Q: WTF is the WTO fuss all about?

A: Read on. If you are among the hundreds who have written in seeking enlightenment. Or you would just like to know what the intriguing headlines and confusing verbiage really mean. Or you know but would like to see what I have to say on the subject.

Q: We have had chest-thumpers going "We have shown them!" and breast-beaters going: "What will they think?" about India's veto of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. What is the truth?
A: Neither. It is not about them. It is about us.

Q: What is the TFA or Trade Facilitation Agreement?
A: It is basically a set of mutual obligations the international community has agreed to adopt which will make international trade easier, faster and cheaper.

Q: What obligations?
A: Facilitation will happen along two axes:

• Uniform and simpler procedures, systems and rules for processing imports and exports.
• Improved infrastructure for goods handling at ports, airports and in back-offices.

Q: Will it cost a lot of money to fulfil these obligations?
A: Yes. Billions of combined dollars.

Q: Who will bear the cost?
A: Each country will bear its own costs. The developing and poor countries will bear about 80% because they are more in number and they have more to do to get where they need to.

Q: Will it bring a lot of benefits?
A: Yes. About a trillion combined dollars.

Q: Who will get the benefits?
A: Everyone. The industrialised countries will harvest about 80% of the benefits because at present they have most of the export pie.

Q: Still, if everyone benefits where is the problem?
A: As the great 20th century philosopher Jeeves sagely observed: "God is in the details". Costs are all up-front, so not many will be net beneficiaries in a hurry.

Q: Is it in India's interest to sign the agreement?
A: Of course it is.

Q: Why then is India the villain in this drama?
A: International trade broadly falls into three categories: industrial products, services and agricultural produce. The TFA does not deal with the last two which are currently of prime interest to India. These are also areas where, under the prevailing set of rules, developing countries have got the short end.

Q: Is India the only country in this space?
A: No but it is the face and vocal mouth of G33 which, as the name suggests, is a grouping of 46 developing countries, including some, like China, which have a foot in both camps.

Q: But isn't there already an Agreement on Agriculture?
A: Yes. And it caps agricultural subsidies at 10% of the output of a country. The problem is the cap is calculated at 1986 prices. There are also restrictions on accumulating food stocks. We agreed to all this in a monumental lapse of judgement*, and are now ruing it.

Q: Who are the beneficiaries of India's subsidised food?
A: Mainly some 800 million poor or near-poor. Including 400 out of the 500 million farmers from whom we buy staples at above market prices.

Q: Why do we buy high and sell low?
A: We buy high so the farmers can afford to farm. Sell low so everyone can afford to eat. Even so millions go hungry every day. We are working on more efficient ways of producing food and reaching it to everyone.

Q: But why do we have so many poor?
A: Because we have produced and continue to produce more people than the land can happily support.

Q: What are the rich countries scared of?
A: That we will buy wheat and rice for stockpiling from our farmers at high prices and - unable to store them safely or to sell locally even at low prices - dump them abroad driving prices down everywhere.

Q: Don't others dump?
A: America is the master of dumping.

Q: Why is it bad to give something cheaply to others?
A: The answer to that question is nuanced** and long. Merits a post of its own.

Q: What happens, au contraire, when we have a shortfall and drive up prices of food staples all over the world?
A: The rich lick their chops in glee, rake in the moolah and bless us secretly.

Q: Don't other countries subsidise agriculture?

A: They absolutely do. One estimate is:

• The U.S. provides $12 billion subsidy to its 2 million farmers.
• India provides $2 billion subsidy to its 500 million farmers.
• And Japan! Don't even get me started on Japan.

Q: How did we get painted into a corner then?
A: We were not smart enough.

Q: Isn't there a break from this subsidy cap business and a solution under discussion even now?
A: Yes there is. But we know that once we sign on for TFA, the main areas of interest to us, namely agriculture and services, will go on the back burner. According to how one reads it, this existing break could expire as early as 2017. And at the recent parleys the rich were unwilling to commit to an unambiguous extension till a permanent solution is found.

