REWIND

New Delhi, 29 January 2026

Petro Prices Hike And Parliament

By Inder Jit

(Released on 11 February 1986) 

The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have done well to have bowed to agitated public opinion and reduced the prices of petroleum products even though marginally. But they deserve only two cheers and not three for virtually admitting their mistake and retracting. They have also flawed in announcing the steep hike in petroleum prices barely three weeks before Parliament's budget session, ignoring the basic postulates of a parliamentary democracy and time-honoured conventions. Indeed, Prof Madhu Dandavate, the leader of the Janata Party in Parliament, spoke for the thinking people and parliamentary experts when he bluntly stated that the price increase on the eve of the budget session was "a mockery of the budgetary process." Further, that the nominal cut in the increased prices, again ignoring Parliament, was "a bigger farce. Most other Opposition leaders have largely confined their remarks to the size of the decrease. In doing so, they have missed the wood for the trees and the fundamental issue: are we going to function as a parliamentary democracy or as an authoritarian system?

This is not the first time that the Union Government has raised the administered prices of products and services by executive orders on the eve of the budget session. It happened last in February 1982 when the Government headed by Indira Gandhi announced a hike in P and T rates totalling Rs 100 crores. Expectedly, the decision caused a sharp reaction all over the country. The issue was later raised in Parliament and drew a well-deserved rebuke from the then Vice President, Mr Hidayatullah, in the Rajya Sabha. The Government, it was conceded, was technically and legally competent to use its executive authority to raise tariffs and levy taxes by executive order. But, as Mr Hidayatullah pointed out in his capacity as Chairman, propriety demanded that the Government refrained from such a practice on the eve of the budget session. Parliament had been subjected to assaults in the past when the Government promulgated ordinances, described by the Lok Sabha's first Speaker, Mavalankar, as "undemocratic". But this time it launched on something worse: taxation by executive fiat.

Taxation by executive order goes against the basic scheme of a parliamentary democracy that there shall be no taxation without prior approval and representation. It undermines both the sovereignty of the people and the power of Parliament. It needs to be recalled that the history of the democratic struggle in Britain and elsewhere is the history of the people's fight against a sovereign's arbitrary right to impose taxes and spend moneys at will. Not many may remember that the American War of Independence was sparked off on the fundamental issue that there shall be no taxation without representation. (America, then a colony, reacted violently when Britain arbitrarily imposed an additional levy on tea resulting in what is historically known as the Boston tea party.) Thus, a free people and their chosen leaders in a democracy have the sovereign right to represent their viewpoint to the elected government of the day before the latter imposes any levy. They have also the right to satisfy themselves through their elected representatives that the moneys raised have been spent well.

What happened and why? Inside information gathered over the week has helped to clarify matters and lead to certain broad conclusions. First, the decision for a steep hike in petroleum prices was taken by the Government at the highest level. It was not an arbitrary decision of the Finance Minister, Mr V.P. Singh, or of the Petroleum Minister, Mr Chandra Shekhar Singh. Second, the public protests by the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Mr H.K.L. Bhagat, the UP Chief Minister, Mr Vir Bahadur Singh, and some PCC Chiefs were part of an orchestrated exercise designed to take the wind out of the Opposition sails and enable the Congress-I to project itself as a party responsive to popular demands. There is no basis for the speculation that the protests ware part of a conspiracy against Mr V.P. Singh, known for his rare courage and integrity. Third, the Finance Minister continues to enjoy the Prime Minister's full confidence. He was not present at the emergent meeting of the Congress Working Committee on Wednesday to consider the prices issue simply because he is not its member.

The Finance Minister has basically acted as the heat shield. In fact, he was on top of the world prior to the Government's decision to increase petroleum prices. The general price level was under control having risen by 5 to 6 per cent, as against fears of double digit inflation. Tax collection established an all-time record-- an increase of 23 per cent. He could, without the slightest difficulty, have put through the Central Plan fixed at Rs.19,845 crores for 1986-87.  But he was left with no choice when various Union Ministers came forward with plans totalling Rs 30,000 crores. The Planning Commission first brought down the total to Rs 26,000 crores and then to about Rs. 23,600 crores. The Finance Minister reportedly urged the Central Ministries to keep the plan size to the original figure of Rs 19,845 crores at current prices. However, the latter insisted on being ambitious and pressed for provision of several new schemes and a substantially higher plan. In the circumstances, the Finance Minister agreed to carry the cross and mobilize additional resources.

