My dear friend Chandrasekhar has kindly forwarded me this interview given by our irrepressible Narendra Modi. My sincere thanks for the same. Let us go to the interview given below, with the questions in bold italics. Then I will get back to you as usual.
How long will Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi stay on in the state? Does he harbour prime ministerial ambition? Does he see a greater role for himself at the Centre if a Bharatiya Janata Party-led dispensation were to assume power after the election? Does he see a connection between the anti-Muslims riots that rocked his state in 2002 and terrorism?
Rediff.com's Saisuresh Sivaswamy and Nikhil Lakshman met Modi at the chief minister's home in Gandhinagar to find out the answers. The first part of a 70-minute exclusive interview:
Why do you believe that L K Advani is a better leader than Manmohan Singh?
It's very simple, Dr Manmohan Singhji in reality is not a leader, and he has himself said that he is not a leader. The nation cannot be ruled by an academician, it can be run only by a leader. What was Indiraji (Indira Gandhi)'s education was never an issue, but she was a leader. (P V) Narasimha Rao was a leader. Only those who know the pulse of the nation can run it.
Lal Bahadur Shastri knew the pulse of the nation very well, which is why he was able to leave his imprint on the nation in such a short time. Atal Bihari Vajpayee knew the pulse of the nation, Morarjibhai (Morarji Desai) knew the pulse of the nation, Chandra Shekharji was a mass leader. We also had (H D) Deve Gowdaji who had never left Karnataka, Indra Kumar Gujralji thankfully never made any claims. Manmohan Singhji is like that.
That is why I say the nation needs a leader. Dr Manmohan Singh has not even visited all the states in the five years of his prime ministership, while Advaniji is a leader who has, at some point in time, spent a night in our 400 districts.
He knows the entire land, there is not a stain on him, he is blemishless, has vast administrative experience having served in various Cabinets, and fulfilled his responsibilities to everyone's satisfaction, whether it was as the chief executive of the Delhi metropolitan council or as information and broadcasting minister or deputy prime minister. Advaniji rose from the ranks to become a mass leader, there's a world of difference between the two.
It is said that in a nation where some 540 million people are under the age of 30, Advani seems out of sync with them, and the nation needs a leader like Narendra Modi?
If you are using age as the basis, how are you differentiating between Advaniji and Manmohan Singh? I am thankful to the Congress for at least announcing that Manmohan Singh is their prime ministerial candidate, it will help the people decide in whose hand to hand over the reins of power. The nation will now choose between Manmohan Singh and Advaniji. There is no third option before us, so there is no need to get into that debate and waste our time. Now see the age factor for both, there's no problem.
How do you feel when people talk about you as a potential prime minister?
But no one has said that to me!
Industrialists have endorsed your leadership and said...
You please read their statement carefully, none of them has used the words 'prime minister', none. You check it, no one has said it.
If you were to look at the postings on rediff message boards, in any story about Indian politics at least 50 per cent of the readers say we need Narendra Modi as prime minister.
But have they stated any timeframe? (laughs) Please ask them about the time, too.
Time is in your hands, obviously.
Time is in the hands of the people.
Anyway, I have no idea of this, because wherever I go, when I announce that Advaniji will be the next prime minister the people are happy and cheer wildly. This is what I hear.
If the NDA were to win the election what will be your role?
I am the chief minister of Gujarat, and I believe no one will remove me as the chief minister of Gujarat.
But how long will you stay in Gujarat, after all you came here from Delhi...
I don't even worry about what is going to happen this evening, so what you ask is not on Narendra Modi's agenda.
You are seen as the poster boy of development in the country.
I don't understand, what is poster boy? I work like a labourer, not like a model. I am a man who works 24 hours a day. In eight years have not taken even a 15-minute vacation.
What is your vision for India?
Given the present situation in the world, India has a great chance to become a powerful nation. The 21st century can become India's if only all of us strove together with all our energies.
Another thing I believe is that development must be a mass movement. The 100 crore citizens should feel motivated to take the nation forward -- we must create such an atmosphere. Media must be a part of development. (Then President A P J ) Abdul Kalam used to say the media's role in development is very important.
What is your mantra for management?
