part of the same disaster. This destruction depletes people of their culture and depletes their memories. That is why the UNSC also recognises the trafficking of heritage as a crime. So the cultural concern is part of the humanitarian and security concerns.

Keywords: United Nations, Irina Bokova, UNSG, United Nation Secretary General

No sweeping changes in IHR advisory board: Sudershan Rao

In an interview to The Hindu, Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) chairperson Y. Sudershan Rao talks about the reasons for bringing about sweeping changes in the council.

You have effected some sweeping changes in the advisory board of the Indian Historical Review. What prompted you to make the changes?

This is a usual and normal practice. The advisory committee or editorial committee of Indian Historical Review (IHR) is not a statutory panel. It was formed a few years ago in 2009 by the IHR Committee, which designated itself as the editorial board. Whenever a new council is constituted, all the committees are reconstituted by replacing the old members. All committees are periodically reconstituted. This cannot be taken as ‘sweeping changes’ and it cannot be construed as being ‘prompted’ by any extraneous reasons. In a democratic set-up, no one can enjoy any position for life, how much one may desire. Everyone who has some basic acquaintance with the working of the council knows this. I was surprised to see that some former members had raised this issue in the press. They might be having their own “good reasons,” which I fail to understand.

From what is known, the IHR journal was doing fine largely due to the efforts of the 22-member advisory board. Why did you feel the need to bring about a change at this point in time? Were there any problems with the content of the journal?

The IHR journal was earlier printed and published by the ICHR. Since the council is not a professional publisher, it does not have the necessary paraphernalia to market its journal. Many ICHR publications lack market exposure. Despite our fat offers of 30-50 per cent concessions on occasions like conferences, seminars etc., which are very frequent with us, bulk numbers of copies of all our publications are simply stored unsold creating us problems of space. The voluminous works having reference value are unsold. It doesn’t mean that this pathetic situation has any reflection on the standards of these works.

IHR is being printed, published and distributed by the Sage Publications since the past few years (from about 2010). The ICHR was subsidising its printing cost and receiving nominal loyalties, which, however, could not match our investment. Only this year we could break even. This was mostly possible because of the marketing abilities of the publishers. One should know at what cost it was achieved. It was also due to commercial ratings of subscription almost not in the reach of individual scholars. The standard of a journal only depends on the articles published in it, not on well-known names on its advisory.

The advisory committee is not a regular committee. It has no stipulated powers and functions. The role of the advisory body is minimal if not nil. They never met and perhaps were never asked to give any advice on any issue, in particular by the previous councils. It was for all practical purposes a sleeping one continued indefinitely, in the fond hope, expecting extra miles without actually treading any extra paces. The number of its membership is not fixed. Whenever ‘one’ felt, members were added to the existing committee. Reconstituting the board on the lines of other committees does not amount to ‘breaking’ and ‘fixing’.

I think it is not out of place to clarify here the issue raised by the media regarding the replacement of Prof. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya as the chief editor of IHR by Prof Dilip Chakravarti. The chief editor is not an office or a post as such. It is honorary. The head of the IHR committee will be its chief editor, while the chairman of ICHR happens to be its ex-officio chairman. Whenever a new committee is formed, the chief editor is nominated by the committee. The council may also nominate those who are not the members of the council, to this committee by co-option. Prof. Sabyasachi was the chief editor when he was the chairman of the council and subsequently, he was co-opted by the succeeding committee. He continued as the chief editor even for one year during my term. He is my esteemed elderly friend. He is also very kind and affectionate to me. I don’t think he said that he was ever ‘troubled’ by me or that the ICHR was ‘taking to rightward direction’ under my chairmanship as the reasons for his resignation. This might be a media-construct. On knowing that Prof. Dilip Chakravarti was made the chief editor, he welcomed it and wrote a very courteous letter relinquishing his responsibility as chief editor. I also thanked him acknowledging his valuable contribution to ICHR in various capacities. I requested him to feel free to make any suggestions and offer guidance in my work. I do not have any differences with him.

Are you planning to give the journal a certain focus and direction? If yes, can you spell it out for us?

