"at home with liberalism-secularism than the left could be"

Friend Harsh has great piece on "entrenched identities" polity in India. He concludes with the below para:

• "...there are various interpretations of all these loaded "-isms", but the Indian right, unlike the right elsewhere, is potentially more at home with liberalism-secularism than the left could be. India's Hindu majority has no theological mandate against blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality or abortion, and yet the country was always spiritual enough to never fall for the materialist philosophy of communism, "the god that failed". Indian leftists, self-declared moderates and so-called progressives must realise that their intellectual monopoly will be increasingly challenged by an aspirational, young and yes, largely fair, India."

Here is another great piece on new "colonialism". The "neocolonialism" is something on which I have also written in the Pragati last year. But it was in different context but more of domestic focus unlike Mr Rajiv's arguments. Rajiv's books are great source for finding the rational analysis on neocolonialism in India.

A bit from Rajiv's piece:

• "I am no fan (or opponent) of Modi. What concerns me is the violation of important principles and due process. Such intrusions are reminiscent of the way the British East India Company operated in Indian affairs, supporting one Indian raja (ruler) against another, often citing “human rights violations” as its excuse. It was through these strategic interventions, and not through a conventional military invasion, that they ended up stitching together the world’s biggest colonial empire.
• Ironically, these Indian professors specialise in scholarship criticising colonialism, not realising that now they are serving similar American policies on interventions in India. They are extreme leftists when it comes to protesting against imperialist interventions in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria and other failed states. But they switch sides when it comes to India, and play the same role for America in undermining India’s sovereignty as the sepoys did.
• Though American universities are amongst the best in the world, there also exist many compromised academics that promulgate theories on India which are racist, colonial and downright inimical to India’s interests. Many naïve Indian donors have unwittingly sponsored such scholars. My earlier book, Invading the Sacred, analysed how certain professors at top American schools view Indian culture as oppressive and destructive, using outmoded theories; my next book, Breaking India, exposed the nexuses between such academics and civic groups that are promoting separatist identities and schisms in India. I analyse the long-term trend that I have called “breaking India,” in which many colonised Indian intellectuals are funded to dish out divisive and biased materials on India. Such meta-narratives can put Indian business leaders on the defensive in their international negotiations."

Mr Gurumurthy is known for his critical analysis about political economy of India. His latest piece on Budget 2013-14 is a must read one. Just a line of thought from his piece:

• "Chidambaram himself had faulted the giveaways and had vowed to scrap them in the run-up to the Budget 2007-08. And the Prime Minister backed him."

Interesting line from country's chief economist Mr Raghuram Rajan who says:

•  "A good job is the best form of inclusion. If you can train them up to get that job, they are independent of the government for life and they would be able to carve their own destiny. Can we give them the opportunity? That is, to my mind, the challenge of the next 5-10 years."

"I consider year 2008-09 is the sin year."

Why Wharton is wrong in disinviting Narendra Modi By Manish Sabharwal

Some measures may still lessen India’s economic problems by Ashok V. Desai

Interview of Mr Yashwant Sinha: ‘We’ll fight under non-dynastic ruler’

"The only person who meets the bill is Chidambaram. He alone has the seniority and the track record to take on Modi."

Seven sins of highly effective people in India.

Must Read

Re-imagining trade unions

Where have all the subsidies gone?

"God may commit mistakes but no government official does so"

Between Gandhi and Ambedkar

"Congress gain is nation's loss"

Prof Arvind Panagariya has very timely and brave article in The Economic Times. It is titled as "Congress' bail out of bankrupt Scooters India is party's gain at nation's loss"

Read the tragedies here:

• "Prime Minister Manmohan Singh later instructed him to prepare a bailout package in consultation with the BIFR. That proposal has now culminated in the Rs 200-crore dole to the company. To his credit, finance minister Chidambaram protested in the Cabinet meeting but Singh, almost surely under instructions from Congress president Sonia Gandhi, overruled him. It makes no economic sense to throw hard-earned rupees of taxpayers at a company that has been declared sick by the BIFR, a verdict the bureau rarely delivers, preferring to advise restructuring. With an aged workforce whose protection is probably the sole purpose of the bailout, 1970s machinery that should have been retired decades ago and management that hails from civil service and has no real expertise in auto manufacturing, there is no chance that it can compete against the modern day auto giants that together produce 8,50,000 three-wheelers every year.Why did the government ignore the obvious? The easy explanation is politics. Scooters India is located in the capital city of Uttar Pradesh (UP), the home state of the Gandhi family." 