His options were, however, limited. Broadly, a Finance Minister has four areas for mobilising resources: taxation, borrowing, deficit financing and public sector. Taxation was ruled out as the accelerator was already touching the board. Borrowing could have made the Finance Minister's life easier. But internal borrowing presently is said to have gone beyond a reasonable limit. Many issues are not being picked up. External borrowing poses its own problems. The IMF's debt repayment schedule during the year is expected to take away 20 per cent of the overall external earnings, both visible and invisible, at a time when India faces a yawning trade gap. The country's exports were expected to grow annually at the rate of 15 per cent. The growth is not even eight per cent. (Some say the exports are not growing at all.) In addition, concessional flows, both bilateral and multilateral, have by and large dried up. One could turn to high cost foreign commercial borrowing. But Mr V.P. Singh was against doing anything which would sell away India's future and land the country in a debt trap.

Deficit financing offered the third option. However, this too was not an easy route to take. True, the Finance Minister went in for massive deficit financing of over 23,000 crores last year. True also, he has been able to keep prices in check. But the country does not presently have the foreign exchange reserves available to it last year for importing items of mass consumption. (India imported sugar alone worth Rs 500 crores last year.) The Finance Minister was thus left with one option: public sector. Here, additional resources could be raised either by getting it to function efficiently or by increasing the administered prices of their products. Mr V.P. Singh would have been happy to mobilize larger resources by getting the public sector to function efficiently. But this had per force to be ruled out as a pie in the sky. The Central Plan for 1986-87 was proposed to be financed from public enterprises to the extent of 52.3 per cent. But this support is now estimated at only 36.5 per cent. Indeed, receipts from public enterprises show a shortfall of about 30 per cent against the Plan assumption.

Eventually, the Finance Minister turned his attention to petroleum products, the consumption of which has shot up by Rs 1,300 crores in one year. Rationing was considered once again, but dismissed as impractical. Instead, it was decided to increase the prices of petroleum products and give the country a sharp timely signal to cut down on its oil consumption and move rapidly towards substitution. At one stage, the wisdom of a price hike was questioned when oil prices abroad are falling. But the Cabinet opted for higher prices. Second thoughts set in when the Opposition started exploiting the steep hike to its advantage. The rest of the story is known. The Union Cabinet met early on Wednesday morning. The Congress Working Committee met thereafter. What is not known is that the Government had before it a proposal to withdraw the entire increase in prices and stick to the original plan of Rs 19,845 crores. But the Cabinet again decided in favour of a higher plan. The prices were cut only marginally on the plea that the new prices would, more or less, be the same as prevailing in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In revising its earlier decision, the Government has claimed that it has taken into account the public reaction as expressed by Members of Parliament and others. However, the Government should have first brought the matter before Parliament for its proper consideration in keeping with the time-honoured democratic tradition: no taxation without representation. The issue becomes all the more important against the backdrop of what Mr Rajiv Gandhi said in his address at the Congress Centenary Celebrations in Bombay not long ago, high hopes and expectations he raised. He said: "We have passed through a crisis, but democracy has continued to flourish -- to the consternation of those who believed that democracy was for the rich, not for the poor. In India, democracy, with all its claimant contention, is alive and vibrant…We have cherished democracy. Democracy is our strength." The cause of democracy and its basic institutions have not been served by what has come to pass. The Government and the Opposition need to thrash out the issue once and for all. Either our Parliament is sovereign or it is not. We need to pause and ponder.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 27 January 2026

Jarring Income Inequality

WILL GOVT ADDRESS CONCERN?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

Income tax payees are keenly going to watch the Union budget presentation on Sunday 1^st February in the hope for further tax relief. There is also interest in whether the government will consider Thomas Piketty’s suggestion of imposing wealth and inheritance taxes on India’s super rich, to drive up tax revenue and reduce income inequality—despite opposition from local economists and business leaders. 