Actually, I am not a manager, I am simply an organiser. And since my childhood I had training in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, so I know the human wealth, what is the value of human wealth and how to use human resources, how to form teamwork. This is my training and because I got exposure as a CM, I tasted success.
Although you had no real experience in running a state before this, your style of running a state has become a model for other chief ministers. Everyone wants to become another Modi.
I don't claim so. As far as Narendra Modi is concerned I think it's my responsibility, I have to deliver the goods as it is my commitment to the people of Gujarat. And if anything new is there, I try to learn. Even I am a student.
I believe you get up very early in the morning, and look at the Internet and read all newspapers on the Net and check what's going on, so you continuously invent yourself as a politician...
Actually I am a student of political science, so it's my natural habit. The second thing is, I was in Delhi for a long time so I used to read newspapers on the Internet, particularly Gujarati newspapers. When I left Delhi and came to Gujarat I was habituated to read the Delhi newspapers, so I was using the Internet.
I do believe that one must have information channels. If a person is well informed, he can take better decisions, he can guide the people, he can make a proper judgement of the situation. So for me the Net is a source of information, the mobile phone is a source of information, it connects me with the people. I can reach out to everyone through this. That information helps me take decisions.
As a student of political science, how do you see the coming elections?
There are three camps in this election. One is the BJP-led NDA, the second is the Congress-led UPA, and the third is those who left the UPA, those who have not accepted anyone, those who want their own, they have their own problems. They are working as a Third Front.
On one side we have the family-oriented ideology of the Congress, another side we have money power, and then we have the nationalist ideology of the BJP. This is inevitable.
As the election nears, polarisation will happen, towards the BJP-led camp or the Congress-led camp. The rest are inconsequential, nothing much will happen.
And I am seeing it clearly that the nation wants a strong government, the nation is waiting for an experienced, strong leader.
For all these reasons... on the other hand, the failures of the government, price rise, unemployment, and their many false promises.
I can understand if the nation's expectations are not fulfilled, but when the government's promises are not fulfilled -- I am unable to swallow it.
They first said we will provide employment to 1.5 crore people, but are now saying that five lakh people will lose jobs. This is a major contradiction! They say -- we are the government of the aam-aadmi (common man), but they have been unable to halt price rise. In Atalji's time, when his government demitted office, onions were sold at Rs 8 a kg, today it costs Rs 16 a kg. Cooking gas cylinder was available for Rs 270, today it costs Rs 370. Their failures are linked to the aam-aadmi.
Security is an important issue, how do you propose to deal with security when the Taliban is poised to take over over all of Pakistan, they have reached Karachi. Naturally, the common man is perturbed.
Bhai, who do we trust to safeguard us? Like this there are many reasons why they are rejecting the UPA or Manmohan Singh.
Do you think the era of coalition governments in India will soon come to an end?
The era of coalitions will continue, but it will be good if the national party is strong and the regional parties add to that strength. That will be the best model.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee had given us such a model for governance -- first you arrive at a consensus in the Cabinet and then you take decisions. That was the best model.
How do you explain the fact that both Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh have opted for a stable one-party government while the country itself chooses coalitions?
The two are different. If you start comparing the states versus the Centre, the point is regional aspirations are growing, and I think national parties will have to address it and carry everyone along. They will have to keep in mind the development-related issues of the smaller states.
What are the deficiencies in our democracy, in your opinion, and how can it be rectified?
I think after independence we have laid greater emphasis on right, and less emphasis on duty. It would be better if we give more emphasis to duty.
In Gujarat, for instance, I have laid emphasis on a public-private partnership, like with rainwater harvesting, I involve the public. Because crores are helping, my rainwater harvesting is doing well. I have aroused the sense of duty in them, and if the same can be done nationwide it will be good.
For us democracy has become a vote-giving exercise, and we give out five-year contracts to run the government. We ask for accountability after five years. But I think this way we have extracted only the least from democracy. I believe that in everything we do, the people's involvement should be there.
After voting the people and government go their different ways -- this is not acceptable. Gujarat has developed the model where the public has a stake in everything, the people are carried along in everything.