Q: How important was the 31 July deadline which got missed due to our obduracy?
A: There is no such thing as a real deadline in this business. When the food security issues are sorted out, you will find everyone exactly where you left them.

*****

* We also got screwed by a lack of attention to punctuation. But that is another story. For another day.
** Nuanced: I love this word. Sounds very sophisticated, but is essentially empty. One can read into it whatever one is inclined to.

Modi:Mitta::Opportunity wasted?

Were investigations into Godhra and post-Godhra events shoddy? It seems they were. Were they tardy? Obviously. Were they malafide? Maybe. Did people try to influence and subvert them? Probably.

I am sure Mr. Manoj Mitta's book is well received among people who were waiting to hear exactly what he has to say because it reinforces what they already knew and supplements what they suspected.

He does go on for some 250 pages implying criminality where scores of highly motivated people, whom he admires and who helped him, failed to establish any. He pooh poohs the few successes of the legal and investigative system. By resorting to unfettered exaggeration and malicious implication throughout his work he has lost a golden opportunity to present a credible critique of the events, the people and the processes for a neutral reader.

We expected something more than what the news media, the gossip mills and the "I was there" brigade had already given us. We end up a bit wiser but also less trusting of people who presume to investigate on our behalf. The meat of what he has to say occupies the equivalent of some 50 pages. If there is some earthshaking revelation, it is lost in all the padding.

About a thousand people died. Some three-fourths of them Muslims. Not a small number of them Hindus. The man who accuses everyone of religious bigotry does not find any time for the Hindus. Selective empathy is patently fake.

About the burning train at Godhra, he is surprised that the VHP has never been brought to book for instigating the killings.

We are fed bilge like:
"On the eve of the post-Godhra violence, the Modi regime had colluded with the very group that allegedly went on to unleash mass killings of Muslims..."

and,
"The confidential note bristled with investigative leads as it turned out to be a bare account of all the allegations made before the NHRC...". This along with "substantive recommendations".... "constituted the first ever indictment of the Narendra Modi regime by a statutory body!!!"

and,
a report by Raju Ramachandran, amicus curiae, "Neither the CM nor his personal officials have stated what he did on 28.02.2002. Neither the top police nor bureaucrats have spoken about any decisive action by the CM".
quickly becomes in Mr. Mitta's recital: 
"incisive observation that he had not taken any decisive action".

and, back to the amazing Bhatt, 
"Ramachandran pointed out the absence of any 'indisputable material' establishing that Bhatt could not have been present at the controversial meeting" at which presumably Mr. Modi indicated that the maurauding mobs could be given a free hand.

Tell you what Mr. Mitta, there is also no "indisputable material" establishing that Superman could not have been present at the meeting.

I end with a word to another endorser, historian Ramachandra Guha: Sir, you have developed a reputation as a responsible historian. Be careful what you endorse and make sure it is not used to promote something altogether different.

Notes: 
For those who have not read the book, I would like to add that stuff within quotes is verbatim from the book. Stuff attributed to the book without quotes is a faithful summary rendition.

This commentary is, by definition, not comprehensive. It is a look at a book, not a book on a book. But the rest of the book is in the same vein.

Of course, my comments and queries are my own and I have no religious or political leanings.

If you are interested in the subject do read the book. I did.

Previously: Modi:Mitta::Kodnani:Convicted
Starting post-  Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Kodnani Convicted

To be fair, for all his dislike of Raghavan, Mr. Mitta does acknowledge that Raghavan managed to get convictions in the Godhra as well as the post-Godhra cases. He also admits that Raghavan made many negative or critical observations against not just the Gujarat government but also against Mr. Modi.

In fact everyone against whom the SIT found evidence that could stand in a court of law was convicted. Now one of those convicted in the post-Godhra cases was Maya Kodnani, a Minister in Mr. Modi's cabinet. A key player and inciter in the post-Godhra mayhem. The highest level hindutva brigadist to be convicted.