The IHR journal does not focus on any theme in particular and it is not supposed to give any direction to historical research. It encourages research and any scholar can present his research study for publication on any research problem. It will be published after being evaluated by the experts in the field concerned. It is open to every research scholar, Indian or other than Indian.

What happened to the Freedom Project started during the first term of the NDA in 2000? Are we going to see some changes there? Is it nearing completion?

‘Towards Freedom’ project of the ICHR, started more than three decades ago (not during the first NDA rule), is long and even now seemingly an unending saga. It is taking time perhaps as long as our freedom struggle was fought. We regret to say that some chief editors and editors of some volumes could not live to see its fruition. A few volumes are yet to come. The project is funded by ICHR, written by somebody, edited by some other, printed and published by Oxford Press, however, without text being cleared by the council.

The ICHR has been charged with mixing fantasy with history. Your emphasis on Vedas, Puranas have lead to concern on the direction you want historical research to take. How would you respond to the charge?

As far as I know, the ICHR was not charged with ‘mixing fantasy with history’ before my nomination to the council as chairman. Such allegations have only been pointed to me after I became the chairman. The ICHR has never taken up any project on its own worth mentioning to study culture, society, economy, polity, science, technology, art, religion etc, of ancient and medieval times, which are recognised areas in the Memorandum of Association of the ICHR (1972). When I assumed the chairmanship, I said on one or two occasions that the ICHR should also, if possible, meet this deficiency in proposing its projects. When we turn to these areas, we have to invariably examine our ancient and medieval literary texts — Sanskrit, Prakrit, Pali, Arabic and Persian— to cull out historical data. The importance of these literary texts for an academic study should not be disputable.

You are entrusted with the Mahabharata Project? What does it entail and how far have you succeeded in your research?

I was never ‘entrusted’ with any research project either by the government or any private funding agencies. I was drawn to study the epic Mahabharata if I could get any flinching evidence to precisely fix the date of the Great War, which I consider serves as the sheet anchor of the ancient Indian chronology. Many scholars have worked on the date of the war. Recently, many research works have come out suggesting the date to about 3000 BC based on scientific data. ‘Some’, of course, deny ascribing any historicity to the epics and Puranas, again for their own ‘good reasons’. It doesn’t mean that ‘others’ should not work on these sources. In research, one cannot foresee the conclusion. One has to arrive at it.

As a historian are you treating the Ramayana and the Mahabharata as indisputable facts?

For the construction of history, we have to at least begin examining the historical content. The Puranas mention a long list of dynasties and it is not difficult to corroborate the content with facts. I am a professional historian and will examine the facts available.

‘Neither UPA nor NDA promised livelihood-based rehabilitation’

Interview with social activist Medha Patkar on why she opposes the Land Bill proposed by the Centre

Social activist Medha Patkar has been in the forefront of the struggle for the rights and rehabilitation of project-displaced populations for over two decades, and has relentlessly pursued the formulation of a national rehabilitation policy. She spoke to Gargi Parsaiat the site of the agitation in Delhi about the pitfalls in the National Democratic Alliance government’s proposed new Land Bill brought through an ordinance to amend the earlier Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, (LARR) 2013, enacted by the United Progressive Alliance government.

The government maintains that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LARR (Amendment) Bill, 2014 to replace the Ordinance is not against farmers and will help development. Your view?

That is not correct. We too are for development but the government’s idea is different because it not only wants to go in for corporatisation of every sector. But for that it does not mind misusing resources such as land — the life support of millions of people. Over decades people have been waiting for full-fledged livelihood-based rehabilitation which is neither fully promised in the new Bill nor is there in the 2013 Act of the UPA.

Was the NDA justified in bringing an Ordinance to change the land law?

There are about 100 Acts all over the country under which land acquisition goes on. Of these, 16 are Central Acts. The UPA brought three under the 2013 Act but 13 were left out as they had to be amended in order to make them consistent with the new Act within one year, that is by December 31, 2014, after approval from both Houses of Parliament as provided under Section 105. The NDA is giving this as the reason for bringing in the Ordinance, but the question is why did they wait till December 31? If the NDA amendments were in favour of the poor, then they could have made them public instead of bringing it through an Ordinance.