One argument against Piketty’s suggestion of taxing the rich for grass-root development, is that not just the owners of big corporates but also shareholders benefit from the growth of the companies. However, many economic analysts, like political leaders, overlook the poor and marginalized, who have little awareness of these companies or their stock performance. 

Analysts and the government, tend to prioritise attention on the rich and upper middle-income sections of society focussing on their welfare. Thus, a company having many shareholders who make money by their investment in big corporates happens to be wealth creation and/or distribution. As a result, wealth is created or distributed through investments in large companies with many shareholders, but this often leads to the neglect of rural areas and the unorganised sector. Similarly, when billionaires, who have long crossed the stage of worrying about financial matters, lecture the young generation on the virtues of extreme work regimes, it rings hollow. 

The World Inequality Report 2026, released last December, noted that India continues to be one of the most unequal countries in the world, with significant economic power concentrated among a small group of wealthy individuals and dominant corporations. The report highlighted that the top 1% of Indians receive 40% of the national income, while there has been little change in income shares for the lower half of the population. Wealth concentration among India's ultra-rich exceeds that seen in the US, Brazil, and South Africa. 

The top 10 per cent of earners capture 58 per cent of national income, while the bottom 50 per cent receive only 15 per cent, said the report. Wealth inequality is worse than income inequality with the wealthiest 10 per cent of Indians holding nearly two-thirds of the country’s wealth; the richest 1 per cent hold 40 per cent of it.   

Interestingly, from 2014 to 2024 the income gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 50 percent remained relatively stable. However, women's participation in the labour force stayed very low at just 15.7 percent, with no progress over the decade. The government, on the other hand, reports a higher female labour force participation rate of 41.7 percent, largely because it includes self-employed women in agriculture, informal work, and unpaid roles. 

The 2026 report is the third instalment in this series, after previous editions in 2018 and 2022. In 2024, Piketty and Chancel co-authored Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023: The Rise of the Billionaire Raj, a paper that put into perspective myriad ‘success stories’ on the Indian economy, including projections on GDP growth far exceeding that of any major economy and higher than the International Monetary Fund’s projections at the time. Their paper stated that India’s recent years of growth had produced income and wealth inequality and distribution of the spoils of growth was more egalitarian under even the British. 

The authors Nitin Kumar Bharti, Lucas Chancel, Thomas Piketty and Anmol Somanchi, also suggested, in a May 2024 follow-up note to their paper, reinstating some wealth and inheritance taxation targeted at India’s richest households. Their proposal was for an annual wealth tax and an inheritance tax on those with net wealth exceeding Rs 10 crore, equivalent to the top 0.04 per cent of the adult population (a mere 370,000 adults), who currently hold over a quarter of India’s total wealth.  

In a baseline scenario, a 2 per cent annual tax on net wealth exceeding Rs 10 crore and a 33 per cent inheritance tax on estates exceeding Rs 10 crore in value would generate 2.73 per cent of India’s GDP in revenues, they said, adding that explicit redistributive policies could support, for example, doubling expenditure on public education. The present inequality report echoed this direction, recommending progressive taxation, including wealth taxes on multimillionaires, as a lever for correcting the concentration of economic power. 

These measures would generate extra resources not just for welfare expenditure but for infrastructure development, keeping in view better connectivity and social infrastructure facilities – more schools and health clinics -- in the rural and backward regions of the country, which has been neglected by subsequent Central and state governments. This perspective of development is not far to seek, as it has been pointed out by many economists the world over, including Prof. Michael Lipton, Prof. Amartya Sen, Prof. Michael Todaro and many others. 

Thus, the immediate necessity is for more resource allocation to the rural and backward regions of the country rather than modernisation of airports and such other work that facilitate the life of the upper echelons of society. This allocation would obviously develop infrastructure, leading to an increase in the incomes of the rural mass. 

The PM Jan Dhan Yojana, presented as a financial inclusion success story backfired as the government acknowledged lately that a quarter of all Jan Dhan accounts are inoperative -- 15 crore accounts, or 26% of the total 57.07 crore accounts. In such a situation, providing a better life and evolving ways and means of widening livelihood opportunities for the marginalised and the impoverished sections of society is, no doubt, the only way of bridging the increasing inequality. 