But Mr. Mitta is unhappy about something here. You see, Kodnani was placed in and around trouble spots partly based on her cellphone call records. Many pages are devoted to the cellphone call records that appeared and disappeared through the years. Investigators are castigated, rightly, for not promptly analysing them and losing sight of them for long stretches of time. Presumably wilfully; at the instance of the sinister ones.

We learn in great detail about who zipped which file and carried what CD to whom and not finding them there brought it back only to...etc.

Turns out that that particular number did not belong to her. It belonged to the BJP. And there is no record of who in BJP was allocated the number.

Mr. Mitta is surprised that no one thought of verifying that she was indeed the user by simply looking at her letterhead or visiting card or even by asking her friends and foes how they contacted her. He does not tell us, however, how come he did not do so in the course of hunting out thousands of leads and documents and meeting hundreds of people. Just to satisfy himself. And us.

Most of Mr. Mitta's angst, however,  derives from the fact that with unlimited leads staring them in the face, all the government investigators and all the Supreme investigators and all the amicus curiae and all the human rights saviours and all the private lawyers and the private investigators did not even manage to get everyone else charged much less convicted of any crime.

One can feel his frustration for he has unearthed all the lapses in investigative zeal, competence and  motivation as also successful machinations and manipulations of the perpetrators and their protectors that have brought things to this dreadful pass.

Next: Modi:Mitta::Opportunity wasted?
Previously: Modi:Mitta::Investigator Indicted
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Investigator Indicted

I started this series with a comment about linguistic over-reach of some journalists. Mr. Mitta is no simple over-reacher. He has a very reader friendly writing style. But he plays fast and loose with the language, including legal terms, to suits his narrative predisposition.

He starts out by burnishing his "club of the righteous" badge by letting us know that he was helped by Anupam Gupta to make his book "sharper and more rigorous"; said Gupta being an advocate who was in Ashok Khemka's corner as he "...had dared to thwart property deals of ...Robert Vadra". 

Really? Thwarted? Thwart has specific  meanings: stop, prevent, oppose successfully! Far from being thwarted Mr. Vadra happily enjoys the just fruits of his labours. Mr. Mitta knows the meaning well for he, correctly, uses the exact same word to describe how Vajpayee wanted to act against Mr. Modi but was thwarted by his colleagues. But this is a minor matter. As is his liberal use of "telling" and "tell-tale" to add gravitas to speculative statements and flights of fancy.

Where Mr. Mitta really goes to town is with his cavalier use of the words "indict" and "indicted". In legal parlance indictment means "formal accusation" which must be brought before a judicial authority or, in the United States, before a grand jury, and charges framed or dropped.

Mr. Mitta has a visceral dislike of R K Raghavan, the SIT chief. It is on display all through the book. Raghavan, an Inspector General, was "barely into his last decade in office" when he was "entrusted with the task of ensuring security" during Rajiv Gandhi's visit to Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, in 1991 where he was assassinated. Remarkable observation. Really Mr. Mitta, how many years do you need to be into your last decade at work before being given an important task?

An "inquiry" into security lapses that fateful day becomes an "indictment" of Raghavan which merits a whole chapter. Since there is no actual indictment it is variously described as a "diluted indictment" and an "apparent indictment"; but not as a "non-existent indictment" for that is what the twenty-seven page chapter reveals. There was no indictment. But only, mind you, because the "damaging contents" of Raghavan's "own affidavit" were "glossed over" by SC Justice J S Verma who headed that inquiry commission.

And what, we ask, is the damaging revelation of said affidavit which escaped both the affiant, Raghavan and the inquisitor, Justice Verma? The former because he is an idiot and does not know he is incriminating himself. The latter because he obviously can't read. Well, Mr. Mitta can. He does and goes on to tell us the contents of the hitherto buried document.

Shorn of innuendo and suggestive twists to innocuous facts, it turns out Raghavan is guilty of three major sins. One, he did not escort the PM himself: inexcusable. Two, he looked away at the exact moment that the blast occurred: obviously securing a VIP is no different from surveilling a crime suspect. Three, his subordinate who saw what happened, told him what happened and he believed her: this is ridiculous, how can you trust your subordinates?