What does Social Impact Analysis involve?

It is the first pre-conditional phase before any rehabilitation. It is an analysis of the impact of the project on displaced peoples’ livelihoods, whether they would become jobless with cash but no permanent source of livelihood; whether their relationship with natural resources, the ecosystem will be affected; whether their community integration, as in the case of tribals and even non-tribals in rural India, will be shattered and they would be dispersed, as also, the effect on forests, fish and the food security when agricultural lands are going to be taken away. Under the Constitution, gram sabhas and panchayats have the right to planning and management of land, water, electrification, etc. Without granting that primacy to the local units, to take away hectares of land for mega projects is undemocratic.

Has the NDA removed the SIA and consent clause altogether?

Yes, and apart from those 13 laws, they have added five more categories for exclusion which include everything. This Act is applicable to public purpose projects besides public sector projects. So while defining public purpose projects, they have included infrastructure projects as notified by Department of Economic Affairs which includes mining, tourism, water power, [private] educational institutions, [private] hospitals and so on. The NDA proposes to bring the 13 Acts in line with the 2013 Act but have knocked off infrastructure projects from SIA and Consent provisions. This is a tricky matter. The most interesting part is that the maximum land acquisition, and so maximum social impact, will be in irrigation projects, but those have been excluded from SIA and consent and industrial corridors.

The government says corridors will bring agro industry into rural areas, promising employment.

That industrialisation immediately brings employment to local and project affected people has not happened anywhere. The latest CAG report on SEZs says that the land which is taken is not even used for industries and lies vacant for many years. That is why the 2013 Act said that acquired land lying unused for five years will have to be returned to the owner. But the NDA’s proposed Bill changes that, and has added that the land for which a project has been planned will not be returned. But they will go on extending the planning period and will never return the land to the original farmers. If the acquired land is not used for industry, where is the promised employment? There is no ceiling on how much land can be acquired for PPP and private companies, now defined as private entities. Remember there is a ceiling on agricultural land while the farmer is contributing to food security.

But land use has changed.

Yes. Consent was required of 80 per cent of people whose land is going to be acquired for private projects and 70 per cent for public-private projects. None for government projects — for mega dams or mega city or industrial development projects. In many cases, government acquires land and hands it over to corporates within a year. It becomes a government project for which consent is not necessary. Therefore, the Land Use Policy and any change in land use must have the consent of the people.

The government says it needs land for development and growth.

Yes, it needs land, but what kind of land? There is banjar land and wasteland lying in each State and also PSUs lying vacant for decades, and now they want to continue to acquire even multiple crop land. It is clear that agricultural land being diverted for non-agricultural use is reaching its limits. Within 10 years, according to the Economic Survey of India, about 150 lakh hectares was diverted. Multiple crop land should be the last resort, the 2013 Act says. But the NDA wants to remove this too.

The government proposes giving good compensation equal to four to six times the market rate.

This was hugely publicised by the UPA too. Actually what is provided for in the law is that for rural areas they will give two to four times of the market value and that too is left to the States to decide. States are defining the market value as decided by the guidelines set by the village tehsildar, which is kept so low that it is nowhere near the real market value which is five to 10 times more.

So do farmers have recourse under the law if they are short-changed?

Section 87 in the 2013 Act said that if an official violates any provision in the law for social impact or seeking consent or paying compensation and rehabilitation and so on, then the affected person could file an FIR. Now the Ordinance has changed that and it says for this the farmer will have to seek the permission of the head of the department or the State government…

Has the government spoken to activists during the protest?

We had been taken on board by the Congress government in the formulation of the 2013 law. During the NDA rule, even on the Narmada dam issue, the Prime Minister has not given us an appointment. No, there has been no dialogue with us on this issue that defines the fate of the country.

gargi.parsai@thehindu.co.in

Keywords: Land Bill, land acquisition, Medha Patkar interview, UPA, NDA, rehabilitation, land ordinance, Land Acquisition Ordinance