Yesterday it was raining heavily and I felt like staying at home rather than attending office. I felt miserable as I was missing my MBA Macro class for quite some time, setting aside that guilt conscience, I started cleaning up my academic files & books and Paul Krugman’s ‘The Return of Depression Economics’ caught my attention. I got immersed in the book, did I have any premonition then about Krugman winning Nobel when I started thumbing through his book? I am not sure. But I was feeling very much fascinated to go through his volume second time. Krugman had anticipated lot of things in his earlier writings in the late 90s’ about the plausible banking and financial crisis likely to take place in the US and other western countries.
Towards evening, I received a series of phone calls from my students a few of them are now professors that Paul Krugman has received Nobel Prize for his contribution to trade theory. My joy knew no bounds; the feeling that Krugman was not getting his due for long and the heightened lamentation that Krugman would go Ms. Joan Robinson way had been haunting my thoughts. Thank God. The suspense is now over and every honest and good soul in Economics will now have a sigh of relief.
More than a decade ago, when my first daughter was studying M.A English Literature at Pondicherry University campus, a few of her friends, most of them boys- studying MIM made a wry comment to my daughter when I was passing by. “Hey junior Paul Krugman is going there…” perplexed by their comments my daughter mistook their comments to be acerbic sarcasm. But they responded by saying that it was real and made with good intentions and spirit and had nothing to do with sarcasm. With much humility and some minimum intellectual arrogance, I would say that I was chosen by God to introduce Paul Krugman to my MIM students who in any case did not have any rigorous background in Economics proper. The wise and benevolent destiny gave me some academic strength to teach from Paul Krugman’s books and articles to MBA and Politics and International Studies which immensely benefited them.
Small wonder then that Mr. Vinod Kumar, the MIM student of late 1990s, called me late night yesterday from Banglore, and shared his happiness over Krugman’s getting this laurel at long last. Unable to control his joy and a sense of thrill following Krugman’s elevation to exalted status he burst out by saying that he felt as if his own teacher got the prize. What else one needs in the profession? Paul Krugman’s exalted status now as a winner of Nobel has created a series of ripples of happiness among my students and I feel amply rewarded for my work ethics when all well informed students in economics rejoice over this event as if it is an occasion for familial celebration. Professor Ram Gopal, while narrating this event over phone yesterday was recollecting the glimpses of some memorable moments that he spent with his father soon after the latter underwent a major brain surgery in the ICU; still semi-conscious but attempting to answer his son’s questions on Economics in general and his methodology used in Ph.D thesis from his subconscious mind. Intellectually mad people like Prof. Ram Gopal and me including many students spread all over the world just feels elated and happy after receiving this pleasant shock.
For so many years, Krugman was a potential candidate for Nobel Prize but that was getting distanced from him for no fault of his. Indeed, the recognition has come at a right time when unfettered free market capitalism has brought disaster to the United States and other advanced economies. Did not Paul Krugman warn in the eighties when Savings and Loan Association collapsed? More than his contribution to Strategic trade theory which is sighted by the committee while awarding the prize I would say his scholarly writings on currency crises and his critical commentaries on both International Politics and Economics in a lucid style would merit more attention from his supporters and wellwishers.
For a long period Chicago School based economists rooted in monetarist tradition and free market ideology merited attention from the selection committee for Nobelprize. Now there is a welcome paradigm shift in recognizing economists endowed with Keynesian flavor. Let me hope that the role of slim but effective government will have more contextual relevance while experimenting any policy package in the years to come. This event like a chaos theory will have tremendous spill over effects on the thinking and teaching of economics away from neo-classical, free market oriented lassiez faire towards interventionist Keynesian tradition especially in the field of finance. Long ago Keynes told that ‘let not finance go global’; in the current wave of globalization, the world at large may not approve of this but those emerging markets which have not embraced a ful-fledged financial market liberalization have been least affected by the financial hurricane unleashed by the US and others. When Krugman visited India soon after Asian Financial Crisis, he not only wanted the weak banks to be closed and strong banks to be recapitalized well, but also cautioned that capital account convertibility can wait - a sermon which IMF and the US would not have appreciated at that time.
In my early life I was a fan of Harry G. Johnson – a Professor who had a democratic fervor in transmitting knowledge to the lesser privileged people in this part of the globe. Only after going to Pune, Gokulae Institute, I came to terms with Paul Krugman and indeed my last chapter in my PhD thesis was very much borrowed from his third Lionel Robbins Memorial Lecture revolving around exchange rate instability delivered in London in 1989. Since early 1990s my sentimental and intellectual association with his writings has continued uninterrupted.
Having got his Nobel Prize stature, his well-wishers would feel that he should continue to write for students and teachers in economics not well trained in mathematics and econometrics. Although he is quite capable writing in a technical way which many cannot read, his greatness is that he has demystified many complex issues and distilled the essence of the literature on international finance as also international politics. On this occasion I sincerely pray the almighty whom I don’t worship in any conventional way that he should live longer and become more bolder in making economics as a scientific discipline such that even ordinary student in economics can romance with his writings and profit by it.