As a result, everything he reported as having been told become his "claims", his "insinuations" and his "allegations". The observant lady SI's veracity, however, does not seem to have been questioned by anyone, including Mr. Mitta.

But hey, just because the rest of the world has rigorous standards for usage of legal terms does not mean that Mr. Mitta should be so constrained! So Raghavan forever stands indicted.

However, Mr. Mitta confirms honestly that this manufactured indictment, was triggered by Raghavan citing him for "strategising with" and helping draft the affidavit of the miracle man Sanjeev Bhatt who could recall things he had not witnessed.

Coming up: Modi:Mitta::Kodnani Convicted
Previously: Modi:Mitta::The Post-Godhra Mayhem 
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Post-Godhra Mayhem

The broad facts about what followed the Godhra burnings are fairly well known. The news spread like the proverbial wild fire. The VHP, whose volunteers were the victims, went into overdrive. It escorted the bodies to Ahmedabad with official consent. It declared a bandh.

The government, on its part declared a curfew in Godhra but not in other cities. Some 300 or so preventive arrests were made in the light of mounting tensions, about two-thirds Hindus and one-third Muslims.

However, there were big-time systemic failures which allowed the post-Godhra mayhem to start and then to go out of control. Over a thousand people died, Mr. Mitta confirms. About three-fourths of them Muslims. All this accompanied by rape, child burning, looting and destruction of properties in what some have called a pogrom or even ethnic cleansing.

While it is happening, the rest of the country watches from afar as if in a foreign country. No emergency intervention from the centre. The number of people, including "people like us" who think what is happening is "not all that bad a thing" is frightening.

The BJP at the centre does not cover itself in glory. Prime Minister Vajpayee makes some appropriate sounds but is seemingly helpless.

The general, and abiding, impression one carries is that the authorities - whether governing, or maintaining law and order or, subsequently, investigating or maybe even judging - were neither quite unbiased nor very competent.

A commission of enquiry headed by a Gujarat High Court judge set up by the Gujarat government is generally seen as a friendly puppet. Subsequent augmentation with a retired Supreme Court judge to head it does not enhance its credibility because the gentleman selected is considered quite pliable too and not very competent to boot. This commission is still ambling along and has submitted a report on the Godhra incident. Its report on the post-Godhra happenings is still awaited. As I write this, it has been granted another extension.

The years between 2002 and 2008 were marked by a lot of media noise; breast-beating about the barbaric ways of the VHP, the BJP and Mr. Modi in particular; witnesses deposing and recanting; claims and counter-claims of evidence tampering, witness coaching and whistle-blower propping; global denouncements of Mr. Modi; and some legal action but very little tangible result.

Finally sometime in 2008, the Supreme Court constituted a special investigation team, SIT, headed by R K Raghavan a retired cop and former CBI chief to sort fact from fiction.

Hey wait a minute, R K Raghavan? How could the SC pick this man? Isn't he the guy who was mandated to protect Rajiv Gandhi in Sriperumbudur and totally failed? Call yourselves Supreme?
How could you?

Next- Modi:Mitta::Investigator Indicted
Previously- Modi:Mitta::Courier of the Dead
First- Modi:Mitta::Fact &amp:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Courier of the Dead

Last seen there were 58 dead bodies and some injured persons in Godhra by 9 a.m. on 27 February 2002; one of the injured would die later. They had been headed to Ahmedabad. Four of the dead got claimed by their relatives in the course of the day. The Government decided to have the remaining 54 bodies shifted to Ahmedabad.

It is well known, that the decision to do so was taken at a meeting chaired by Mr. Modi in Godhra. Mr. Mitta confirms that Mr. Modi has said so himself to the SIT headed by R K Raghavan.

The other option would have been to keep the bodies in Godhra until their families could be located and ferried in to claim possession per prescribed procedure, presumably after filling the paperwork in triplicate and establishing their bona fides!

