Crony capitalism has also happened in public sector banks. There is a dire need to strengthen regulatory oversight to guard against irregularities in running all banks
The recommendation of an Internal Working Group (IWG) set up by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to allow industrial houses to own banks — if they meet the criterion — has invited strident criticism from experts, including the former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan. Asking how a borrower could also be a lender, they have debunked the idea, stating that this would lead to misdirected lending, mostly to entities belonging to the industrial house that owns the bank. This apprehension is valid but the misuse of public money can happen in any bank, irrespective of the ownership. For instance, in Public Sector Banks (PSBs) till now, businessmen patronised by the ruling establishment managed loans on considerations other than merit. In private banks, too, the situation is no different, as amply demonstrated by the failure of Yes Bank, which is not owned by an industrial house. There is a dire need to strengthen regulatory oversight to guard against irregularities in running banks. The IWG recommends allowing promoters to hold 26 per cent equity stake in a steady state or after 15 years (up from the existing norm of 15 per cent) from the start, when it should be a minimum of 40 per cent of the equity for the first five years. It suggests taking a sympathetic review of whether industrial houses should be allowed to own banks if they meet the criterion. And considers allowing Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) with assets of over `50,000 crore, and in operation for over 10 years, to convert to banks, whether or not they are owned by industrial houses.
These suggestions need to be read in a certain context. Already, after a prolonged tussle, the banking regulator had allowed promoters of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (KMBL) to maintain their stake at 26 per cent despite the 15 per cent norm (originally named Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited, it was the first NBFC in India to convert into a bank in February 2003). This prompted promoters of other private sector banks, who had lowered their stake to 15 per cent, to demand that they, too, should be allowed to increase it to 26 per cent. For instance, the Hinduja Group of IndusInd Bank made the appeal. Therefore, by allowing promoters of all private banks to have 26 per cent stake, the IWG has taken the logical step forward.
The 15 per cent threshold was anomalous, as with a marginal stake, the promoter won’t have the desired skin in the game. Hence, the much-needed seriousness and commitment would be less. As a result, the management and governance of the bank could suffer. A study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), India, shows that this may well be the case. An analysis of old private sector banks done by the BCG illustrates that “boards, where equity ownership is diversified, can take control of a bank and start to direct its operations in a less than optimal manner. The Catholic Syrian Bank and the Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB) are good examples of this. In fact, 12 old private banks are laggards in respect to technology and risk systems and have not grown their share from four per cent of the assets of the system.”
Even so, for a promoter to initially start with 40 per cent shareholding as per the existing guidelines and then bring it down to 15 per cent (after the efforts during the initial difficult phase have borne fruit and the operations have stabilised), relegating him to a minor player, is unfair. No wonder, the KMBL promoter pleaded with the RBI to allow it to retain a higher shareholding, which the latter agreed to. The apex bank should implement the IWG’s recommendation to allow 26 per cent shareholding to the promoter in the long-run.
The second major recommendation to allow industrial houses to own banks, after addressing any outstanding issues or concerns in respect to “connected lending” and incorporating safeguards in the Banking Regulation Act (BR Act), needs to be read in conjunction with another suggestion made by the RBI to the Finance Ministry early this year. The RBI had proposed that the Centre reduce its shareholding in six top PSBs, i.e the State Bank of India, the Punjab National Bank, the Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, the Union Bank of India and the Bank of India to 26 per cent. In the follow-through, the Centre has already initiated the process to reduce its holding to 51 per cent in the next 12-18 months.
Realising that the market may not have the appetite for it, the RBI thought that letting corporates in could help raise the prospects. There are several corporates with deep pockets who can buy the shares of PSBs, thereby enabling successful divestment and at the same time, help the Government garner resources to rein in the fiscal deficit in the current difficult year (it is aiming to garner about `43,000 crore). For this to happen, the regulator has to take a policy decision to allow corporates to own a bank. This is precisely what the IWG has done. But this has invited criticism from experts who say that instead of being based on due diligence and assessing viability of the project, the bank will give loans keeping in mind what the owner wants. Put simply, this will be tantamount to the use of public money for unjust enrichment of the corporate. This undoubtedly needs a vigilant architecture. In PSBs, for instance, businessmen with political clout managed loans and got them okayed. Neither did the banks insist on repayment, nor did the defaulters have any fear, as those who were expected to take action chose not to act. This led to an increase in non-performing assets (NPAs) to an unsustainable level, forcing the Centre to bail them out by using the taxpayers’ money.
In private banks, too (albeit those not owned by a corporate house), the situation is quite similar. Merely because an industrial house gets to occupy the driver’s seat in a bank does not automatically follow that public deposits will be misused. Abuse or otherwise is primarily a function of the quality of the management on the one hand and supervision by the banking regulator on the other. If, any of these prerequisites are lacking, then, irrespective of who owns the bank, exploitation is inevitable. To handle that, there is a dire need to strengthen regulatory oversight and the RBI should make proactive intervention on “real-time” basis to prevent mismanagement and irregularities — instead of continuing with the present practice of bolting the stable after the horses have fled.
India needs more banks with adequate capital buffer to meet the credit requirement of a $5 trillion economy by 2024-25 (funding on such a mammoth scale can’t be done with equity capital alone). In view of this, and considering that the Government wants to open up even PSBs to the private sector (look at the decision to reduce its shareholding in six top PSUs to 51 per cent), there is a dire need to expand the landscape of potential investors. The involvement of large industrial houses could be of great help in this endeavour.
Accordingly, the Government should only consider the IWG’s recommendations after incorporating safeguards to address issues of “connected lending” by amending the BR Act. All banks, which have other group entities, should be held by Non-Operating Financial Holding Companies (NOFHC).
The recommendation for a higher minimum initial capital of `1,000 crore (up from the existing `500 crore) makes eminent sense. However, there is a case for raising the bar even further to say, `5,000 crore, to ensure that only very serious entities enter the space.
The third major recommendation of the IWG to allow NBFCs with assets of over `50,000 crore, and in operation for over 10 years, to convert to banks is in sync with the RBI’s stance all along. The only change mooted now is to permit NBFCs owned by industrial houses to convert to banks, too. The RBI probably went by the fact that there are a number of well-run NBFCs owned by industrial houses who can be good candidates for converting to and running a bank.
