Some responses…
To begin, let me refer my readers to a comment made to my previous post on the nuclear deal. This post is intended mainly as a riposte to the said comment. Arun, while it is true that American ambitions in the rest of the world are far from innocent, I think it is naive to think that India will have to support the US’ “atrocities” in the rest of the world if it signs the nuclear deal. The nuclear deal with the US is precisely that: a deal detailing the intricacies of civil nuclear cooperation with the United States. It does not mean that India relinquishes control over its foreign policy. It does not mean that we become the United States’ unquestioning ally on the lines of the UK either. It does not even mean that we are totally dependent on the United States for energy, technology, fuel or anything else. After having signed the deal with the US, India is free to sign similar deals with other countries of the P-5. There is nothing in the 123 Agreement that bars India from doing so.
Secondly, I had said in my post that the withdrawal of the deal symbolises a surrender to the Left. The issue here is not of how beneficial the deal is to India. The issue is loss of credibility. The issue could have debated, argued upon, fought for or even rejected before the signing of the 123 Agreement. That is perfectly democratic. But, the fact that a democratically elected government backtracks on a commitment made after the signing of the agreement by no less that the head of government is condemnable. I would not have complained if the withdrawal had resulted from a change of government following a national election. Governments are perfectly free to withdraw from a commitment made by a previous government. That is national politics. But the withdrawal of the commitment by the very same person who signed it in the first place is unacceptable. What makes matters worse is that he takes the decision, not after a vote in Parliament, as is expected in a democracy, but after talks with some selected leaders of the Left, which extends “outside support” but refuses to be part of the government. Not to mention that the meeting is chaired by a woman who is, in no way, accountable to the people who elected her, because she holds no position of responsibility in the government. She is a Member of Parliament like any other. But, her status as daughter-in-law of the Dynasty gives her the power to decide the fate of an issue as important as a bilateral agreement that could have a tremendous impact on India’s future. With that, I rest my case.
The deal is dead…or so he said…
As the Times of India puts in its article of about 12 hours ago, “The Nuclear deal is dead. Long live the nuclear deal.” The cat is finally out of the bag. The Government of India has surrendered to the blackmail of the Left. A Left, that supports the government “from outside.” What does that mean? you may wonder. It means that the Left parties in India hold a lot of power without any responsibility whatsoever. It means they can blackmail the government into accepting their stance without being answerable to anyone, not the Parliament, not the Press, and certainly not the voters. It may not be politically correct to say this, but the Government of India has been brought to its knees by a combination of blackmail, power politics and populism. And, as always, the Congress government has buckled, driven almost exclusively by the desire to stay in power as long as possible.
I am not exactly the greatest fan of the Congress, nor of its dynastic and sycophantic nature. To me, the withdrawal of deal is tantamount to betrayal. As an Indian, I think it is a serious loss of credibility. And if I were the President of any country in the world, I would ask myself just what guarantee I had that the Indian government would not backtrack on a commitment a few months later. An article on Reuters says that rather plainly. The government of India loses both the deal and its credibility by giving in to a Left that refuses to step out of the Cold War-era and into the 21st Century. A Left, that does nothing to contribute to the phenomenal economic growth that India has been witnessing for the last decade. In fact, the Left in India actively campaigns against liberalisation and loosening of governmental control on industry in the name of social justice.
And, while we are on the subject of the nuclear deal, this article in The Hindu caught my attention. It is established fact that a country whose military stays away from politics is freer than one ruled by a military junta. But, what about our esteemed scientists? With all due respect for the ex-chairpersons and ex-directors of the various scientific research institutions of this country, I think they would do well to shut up. Their job is to carry out scientific research and development. And they should stop with doing that. They do not understand either the politics or the economics of the proposed deal, and must thus keep their noses out of the affair. I may not be an authority in nuclear technology, but I certainly think I am qualified enough to discuss the politics of the deal. Just as I think our scientists are not qualified to do the same. All I say to them is this: advise the government by all means, but leave the final decision to the political decision-makers at the top. And stop pretending you know everything about everything simply because the issue is vaguely scientific.