Some links

Some interesting readings:

Dinesh has very interesting post on "Rahul ‘Neelkanth’ Gandhi"

Nitin on two and twenty three years later

Shruti on an economist who read economics without much romance!!

Deepak Lal on Buchanan- “Would citizens voluntarily agree to allow the government to exercise power quite unreservedly, or would they rather seek to impose constraints on the behavior of governments?”

M K Gandhi on Free Trade!!

When I get time to read long essays, other than the daily reading of newspaper, magazine, blogs etc I dwell on Universities/institutions working papers on development economics and Indian economics.

The recent one which I read is “Indian Planning and Development Economics” by Lawrence H. White published on August 31, 2010. This is a Working Paper (No. 10-53) and is Chapter 10 from The Clash of Economic Ideas his 2008 book.

No doubt this paper would add some value addition to the subject but there are some serious and dangerously wrong interpretation and misunderstanding in this paper. Let me say the following two of course the second is a little minor one! But the former is really a big misunderstanding!

Mr.White writes:

• “In sharp contrast to Adam Smith, who had recommended ending such transfers by instituting free trade between former British colonies and Britain, Gandhi called for ending trade. He favored a form of national selfsufficiency for India bordering on autarky.” (p.320)

• “Jairam Ramesh, India‘s finance minister 1996–98, notes that western advisors strongly supported Nehru‘s planning efforts”: (p.327)

Let me take the second one first. India’s Finance Minister during 1996-98 was P.Chidambaram not “Jairam Ramesh”. For more see 1 2.

On the point of “......Gandhi called for ending trade.............” In absolute sense Gandhi was not against of free trade per say! He in fact said the following:

• “To reject foreign manufactures merely because they are foreign and to go on wasting national time and money to promote manufactures in one’s country for which it is not suited, would be criminal folly and a negation of the Swadeshi spirit. A true votary of Swadeshi will never harbour ill-will towards the foreigner; he will not be moved by antagonism towards anybody on earth. Swadeshism is not a cult of hatred. It is a doctrine of self-less service that has its roots in the purest ahimsa, that is, love” (1931) (From Yeravaa Mandir, 1957, p. 66).

M.K Gandhi also wrote in Young India:

• Q. What is your opinion about the importation of foreign goods other than cloth into India? Are there any foreign commodities which you would like to see immediately under prohibition? What do you think should be the nature of India's foreign trade in the future?

• A. I am more or less indifferent with regard to trade in foreign goods other than cloth. I have never been an advocate of prohibition of all things foreign because they are foreign. My economic creed is a complete taboo in respect of all foreign commodities , whose importation is likely to prove harmful to our indigenous interests .This means that we may not in any circumstance import a commodity that can be adequately supplied from our own country . For instance I would regard it a sin to import Australian wheat on the score of it's better quality but I would not have the slightest hesitation in importing oatmeal from Scotland, if an absolute neccesity for it is made out, because we do not grow oats in India. In other words I would not countenance the boycott of a single foreign article out of ill will or a feeling of hatred. Or to take up a reverse case , India produces sufficient quantity of leather , it is my duty therefore to wear shoes made out of Indian leather only , even if it is comparatively dearer and of an inferior quality in preference to cheaper and superior quality of foreign leather shoes . Similarly I would condemn the introduction of foreign molasses or sugar if enough of it is produced in India for our needs. It will be thus clear from the above that it is hardly possible for me to give an exhaustive catalogue of foreign articles whose importation in India ought to be prohibited. I have simply indicated the general principle by which we can be guided in all such cases. And this principle will hold good in future too as long as the conditions of production in our country remain as they are to-day (Young India, 15-11-28. p.381).

The idea of an independent has arrived……..

The Association for Democratic Reform associate Ajit Ranade has reasonable questions like why there is no single law that regulate or governs Indian political parties. Ajit writes in the today’s TOI: 

“Our democracy functions through parties, but our parties themselves do not function democratically.  

We need a comprehensive law to regulate the functioning and funding of parties. We need to enforce inner party democracy, transparency in finances and criteria for entry and advancement. Until then we have to depend on the voice of the lone independent, both from within or outside parties who will make sure that the script returns to genuine democratic dialogue.”  

Indeed, our current home minister P Chidambaram wrote in his article in the Indian Express which was published later in book form. He said “…what we need is comprehensive law to regulate political parties just as we have a companies Act to regulate the affairs of companies we must have a law that will lay down detailed rules to govern the functioning of political parties” (p. 280). 

After writing this he was in UPA government for five years but he could not do anything on this idea. Because no political party is willing to buy his ideas and result is all they wanted to make is fool of people and the business community.