The group has also batted for “harmonisation” of various licencing guidelines to ensure that relaxations (or for that matter, tightening of rules) given at different points of time are applicable to all entities, irrespective of when the licence was given to each. Some important recommendations provide for a “clear” and “consistent” definition of holding by a promoter (use of paid-up voting equity share capital is prescribed as the right metric); maximum share holdings of 15 per cent by non-promoters uniformly for all, banks not to carry out any activity permissible within the bank, through a separate subsidiary; pledging of bank shares and so on. The RBI should build in checks and balances.
(The writer is a New Delhi-based policy analyst)
Arab nations are warming up to India and the Army Chief’s visit will further strengthen ties
The visit of Army Chief, General MM Naravane, to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) should be welcomed by all who are keen for India’s relations with the Arab world to improve. The Narendra Modi Government might have made ‘Look East’ a cornerstone of its foreign policy but the most dramatic improvement of ties in the past six-and-a-half years has been with the Arab world. And as many Arab nations normalise their relationship with Israel, their one-time mortal enemy, India, a long-standing friend of Israel, can only be most pleased. Combined with the fact that Pakistan, which often found a steady hand of support in the Arab world, has seen its ties with the two leading nations, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, deteriorate in the recent past, India can only look from the sidelines and be pleased at the state of affairs. Saudi Arabia is upset with Pakistan switching allegiance to Turkey as a leader of the neo-Islamic world despite feeding off Gulf largesse. The Saudis went so far as to recall a major loan from Pakistan and UAE stopped issuing visas to Pakistani citizens, However, with the Saudis and the Emirates involved in complicated politics in the area, particularly with Iran, overtly through a war in Yemen, and also internecine issues in Qatar, India will also need to thread a tightrope.
India has to maintain amicable relations with all sides because of both commercial and military reasons. Naravane as a representative of the Government must be careful. That said, India’s improved relations with West Asia are here to stay for the medium-term with major nations having political stability. OIC member states have been drawn by India’s compliance of rulebook diplomacy, respect its non-provocative gestures and scent its economic growth and wide markets. There’s a new-found respect diplomatically after we held off China. Besides, India continues to provide skilled manpower to Arab nations. Of course, there is the challenge of how the incoming US administration will treat the area but one expects more of the same.
SC reprimands Govt for aggressively pushing Central Vista project, withholds construction
Is building a citadel as testimony to one’s transformative legacy and power so important when the nation is going through its worst crisis brought on by the pandemic? Or is considered and reasoned opinion now a dispensable ritual in the rush to tick the boxes of jobs done, good or bad? May be the Narendra Modi Government thinks that it can make its priorities the nation’s own, ignoring reality. So the Supreme Court pressed the much-needed pause button yesterday, literally rebuking the Government for “moving forward aggressively” on Delhi’s Central Vista project, even before a decision could be taken on a slew of petitions challenging it. And though it allowed Modi to lay the foundation stone for the project, it categorically ruled out any construction or demolition in the demarcated area or any cutting of trees, the last so not advisable in a climate-challenged city like Delhi. The Government has justified the Rs 1,000 crore project, that provisions for a new Parliament building and a do-over of the Central Vista, on grounds of adapting to the requirements of changed times. But the top court sensed the Government’s real intent of making a power statement and curbed the adventurism, saying, “Just because there is no stay, does not mean you can start construction. We did not pass any clear stay order because we thought you are a prudent litigant, and you will show deference to the court.” When Government counsel Tushar Mehta sought time to respond to the court’s order that no construction or demolition could continue, the court insisted that he reply in five minutes on compliance. To that extent, the court played conscience keeper and made it amply clear that runaway ambitions could not be allowed to have their way when the timing and the spends are clearly inappropriate. It underlined that just because the Government considered its authoritarian and signature move as important, everybody shouldn’t agree and fall in line.
The real intent of the argument that Lutyens’ Delhi needs a makeover, particularly the Central Vista of the Rajpath, to create more spaces for a more streamlined operation of Ministry offices and freeing up more citizen-friendly spaces, is entirely political and in no way cultural or futuristic. It is quite unlike the French experiment with the Louvre though parallels have been drawn to it. When the glass Pyramid came up in the courtyard of the museum, ostensibly to free up spaces for an easier visitor movement, the then French President Francois Mitterrand was lambasted for creating “an architectural joke, an eyesore, an anachronistic intrusion of Egyptian death symbolism in the middle of Paris and a megalomaniacal folly.” The oddity of its existence was such that critics and conservationists compelled the architects to tone down on drama, keep much of the rejig of the Louvre’s internal map underground and stay away from the surrounding classical architecture. Of course, Mitterrand, an avid art lover, was thinking about keeping the Louvre relevant for generations than sealing a political legacy. Here, it is the latter taking precedence. The Government’s move is about overwriting history with its own. Yet tradition’s co-existence with modernity is encoded in our DNA and Delhi is the best testimony, where each successive ruler has sedimented through relics and monuments that have stood the test of time. And Delhiites have never denied heritage its place, be it Rajput, Islamic, European or colonial, making it a part of their living history, one where Lutyens’ Delhi is a key chapter. And no argument holds before the elegance and classicism of the design — the green pavilions, perches, cupolas and the islands are the only democratic spaces where citizens can move and roam free, catching the afternoon sun in the middle of winter and the gentle breeze of a summer evening. No kiosk and retail space is needed here for it is precisely to escape those that Delhi families assemble here. Besides, being the first stretches to be locked down for security around Republic Day and Independence Day, they are anyway sanitised and cannot ever be a porous event space like Washington’s National Mall. Redevelopment wouldn’t mean more freedom to the masses. Considering the India Gate and now the war memorial respects martyred soldiers no less, do we need to scream our triumphalism and identity any louder? Shouldn’t the Government be wiser to leave a legacy of policy and governance instead? Repurposing or modifying administrative offices within the shell of an existing facade and rejigging interiors are the done thing. But to change the skyline is quite the other. Agreed, there may be an increasing demand for land in the cities and the size of the Government means that its bureaucracy needs to be accommodated. Question is why can’t they be relocated to a space where vertical growth is possible. The Rajpath has been our ceremonial pivot, providing a monumental, dignified and symbolic setting for governmental structures, museums and national memorials. Attempting to change it for no pressing reason, therefore, is like marginalising and eroding its place-based identity. Simply because of its historicity as a power statement. One that the current regime wants to overlay with its own definition of a monolithic and a neo-cultural India, as if we never had roots through millennia. Prime Minister Narendra Modi doesn’t quite like the “Lutyens’ world” and the power structures and codes embedded in it. But in the name of breaking elitism and freeing up space for people, one cannot justify political point-scoring. There are fruits of preservation; they serve as reminders of what was and where we need to go. There are only ruins of demolition, forcibly reconstructing the past to suit our ends. Besides, no amount of overwriting can erase the imprint of the city in our hearts. In the end, Delhi’s soul gets damaged.