For long, I have not written in my blogspot. The death of my mother in the first month of this year paralyzed me to the depth that I forgot my responsibility to continue to write. Many significant developments have taken place in international monetary arena, the US dollar sinking and the dollar empire collapsing close on the heels of sub prime lending crisis which cropped up in August 2007. But I failed to realize my academic obligation. Krugman getting the Nobel Prize was such a pleasant long awaited news that I have got out of my deep slumber and will continue to write in the blog.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Economics in a lighter vein
There is a general impression that economics as a subject is very dry, colourless and devoid of humour. Indeed, quite a majority of the students have not developed much romance with the discipline for the way in which it is taught. Disproving this general impression, one of my collegaues Prof. Ram Gopal, a great and passionate teacher of economics, has just sent an e-mail bristling with economics full of fun and frolic and heightened sense of humour. Let me share his thoughts with the broader audience.
RIDDLES
Why was it impossible to shake hands with Adam Smith?
Because his hands were invisible.
Which city would Marx first visit when he traveled to a foreign country?
The “Capital” city, of course!
Why did Keynes avoid participating in marathon races?
Because according to him “in the long run we are all dead”!
Why would it be nice to have Ricardo as a tenant?
Because he will never forget about the rent.
Why does Dracula hate economics textbooks?
Because of the crosses, the Marshallian cross and the Keynesian cross.
How many members of the Chicago school of economics will it take to change a light bulb?
None. The free market will change it automatically if necessary.
OTHER FUNNIES
“The invisible hand works well, but it often works by strangulation”. (Joan Robinson, about the market mechanism)
“A Russian proverb says that ‘Fear has big eyes’, but I would add that it also has deaf ears”. (Jagdish Bhagwati, referring to the attitude of middle-class Americans about outsourcing to India)
Name the two great personalities who abused each other as “Ba…td” and “SOB” respectively when they were introduced to each other.
Answer: Adam Smith and Samuel Johnson (This is a true story; who says great thinkers are always polite?)
It was said about Schumpeter that he always gave A grade to three groups of students: a) All girl students, b) All the Chinese students and c) All the remaining students.
Haseeb A. Drabu, now the chairman of Jammu & Kashmir Bank said “Delhi is Keynesian while Bombay is Schumpeterian.” I would like to extend the thought experiment. Bangalore is Coasian. (Economist Niranjan Rajadhyaksha in his column Café Economics)
The only case of a ghost written Ph.D thesis turning out as an excellent work: the American economist Paul Sweezy needed some money when he was a Ph.D student and so he ghost wrote a thesis for a classmate. That work is regarded as a masterpiece on the Japanese economy and the guy who bought it got a very good job because of the thesis!
RIDDLES
Why was it impossible to shake hands with Adam Smith?
Because his hands were invisible.
Which city would Marx first visit when he traveled to a foreign country?
The “Capital” city, of course!
Why did Keynes avoid participating in marathon races?
Because according to him “in the long run we are all dead”!
Why would it be nice to have Ricardo as a tenant?
Because he will never forget about the rent.
Why does Dracula hate economics textbooks?
Because of the crosses, the Marshallian cross and the Keynesian cross.
How many members of the Chicago school of economics will it take to change a light bulb?
None. The free market will change it automatically if necessary.
OTHER FUNNIES
“The invisible hand works well, but it often works by strangulation”. (Joan Robinson, about the market mechanism)
“A Russian proverb says that ‘Fear has big eyes’, but I would add that it also has deaf ears”. (Jagdish Bhagwati, referring to the attitude of middle-class Americans about outsourcing to India)
Name the two great personalities who abused each other as “Ba…td” and “SOB” respectively when they were introduced to each other.
Answer: Adam Smith and Samuel Johnson (This is a true story; who says great thinkers are always polite?)
It was said about Schumpeter that he always gave A grade to three groups of students: a) All girl students, b) All the Chinese students and c) All the remaining students.
Haseeb A. Drabu, now the chairman of Jammu & Kashmir Bank said “Delhi is Keynesian while Bombay is Schumpeterian.” I would like to extend the thought experiment. Bangalore is Coasian. (Economist Niranjan Rajadhyaksha in his column Café Economics)
The only case of a ghost written Ph.D thesis turning out as an excellent work: the American economist Paul Sweezy needed some money when he was a Ph.D student and so he ghost wrote a thesis for a classmate. That work is regarded as a masterpiece on the Japanese economy and the guy who bought it got a very good job because of the thesis!
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Recent Radio Talk on UN Day
Celebration of United Nations Day this year has tremendous significance in the context of Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday being celebrated as International Non-Violence day on the initiative of the UN itself. Has the UN accomplished its historical objective of averting war and establishing peace among the Nations? The track record of UN in this regard is not that pleasant to look at because it is not UN which has called the shots but only the superpower US which has been shaping the political and economic destiny of the world economy by sheer military might and hegemonial power associated with it, in spite of the fact that it is a shrinking economic power. Furthermore, if at all there is any failure on the part of UN it can be simply attributed to the collective failure of many Nation- States which embody United Nation.