Economic development and social welfare…among other things…
Yet again, I am going to talk about two different things. But, this time around, the two are not entirely unrelated to one another. First, Amalia sent me a link a couple of days ago that spoke of the OECD report on India. It is an article of Le Monde, that says India can reduce its poverty levels to half the current level by 2015. The Policy Brief released by the OECD can be accessed in PDF format here. The report simply confirms what economist have been saying for years; that economic liberalisation has benefited large sections of society, but that further reforms are needed if we want the growth to be sustainable and more inclusive. The Policy Brief puts it rather succinctly when it says, “Reform must continue if government is to achieve its growth targets.” I am happy to learn that India is on the right track with liberalisation, no matter what the Left says or wants to believe. It is, of course, evident that there are several sectors that need to be reformed if the phenomenal growth rate of the past two decades is to be sustained.
Of them, the most important is education. In a way, the report vindicated my post of July 22, that creativity is becoming a bad word for most schools, given the national obsession with grades. There are many things wrong with our educational system. The first is that we still pride ourselves on a system created to school a nation of clerks. The second problem is that a government that is so keen on making out IITs and IIMs as good as Harvard spends next to nothing on primary education. I repeat the question I asked some time back on the same blog. How does one get to the IITs or the IIMs when he does not know how to gain access to kindergarten? The government must now concentrate on enabling students from less privileged backgrounds, notably girls, to get at least primary education. Otherwise, we are closing the doors to sustainable development, both economic and human.
That said, I also think the government is doing its best, given the circumstances, to improve the situation. As the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, Montek Singh Ahluwalia said on a programme on BBC today, we are an open society. It is easy to find weaknesses in the system. That is a good thing. But, we must also document the successes and find encouragement for further reforms in them. A second statement by Ahluwalia reassured me that our fate is in the right hands. To a question on whether development would ‘trickle down’ to the bottom, he said that he did not like the expression. As he put it, it implies that development takes place at the top and is distributed to the lower levels. He added that for growth to be inclusive, development must start from the lowest levels. I completely agree. And I hope he stays put at the Planning Commission long enough to ensure that he implements the policies he creates.
Ok…now, moving on. This article of the International Herald Tribune caught my attention this morning. It made me wonder whether the world would have taken such a death in India so lightly. One case of a farmer committing suicide in India hits the headlines and everyone, including starving African nations start talking about how economic growth in India is not inclusive. A case of double standards? I certainly think so. Also, I think such a situation is practically impossible in India. Indian society is too close-knit, even in urban centres, to completely ignore a person like this for months. I only hope that, in the euphoria of economic development, we do not lose sight of the social support system that makes India so special. To me, it is something that must be preserved.
Politics, security and technology…
Here is a post, once again, that talks of things that are unrelated to one another. Let me start with politics, security and armed political opposition. Yesterday, I was at the CSA seminar on Civil Society in Conflict situations. (will link to the report on it once it is up.) There, one of the speakers, a distinguished and retired army officer analysed some of the characteristics of violence-ridden and conflict-torn societies. He said, in his rather interesting presentation, that conflict situations are often characterised by a lack of basic amenities, poverty, high levels of unemployment and absence of infrastructure. That reminded me of the fabled robbers of Chambal Valley, so famously characterised by Phoolan Devi. But, these factors do not always lead to conflict. Or inversely, all conflict situations are not necessarily characterised by the above problems. In fact, some of the most violent armed struggles of the world have been started and sustained by the prosperous.
Take, for example, the secessionist violence that the Democratic Republic of Congo suffered for decades. The province that wanted to secede, Katanga possesses practically 90% of DRC’s natural resources. The same is the case with insurgency in Punjab. Punjab is one of India’s richest states, in terms of agricultural produce. As I said some time back in my post on Bihar, the desire to secede or rise in arms against the state comes, not only from the poorest, but also from the richest states. Was Tamil Nadu ever as backward as the Northeast? Why then, did the campaign for a separate Tamil nation catch the people’s imagination in the 1960s? Armed political resistance only starts where the insurgents are sure of carrying it on successfully. Insurgency will hardly work in a place where the common man is too worried about his next meal to support insurgent groups. What creates problems and incites insurgency is economic development and influx of money in the absence of good governance. That said, there is no linear relationship between poverty, unemployment and violence. the relationship is much more complex and merits a more detailed study then is possible on a simple blog. So, I will leave that to someone else.