Before giving banking licence to corporates, the RBI must ensure a robust and fool-proof regulatory oversight architecture which it clearly lacks now
The nationalisation of banks in 1969 effectively ended the corporate dominance in the banking industry, with the Government taking control of 90 per cent of the total banking business in India. Now corporate houses may once again be allowed to enter the banking arena if the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India’s Internal Working Group (IWG) for reviewing corporate structure of private sector banks are accepted by the Government. The suggestions are rather sweeping and it is questionable if all the risks have been weighed carefully. There are two major recommendations; the first is to allow large corporate and industrial houses to own banks by amending the Banking Regulation Act 1949, and the second is to allow large non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) with 10 years’ track record, including those owned by corporate houses and with an asset size of Rs 50,000 crore and above, to convert themselves into banks. The recommendations are open for comments till January 15, 2021.
Some of the biggest industrial houses already own large NBFCs bigger than many medium-sized banks with more than a decade’s track record. Besides HDFC with assets worth Rs 5.6 lakh crore, there are Bajaj Finservice, Sriram Transport, L&T Finance Holdings, Indiabulls Housing, Tata Capital, M&M Finance holdings, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company, Muthoot Finance and Aditya Birla, which fulfil the twin criteria. Their total assets would exceed Rs 14 lakh crore (FY 20). There are also Government-controlled NBFCs – for example, the one led by PFC with assets of Rs 6.6 lakh crore, followed by REC with Rs 3.2 lakh crore assets, LIC Housing Finance and HUDCO – which also fulfil the criteria; their total assets amount to around Rs 14 lakh crore. For a Covid-battered and capital-starved banking sector reeling under mounting NPAs, such huge capital from private cash-rich companies could just be rejuvenating, a consideration which probably weighed with the IWG. Private players were allowed into banking after 1993 and since 2016, NBFCs have also been allowed, but so far their responses have been tepid. One reason was the small cap of 15 per cent on the promoter’s stake; this is now proposed to be raised to 26 per cent in the long run over 15 years. But as Rajnish Kumar, the former chairman of SBI, said: “It will only work well when the system has three things in place — strong ring-fencing for business interest, high-quality corporate governance and resolution framework for banks and finance companies.” This is where the recommendations raise serious worries and have attracted widespread criticism, including from ex-Central bankers Raghuram Rajan and Viral Acharya, who called it a “bombshell” dropped by the RBI.
Historically, the RBI has always been cautious about issuing banking licences to corporates on account of the inherent conflicts of interest and poor corporate governance. The last two licences to IDFC First Bank and Bandhan Bank were given seven years ago after licences given to the Kotak Mahindra Bank and YES Bank, of which the YES Bank has now gone bust due to crony capitalism and ineffective regulatory controls and had to be bailed out like all others.
The global financial crisis had made the developed nations very cautious. In response to the 2008 global financial crisis, the US had adopted several measures, including enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which introduced a raft of measures to regulate the financial sector and protect consumers. The Act amended many existing legislations, like the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to create an Investor Advisory Committee, an Office of the Investor Advocate and an ombudsman. It instituted regular reviews of conflicts of interest within investment firms by newly-created oversight institutions like the Financial Stability Oversight Council for identifying and improving systemic risks and especially to monitor designated Systemically Important Financial Institutions, which are deemed “too big to fail.” Even these may not be sufficient guarantee against future malfeasance.
Nothing of that sort happened in India. Satyam happened in 2009 and we were in deep slumber. An attempt to strengthen corporate governance and give it a statutory authority was made only in 2013 in the new Companies Act by incorporating some key provisions of Clause 49 of SEBI’s listing agreement. That these are hardly effective is evidenced by the unending series of frauds and scams, which have since broken upon the Indian banking scene, the regularity of which no longer surprises us. The weaknesses of the regulatory and oversight institutions and the multiple conflicts of interest along with crony capitalism have wrought havoc in the financial sector time and again. The IL&FS fraud dealt a body blow to NBFCs in India, exposing the risks a large NBFC poses to our financial system. Much of our NPAs have been the creation of super-fraudsters like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi, Rana Kapoor and their ilk who could manipulate the system with active support from important levers of power. In all these cases, the RBI’s supervision has been lax and ineffective. Of course, the RBI was not alone to blame; the statutory auditors, often from the big four, and the credit rating agencies equally contributed to bypassing controls, throwing caution to the winds.
If the growth of banks and NBFCs continues unchecked without an effective framework to correct asset-liability mismatches, the financial sector will remain vulnerable to risks and accidents, dragging the economy in a downward spiral. The continued failure of banks – the latest being the Laxmi Vilas Bank (LVB) – point to the gross inadequacy of the RBI’s regulatory architecture, including its prudential norms. Even in the developed world, entry of large corporates into the banking sector is discouraged. The IWG has itself admitted that “the prevailing corporate governance culture in corporate houses is not up to the international standard and it will be difficult to ring-fence the non-financial activities of the promoters with that of the bank”; all the experts it had consulted, save one, on this issue had disagreed with its recommendations.
Before allowing large NBFCs into the banking space, the RBI must ensure a robust and fool-proof regulatory oversight architecture which it clearly lacks. The urgency being displayed by it to complete this process, therefore, legitimately surprises many and raises many unnerving worries.