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan. A really candid interview given by Modi. The nation requires persons of the caliber of Modi and Advaniji. I hope that the people give a clear verdict in favor of NDA. The nation is in need of a Government, whose existence is not at the mercy of the whims and likes and dislikes of a vocal minority group. A leader of caliber like Modi and Advani is the need of the hour.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
'Why shouldn't Brahmin community get reservation?
My friend Chandrasekhar forwarded this news to me. My thanks to him for this. First the concerned news item given below in bold italics. It will be followed as usual by my remarks.
Sattanathapuram Venkataraman Shekher is a popular playwright, producer and director in the Tamil film industry. He is also the sitting All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam member of the legislative assembly from Mylapore, Chennai.
Popularly known as S Ve Shekher, he shares his mobile number with all the residents of his constituency and is always accessible to them.
He recently created a flutter when he announced his decision to resign from the AIADMK. He also submitted a memorandum to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi on March 30, asking for seven per cent reservation for the Brahmin community.
He explains his reasons behind leaving the AIADMK to rediff.com's Shobha Warrier.
With the Lok Sabha elections round the corner, you have announced your decision to quit the AIADMK. Why did you make this announcement now?
I didn't think of the time when I made the announcement. Local party members have been avoiding me for quite some time. I felt that enough is enough. There is no support from party supremo J Jayalalithaa also. The AIADMK is one party where if Jayalalithaa is affectionate towards you, the entire party cadre will support you. Otherwise, the party will throw you out.
You are liked by the people of your constituency because of your accessibility. Is your party chief not happy with your work?
Those things don't count at all. Nobody is bothered about your work. The only thing that works is loyalty. Yes, I accepted Jayalalitha as the chief of the party.
Did any particular incident trigger off your decision to quit the party?
No particular incident prompted my decision; there have been so many continuous incidents. When I joined the AIADMK, the party offered me the ticket to contest without me asking for it, and the party funded my election expenses. But I am basically a strong supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party [Images].
Why didn't you join the BJP then?
The ideology of both the parties is the same. I knew Jayalalitha and she also knew me but (BJP leaders) Atal Bihari Vajpayee or L K Advani [Images] didn't know me. I know only the BJP leaders from Tamil Nadu.
Though the AIADMK was a good party, I think I was not suitable for the party mentality. I thought they would utilise my popularity for the party's benefit. But the party wanted me to put on the mask of the party. It is not possible for me.
Did anyone ask you to put on the AIADMK mask?
I am loyal to the party and its supremo but beyond that, I don't know how to act. I am not a 100 per cent politician. I joined politics because I do a lot of social service and politics gives me more power to do that. I run a public charitable trust. Every year, I spend Rs 5-6 lakh on charity. Every month, I make the arrangements for the burial of 15-20 unclaimed bodies in hospitals. I am a regular blood donor. So, politics is not a profession for me.
I have never fallen at her feet and I know she doesn't expect me to do so. I requested her to be there for my daughter's wedding and also do the puja of my son's first film but she didn't come for either. These are personal things.
My brother's wife is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, so she had invited the Chief Minister (M Karunanidhi) for her son's wedding. As the eldest in the family, I received the chief minister with respect. That was construed as a big mistake!
How did Jayalalithaa get to know about the CM attending the wedding?
There is a team to convey such news to her! In 2006, I was the vice-chairman of the International Film Festival here. For that festival, Dayanidhi Maran was invited. Because I shared the dais with Maran, she refused to come to my 5000th show, though I had publicised her likely presence. On the same day, I changed my show's number and celebrated it as my 5007th show!
These are the kind of punishments you get in this party. I cannot surrender myself to the party. I cannot say AIADMK is my life. I have so many other important things in my life. Meeting opposition party members cannot be construed as a crime.
Were you summoned?
No, I was not summoned. All they do is ignore you. I have been ignored completely from 2006.
Do you feel that politicians of Tamil Nadu lack maturity?
You cannot say they are immature. When you say they are not mature, it comes closer to maturity! You may belong to a different party and you may have a different opinion. But that does not mean that you look at the other person as your enemy. You see Advani and (Congress chief) Sonia Gandhi standing side by side but you won't see such a thing in Tamil Nadu.
Are you planning to join the BJP now?