In this context, the Centre has to increase its share of the then popular MGNREGS, now Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission, to at least 80 per cent if it wants the programme to be successful and not overburden the cash-starved states. It would also be judicious to start another such programme in the semi-urban areas. The lack of employment opportunities as well as underemployment coupled with the need for creation and maintenance of infrastructure – both physical and social – necessitates introduction of such a programme in the semi-urban areas and small towns and the beneficiaries of the scheme could carry out these works. 

It is widely acknowledged that inequality is a global phenomenon; however, the gap between the wealthy and the poor—as well as income disparities between urban and rural populations and between organized and unorganized sector workers—must be addressed. Achieving this requires strong political commitment and the implementation of an effective, gradual policy framework by the government. Will the forthcoming budget mark the beginning of such efforts?---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 28 January 2026

Politics Of Padma Awards

OF PEOPLE & FOR PEOPLE

By Poonam I Kaushish

Prestige and honour vs darbari politics? Come Republic Day 26 January eve Padma Awards are grandiosely presented as a celebration of excellence. Many applaud, some sulk and the Opposition criticize triggering a political backlash, with Parties accusing Modi Government of turning national honours into a tool of political signalling. Whereby, the increased tu-tu-mein-mein by our netagan  yet again puts a question mark on the civilian Roll of Honour. 

Like prestigious State honours worldwide, Padma awards have always had a political angle and a national facet --- and this year is no different. At first glance, Government seems to have made a genuine effort to look ideologically inclusive. Names associated with rival political traditions and sharp critics feature on the list. But a closer look suggests that this inclusivity is carefully curated and politically safe. 

By bestowing Padma Vibhushans across the political spectrum to CPM founding leader and ex-Kerala Chief Minister Achuthanandan and JMM patriarch Shibu Soren marks an exciting turn in Opposition politics, and possibly allows a senior Communist leader to be felicitated for the first time in decades. Both leaders’ families have welcomed the awards. 

The symbolism is authoritative, yet risk free. There is no possibility of refusal, no chance of a speech that challenges the State, no discomfort for Government. The honour allows it to claim moral breadth while ensuring total narrative control. Their political legacy matters in regions where BJP is trying to expand its footprint.

And like every year, they also reveal something deeper about how power seeks legitimacy. The 2026 list is no different. In fact, it is a textbook example of what can be called the politics of recognition. 

Three of five laureates who received Padma Vibhushan hail from Kerala, a State that goes to polls this summer and where BJP has never gained more than a toehold, as does Tamil Nadu and West Bengal which too votes mid-year have netted 13 awards and 11. 

Opposition angst against “election engineering” is understandable as many who feature as awardees hail from communities and regions which might play a crucial role in upcoming polls to maximise political visibility. Think. These three States which total 18% of India’s population secured 37% awards, reinforcing allegations of a political quota. Of five Padma Vibhushans, three have gone to Kerala public figures.

The fiercest reaction, however, has come from Maharashtra which delivered a blockbuster victory to NDA recently and was suitably rewarded with 15 awards. Padma Bhushan for former Governor Koshyari has reopened old political wounds. His 2019-2023 tenure was marked by controversy over swearing-in the Fadnavis Government in 2019 and remarks on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and social reformer Jyotiba Phule.

Friend-turned-bitter foe Thackeray’s Shiv Sena dubbed it “insult to Maharashtra,” alleging Centre had rewarded a person who had demeaned State’s icons and Constitutional values. Even as Koshyari identifying himself as a RSS worker dismissed criticism. “I do not work for anyone’s appreciation or criticism.” 

The list also includes many people who were ideologically aligned to the ruling dispensation: RSS’s P Narayanan, 90, State Convener of Swadeshi Jagran Manch in Kerala and Natesan, a backward Hindu Ezhava community leader and General Secretary of Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam who has faced frequent backlash over anti-Muslim remarks and calling for Hindu unity awarded Padma Vibhushans.   

Beyond the political messaging, the awards are also important for unsung heroes, ordinary Indians who have made extraordinary, if somewhat little-known, contributions to public life. Grassroots workers from tribal belts or remote regions are elevated as the new face of Padma Awards. This is laudable.