The biggest concern of the RBI has always been to prevent connected lending and exposure between the banks and other related financial and non-financial group entities. It allowed large industrial houses to set up their own payments banks for the first time during 2015-16. Many like the Tatas, Birlas, Ambanis and Mahindras had applied for licence. Of the 41 applications, only 11 got in-principle approval, and seven started operations by 2018. But the banking landscape in India is undergoing significant transformation, with all public sector banks to be consolidated into only half a dozen large banks with balance sheet size of Rs 10 lakh crore each, besides a handful of large private banks. Hence there may be better avenues for raising capital rather than putting the stability of the financial system at stake.
Indeed the stakes are too high to treat the matter so casually. First is the enormous risk in connected lending. As Rajan and Acharya have correctly noted, “The history of such connected lending is invariably disastrous – how can the bank make good loans when it is owned by the borrower? Even an independent committed regulator, with all the information in the world, finds it difficult to be in every nook and corner of the financial system to stop poor lending.” Besides, the unintended consequence of concentration of economic and hence political and lobbying power in such corporate houses is likely to follow, giving a further boost to crony capitalism. Second is the excessive competition likely to result from the entry of corporates into banking, leading to erosion of profit margin of the existing banks and forcing them to lend to risky ventures and businesses, thereby further weakening the financial system. Ultimately, it is only the small investors who pay the price, as we have seen in the cases of Sahara, DHFL, PMC Bank, Yes Bank and LVB. Corporate governance is weak even in the largest private banks, as the case of ICICI Bank has demonstrated.
The Indian financial landscape is littered with a highly complex web of numerous shell companies, front companies to big corporates they can lend to, opaque onshore and offshore ownership structures of companies and incestuous financial transactions between corporate entities, who can easily form a cartel to evade regulation and oversight. The RBI still does not have the institutional capacity to enforce regulation and exercise effective control – only recently it has introduced a separate regulatory and supervisory cadre to monitor systemic risks arising from the growing sizes and complexities of an intertwined and interconnected financial sector. The question to be addressed before embarking upon any such misadventure is whether the regulator is adequately equipped to monitor millions of transactions taking place via the internet, traversing every nook and corner of the globe, and follow the monetary trails of illegitimate deals.
(The author is a former Director-General at the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India and an academic)
Half of all GenZ women (55 per cent) want to be their own bosses, up from 43 per cent in 2019, according to a new report. When asked what would drive their confidence, women surpassed men in saying launching a business would most improve their confidence. The findings are from the Girls With Impact's 4th annual report, What's Inside the Minds of GenZ... during COVID?'.
While it's generally known that GenZ (ages 14-22) is the most purpose-driven generation, this heightened awareness came through this year as they have been reactive to the most pressing issues of 2020 -- from #BlackLivesMatter to climate change to COVID-19. In a shift from 2019, when asked how they want to make an impact, 63 per cent of GenZers said they want to "personally create something innovative" -- now ranking as their number-one priority while 53 per cent want to become entrepreneurs.
Nearly one-half (47 per cent) want to work for a company that is doing something innovative. "People don't go to work for the money -- they want to make an impact," said 16-year-old Neha Shukla, CEO of SixFeetApart. "GenZ is taking action on the issues facing our world. This isn't only demonstrated in their personal beliefs, but what they expect in the workplace," said Jennifer Openshaw, CEO of the nonprofit, Girls With Impact.
Aside from success, getting a job, and mental health placing among their top three worries, concerns over racism took a leap. Racial worries jumped 6x with 6.8 per cent of all GenZers saying it was their single greatest worry vs just 1 per cent in 2019. Diversity and inclusiveness translated into their workplace priorities; GenZ said they most valued "respect" and a "great manager" (vs an "older, experienced team" and "fun", which ranked on numbers 1 and 2 in 2019).
More women than men ranked diversity as a priority. Turning to the toll of COVID-19, mental health worries have spiked 14 per cent since 2019, ranking third as a top concern - perhaps the result of seeing family members lose jobs. Worries about grades also rose, up 20 per cent over the previous year.
According to the report, GenZ women could see their confidence rise by becoming an entrepreneur in a 12-point jump - up to 55 per cent vs 43 per cent last year. GenZ also shifted priorities from a short travel time and mentoring in 2019 to remote working and flexible hours - with greater attention to volunteer opportunities. GenZ women continue to have a lower compensation expectation - and the gender gap in earnings expectations has widened - with 39 per cent of men expecting to earn over $100K by 40 vs 27 per cent of women, said the report.
(Siddhi Jain can be contacted at siddhi.j@ians.in)
It’s just straws in the wind right now, but his loss is creating a sense in other populist-ruled nations that the juggernaut has stalled
There is nothing wrong in participating in a sex party of any kind. However, such meetings with many people are illegal under the Coronavirus laws,” said a source in the European Parliament.
To be specific, 25 men attending a loud party above a gay bar in central Brussels is clearly against Belgium’s Coronavirus laws, which allow no more than four people to meet indoors, so somebody called the police. At least three of those arrested were Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
It was particularly unfortunate for József Szájer. He’s a senior founding member of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, an ultra-nationalist, populist, authoritarian grouping that defends family values and condemns homosexuality. But Szájer was arrested while fleeing that party (with Ecstasy pills in his backpack). According to the Brussels region’s deputy public prosecutor, he was arrested with bloodied hands after a passerby spotted him “fleeing along the gutter” to escape the raid. Szájer admitted he had been at a “house party” but said the drugs the police found on him were planted. He apologised to his family but made no reference to the nature of the party. It’s hard to feel much sympathy for him. Szájer was a leading anti-gay agitator in Fidesz and boasts that he personally drafted the changes to the Hungarian Constitution that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. He has now resigned as the leader of the Hungarian delegation to the European Parliament, and will doubtless have to quit the Fidesz, too.
But there’s a bigger story here. There was another scandal in Hungary last week, in which Szilárd Demeter, a senior cultural official linked to Fidesz, wrote an opinion piece for a pro-Government outlet comparing Budapest-born American billionaire George Soros, a Jew who fled the Holocaust, to Adolf Hitler. Demeter also called the European Union (EU) “George Soros’ gas chamber”, and claimed that Hungary and Poland, the two Eastern European EU members with extreme-Right populist governments, are “the new Jews” of Europe.