The latter option is the one Mr. Mitta says Mr. Modi should have opted for. This is getting interesting. Maybe we will get a discussion on how that might have changed the course of events and how it would have helped cool tempers all round before they got to a boiling point.

No such luck. A whole chapter is instead devoted to the hapless Justice Nanavati commission's failure to pin the blame for the decision to shift on Mr. Modi.

How is Nanavati's failure relevant any longer, Mr. Mitta, after Raghavan's SIT asked Mr. Modi the question and got the answer?

Then there is the VHP functionary, Jaydeep Patel, to whom the dead bodies were released. Mr. Mitta can not understand how, from among the hordes of people he met that day, Mr. Modi does not recall meeting this all important person. Whom he has acknowledged knowing. And who was also present in the same building! Same building, dammit!!

How is this meeting so important, Mr. Mitta? They could well have conspired on the phone! Or through an intermediary! Or through a note written in vanishing ink! Or through a wink and a nod!

Mr. Mitta does not like the fact that the bodies were handed over to the VHP.  Or that a low level factotum of the government signed the release letter. Was it to misdirect attention away from the 'highest levels' that approved the transfer? Much verbiage is expended on the letter. However, in what way this letter being drafted or typed or signed differently would have influenced history remains a mystery.

Why was the VHP involved? VHP was not responsible for the dead or the injured, Mr. Mitta tells us. The fact that the kar sevaks were VHP volunteers is not relevant. That VHP was best positioned to identify and locate their families is besides the point. They should have waited for the families in Godhra, as per the bureaucratic procedure.

Mr. Mitta demands an explanation for this departure from the norm. What were the exceptional circumstances, he wants to know, that warranted it?

Mr. Mitta deserves an answer.

Next: The Post-Godhra Mayhem
Previously: Modi:Mitta::The Godhra Incident
First: Modi:Mitta::Fact &amp:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::The Godhra Incident

Introductions out of the way, early on in the book we get a long awaited confirmation of fact.

Mr. Mitta acknowledges that 59 Hindus were burned alive in a train just outside Godhra railway station on 27 February 2002. He hastens to add that the attack was invited by their chanting provocative slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” and a dispute about payment for tea and snacks they had bought at the station. A "telling" mention of Karsevaks teasing Muslim women at the station is also thrown in.

While Mr. Mitta allows that the response to this provocation was “disproportionate”, he does lament that the trial court held the carnage to be a result of “conspiracy” rather than a “voluntary outburst” provoked by the preceding “skirmishes”, which would have called for gentler punishment.

The fact that the person accused of being the chief conspirator, based on a co-conspirators’ confession, was not convicted for lack of corroborative evidence should tell us that there was in fact no conspiracy or pre-planned mischief.

It must be a common practice in Gujarat villages, at least those abutting railway stations, to buy and store large quantities of petrol of an evening just in case a quarrel breaks out during the night or, if the train is delayed, the next morning. The fact that petrol was bought in advance is neither important nor disputed nor indeed proof of conspiracy.

What is crucial is that the two Hindus who sold the petrol changed their testimony. They lied because they were bribed by the VHP; we knew it all along. They lied at the behest of their employer, a Muslim gentleman; impossible, why would they? What clout did he have, apart from being the giver of their daily bread?

Mr. Mitta, in passing, also quotes the trial court, “For Godhra, this is not the first incident of burning alive innocent persons belonging to Hindu community”. We are not told if previous burnings were also brought on by heavy provocation.

Mr. Mitta follows up on many of the accused in great detail. He suffers for them through their trials and tribulations and regrets the treatment meted out to them by the police and the courts. His heart bleeds right on to the printed page for their kith and kin. There is hope, for appeals to higher courts are under way.

On the 59 burnt to death, he wastes not much of our time except to clarify that this number included 25 women and 15 children; that 58 died on the day, one died later; and that of the dead 59, actually only "52 were Hindus, while nine have remained unidentified till date".

Thank you Mr. Mitta. 