Like the neonatologist who established Asia’s first human milk bank, a former bus conductor who set up India’s largest free books and journals library, an ex-railway guard who became a distinguished Dalit author, a guardian of Bundelkhand marital folk traditions, a Karbi folk singer, a painter who revitalized a 3000-year-old art form etc.

Certainly, the prestige of these awards is uplifted by the toil and fervor of aam Indians, many of whom have worked tirelessly and done remarkable work for decades struggling against the vicissitudes of life and systemic discrimination under difficult conditions. Exemplifying the dedication of ordinary citizens whose commitment to democratic values has not just endured every challenge thrown their way but also built the country over seven decades.

But politically, it serves another purpose. Their lives are outside ideological battles. They have no public record of dissent. No sharp criticism of policy. No inconvenient questions. By foregrounding them, the awards can be projected as people centric while quietly sidelining the outspoken intellectual and activist class that has traditionally questioned the State.

However, there is a striking omission. Of critics: political or social. voices which shape public debate. By honouring rivals of the past and ignoring challengers of the present, the list becomes a safe space. Even its diversity is carefully managed. It offends no one who actually matters in today’s political contest.

Raising a moot point: Does this kind of posthumous outreach and selective inclusivity actually strengthen the credibility of Padma Awards? Or does it make them feel increasingly hollow to a public that can clearly see the difference between honouring legacy and engaging with living dissent?

From one angle, supporters argue that merit has finally triumphed over ideology. From another, critics see tactical honours designed to woo specific communities and regions while keeping genuine dissent firmly outside the frame. And from a third perspective, the awards appear to operate as a closed loop, rewarding those who are silent, symbolic, or institutionally aligned.

Instituted in January 1954, the Padma Awards were to honour citizens of impeccable integrity who had excelled in a field and made stellar contributions in art, literature, science, public service and nation building.

Sadly, successive Governments treated these as favours to be bestowed in exchange of personal loyalty while ignoring deserving people in civil society. Never mind, it lowers the value, prestige and dignity of the awards.

Given the notoriety the awards generate every year, some aver they be “scrapped.” The selection process is wrong, merit is no longer the criteria, there is no transparency and people have lost faith. Others argue, the awards are necessary as a form of national recognition for meaningful contribution to society.

What next? Time has come to cry a halt to competitive ‘awardmanship.’ Specially when our national pride, honour and self-respect is at stake. Awards or nominations must be in keeping with their laudable objective of acknowledging the truly distinguished service to the nation. Not given to those who live for the moment and revel in the glory of yesteryears. Nor to the politricking darbaris! ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The States

New Delhi, 24 January 2026

Governor-CM Face-Off

DRAMA IN 3 NON-BJP ASSEMBLIES

By Insaf 

The face-off between Governors and Chief Ministers in Opposition States sadly has become a norm rather than an exception. The week saw Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka Assemblies witnessing fresh confrontation. On the opening day of the first session on Wednesday last, Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi declined to read his customary speech prepared by the DMK government and walked out of the Assembly—for the 4th consecutive year. A press release by Raj Bhavan said his microphone was ‘repeatedly switched off’ and he was ‘not allowed to speak’. He claimed the address prepared by the government, made it untenable for him to deliver as it was “laced with unsubstantiated claims and misleading statements”, including inflated investment figures, issues like alarming rise in sexual violence, drug abuse among youth, suicides, Dalit atrocities being ignored, etc. Chief Minister Stalin hit back by reading out a resolution in the House condemning Ravi’s actions with the Speaker endorsing it and reading out the 65-page Tamil version of the Governor’s address!Stalin also said his party would make efforts to amend the Constitution to eliminate the practice of the Governor delivering a speech at the start of the year.

*                                               *                                                

Policy Omission

A day earlier, the Kerala Assembly’s Budget session got off on a wrong note too. Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar omitted parts of his policy address, which included portions targeting the BJP government at the Centre. Such as “Despite these social and institutional achievements, Kerala continues to face severe fiscal stress arising from a series of adverse Union Government actions that undermine the constitutional principles of fiscal federalism,” and “Bills passed by state legislatures have remained pending for prolonged periods. My government has approached the Supreme Court on these issues, which have been referred to a Constitution Bench.” However, Chief Minister PinarayiVijayan later read out the parts which had been skipped saying the Governor had deviated from the policy address, which had been ratified by the state Cabinet.He urged the Speaker to consider the policy address, copies of which were distributed among members, as ‘authentic’ policy address and the latter obliged.