It’s utterly unhinged, and yet it sounds vaguely familiar. The unbridled arrogance, the self-pity, the shameless, hysterical exaggeration are all hallmarks of the new breed of “illiberal” populists. And when they think they are losing, they always up the ante. I’m thinking, of course, of US President Donald Trump’s recent electoral defeat and his subsequent behaviour, especially towards President-elect Joe Biden.
Could that extraordinary recklessness be a communicable disease? Could it somehow be spreading to Trump’s acolytes overseas as well? Well, consider Poland. The Catholic, ultra-conservative Law and Justice Party has been in power in Poland since 2015. Elected by the same, older, less well-educated, non-urban, deeply religious coalition that backs populist takeovers elsewhere. And as in other populist-ruled countries, there has been a steady erosion both, in human rights and in respect for democratic norms.
The Law and Justice Party was re-elected just last year, and its leader, 71-year-old J Kaczynski, was widely supposed to have his finger on Poland’s pulse. But it all fell apart when a Law and Justice Party-appointed court declared in late October that abortions would not be permitted even in cases of severe foetal abnormality where the child would die immediately after birth. Poland already had tight restrictions on abortion rights, but this turned out to be the last straw for the citizens. Millions of young people, and especially young women, filled the streets of Poland’s cities in the biggest anti-Government demonstration since the fall of Communism in 1989. They spoke out in favour of the reproductive rights of women. “I wish I could abort my Government”, said one popular banner. The demonstrations continued every day until a new lockdown was declared, and the Law and Justice Party has now backed down, postponing the publication of the court’s decision indefinitely. But something has definitely changed in Poland: Support for Kaczynski has now plunged to only 30 per cent.
Then there’s President Jair Bolsonaro, or “Tropical Trump”, whose favoured candidates were thrashed in all Brazil’s big cities in local elections last month, and the UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, dubbed “Britain Trump” by “The Donald”, who is now trailing the Opposition leader in the polls for the first time ever.
It’s just straws in the wind at this stage, but the defeat of Donald Trump, the populist standard-bearer, is creating a sense in other populist-ruled countries that the juggernaut has stalled. It seems that the effect hasn’t reached Asia yet. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India and President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines are still riding very high in the polls. But the main thing that the populists had going for them was momentum, and in Western countries it seems to be dropping off.
Was there really a “coat-tail effect”? Hard to say. After all, both the Law and Justice Party in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary came to power before Trump was elected in late 2016. But populist leaders across the West seem to believe that somehow or other their fates are tied to Trump’s. It shows in the growing recklessness of their behaviour and in the frequency of their failures. Does this mean that they are all destined to vanish in his wake? Probably not, but that would be nice if it were to happen. The sooner the better.
(Gwynne Dyer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work)
Giving women direct access to financial services might improve their chances to become entrepreneurs, more independent and increase their participation in family decision-making
Women make up nearly half the population. A nation cannot have sustained economic prosperity and well-being until the central role of women is recognised and their economic health is used as a measure to shape policy. The human race is like a bird that needs both wings to fly. A great opportunity is wasted when women are isolated from the economy. It is now widely surmised that until they are financially literate and empowered around money, we’ll never truly have equality. Women’s participation in the financial system can have significant benefits in terms of economic growth, greater equality and societal well-being. When accessible finance reaches women, the benefits are particularly sustainable. Women channel money into solving more fundamental issues.
Access and usage of financial services are levers for increasing women’s participation in the economy. They enhance their self-confidence and place financial decision-making power in their hands, resulting in large development pay-offs. We need to study the myriad social and behavioural impediments impacting women and use this knowledge to design customised financial product offerings. In failing to develop client experiences rooted in men and women’s fundamentally-different perspectives on finance, banks are missing a very significant business opportunity.
Women often face several barriers which limit their financial inclusion, other than the universal constraints that low-income communities face: Limited access to mobile phones, lower literacy levels, less confidence in using technology and restrictions on travel or social interaction. We need to address them through behavioural and reformist approaches, instead of the usual hardware-based approach. It’s not that the barriers are necessarily different for rural and urban women. But the same barriers are greater for rural ones. We need last-mile banking agents to help mitigate barriers such as dependency on male family members for travel.
Women make for a low-revenue segment but prove to be loyal and profitable clients when served with appropriately-designed products. Financial service providers need to ensure that their charges are not prohibitive and the tools are so designed that they make women’s engagement with financial service providers friendly, safe, affordable and convenient. The real issue is that many women, despite strides in education, simply aren’t as confident and knowledgeable about financial matters as men. This problem persists even when women handle many of their families’ routine money management duties.
Giving women direct access to financial services might improve their chances to become entrepreneurs, more independent and increase their participation in family and community decision-making. There is also an important insurance effect: Better access to credit, savings or insurance services reduces the need to use child labour as a buffer in case of seasonal income fluctuations and transitory income shocks and allows consumption. In the case of transitory income reductions resulting from health shocks, it also allows faster attention to health problems.
It is now recognised that “the women’s market” represents varied segments of clients, from low-income salaried workers (factory workers, domestic help and so on) and low-income self-employed women in the informal sector, to women who work in agricultural value chains, to small-and medium-enterprises. Serving this market not only makes business sense, it also has a positive impact on society as a whole by expanding economic growth and job creation. When accessible finance reaches women, the benefits are highly productive and sustainable. The positive economic knock-on effects are obvious. Savings rates are higher, repayment rates of family loans are remarkable, families are healthier, social cohesion is stronger and business growth is stable. This shows that increasing women bank account holders will reduce systemic risks in the economy.
Women should be considered as a distinct segment with specific financial services requirements. Instead of disguising male-focussed products as gender-neutral, we need specific products tailored to their unique needs. Low-income women usually need timely and hassle-free credit to increase their financial prospects.
Women have restricted mobility due to gendered social norms, are sometimes unschooled and are not the sole decision-makers of their households. There is a need to actively employ oral informational management tools so that these women can transact independently. Women prefer to learn and work with peers. Bankers must build trust in this segment by using women agents in frontline financial operations. Behaviourally, women customers take more time to develop trust in a new product or service. The same holds good for finance and building confidence and trust in them requires more interaction.
In all societies, howsoever oppressed women may be or low the level of their literacy, they remain the stewards of household savings. Women investors have greater patience for long-term returns and show greater self-control, which results in less impulsive and risky decisions.