Which party would want S Ve Shekher? I don't want to repeat the mistake I made earlier, so I will take a decision after a lot of deliberation because I want to be part of that party forever. I don't want to be a local person; I want to go to Delhi.
Are you planning to resign from the AIADMK?
Definitely. Now, I will give a memorandum to the chief minister asking for seven per cent reservation for the Brahmin community (he submitted it on March 30). If the government appoints a committee, I will resign from the Mylapore constituency. In a by-election, it is always the ruling party that wins.
Why do you feel Brahmins need reservation in Tamil Nadu?
Why should they not get reservation? In Tamil Nadu, 69 per cent of the people get reservation and ninety five per cent of people enjoy some kind of reservation except the forward community. Where is social justice? There are over 40 lakh Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. It is the government's duty to give equal opportunities to everyone. Brahmins have been eliminated, insulted and sidelined in so many ways. You cannot punish people for what happened over 50-60 years ago.
Now that you are talking to the press about your decision to quit, what is the feedback that you are getting from your party chief?
You don't know the AIADMK. Once the party starts ignoring you, they don't bother about what you do.
Usually, people switch parties when they have some case regsistered against them. I have never been booked for anything -- not even for riding double on a bicycle. I am an MLA but I don't go in the opposite direction on a one-way street, I don't park in a no-parking zone. I am a 100 per cent law abiding citizen.
Once I decide to quit, I will send a letter to the party supremo and I will conduct a sms poll on the decision. I will hold a public meeting in my constituency as I feel I have a responsibility to the people who voted for me. At the public meeting, I will tell the people how I joined the party, why I am resigning and what I will do now.
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. S.V. Sekhar should have taken this step long back. Anyhow, better late than never. The only consolation is that he did not indulge the Dravidian culture of falling at the feet of worthless "leaders" such as Jayalalitha or Karunanidhi. He kept his distance. To that extent he is a far cry from the dyed-in-the-wool politician of Tamil Nadu. My best wishes to him.
I am not, however, in favor of reservation for Brahmins.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Sattanathapuram Venkataraman Shekher is a popular playwright, producer and director in the Tamil film industry. He is also the sitting All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam member of the legislative assembly from Mylapore, Chennai.
Popularly known as S Ve Shekher, he shares his mobile number with all the residents of his constituency and is always accessible to them.
He recently created a flutter when he announced his decision to resign from the AIADMK. He also submitted a memorandum to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi on March 30, asking for seven per cent reservation for the Brahmin community.
He explains his reasons behind leaving the AIADMK to rediff.com's Shobha Warrier.
With the Lok Sabha elections round the corner, you have announced your decision to quit the AIADMK. Why did you make this announcement now?
I didn't think of the time when I made the announcement. Local party members have been avoiding me for quite some time. I felt that enough is enough. There is no support from party supremo J Jayalalithaa also. The AIADMK is one party where if Jayalalithaa is affectionate towards you, the entire party cadre will support you. Otherwise, the party will throw you out.
You are liked by the people of your constituency because of your accessibility. Is your party chief not happy with your work?
Those things don't count at all. Nobody is bothered about your work. The only thing that works is loyalty. Yes, I accepted Jayalalitha as the chief of the party.
Did any particular incident trigger off your decision to quit the party?
No particular incident prompted my decision; there have been so many continuous incidents. When I joined the AIADMK, the party offered me the ticket to contest without me asking for it, and the party funded my election expenses. But I am basically a strong supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party [Images].
Why didn't you join the BJP then?
The ideology of both the parties is the same. I knew Jayalalitha and she also knew me but (BJP leaders) Atal Bihari Vajpayee or L K Advani [Images] didn't know me. I know only the BJP leaders from Tamil Nadu.
Though the AIADMK was a good party, I think I was not suitable for the party mentality. I thought they would utilise my popularity for the party's benefit. But the party wanted me to put on the mask of the party. It is not possible for me.
Did anyone ask you to put on the AIADMK mask?
I am loyal to the party and its supremo but beyond that, I don't know how to act. I am not a 100 per cent politician. I joined politics because I do a lot of social service and politics gives me more power to do that. I run a public charitable trust. Every year, I spend Rs 5-6 lakh on charity. Every month, I make the arrangements for the burial of 15-20 unclaimed bodies in hospitals. I am a regular blood donor. So, politics is not a profession for me.