Let me begin my talk with a simple but lengthy sentence I remembered to have heard from a radio talk delivered by one of the greatest statesmen of the country Dr. C. N. Annadurai way back in the late sixties.
“There stands a massive building where flags of more than hundred nations fly side by side with equal honour proclaiming to the world that they belong to different countries but belong to one world. They have a separate existence but for a common objective, they have riches and strengths of various dimensions to be pooled together for the common task of freeing mankind, from fear and famine, pestilence and ignorance, violence and vandalism, and above all to give man his due, the dignity of labour.”
It would not be an exaggeration to say that this simple quote captures the essence of the initial euphoria with which the UN was established in 1945. Its stated objectives were to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation for engineering collective security, promote and encourage respect for human rights and ensure freedom for all. Thus, the visionary ambition of UN was to prevent powerful States invading and occupying weaker ones and more important to prevent the eruption of another war. Except for a few occasions when UN was successful in mitigating the dangers of power politics especially during the Cold War, UN became defunct because of extreme bipolarity of international politics prevailing then. During this Cold War era, US found itself in an advantageous position to play the role of a world banker, supplier of world money and also an arbiter, at least in theory, in promoting democracy and human rights through UN. With 40 percent of UN funding contributed by American tax payers, US hoped that its veto power in UN Security Council would help protect America’s national interest. But at no time US was keen to make any multilateral framework to succeed; be it political or economic field. This was the reason the UN could not evolve closer to at least a semblance of world government.
The UN is just 60 plus. It has emerged as a symbol of global identity. It is essentially a platform where Nation-States can listen to one another and settle disputes if any with less reliance on force. It is a mechanism for conflict resolution in international security affaires. Theoretically at least, along with international institutions like IMF, IBRD and more recently established WTO, the UN is a closest thing to world government but in essence it is not. Since sovereign nations are unwilling to surrender their political sovereignty UN has not become an all powerful governing body. It exists because others want it. Many nation states have created and lived with it to serve their own national interest.
UN’s structure is built around General Assembly where each nation-state has one member one vote principle. General Assembly largely works through recommendations and advice to member states and to Security Council but they are not binding on any one of them. General Assembly also coordinates a variety of Third World activities through one of its principle body of Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is this Council which coordinates the work of various UN specialized agencies like UNDP, UNCTAD, FAO and so on. Parallel to General Assembly is UN’s Security Council which consists of five permanent members and other 10 non-permanent members. This is the primary action agency of UN and vested with primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. Administration takes place via UN Secretariat and International Court of Justice also known as world court is the judicial arm of UN. As of now, there are more than 190 members of the UN. The major strength is universality of membership, but democratization of UN is constrained by big five in Security Council and their veto power.
The major constraint impinging on UN is resource crunch. Despite many nations joining UN, it appears very small and fragile institution, lacking funding facility. Especially the US has played truant and for many years it did not pay dues. Indeed, US is largest defaulter in paying its dues and contributions to the UN. There can be two reasons cited for such US sleight: first, is the US inherent dislike of multilaralism for it curtails its maneuverability in international politics and it is in this context that UN is treated as an institution which will obstruct maximization of its national interest via unilateralism. Second, shrinking economic strength does not provide necessary financial wherewithal for taking care of UN. While world spends $800 billion on military, a mere $2 billion are spent on UN budget.
During Cold War era, in the face of perennial US-Soviet conflict, UN had only a limited role to play. It did not play any central role in resolving conflicts. Although the American unilateralism did not have any high cost, the relative roles of US and UN have been always a certain source of tension. The end of Cold War coincided with disintegration of Soviet Union and demise of communism. It was during this period that Iraq under Saddam occupied Kuwait fully convinced that it would go scot-free but the US through a formidable alliance within the UN framework and effectively dismantled the Iraqi occupation. This US effort gave a ray of hope that at long last nation-states especially those who are in key position were ready to give UN a chance to play the role intended for it. But alas it was not destined to be.
September 11, 2001 attack on US twin towers gave a fresh lease of life to US to declare war on terrorism as the central objective of foreign policy and in close collusion with Britain it invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien ruthlessly citing the reason which has now become fully discredited exposing fully the shallowness and crookedness of these superpowers. UN was completely sidelined and marginalized in this entire military exercise.
Under the circumstances, UN is neither able to manage the world problems nor restrain the US which continue indulge in rampant unilateralism in its foreign policy under the guise of facilitating effective promotion of democracy, human rights and counter terrorism and so on. The UN has become a passive spectator and sitting on the sidelines virtually helpless.
Writing in New York Times January 12 2002, “On what is Americas place in the world now”, Alexander Stille says,
‘Clearly the world has changed. Developments in technology have given small group of people the kind of destructive power once available to national governments. The principal mechanism the world has devised – foreign aid , non governmental institutions, the world bank , the United Nations – have not succeeded in dealing with the most troublesome and difficult cases’.