*                                               *                                                

Minutes Address

Karnataka Assembly followed suit on Thursday last. Governor T. Gehlot refused to read the ruling Congress government’s prepared address to the Assembly and concluded his customary speech in minutes. Said he: “I extend a warm welcome to all of you to the joint session of the State legislature. I am extremely pleased to address one more joint session of the Karnataka legislature. My government is firmly committed to doubling the pace of the state's economic, social, and physical development. Jai Hind. Jai Karnataka,” and walked out. Some Congress MLAs shouting slogans tried to gherao him at the exit door but were removed by security staff.Chief Minister Siddaramaiah reacted: “Today, instead of reading the speech prepared by the Cabinet, he delivered the speech prepared by himself. This is against the provisions of the Indian Constitution… Therefore, it’s not going to be Governor’s speech…” A day earlier Gehlot had refused to deliver the customary address, taking exception to references to the Centre ‘repealing’ MGNREGA. Prompting Siddaramaiah to accuse him of being Centre’s ‘puppet’ and asserting option of ‘approaching the Supreme Court or not.’Be that as it may, it’s unfortunate the three incidents in non-BJP states have escalated into a significant, ongoing threat to the country's federal structure!

 *                                 *                       *                       *                       *

 UP’s Religious Row

Uttar Pradesh is embroiled in a bizarre controversy. It has erupted over a notice issued to religious leader Swami Avimukteshwaran and Saraswati, head of JyotishPeeth of Badrinath, over the use of the ‘Shankaracharya’ title. The tug of war started during the Magh Mela, a month-long religious fair where devotees assemble at the Triveni Sangam, for a holy dip. The swami tried to reach the Sangam in his chariot for bathing but mela administration did not allow him, ‘manhandled’ his supporters and so he staged a protest, demanding an apology as the police action was an “insult of Shankaracharya”. The administration hit back issuing a notice questioning him for using the title, even though an appeal related to the same is sub judice in the Supreme Court. On Wednesday last, Saraswati sent an eight-page reply to the authorities demanding they withdraw the notice or face legal action. He asserted he was the “Shankaracharya” of the Jyotish Peeth. The Opposition has stepped in and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav said the BJP’s love for Hinduism was ‘fake’, and now it had been established as a fact, adding Chief Minister Yogi must apologise to the seer. Congress condemned ill treatment of the seer and accused Yogi of ‘disrupting a centuries-old religious tradition by not allowing him to take the customary royal bath’. Politics aside, the big question is whether this dispute, resulting from the BJP’s approach, might affect its relationship with its core Hindu constituents, notably upper-caste voters who regard Shankaracharyas with significant reverence.

 *                                   *                       *                       *                       *

Delhi’s BJP Show

The BJP headquarters in Delhi was in a festive move on Tuesday last. The saffron party anointed its 12^th national president, the youngest so far, Nitin Nabin. He succeeds J P Nadda, who in his outgoing speech listed the party’s achievements and set out a road map his successor to expand the party’s influence in uncharted territories, such as West Bengal and Kerala. The party with a difference stuck to its tradition and had all the nominations (37) for the post forNabin—consensus and no contest. Enthusing the gathering of ministers, top party functionaries and cadres by his 40-minute speech, Prime Minister Modi said while he is the Pradhan mantri, “when it comes to party matters, I am a worker, and you (Nabin) are my boss… I have given an account of my work. He will now write my CR (confidential report). I am awaiting his guidance.” He described 45-year-old Nabin as a “millennial” which shall aid the party to engage Gen Next. Importantly, his responsibilities are not limited to BJP alone, ‘he has to take care of maintaining coordination with all NDA friends.” Interestingly, Nabin has risen from the ranks, but few have heard of him outside and his taking over the reins have surprised many. The big question is whether he will be able to steer the party or the big brass will run the show. Only time will tell. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)