A lot more awareness has to be created in women about financial services. This underlines the need for inclusion of women policy makers in designing financial services so that the female perspective is kept in mind. If women are not involved in financial product design and service delivery, then the needs and preferences of women customers may be less likely to be reflected in the marketplace.
Most financial systems have been designed by and for men. Therefore, when an application is made for business or personal loan, the lender asks for collateral, such as land or a house. In most cultures, it is men who traditionally own the land or the house, which immediately excludes women. Plus, women are more price-sensitive and expect affordable fees.
Women are usually tasked with stretching the family budget in times of financial hardship. Providing micro-credit or a small affordable and account-linked overdraft could help them cover their day-to-day contingencies in management of household finances. A woman’s financial needs and responsibilities require bundled solutions of savings, credit and insurance because they are more relevant to her circumstances. There are several barriers that constrain the full inclusion of women in formal finance. Product-driven financial literacy is necessary to ensure that poor women are not short-changed. While financial products have their benefits, there is a clear danger of mis-selling, which could damage marginalised segments who have an uncertain cash flow. The philosophy which the financial inclusion community must foster is that engagement creates knowledge and knowledge creates confidence.
Professionals and practitioners have distilled some salient features of financial products and services that foster women’s active participation in formal finance. They find that women don’t have a straight financial journey and have more interruptions and life-stages in their financial lives (withdrawal from employment during pregnancy and in medical contingencies for nursing sick family members). They may remain active users of bank accounts during these periods. Women should be able to reactivate their accounts without much hassle or penalties. Micro-finance services are focussed on women but they are too loan-obsessed. The sector is awash in credit. In several cases, women are availing loans when their need is insurance, which is not affordable and easily available. The Government should consider recognising semi-formal titles of land as workable collateral.
One of the most promising ways to close the stubbornly persisting gender divide is technology. The large gaps in mobile subscriptions and ownership mean that if digital financial services are going to deliver on their promise to women, these gaps need to be taken into consideration. Mobile phones are an inspirational and utilitarian item that most of them long for. The key to harnessing mobile technology will be to make sure women have equal access to phones in the first place.
The overall gender gap in mobile phone ownership in the developing world is wider than the bank account ownership gaps. The onus is now on mobile providers to start making products more suitable and affordable for women. One reason for the technological divide is that smartphones are not marketed as an empowerment tool. Making gadgets available will surely help but we have to bring about a change in the overall outlook.
There are five criteria that need to be at the core of a successful women-inclusive strategy: Positioning products as solutions to problems; positioning information, education and networking as core products; building the financial capability of women customers; establishing an intelligent, no “pink marketing” zone; and training staff to listen to women rather than sell to them, creating a relationship-based business model that sustains their loyalty. In short, what is needed for a broader, deeper and more relevant and meaningful financial inclusion is a nuanced approach that tackles the underlying, interconnected barriers that women face in accessing and using financial services. We cannot overcome poverty until both men and women have equal rights and opportunities. This approach makes financial sense for everyone.
(The writer is a development professional)
With its vote at a UN panel, India’s stance on marijuana is changing slowly but surely
India’s vote at the United Nations Commission for Narcotic Drugs (UNCND) to reclassify marijuana from illegal to legal has raised a few eyebrows. Now, this vote is not legally binding on member states and as we are seeing with Bollywood stars right now, marijuana in all its forms, leaf, flower or resin, remains quite illegal under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985. However, several think-tanks, including some with substantial links to the present Government, have come out with white papers that have made a strong case for legalisation.
We believe that marijuana consumption should be legalised and like alcohol, its use should be regulated by the State. There are several compelling arguments for this, starting with the fact that marijuana has been legalised in many parts of the Western world thanks to studies proving that levels of intoxication are manageable and that the active compounds in it can help in pain and stress relief. In addition, in places where the plant has been legalised, the State has received a significant amount of tax revenue from sales and simultaneously reduced costs of policing with lower levels of criminal incarceration for drug crime. This has allowed authorities to go after “hard” drugs like cocaine and heroin and their smuggling networks. In fact, until the strict NDPS was introduced by the Rajiv Gandhi government in deference to the Reagan administration and its so-called “war on drugs,” marijuana usage and possession here, while frowned upon, was fairly legal. As the West understands the abilities of a plant that is native to India and is an integral part of our medication and social norms, we should unburden ourselves of the laws that make marijuana consumption and possession illegal. In fact, much like several major research institutions and universities across the world, which have begun research into the abilities of the plant, we could do well to sponsor similar studies and R&D. This does not mean that Indian society will continue its laissez faire attitude to drug consumption but the positives outweigh the negatives and would also allow Indian farmers new and innovative sources of income.
The Govt, which could have avoided the stir with a consensual approach, is ready to amend laws but farmers are adamant
The farmers’ protests are no longer confined to a sectoral concern. As the agitators have descended on Delhi, hoping to be heard justly in the corridors of power, they have gathered traction from transport, taxi unions and civil society. And they have held their own admirably, shunning all politicians and even Government hospitality, choosing to drink their own tea, having their own food, sleeping in their own shelters and even making their own presentation on gaps in the contentious new farm laws. In fact, such is the spontaneous combustion that the stir is turning into a people’s movement that, though leaderless, has a beehive unity about it and tugs at most who have chased big city dreams, coming as they do from farming families themselves. Besides, it epitomises the subterranean resentment of the citizenry at top-down impositions of an autocratic and arrogant dispensation that interprets all dissent as anti-national than rational. If the stalemate drags on, there is a real chance of food supplies getting affected. With sustained pressure, the Government is now not only willing to give the farmers a listen, it is keen to walk the whole distance to the extent of giving a written assurance on Minimum Support Price (MSP) and procurement, just stopping short of legalising it. And given the corporatisation that farm liberalisation entails, the Government is also willing to consider the farmers’ demand to approach the courts in case of a dispute over contract farming to shield them from being exploited. The big question is why did the Government act in haste and repent at leisure? Much of the issues raised by farmers, including convening a special Parliament session to debate the farm laws, had already been a part of the Opposition’s demand for a consensual approach akin to that followed in rolling out the Goods and Services Tax (GST). If only the Government had been reasonable, consulted all stakeholders and worked a common ground with States than road-rolling the legislation through a voice vote for political point-scoring, things would not have come to such a pass. The prickliest issue has been that of the Minimum Support Price (MSP), which has ensured Government pick-ups of crops, mainly wheat and paddy, at an assured rate and volume. It takes no rocket science to understand that any competitive market policy would ultimately have an impact on a parallel, protected market and shrink it, especially one that has for years led to the prosperity of farmers and has led to an over reliance on and excess production of rice and wheat to the detriment of other crops. Besides, even the corporate majors wouldn’t want to deal with trade markets that are under hostile State Governments. Most importantly, the cost of inputs has gone up exponentially, sometimes higher than the MSP. Given the unremunerative nature of the MSP itself, farmers are but naturally wary of any contracted price that could drive them down further and, therefore, seeking an equivalence.