In a world which has become flat – meaning globalization has ensured a level playing field, there are still a number of political and economic zones which are simply far away from the so called level playing field. Therefore, there is an imperative on the part of international institutions and organizations including the UN to play really a substantiative role in attacking all social, economic and political problems plaguing the globe. But unfortunately they are only making a notional contribution and UN is no exception. The time has come for all the stakeholders to change for the better. The US must realize that it does not own the world but shares it with others as it was aptly observed by Prof. Naom Chomsky. Therefore it can not claim a special and differential status.
For the UN to play a central role, radical changes are needed in the institutional structure in the pattern of administration of the UN to represent the changing times.
Let me begin my talk with a simple but lengthy sentence I remembered to have heard from a radio talk delivered by one of the greatest statesmen of the country Dr. C. N. Annadurai way back in the late sixties.
“There stands a massive building where flags of more than hundred nations fly side by side with equal honour proclaiming to the world that they belong to different countries but belong to one world. They have a separate existence but for a common objective, they have riches and strengths of various dimensions to be pooled together for the common task of freeing mankind, from fear and famine, pestilence and ignorance, violence and vandalism, and above all to give man his due, the dignity of labour.”
It would not be an exaggeration to say that this simple quote captures the essence of the initial euphoria with which the UN was established in 1945. Its stated objectives were to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation for engineering collective security, promote and encourage respect for human rights and ensure freedom for all. Thus, the visionary ambition of UN was to prevent powerful States invading and occupying weaker ones and more important to prevent the eruption of another war. Except for a few occasions when UN was successful in mitigating the dangers of power politics especially during the Cold War, UN became defunct because of extreme bipolarity of international politics prevailing then. During this Cold War era, US found itself in an advantageous position to play the role of a world banker, supplier of world money and also an arbiter, at least in theory, in promoting democracy and human rights through UN. With 40 percent of UN funding contributed by American tax payers, US hoped that its veto power in UN Security Council would help protect America’s national interest. But at no time US was keen to make any multilateral framework to succeed; be it political or economic field. This was the reason the UN could not evolve closer to at least a semblance of world government.
The UN is just 60 plus. It has emerged as a symbol of global identity. It is essentially a platform where Nation-States can listen to one another and settle disputes if any with less reliance on force. It is a mechanism for conflict resolution in international security affaires. Theoretically at least, along with international institutions like IMF, IBRD and more recently established WTO, the UN is a closest thing to world government but in essence it is not. Since sovereign nations are unwilling to surrender their political sovereignty UN has not become an all powerful governing body. It exists because others want it. Many nation states have created and lived with it to serve their own national interest.
UN’s structure is built around General Assembly where each nation-state has one member one vote principle. General Assembly largely works through recommendations and advice to member states and to Security Council but they are not binding on any one of them. General Assembly also coordinates a variety of Third World activities through one of its principle body of Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is this Council which coordinates the work of various UN specialized agencies like UNDP, UNCTAD, FAO and so on. Parallel to General Assembly is UN’s Security Council which consists of five permanent members and other 10 non-permanent members. This is the primary action agency of UN and vested with primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. Administration takes place via UN Secretariat and International Court of Justice also known as world court is the judicial arm of UN. As of now, there are more than 190 members of the UN. The major strength is universality of membership, but democratization of UN is constrained by big five in Security Council and their veto power.
The major constraint impinging on UN is resource crunch. Despite many nations joining UN, it appears very small and fragile institution, lacking funding facility. Especially the US has played truant and for many years it did not pay dues. Indeed, US is largest defaulter in paying its dues and contributions to the UN. There can be two reasons cited for such US sleight: first, is the US inherent dislike of multilaralism for it curtails its maneuverability in international politics and it is in this context that UN is treated as an institution which will obstruct maximization of its national interest via unilateralism. Second, shrinking economic strength does not provide necessary financial wherewithal for taking care of UN. While world spends $800 billion on military, a mere $2 billion are spent on UN budget.
During Cold War era, in the face of perennial US-Soviet conflict, UN had only a limited role to play. It did not play any central role in resolving conflicts. Although the American unilateralism did not have any high cost, the relative roles of US and UN have been always a certain source of tension. The end of Cold War coincided with disintegration of Soviet Union and demise of communism. It was during this period that Iraq under Saddam occupied Kuwait fully convinced that it would go scot-free but the US through a formidable alliance within the UN framework and effectively dismantled the Iraqi occupation. This US effort gave a ray of hope that at long last nation-states especially those who are in key position were ready to give UN a chance to play the role intended for it. But alas it was not destined to be.
September 11, 2001 attack on US twin towers gave a fresh lease of life to US to declare war on terrorism as the central objective of foreign policy and in close collusion with Britain it invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien ruthlessly citing the reason which has now become fully discredited exposing fully the shallowness and crookedness of these superpowers. UN was completely sidelined and marginalized in this entire military exercise.