Next: Modi:Mitta::Courier of the Dead
Previously: Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

Modi:Mitta::Fact:Fiction

“The Fiction of Fact Finding - Modi & Godhra” has been floating around the house for some time now.  Enticing with its promise of investigating the investigators and the investigations of Modi 2002.

 “...clear-eyed, unsparing of no one...” is the resounding endorsement of a previous work on the dust jacket of Mr. Mitta’s new book. The endorser is Sagarika Ghosh, one of the shrillest screamers on our journalistic firmament. As with many of her ilk, her linguistic reach exceeds her grasp by a long chalk. That, by itself, does not concern us but it does reflect on the author and his editors.

Finally we pick up the book and get off to a promising start. Mr. Mitta tells us in the very first pages about how he single-handedly stopped the VHP from creating nationwide mayhem shortly after the Godhra incident.

Fact 1: On 13 March 2002, the Supremes rejected a Vajpayee Government request to allow the VHP to conduct a symbolic pooja on the 15th at the Ayodhya site sacred to them.
Fact 2: The rejection order, instead of specifying all 100 odd revenue sites involved in the dispute or using a wider description like “nowhere within 100 miles of  ...”, specified two revenue sites as barred.
Fact 3: VHP chief Ashok Singhal caught on to this error and, interpreting it as permission to pooj away at any adjoining site, proclaimed victory. He was all over the visual media all day.

What followed was remarkable. The whole country heard him. Multiple times. Yet no one understood.  Except, of course, Mr. Mitta, who promptly wrote about it for the Indian Express, to appear the following morning, “pointing out the error and explaining how it had crept in”.

Chief Justice B N Kirpal read Mr. Mitta’s write up and, to his credit, quickly understood that he had slipped. He promptly scheduled a hearing to correct the “ambiguity”.

Mr. Mitta does not share with us how he happens to be privy to CJ Kirpal’s news reading habits. Living as they do in a cloistered world, it is entirely possible that CJ Kirpal, his staff, colleagues, family or friends did not hear, or hear of, Singhal boasting of victory till they heard from Mr. Mitta.

Mr. Mitta does quote jurist A G Noorani who commends Mr. Mitta’s “...mention of an inadvertent error...” for helping the court. Noorani’s early morning or otherwise equation with Justice Kirpal remains unexplored.

Having told us about this singular history shaping act, Mr. Mitta is quick to reassure us that he is not  recounting it “to blow his own trumpet” but that, and get this, he has in the course of his career routinely “sought to expose mistakes, even if by the Supreme Court...” both “inadvertent” and “deliberate”. He has a closetful of trumpets.

To research this book, Mr. Mitta has, apart from poring over thousands of documents, met with a host of lawyers, activists and whistle-blowers all intent on digging up or covering up dirt. His own efforts to assist the whistleblower cop Sanjiv Bhatt are trivial he says in the overall scheme of things, and have been overblown by the investigators.

Mr. Bhatt famously has a clear recollection of some events at a meeting where he was not present according to dozens of other people who were. Mr. Mitta avers that those others do not really count. It is all about credibility and not about numbers. 

We will never know how big a debt of gratitude we owe Mr. Mitta.

Next: Modi:Mitta::The Godhra Incident

Life Insurance - All you need to know to save big bucks

This is for you if you have a life insurance cover. Or have plans to get one.

This blog post emerges from a project I started  to help young professionals with understanding and, I hoped, better management of personal finance affairs. 

I soon realised that countless people of all ages, including hardened finance professionals and clear headed numbers experts, are buying ridiculous life policies which will collectively lose them billions while enriching the insurance companies and their agents.

Insurance is the subject matter of solicitation. This caution mandated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority leaves me both bemused and amused. I don't understand what they are actually trying to say and I doubt if the author intended to make a tongue-in-cheek allusion to that other profession, dalliance with which also gets you screwed. 

The Simplistic Basics
Everyone who has people dependent upon their earnings needs to get a life cover.