Finally, the Government may claim that reforms embedded in the farm Acts would help the small and marginal farmers access markets anywhere, sell directly and get best prices. This argument doesn’t fly simply because 86.2 per cent of land holdings are small and marginal, or less than two acres in size. Hence, a majority of our farmers really don’t produce enough or are aware enough to get their way around any model, the existing or the proposed, without an interventionist on their behalf, agents or arhatiyas. Besides, small farmers can hardly afford the infrastructure to transfer their goods to the local mandi, leave aside ferrying them outside their geographical limits. Liberalisation of the farm economy also means putting other farmer-friendly enablers in place, from cold storage to warehousing to connectivity between markets. Only then can the rest make sense. In fact, Bihar did away with Government mandis in 2006 but farmers there are still struggling, as dependent on their agents to get the prices, because of the absence of supporting infrastructure. And as farmers in Gujarat, who were sued by Pepsico, and sugarcane growers chasing their dues will tell you, corporatisation hasn’t worked. The Government needs to be more transitional and graded when it comes to farm reforms. Some concerns are worth a listen. For example, the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020, allows buys and sales outside the notified Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis, thereby limiting their cartelisation tendencies. A licence won’t be required to trade in farm produce and anyone with a PAN card can now buy directly from the farmers. So they want clarity on what “outside” means and contrary to perception that they want the middlemen out, they actually have a trusted bond with their existing commission agents, as their licence is proof enough of their credibility and delivery abilities, and would not want to experiment with an untested model. With most farmers not literate enough about exercising their rights, dispute resolution could also end up being loaded against them. Besides, they would want direct payment rather than have the money routed through banks which could deduct amounts as loan recovery. The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, does allow the farmer to enter into a contract with a corporate entity at a mutually agreed price. But the mechanism for price fixation is not codified, it’s not mandatory for a company to make a written contract and companies may not be penalised for not registering their contracts. So farmers fear that corporations could use their institutional heft to manipulate or browbeat them into accepting their terms. History proves that farmers’ movements have been revolutionary and this being the biggest in recent times, cannot be shrugged off easily.
With the Coronavirus resulting in widespread job losses and economic hardships, particularly in rural areas, there is an epidemic of child marriages
It was a frantic phone call to her school teacher by a desperate 13-year-old Radha (name changed) that saved her from being married off by her impoverished parents at Anoopshahr town of UP’s Bulandshahr district in June. In October, the Karnataka Police saved a 14-year-old from a similar fate in Ballari district. Acting on a tip-off, the police raided the marriage hall, where the wedding was taking place, and arrested eight people under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. These are not isolated cases or an aberration, though the legal age for the marriage of women in India is 18 years. According to the UNICEF, India accounts for a third of the child brides globally. And now, with the Coronavirus resulting in widespread job losses and economic hardships, particularly in rural areas, there is an epidemic of child marriages in the country. As usual desperate parents, suffering from the socio-economic impact of the outbreak, are trying to get rid of “the extra mouth to feed, clothe and educate.” Predictably, the girl child is tradeable.
Incidentally, India is not alone. Around the world, Save the Children warns that a whopping 2.5 million more underage girls could be pushed into marriage in the next five years because of the difficult socio-economic conditions created by the pandemic. In its Global Girlhood Report 2020, the charity has predicted that 5,00,000 more girls are at risk of becoming child brides. This will take up the total number of child marriages to around 12.5 million this year.
Closer home, the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development reported 5,584 cases of child marriage between March and June this year. The children’s helpline, Childline, saw a 17 per cent rise in distress calls during the same period. These are worrying statistics because there are already a whopping 17.26 million married children and adolescents within the age group of 10-19 years (seven per cent of the population in the same age group) in India. This is according to child rights group CRY’s new study, that was released ahead of the International Day of the Girl Child’ on October 11. “The data also reveals that girls between 10 and 19 years of age account for 75 per cent of all the married children in India,” says the distressing study. Trends show that while child marriage affects both girls and boys, its impact on the health, education and human rights of girls, especially from marginalised communities, is higher. Experts say there is also an urgent need to strengthen implementation of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act, 2006, particularly at the grassroots, where the ease of social custom overwhelms the need to register complaints.
In fact, so prevalent is the practice that a task-force to re-examine and raise the minimum age of marriage for girls was set up on June 2 by the Union Ministry for Women and Child Development. In mid-October, a worried Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the Government would soon take a decision on this vexed issue after it received the committee’s report. However, eradication of child marriage in India is a complex issue because it is not just about poverty, it is also about changing rigid and regressive mindsets of a largely patriarchal society, repressing the sexuality of girls and carrying the burden of their safety in a society where victim-shaming is a norm rather than an anomaly. We, as a society, have to ask ourselves the uncomfortable question as to why do parents in the hinterland, despite the flood of girl child schemes and incentives, too, still prize boys over girls? That’s because beyond a point, it is cold economics. Parents in the countryside believe that sons will continue to keep contributing to the family income and hold ancestral land even after they are married. Or such is the expectation. That’s why, underprivileged parents prefer to send boys to school and college and not girls. Even when they do send a girl child to school, her education is the first casualty if things get difficult financially. So, till we consider the education of a girl child a dispensable privilege and not a guaranteed right and deprive them of the opportunity to pursue higher education and hence the hope of a paying career, this malaise will not stop.