Under the circumstances, UN is neither able to manage the world problems nor restrain the US which continue indulge in rampant unilateralism in its foreign policy under the guise of facilitating effective promotion of democracy, human rights and counter terrorism and so on. The UN has become a passive spectator and sitting on the sidelines virtually helpless.
Writing in New York Times January 12 2002, “On what is Americas place in the world now”, Alexander Stille says,
‘Clearly the world has changed. Developments in technology have given small group of people the kind of destructive power once available to national governments. The principal mechanism the world has devised – foreign aid , non governmental institutions, the world bank , the United Nations – have not succeeded in dealing with the most troublesome and difficult cases’.
In a world which has become flat – meaning globalization has ensured a level playing field, there are still a number of political and economic zones which are simply far away from the so called level playing field. Therefore, there is an imperative on the part of international institutions and organizations including the UN to play really a substantiative role in attacking all social, economic and political problems plaguing the globe. But unfortunately they are only making a notional contribution and UN is no exception. The time has come for all the stakeholders to change for the better. The US must realize that it does not own the world but shares it with others as it was aptly observed by Prof. Naom Chomsky. Therefore it can not claim a special and differential status.
For the UN to play a central role, radical changes are needed in the institutional structure in the pattern of administration of the UN to represent the changing times.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Anatomy of T20 Victory: Respecting the Losers
M.S.Dhoni’s young team has received a heroic welcome in the financial capital Mumbai, after having won the T20 world cup by sheer accident and of course collective hard work of every member of the team. No doubt, they deserve these accolades but did they expect that they would win?
When the tournament began they did not begin as favourites. Indeed, only through a tie they could sail through and moved towards the semi-final. This pre-final clash with mighty but unprepared Australians, gave a much needed boost to Sreesanth to remove the two openers for just 12 runs in his allotted four overs. When combined with in-form Yuvraj’s 70 in 30 balls, the script was ready for India to enter the final outsmarting Australia. These two young guys were instrumental in turning the tide in India’s favour.
But the grand finale was full of twist and turns of a typical drama. If anyone wants an empirical proof to estimate the distance between victory and defeat, the clash with Pakistan would provide many vital lessons i.e. the line separating the victor and the vanquished is very-very thin and the smile of the lady luck eventually determines the outcome. There was always a fluctuating fortune for both Pakistan and India. Yuvraj backed by 6 sixes in an over earlier, was not on full song in the crucial final. Gambhir played the role of an anchor and Rohit Sharma, a gentleman who was asked to sit all along in England, made a quick fire 30 in the middle. Irfan Pathan scalped three wickets and R.P.Singh and Sreesanth did some useful work.
Despite all this, the game was slipping away from India when Harbhajan was massacred for 3 sixes in the 17th over. The distance between the number of balls and number of runs began to shrink and Pakistan was in the driver’s seat.
Yoginder Sharma, a quite and pleasing bowler was brought in by the thinking captain to bowl the final over. Sharma did wonders at the semi-final. But in the Wandrers, he found it difficult to hold on to his nerves. The wide and a six must have shattered him. Then came an affectionate goading from the captain to play a cool game. Just six runs needed in four balls. In economic terms, those crucial marginal runs can be effortlessly taken in as many balls but Misbah, in his feverish enthusiasm to finish quickly, resorted to the much used and abused shot- a scoop. This mistimed shot soaring in the sky, instead of crossing over the boundary line, landed in the safe hands of Sreesanth. That sealed the fate of the game and Indians found themselves on the victory lap, while Misbah- who was proving himself as a key factor to fetch the cup, was on his knees alone and unhappy over the unexpected development.
Did India really win? Yes because Pakistan had lost by default. This is a time to respect the losers in the game because even the winners would have found it very difficult to believe at that time that they had indeed won the match. But all said and done, victory is victory and the monetary benefits are flowing like thunder showers for the winning team and Dhoni’s team will provide fresh oxygen to this new format of T20 cricket tournament, no matter what an all powerful Miandad says against it. This shorter version of the game will be more oriented towards entertainment which is what the game is all about.
When the tournament began they did not begin as favourites. Indeed, only through a tie they could sail through and moved towards the semi-final. This pre-final clash with mighty but unprepared Australians, gave a much needed boost to Sreesanth to remove the two openers for just 12 runs in his allotted four overs. When combined with in-form Yuvraj’s 70 in 30 balls, the script was ready for India to enter the final outsmarting Australia. These two young guys were instrumental in turning the tide in India’s favour.
But the grand finale was full of twist and turns of a typical drama. If anyone wants an empirical proof to estimate the distance between victory and defeat, the clash with Pakistan would provide many vital lessons i.e. the line separating the victor and the vanquished is very-very thin and the smile of the lady luck eventually determines the outcome. There was always a fluctuating fortune for both Pakistan and India. Yuvraj backed by 6 sixes in an over earlier, was not on full song in the crucial final. Gambhir played the role of an anchor and Rohit Sharma, a gentleman who was asked to sit all along in England, made a quick fire 30 in the middle. Irfan Pathan scalped three wickets and R.P.Singh and Sreesanth did some useful work.