Life insurance works like a mutual support group with the insurer as co-ordinator. Those who survive help pay for those who die early. The cost of such mutual cover plus a reasonable profit for the insurance company is very very small. All in all a brilliant and fair-to-all concept.

Insurers employ actuaries to do precise calculations of what anyone joining the party needs to pay, and they are very good at it.

The Ugly Reality
However, the moment you start talking to an insurance agent, public or private sector, you get bombarded with a sales pitch which has nothing whatsoever to do with life cover. The key words you hear in varying order but without variety are:

• Tax Saving
• Endowment
• Money Back
• Capital Growth
• Profit Sharing
• Unit Linked
• Stock Market Gains
• Bonus
• Insurance Bhi, Investment Bhi

All these are seductive but dangerous ideas. Don't listen. Don't get diverted from your objective, which is life cover in case of pre-mature death. Don't ever think. Their sole purpose is to get you to spend more money than you should. 

 

This is what happens to the premium paid for 90% of the policies:  

• A tiny part goes for covering the risk to your life.
• A largish part goes to agent fees, specially in the first few years. 
• A significant part goes to insurer to cover costs and profit.
• The rest goes to market investments which they are not very good at managing. 

It gets worse when you are sold policies to cover a child's education or marriage. It gets ugly when "life policies for children" are sold.

The fact that very often the person selling the junk to you is your banker makes it contemptible. You trust him. He is out to make a package at your cost, for himself or his bank or both is besides the point. 

The Simple Truth 

• Mixing insurance with savings or investment puts you to great loss.
• Only an earning person with dependants needs a life cover.
• The best life cover is one that pays nothing if you survive. If you want your money back, don't give it in the first place. Insurance companies are no good at managing your money. They are not smart investors on your behalf. They don't know stock markets better than mutual funds, which additionally offer you low or no cost realignment if needed. Plus they have sticky fingers; some of it never comes back.
• If you want full tax savings, get the cheapest life cover and put the rest of your 80C allowance in public provident fund. You will save and earn at least twice as much. Much more than an insurer will pay to cover education or marriage of children.
  
• If you want to get stock market benefits, save money on premium and invest directly into ELSS tax saver funds and realign every three years with advice from a stock market specialist. 
• If you wish to endow anyone, do it directly. Why pay a middleman to do it?
• If you have insured your family members who don’t, in turn, have dependants on their present or potential earnings, cancel such policies, and finally,
• If you have any policy other than a term insurance with nil maturity benefit. Look to get out of it.

What is Term Insurance?

It is a simple contract. You agree to pay the insurance company Rs. X per year for a term of, say, 25 or 30 or so years. In return the insurer agrees to pay your nominee Rs. Y Lakhs if you die before the term is over. If you survive the term you get nothing. The premium for your exact age for different terms should be easy to ascertain.

What Next?

Clean up your insurance act and, using the same amount of money, you have the choice of getting a much larger life cover and  / or putting away the rest into more fruitful savings options.

Get the cheapest and simplest term insurance, or a minor variant, from a reputed private sector life insurer or LIC. Useful add-ons are a. accident cover, b. disability cover and c. life cover to a later age while premium stops with your earning years. Preferably buy online. Update it at least every five years to ensure you have cover for 5 to 8 times your current annual earnings.

~

ps1: For my friends who have public sector / private sector issues, I would like to add that for medical or health insurance I strongly recommend public sector insurers.
ps2: Getting out of an existing policy may involve some costs but in a vast majority of cases is still worth it for the money you start saving immediately. You may need some number crunching. 

ps3: Why the swipe at the Government of India in the title?  While every insurer deceptively mis-sells, the originator, master and the greatest practitioner of the mis-selling art is the LIC. The GOI is the biggest beneficiary of LIC's financial success and muscle. LIC routinely bails out GOI's overpriced share offerings of public sector non-performers. Also invests inefficiently in the private sector. With your money.
ps4: One of key tasks of IRDA, the insurance regulator, is to protect LIC.

Optional Reading:   

1. Actuary
2. Term Insurance