Another major and more sinister reason for girls in economically weaker societies being married off at a tender age, whether it is in urban India or the countryside, is the regressive mindset over the sexuality and purity of women. In a country obsessed with chastity, the loss of virginity/innocence is considered a great shame and a calamity. So burdened with the task of having to protect the girl child, who is neither safe in public places nor within the home, the parents prefer to marry her off as soon as they can, so that they can be absolved of all responsibility and are done with the onerous task of having to protect her “izzat (honour).” Many reports have also drawn a link between increasing cases of female foeticide in villages to increasing rape cases in recent years.
Unless we change our archaic mindsets and start treating boys and girls as equals, give them both equal nutrition and educational opportunities so that girls too can pursue flourishing careers and provide for their parents in their old age, more Radhas will keep on getting married off like cattle. Sold to the highest bidder by parents mired in poverty. More importantly, till we teach our men and boys to respect women/girls and stop all forms of gender-based and sexual violence, poor and unlettered parents, who are unaware of the detrimental effects on the mental and physical health of girls married off in their childhood, will continue to subject them to this tortuous tradition. Till we, as a society, step out of our comfort zone and report each and every case of child marriage that comes to our notice, we will never see the end of this malaise. If we look the other way when the crime of child marriage involves our domestic help, driver, gardener, washerman or security guard, then we too, are a party to this heinous tradition. We, too, are equally responsible for pushing a hapless child into a world of untold misery and suffering. And we need to stop expecting the Government and the NGOs to solve all societal problems and give us a perfect world. As a society it is incumbent upon us to ensure good health and nutrition of girls. We must ensure that they complete 12 years of schooling and get life skill education and opportunities for higher studies. It is a tragedy and a travesty when someone who can afford to spend on an expensive phone, car, handbag or shoes cannot spend 2000 rupees a month to sponsor a child’s education. Till we learn to work together as a society, and in the spirit of “each one, teach one,” we cannot break this vicious cycle of inter-generational deprivation, malnutrition, poverty and lack of basic human rights. There has to be an integrated and coordinated approach to tackle the root causes proportionately, namely fighting societal malaise with awareness programmes, strengthening laws and enforcing them diligently, building a safety and rehabilitative network for the abused and most importantly skilling and empowering girls from a young age so that they know when to exercise their rights. Otherwise, girls in the countryside will not be seen as anything more than future brides, a liability rather than an asset.
(The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer)
The Covid-19 global pandemic has exposed the fault lines in how we communicate about public health. The pandemic has made it evident that public health communication is not only an important but indispensable part of our response to mitigate the ongoing global challenge
For the past few months, Governments, scientists, policymakers, foundations, businesses, and civil society members have been grappling with mitigating the Covid-19 pandemic.
The whole world is now looking towards a potential vaccine, with a couple of candidates displaying outstanding results in various phases of clinical trials. But it is critical to understand that a vaccine alone cannot be a magic bullet that can “end” the pandemic — we need social and behavioural changes that can help tackle the disease till an efficacious vaccine or a drug is discovered, and even after that. How do we ensure that people continue to follow simple measures like wearing masks, hand washing and physical distancing? The answer lies in effective public health communication.
The Covid-19 global pandemic has exposed the fault lines in how we communicate about public health. The pandemic has made it evident that public health communication is not only an important but indispensable part of our response to mitigate the ongoing global challenge.
According to the World Health Organization, in times of public health emergencies like the one we are currently in, people need to know what health risks they face and what actions they can take to protect their health and lives. Accurate information provided early, often, and in languages that people understand, trust, and use, enables individuals to stay informed and make choices to protect themselves, their families and communities from foreseeable health hazards.
Another factor that effective public health communications can help address is misinformation. The WHO has identified an “infodemic” surrounding the coronavirus — that is, “an overabundance of information and the rapid spread of misleading or fabricated news”. Coupled with the nature of the pandemic itself, where new evidence around the disease is constantly coming to light — this has led to a deluge of information which has made it difficult for the general public to sift fact from fiction, especially on the Internet. Over the past months, we have seen the circulation of several harmful “fake news” about the pandemic that has the potential to hamper response efforts and affect public behaviour.
This is where a clear and robust public health communication strategy can go a long way in dispelling myths and “fact-checking” misinformation. This is why, throughout the pandemic, the Indian Council of Medical Research has taken proactive steps to communicate regularly and effectively through press releases, website updates and via social media to help ensure that accurate information reaches the public.
Specific portals for information around Covid-19 and on vaccine development have been created, as well as a clinical registry for Covid-19. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has also facilitated regular media interactions.
In this context, it is also necessary to ensure that any kind of public health messaging echoes through every rung of society and comes from sources that are trusted by the target audiences of those messages. We all remember the Do Boond Zindagi Ki campaign, carried out as part of the polio elimination campaign in India.
This iconic slogan became the cornerstone of this massive campaign and, delivered by Amitabh Bachchan, created much-needed awareness, even among hard-to-reach populations. The media also played a key role in the campaign, in fact, no public health communication strategy can hope to be successful without the support of the media. During the current pandemic, slogans such as Do Gaj Doori Hai Zaroori and Jab Tak Dawai Nahi Tab Tak Dhilai Nahi have helped communicate the importance of taking precautionary measures.
This is not the first pandemic we have seen, nor will this be the last. But today, we have a real opportunity to invest in building a conducive environment for public health communications in the country. And for that to happen, we need to encourage collaboration between technical experts — doctors, scientists, public health researchers — and communication experts —social and behavioural scientists, communicators and the media.
For technical experts, now is the time to arm ourselves with an arsenal of communication tools, so that we can effectively communicate nuances of a complex disease and its effects to the larger public in a way that is understandable and engaging. For communicators, this is a time to leverage increasing public interest in health and engage more and more technical experts to champion public health issues in the community. Only if we come together can we create an environment where everyone has access to timely, accurate and trusted information that can directly impact their health and save thousands of lives in the long run.
(Rajnikant Srivastava is Director of Regional Medical Research Institute (ICMR-RMRC) in Gorakhpur, and Scientist G & Head, Research Management, Policy, Planning and Communication, ICMR Headquarters and currently heads the communications unit at ICMR. Kaushik Bose is vice president, Global Health Strategies, New Delhi)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month