Despite all this, the game was slipping away from India when Harbhajan was massacred for 3 sixes in the 17th over. The distance between the number of balls and number of runs began to shrink and Pakistan was in the driver’s seat.
Yoginder Sharma, a quite and pleasing bowler was brought in by the thinking captain to bowl the final over. Sharma did wonders at the semi-final. But in the Wandrers, he found it difficult to hold on to his nerves. The wide and a six must have shattered him. Then came an affectionate goading from the captain to play a cool game. Just six runs needed in four balls. In economic terms, those crucial marginal runs can be effortlessly taken in as many balls but Misbah, in his feverish enthusiasm to finish quickly, resorted to the much used and abused shot- a scoop. This mistimed shot soaring in the sky, instead of crossing over the boundary line, landed in the safe hands of Sreesanth. That sealed the fate of the game and Indians found themselves on the victory lap, while Misbah- who was proving himself as a key factor to fetch the cup, was on his knees alone and unhappy over the unexpected development.
Did India really win? Yes because Pakistan had lost by default. This is a time to respect the losers in the game because even the winners would have found it very difficult to believe at that time that they had indeed won the match. But all said and done, victory is victory and the monetary benefits are flowing like thunder showers for the winning team and Dhoni’s team will provide fresh oxygen to this new format of T20 cricket tournament, no matter what an all powerful Miandad says against it. This shorter version of the game will be more oriented towards entertainment which is what the game is all about.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
India at Sixty- III
India, a land of more than one billion people has successfully survived as democracy for more than six decades (the imposition of emergency during mid-70s by Mrs. Gandhi being an aberration). Especially when considered against the complex problems such as communal divide in select pockets, sharpening caste conflicts, wide social and economic disparities, growing regional chauvinism, and language barriers and so on, it is really a matter of pride that India has evolved as a functioning parliamentary democracy.
True, the democracy we have had may not be vibrant or dynamic and perhaps more shallow and dynastic in character and yet the country has not fallen into the trap of military dictatorship. The worrisome feature of our democracy is that it is not only bristling with dynastic and feudalistic tendencies with all crookedness and wickedness built into the system but it is also increasingly rooted on the personalities rather than issues and ideologies. Politics has become almost a family business yielding a lucrative rate of return, cutting across various political parties in the country. The law of family inheritance seems to hold in politics more.
If only there had been a facility or rather a critical ability for the majority of the population to win an education – a quality primary school or secondary education at an affordable cost or grossly subsidized by the state, a fighting chance subsequently to land a job thereafter by sheer merit given transparency in job selection, the existence and operation of a benevolent nexus between the beau racy and judiciary leading to a just legal system – an orderly procedure of the rule of law that does not bend backward to shield the erring politicians, bigwigs and criminals, India would have traveled miles ahead in its economic journey with tremendous social empowerment but alas, we were not destined to be.
True, the democracy we have had may not be vibrant or dynamic and perhaps more shallow and dynastic in character and yet the country has not fallen into the trap of military dictatorship. The worrisome feature of our democracy is that it is not only bristling with dynastic and feudalistic tendencies with all crookedness and wickedness built into the system but it is also increasingly rooted on the personalities rather than issues and ideologies. Politics has become almost a family business yielding a lucrative rate of return, cutting across various political parties in the country. The law of family inheritance seems to hold in politics more.
If only there had been a facility or rather a critical ability for the majority of the population to win an education – a quality primary school or secondary education at an affordable cost or grossly subsidized by the state, a fighting chance subsequently to land a job thereafter by sheer merit given transparency in job selection, the existence and operation of a benevolent nexus between the beau racy and judiciary leading to a just legal system – an orderly procedure of the rule of law that does not bend backward to shield the erring politicians, bigwigs and criminals, India would have traveled miles ahead in its economic journey with tremendous social empowerment but alas, we were not destined to be.
Monday, August 20, 2007
India At Sixty- II
With the Nehruvian command model of inward looking insular Indian economy faltering and collapsing to deliver the goods, India made a paradigm shift in the early 1990s in its economic policy. Confronted with a severe payment and fiscal crisis India embraced market ideology. For more than a decade we have been seduced sufficiently to believe that our heightened romantic filtration with market economics and continual embrace of globalization administered on us by international agencies like World Bank, IMF and WTO would serve as an express way for growth, help alleviate poverty and inequality and also strengthen the roots of our democracy and freedom. Imperialism and colonialism are no more in a raw form. They have worn a new cloth namely economic globalization. We have never conducted any serious debate on pros and cons of liberalization and a marketisation process going on in our country.