I have never fallen at her feet and I know she doesn't expect me to do so. I requested her to be there for my daughter's wedding and also do the puja of my son's first film but she didn't come for either. These are personal things.
My brother's wife is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, so she had invited the Chief Minister (M Karunanidhi) for her son's wedding. As the eldest in the family, I received the chief minister with respect. That was construed as a big mistake!
How did Jayalalithaa get to know about the CM attending the wedding?
There is a team to convey such news to her! In 2006, I was the vice-chairman of the International Film Festival here. For that festival, Dayanidhi Maran was invited. Because I shared the dais with Maran, she refused to come to my 5000th show, though I had publicised her likely presence. On the same day, I changed my show's number and celebrated it as my 5007th show!
These are the kind of punishments you get in this party. I cannot surrender myself to the party. I cannot say AIADMK is my life. I have so many other important things in my life. Meeting opposition party members cannot be construed as a crime.
Were you summoned?
No, I was not summoned. All they do is ignore you. I have been ignored completely from 2006.
Do you feel that politicians of Tamil Nadu lack maturity?
You cannot say they are immature. When you say they are not mature, it comes closer to maturity! You may belong to a different party and you may have a different opinion. But that does not mean that you look at the other person as your enemy. You see Advani and (Congress chief) Sonia Gandhi standing side by side but you won't see such a thing in Tamil Nadu.
Are you planning to join the BJP now?
Which party would want S Ve Shekher? I don't want to repeat the mistake I made earlier, so I will take a decision after a lot of deliberation because I want to be part of that party forever. I don't want to be a local person; I want to go to Delhi.
Are you planning to resign from the AIADMK?
Definitely. Now, I will give a memorandum to the chief minister asking for seven per cent reservation for the Brahmin community (he submitted it on March 30). If the government appoints a committee, I will resign from the Mylapore constituency. In a by-election, it is always the ruling party that wins.
Why do you feel Brahmins need reservation in Tamil Nadu?
Why should they not get reservation? In Tamil Nadu, 69 per cent of the people get reservation and ninety five per cent of people enjoy some kind of reservation except the forward community. Where is social justice? There are over 40 lakh Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. It is the government's duty to give equal opportunities to everyone. Brahmins have been eliminated, insulted and sidelined in so many ways. You cannot punish people for what happened over 50-60 years ago.
Now that you are talking to the press about your decision to quit, what is the feedback that you are getting from your party chief?
You don't know the AIADMK. Once the party starts ignoring you, they don't bother about what you do.
Usually, people switch parties when they have some case regsistered against them. I have never been booked for anything -- not even for riding double on a bicycle. I am an MLA but I don't go in the opposite direction on a one-way street, I don't park in a no-parking zone. I am a 100 per cent law abiding citizen.
Once I decide to quit, I will send a letter to the party supremo and I will conduct a sms poll on the decision. I will hold a public meeting in my constituency as I feel I have a responsibility to the people who voted for me. At the public meeting, I will tell the people how I joined the party, why I am resigning and what I will do now.
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. S.V. Sekhar should have taken this step long back. Anyhow, better late than never. The only consolation is that he did not indulge the Dravidian culture of falling at the feet of worthless "leaders" such as Jayalalitha or Karunanidhi. He kept his distance. To that extent he is a far cry from the dyed-in-the-wool politician of Tamil Nadu. My best wishes to him.
I am not, however, in favor of reservation for Brahmins.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Monday, March 09, 2009
The untold story by Ronald Kitching as to how Friederich von Hayek caught inflation by the balls
My dear friend Chandrasekhar sporting the name of Hayek Order sent me an interesting email relating an anecdote about the Nobel price winning Austrian economist Hayek. Thanks. Pending its blogging in Tamil I am posting this item here too in bold italics. The 'I' in the following paras refers to Ronald Kitching of course.
