Some warbite at Chindia dynasty

Prem Shankar Jha writes in Tehelka:

• “In the Chinese worldview there is only one viable concept of the State – unitary, culturally homogeneous and necessarily authoritarian. Far from being a hangover from Maoist communism, the roots of this worldview go back two thousand years to the doctrines of Confucius and his disciples, as fused into a philosophy of state-society relations during the Han dynasty 2,000 years ago. It is now hardwired into Chinese thought. Communism only created a different set of sacred texts for the new mandarins to master, a new jargon to interact with the people. That is why its collapse in Europe found no echo in China. After crushing Tiananmen, all that Deng Xiaoping had to do was banish the imported texts and restore a modernised version of the originals.”

The present controversy raised from the translated article published on “China Should Break Up The Indian Union'”

Also read "Not Lost In Translation" by B.Raman

How has China achieved this miracle? India’s dangerous economic paths!

Asks a veteran political affairs journalist and economist Prem Shankar Jha I had an opportunity to travel with him in air. He was very calm in using words to make sense. We had a good chat! In fact certain things I still remember not because it is memorable but the way he puts is an interesting that helps to ponder and think different.

He has a good piece in today’s ET where he writes quite convincingly. Some excerpts:

• “The answer reveals both the short-term strengths and long-term weaknesses of its peculiar economic structure. China has been able to do this because the central government has only limited control over investment in the economy.
• Much, if not the major part, of the investment is done by four tiers of local government: the provincial governments, prefectures, counties and urban municipalities/ townships. Not for the first time in the past thirty years, these have run away with the investment agenda.
• What has made this possible is the central government’s directive to the banking system to provide funds liberally for the projects submitted to them by the local governments. According to the blueprint that the National Reform and Development Commission (NRDC) had prepared, two thirds of the investment had to be made by the local governments.
• To maintain a degree of co-ordination they were asked to submit their projects to the NRDC, and to do it as soon as possible.
• The provinces treated Beijing’s sense of urgency and their renewed freedom to borrow almost at will (that had been taken away, in theory at least, by banking reforms in 1997) to indulge in an orgy of wish fulfilment.
• By the end of December, 18 provinces (out of 31) had already submitted projects worth 25 trillion yuan. The NRDC has winnowed the wish list but there is only so much it can do. As a result, the actual investment till March has been three times the 1.2 trillion yuan budgeted for till the end of 2009! “

So we all know how the investment happens in India.

Economists don’t inform everything rightly

If you say this to any one who served as journalist for a long time they will not believe you. It is not surprise to see any false information from The Economic Times. But it turnout now true that the top level economists/journalist writes like joking on the roadside tea shop! 

See in this case: Prem Shankar Jha writes in today’s ET “According to the advance estimates of the Central Statistical Office, GDP growth had slowed down to 7.6% in the first quarter of 2008-09 and further to 7% in the second quarter.” 

And I don’t think it is a print mistake. 

What CSO press release says is the below one: 

According to the CSO, GDP growth had declined to 7.9% and 7.6% in the first and second quarter of 2008-09 compared to 9.2% and 9.3% in the 2007-08 during the same period respectively. 

There are serious pitfalls in the CSO calculation that is altogether different issue.

The pate democracy peril

Senior journalist Mr Prem Shankar Jha writes in the ET that “he rural poor were sending their children not to the state schools but were paying Rs 50 to Rs 150 as fees to send them to private schools which taught (or claimed to teach) English! ”