Globally Berlin wall has fallen; in our economy too the command model which was more like a Berlin wall has been dethroned. Trade barriers are slowly breaking down. Finance capital has become more mobile. They inject more oxygen into sensex. For a long time our stock market was on song. Only very recently close on the heels of sub-prime lending banking crisis in the US and world wide stock market crash, our market received a setback. Along with rise in sensex there is also an escalation in the rate of farmers’ suicide. Windows have opened for the IT professionals but the doors are shut for dalits and adivasis. The world has become flat for the educated middle class but it is still a night mare for those lacking access to education and health.
Our scholar prime minister has clearly evolved and adapted himself to the status of a matured politician. He is now in a catch 22 situation over the nuclear agreement with the US. To what extent the Left can succeed in keeping the US at a distance from our foreign policy making is a moot point. There are doubts about the very survival of the government. We don’t think that the vested interests will allow the government to fall.
The single most fundamentally flawed aspect of our shallow democracy is stinking corruption and growing amorality in Indian politics at a time when the Indian economy is undergoing sweeping economic reforms, it is also time for ruminating over reforming politics and humanizing the tribe called politicians. Taming and pruning the inflated ego and misplaced arrogance of those politicians having criminal nexus is not an easy job. With all the aggrandizement of power which has resulted in an infinite accumulation of wealth, they really enjoy a monopoly power and it is very difficult to dislodge them. Even while debating the nature and content of our economic reforms, there is more politics and economics in it. Unless the political entrepreneurs and the economic policy entrepreneurs seriously commit themselves to remove the pitfalls and contradictions in the governance of our country, economic reforms and globalization can not work.
Globally Berlin wall has fallen; in our economy too the command model which was more like a Berlin wall has been dethroned. Trade barriers are slowly breaking down. Finance capital has become more mobile. They inject more oxygen into sensex. For a long time our stock market was on song. Only very recently close on the heels of sub-prime lending banking crisis in the US and world wide stock market crash, our market received a setback. Along with rise in sensex there is also an escalation in the rate of farmers’ suicide. Windows have opened for the IT professionals but the doors are shut for dalits and adivasis. The world has become flat for the educated middle class but it is still a night mare for those lacking access to education and health.
Our scholar prime minister has clearly evolved and adapted himself to the status of a matured politician. He is now in a catch 22 situation over the nuclear agreement with the US. To what extent the Left can succeed in keeping the US at a distance from our foreign policy making is a moot point. There are doubts about the very survival of the government. We don’t think that the vested interests will allow the government to fall.
The single most fundamentally flawed aspect of our shallow democracy is stinking corruption and growing amorality in Indian politics at a time when the Indian economy is undergoing sweeping economic reforms, it is also time for ruminating over reforming politics and humanizing the tribe called politicians. Taming and pruning the inflated ego and misplaced arrogance of those politicians having criminal nexus is not an easy job. With all the aggrandizement of power which has resulted in an infinite accumulation of wealth, they really enjoy a monopoly power and it is very difficult to dislodge them. Even while debating the nature and content of our economic reforms, there is more politics and economics in it. Unless the political entrepreneurs and the economic policy entrepreneurs seriously commit themselves to remove the pitfalls and contradictions in the governance of our country, economic reforms and globalization can not work.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
India at Sixty- I
A man gets old in sixty years but India at sixty is a nation of a young and vibrant people given its demographic profile. While celebrating the completion of 60 years of independence we can be proud that ours is still a functioning democracy no matter how shallow or dynastic it is. It is time to ruminate over the path that we have traversed and take stock of the situation.
Despite the fact that Gandhiji was instrumental in getting freedom, when it did arrive on August 15, 1947 he was busy extinguishing the communal fire that was raging in Bengal’s hinterlands (Naokali) than becoming a part of the jubilations. Thanks to the visionary ambition of Pandit Nehru and his unquestioned authority for 17 long years, a diversified industrial base could be built up keeping the secular and democratic framework intact. Regardless of the criticism which has been voiced against his command model and his love for socialist ideals which came to be branded as Nehruvian post office socialism or Congress brand of bureaucratic socialism later, the inward looking, protectionist, import substitution model, dominated and frustrated by the state, had its own rationale in building up our economic strength.
Mrs Gandhi’s elevation to power against the backdrop of revolt by a bandicoot of syndicate, made her embrace a socialist policies like bank nationalization and abolition of purses and privileges. With the creation of Bangladesh under her preponderant show of strength virtually made her the modern incarnation of Goddess Durga at least in the mind of the generation of 1970s. However, with the passage of time this Goddess turned dictatorial and imposed emergency when she thought she was losing the unquestioned hold of power. Indian illiterate people showed the power of democracy by unseating her when the election was conducted. In her second innings at the helm of affairs she was found wanting in not resolving the communal question and religious extremism. The Kashmir and Punjab problems acquired communal and religious content under her dispensation which was neatly taken to its logical conclusion by her successors. Her son Rajiv Gandhi pandered to Hindu religious extremism by unlocking the locks of Babri mosque and then in an attempt to pacify Muslim extremism reverted back the Supreme Court’s indictment in the Shah Bano case and finally, Narasimha Rao who did everything under the sun, not only to hold on to power by horse trading but also becoming a party in the demolition of Babri mosque.
