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