The great Nobel Prize winning economist/social scientist F. A. Hayek made a month long lecture tour of Australia in October 1976. There is a bit of an inside story to this tour which so far few know about. Hayek was invited to Australia for a lecture tour by economist Mark Tier. However, Hayek, at that time, had to decline, but as circumstances changed and as he did not know anybody else in Australia, he wrote a note to Sydney Economist/Barrister Roger Randerson, whom he once tutored at The London School of Economics, saying that he could squeeze in a month before going on previously scheduled visits to new Zealand and Japan.
Roger and I were good mates so he rang me with the good news. I then suggested to Roger that he immediately write back to Hayek and ask what his fee would be. I can still quote the answer. Hayek replied saying:
Should first class return airfares be provided for my wife and myself both internationally and nationally, and first class accommodation be provided for us, and also providing that my lectures are confined to no more than two per week, there will be no fee.
Roger estimated that the total cost would be approximately $25,000. As he was well connected in the commercial world and I was well connected with the Australian Mining Industry, we thought that it would be an easy matter to get the tour underwritten. So we set off to see what we could do. After a week’s travelling and lobbying, I could not find a single executive willing to undertake part in such a ‘revolutionary’ activity. I returned to my home rather dispirited about it all. I rang Roger to see how he was doing.
He replied to my query, “My boy, nobody wants to know me. They are all running for cover.” I then went on to say that the average answer I got was, “We cannot be seen to be endorsing the right wing views of such a radical figure.” He replied that that was precisely the response he got too.
So, I said, “Bugger it all Roger, I’ll underwrite the tour myself”. He replied, “I won’t see you do that my boy, I’ll go you halves”.
So, with that settled, I suggested that we again go around the traps, and, seeing the tour was underwritten by somebody who wished to remain anonymous, try to see what could be raised for the venture. We were ably assisted in this effort by Mr. Ref Kemp, Director of The Institute For Public Affairs in Victoria, Mr. Viv Forbes in Brisbane, and Mr. R. H. (now Sir Robert), Norman OBE of Cairns. Roger published a booklet titled Social Justice Socialism and Democracy featuring three of Hayek’s most important lectures. In that small book he said,
Many publicly spirited citizens, institutions and organisations donated, (numbering no fewer than 62, in sums ranging from $50 to $2,000) towards the visit, but no list is given because some wish to be nameless. Their generosity is, however, gratefully acknowledged.
The Hayek visit was a co-operative private enterprise. Indeed it had to be, because approaches at high levels for concessions from government owned or controlled internal and external airlines were refused.
There were complaints from high level ‘intellectuals’, that the visit was everything from a white washing of dangerous capitalist ideology, a political plot of ever devious Jews, to a ‘bankers plot’. Hayek incidentally was a non- practising Catholic. He was in great form and he appeared as Guest of Honour on the hour long Monday Conference with Robert Moore, and televised by the ABC network in all states on October 11th 1976. In addition, in total he kept no less than 60 appointments, including visits to heads of state, seminar and lecturing engagements. A very heavy schedule for anybody, but at that time Hayek was 76 years of age. He was in scintillating form.
Roger decided that in the middle of the tour he would give him four days off on the Atherton Tableland. I had a spacious home there and as half of my six children were away at boarding school, we had ample room to accommodate Roger, and Professor and Mrs. Hayek. When he arrived we had a celebratory drink of his favourite tipple, Johnny Walker black label. “When ever I drink this brand of Scotch” Hayek announced, “I get ideas beyond my station”. He was a past master at putting people at ease.
He then noticed hanging on the wall of the bar, a large picture of a magnificent Brahman Bull I owned. He asked about the Bull, so I told him he was a prize winning show bull which I had nicknamed Inflation as he would not stop growing. “He weighs 3,000 pounds in his working clothes,” I told the small gathering present.
Hayek laughed and said that he knew a bit about inflation and that he would like to meet this one. I told him that compared with the inflations he had witnessed, that this one was rather tame and that my boys jumped on to his back in the paddock. “I even jump on his back when he is in the yard and I can climb up the rails to do so,” I told him.
“Well, while I am here, I would like to meet him,” Hayek exclaimed. So I put that on the agenda.
I got this bright idea that I’d put the bull in the yard, get a step ladder put Hayek on the bull, (if he agreed), and take a picture which would carry the caption Hayek’s on Top Of Inflation. I told my wife and that was the end of it. She would not under any circumstances countenance such a move. “What if the Professor fell off and was injured,” and all of that sort of chatter. So that project was abandoned.