The greatest tragedy of this era of Nehruvian dynasty was that no concerted efforts were made to introduce basic structural reforms like land reform and no serious attention was paid to provide basic education, health care, connecting roads, affordable drinking water and so on to the bulk of the population in both rural and urban areas. The list of problems plaguing India is long, never ending and if one single reason is to be given for the plight of common man it would be a grand betrayal by the politicians and bureaucrats. The image that most of us have about them is not that pleasant to look at. There is a deep seated feeling and apprehension that a majority of them are not just honest and hence steeped into a sea of corruption and the current form of political democracy is becoming a source of irritant in the dynamic functioning of market based economic order. Politics has become business; education and health have too not remained untouched by it. There is a gross indifference by the vocal elites and the educated towards the elections and the poor people (the silent majority) increasingly come forward to change the destiny but alas they are caught between the devil and the deep sea as there is no better alternative for them. Indeed the honest and the decent will abhor politics when muscle and money power predominate over everything else and politics becomes a family business. Unlike corporate sector no special skill is needed here except the blind loyalty by the committed party cadre subservient to caste ridden political parties. You stretch this loyalty a little, it turns into sycophancy. Those who have mastered the art of conducting exhibition in the game of flattery have reaped rich dividends in the field of politics.
You may ask where is the young blood, the student community which stirred the conscience of the society in the swirling sixties. They are too busy in the IT and BPO world trying to chase the chimera of green card and/or getting those benefits by remaining within the country, thanks to internet revolution, digitizing work and changing the very nature of work.
Despite the fact that Gandhiji was instrumental in getting freedom, when it did arrive on August 15, 1947 he was busy extinguishing the communal fire that was raging in Bengal’s hinterlands (Naokali) than becoming a part of the jubilations. Thanks to the visionary ambition of Pandit Nehru and his unquestioned authority for 17 long years, a diversified industrial base could be built up keeping the secular and democratic framework intact. Regardless of the criticism which has been voiced against his command model and his love for socialist ideals which came to be branded as Nehruvian post office socialism or Congress brand of bureaucratic socialism later, the inward looking, protectionist, import substitution model, dominated and frustrated by the state, had its own rationale in building up our economic strength.
Mrs Gandhi’s elevation to power against the backdrop of revolt by a bandicoot of syndicate, made her embrace a socialist policies like bank nationalization and abolition of purses and privileges. With the creation of Bangladesh under her preponderant show of strength virtually made her the modern incarnation of Goddess Durga at least in the mind of the generation of 1970s. However, with the passage of time this Goddess turned dictatorial and imposed emergency when she thought she was losing the unquestioned hold of power. Indian illiterate people showed the power of democracy by unseating her when the election was conducted. In her second innings at the helm of affairs she was found wanting in not resolving the communal question and religious extremism. The Kashmir and Punjab problems acquired communal and religious content under her dispensation which was neatly taken to its logical conclusion by her successors. Her son Rajiv Gandhi pandered to Hindu religious extremism by unlocking the locks of Babri mosque and then in an attempt to pacify Muslim extremism reverted back the Supreme Court’s indictment in the Shah Bano case and finally, Narasimha Rao who did everything under the sun, not only to hold on to power by horse trading but also becoming a party in the demolition of Babri mosque.
The greatest tragedy of this era of Nehruvian dynasty was that no concerted efforts were made to introduce basic structural reforms like land reform and no serious attention was paid to provide basic education, health care, connecting roads, affordable drinking water and so on to the bulk of the population in both rural and urban areas. The list of problems plaguing India is long, never ending and if one single reason is to be given for the plight of common man it would be a grand betrayal by the politicians and bureaucrats. The image that most of us have about them is not that pleasant to look at. There is a deep seated feeling and apprehension that a majority of them are not just honest and hence steeped into a sea of corruption and the current form of political democracy is becoming a source of irritant in the dynamic functioning of market based economic order. Politics has become business; education and health have too not remained untouched by it. There is a gross indifference by the vocal elites and the educated towards the elections and the poor people (the silent majority) increasingly come forward to change the destiny but alas they are caught between the devil and the deep sea as there is no better alternative for them. Indeed the honest and the decent will abhor politics when muscle and money power predominate over everything else and politics becomes a family business. Unlike corporate sector no special skill is needed here except the blind loyalty by the committed party cadre subservient to caste ridden political parties. You stretch this loyalty a little, it turns into sycophancy. Those who have mastered the art of conducting exhibition in the game of flattery have reaped rich dividends in the field of politics.
You may ask where is the young blood, the student community which stirred the conscience of the society in the swirling sixties. They are too busy in the IT and BPO world trying to chase the chimera of green card and/or getting those benefits by remaining within the country, thanks to internet revolution, digitizing work and changing the very nature of work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