Now, over to technology. The other day, I saw the brand new Lenovo with an in-built face recognition system. Now, that is the kind of computer I would like to buy. But, the said laptop had many more features and weighed just 900 grams. And, cost a whopping 120,000 rupees (about $3000.) So, I contented myself with just looking. The way technology has evolved over the last ten years is amazing. Using fingerprint identification or face recognition to access your computer would have been unthinkable at the turn of the century. At least, for us non-techies. Today, biometric identification for security had permeated every aspect of life. The French Government’s decision to include biometric identifiers in all passports issued after September 2006, is symbolic of the change that is sweeping Europe and the rest of the world. It will perhaps take a few more years to get to India, not because we are far behind technologically, but because the Indian government takes a lot longer to act that the EU does. Not to mention that decisions are implemented a decade after they are actually taken, by which time they become redundant. Let us hope we get biometric passports soon. At least before my passport is due for renewal in 2014!
The Great Indian Novel
That’s right. It is the famous book by Shashi Tharoor I am talking about. I know it’s a bit late to review that book on this blog, but what can I do? I bought myself a copy just a week ago, and finished reading it just a couple of hours ago. But, I can say this confidently. I regret having taken so long to read a book that is so delightfully irreverent and astonishingly well-informed. Now, where do I start? Before I say anything else, let me state that I always knew that Tharoor was a prolific writer. But, this one exceeded my expectations. To cut a long story short, I loved the book. There were many things that I liked about the book. The first, and most important: the treatment of the fictional Gangaji, (the real-life Gandhi) as a master tactician, an expert politician, and sometimes, a biased moralist. The portrayal must have ruffled quite a few Congress feathers when it was first published. It makes me wonder if the current generation of Congress-walahs have even read the book. After all, Tharoor does not exactly flatter them by labelling their ‘Goddess Indira’ as Priya Duryodhani. Or is the allusion too subtle for the videshi mind of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to grasp? Do the apologists of the Dynasty even have the brains required to understand Tharoor’s satire? I highly doubt they do. For if they had, they would not have nominated him as India’s candidate for the position of Secretary General of the United Nations. Congratulations Mr. Tharoor! You have made your point quite clearly.
The second positive aspect, perhaps as important as the first is our beloved first Prime Minister as Dritarashtra. Oh yes, Dritarashtra was blind, literally. That is not his fault. But, Nehru was blind in the metaphorical sense. And, as Tharoor puts it, chose to see the world as he wanted to see it and not as it really was. The analogy, I must say, is quite apt. The references to Draupadi Mokrasi puzzled me, until the very end. Until about an hour after I finished the book. The brilliance of it all hit me on the face as suddenly as a flash of sunlight in a dull, dreary day. Draupadi Mokrasi is precisely that, De-mocracy!! Wow!
Anyway, with that, I will end this eulogy of Tharoor and his book. I do, however, have something to say about Nita’s latest blogpost. She has finally completed an incomplete post on NRIs and dollar-earning desis. It was published, if I remember right, way back in October 2006. Wow Nita! Your posts certainly have a long gestation period. Her objections to Rashmi Bansal’s article on Rediff are certainly valid. When I first read the said article a year ago, I wasn’t as offended as Nita. In fact, I even questioned her defensiveness. But today, I bear testimony to the fact that attitudes evolve. I am just as bugged as Nita by the way Bansal portrays all Indians working abroad as those who are not good enough to make it to top-of-the-rung institutions in India.
Secondly, Nita’s feelings about nostalgia are quite valid too. Not everyone feels the need to wax eloquent about crowded sabzi mandis and traffic jams and mum’s cooking. We must accept that some people are decidedly happier in their First-World homes with 52-inch televisions and three cars. That doesn’t mean they are not Indian. Why do we, as Indians, feel the need to be so judgemental about those who choose to make a foreign land their home despite what Bansal calls cold reception? Do they not have the right to choose the way they want to live? Do we seriously think our NRI cousins or American-born nephews are out to make us jealous and plant diffidence and wistfulness in our desi heads? If we do, we are simply too naive for the world…and lack greatly in entrepreneurship and confidence. If some of us want to chase dollar dreams, so be it? Why is the rest of the world so bothered about that? We may or not may not be good Indians, but we are certainly successful and happy, albeit in an alien land.