Nevertheless Hayek still wanted to meet the bull. Next day I took him down the paddock and took several pictures of him and the bull when another idea popped into my head and I quietly mentioned it to him. He was delighted to have a bit of fun. The caption of course was to beHayek¹s Got Inflation By The Balls.
Well the old boy was delighted. He was quite at home with animals and had palled up with the bull, which was an easy matter with this particular animal. So he posed and I took the picture. He predicted that if the Americans got hold of a copy, the picture would become famous.
I am happy to announce that not long ago, I heard from Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute in London. He told me that at a recent luncheon in London, Mrs. Thatcher, much to her delight, had a picture presented to her of her favourite Economist/Philosopher and with Inflation by the balls. Hayek’s grand daughter was present and read out the above story.
Hayek with Inflaton the bull
Ronald Kitching is a life member of the Mont Pelerin Society who made a major contribution to F.A. Hayek’s lecture tour of Australia in 1976 . He also authored the book “Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty”.
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan.
In the face of widespread discouragement to the entire idea of Hayek's tour, it is heartening to see the initiative of the author and his friend in making it possible.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
The great Nobel Prize winning economist/social scientist F. A. Hayek made a month long lecture tour of Australia in October 1976. There is a bit of an inside story to this tour which so far few know about. Hayek was invited to Australia for a lecture tour by economist Mark Tier. However, Hayek, at that time, had to decline, but as circumstances changed and as he did not know anybody else in Australia, he wrote a note to Sydney Economist/Barrister Roger Randerson, whom he once tutored at The London School of Economics, saying that he could squeeze in a month before going on previously scheduled visits to new Zealand and Japan.
Roger and I were good mates so he rang me with the good news. I then suggested to Roger that he immediately write back to Hayek and ask what his fee would be. I can still quote the answer. Hayek replied saying:
Should first class return airfares be provided for my wife and myself both internationally and nationally, and first class accommodation be provided for us, and also providing that my lectures are confined to no more than two per week, there will be no fee.
Roger estimated that the total cost would be approximately $25,000. As he was well connected in the commercial world and I was well connected with the Australian Mining Industry, we thought that it would be an easy matter to get the tour underwritten. So we set off to see what we could do. After a week’s travelling and lobbying, I could not find a single executive willing to undertake part in such a ‘revolutionary’ activity. I returned to my home rather dispirited about it all. I rang Roger to see how he was doing.
He replied to my query, “My boy, nobody wants to know me. They are all running for cover.” I then went on to say that the average answer I got was, “We cannot be seen to be endorsing the right wing views of such a radical figure.” He replied that that was precisely the response he got too.
So, I said, “Bugger it all Roger, I’ll underwrite the tour myself”. He replied, “I won’t see you do that my boy, I’ll go you halves”.
So, with that settled, I suggested that we again go around the traps, and, seeing the tour was underwritten by somebody who wished to remain anonymous, try to see what could be raised for the venture. We were ably assisted in this effort by Mr. Ref Kemp, Director of The Institute For Public Affairs in Victoria, Mr. Viv Forbes in Brisbane, and Mr. R. H. (now Sir Robert), Norman OBE of Cairns. Roger published a booklet titled Social Justice Socialism and Democracy featuring three of Hayek’s most important lectures. In that small book he said,
Many publicly spirited citizens, institutions and organisations donated, (numbering no fewer than 62, in sums ranging from $50 to $2,000) towards the visit, but no list is given because some wish to be nameless. Their generosity is, however, gratefully acknowledged.
The Hayek visit was a co-operative private enterprise. Indeed it had to be, because approaches at high levels for concessions from government owned or controlled internal and external airlines were refused.
There were complaints from high level ‘intellectuals’, that the visit was everything from a white washing of dangerous capitalist ideology, a political plot of ever devious Jews, to a ‘bankers plot’. Hayek incidentally was a non- practising Catholic. He was in great form and he appeared as Guest of Honour on the hour long Monday Conference with Robert Moore, and televised by the ABC network in all states on October 11th 1976. In addition, in total he kept no less than 60 appointments, including visits to heads of state, seminar and lecturing engagements. A very heavy schedule for anybody, but at that time Hayek was 76 years of age. He was in scintillating form.
Roger decided that in the middle of the tour he would give him four days off on the Atherton Tableland. I had a spacious home there and as half of my six children were away at boarding school, we had ample room to accommodate Roger, and Professor and Mrs. Hayek. When he arrived we had a celebratory drink of his favourite tipple, Johnny Walker black label. “When ever I drink this brand of Scotch” Hayek announced, “I get ideas beyond my station”. He was a past master at putting people at ease.
He then noticed hanging on the wall of the bar, a large picture of a magnificent Brahman Bull I owned. He asked about the Bull, so I told him he was a prize winning show bull which I had nicknamed Inflation as he would not stop growing. “He weighs 3,000 pounds in his working clothes,” I told the small gathering present.
Hayek laughed and said that he knew a bit about inflation and that he would like to meet this one. I told him that compared with the inflations he had witnessed, that this one was rather tame and that my boys jumped on to his back in the paddock. “I even jump on his back when he is in the yard and I can climb up the rails to do so,” I told him.
“Well, while I am here, I would like to meet him,” Hayek exclaimed. So I put that on the agenda.
I got this bright idea that I’d put the bull in the yard, get a step ladder put Hayek on the bull, (if he agreed), and take a picture which would carry the caption Hayek’s on Top Of Inflation. I told my wife and that was the end of it. She would not under any circumstances countenance such a move. “What if the Professor fell off and was injured,” and all of that sort of chatter. So that project was abandoned.
Nevertheless Hayek still wanted to meet the bull. Next day I took him down the paddock and took several pictures of him and the bull when another idea popped into my head and I quietly mentioned it to him. He was delighted to have a bit of fun. The caption of course was to beHayek¹s Got Inflation By The Balls.
Well the old boy was delighted. He was quite at home with animals and had palled up with the bull, which was an easy matter with this particular animal. So he posed and I took the picture. He predicted that if the Americans got hold of a copy, the picture would become famous.
I am happy to announce that not long ago, I heard from Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute in London. He told me that at a recent luncheon in London, Mrs. Thatcher, much to her delight, had a picture presented to her of her favourite Economist/Philosopher and with Inflation by the balls. Hayek’s grand daughter was present and read out the above story.
Hayek with Inflaton the bull
Ronald Kitching is a life member of the Mont Pelerin Society who made a major contribution to F.A. Hayek’s lecture tour of Australia in 1976 . He also authored the book “Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty”.
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan.
In the face of widespread discouragement to the entire idea of Hayek's tour, it is heartening to see the initiative of the author and his friend in making it possible.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Dastardly attack on the srilankan cricket team in Pakistan
LAHORE: An official says eight members of Sri Lanka's national cricket team have been wounded after gunmen opened fire on their vehicle in Lahore, Pakistan, AP reports.
Pakistan Cricket Board security official Nadeem Iqbal says the team members were injured near the Gaddafi stadium where they were due to arrive to play in the second test against Pakistan.
Sri Lankan team manager Brendon Kruppu confirmed the incident and said the team's players, Kumar Sangakkara and Ajantha Mendis, are among the injured.
"We are assessing the situation," Pakistan cricket board chief Ejaz Butt said.
In Sri Lanka, sports minister Gamini Lokuge said two other players, Tharanga Paranavitana and Thilan Samaraweera, had been taken to hospital in Lahore, AFP reports.
Unidentified gunmen attacked the bus taking the Sri Lankan cricket squad and its police escort to a cricket stadium in Lahore, according to witnesses and cricket officials.
Five policemen have also been killed as the police van escorting Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore was fired upon, confirms the police chief in Lahore.
The Test match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan stands cancelled.
Security concerns have plagued Pakistan for years and some foreign sports teams have refused to play here.
What is the world coming to?
regards,
N. Raghavan
Pakistan Cricket Board security official Nadeem Iqbal says the team members were injured near the Gaddafi stadium where they were due to arrive to play in the second test against Pakistan.
Sri Lankan team manager Brendon Kruppu confirmed the incident and said the team's players, Kumar Sangakkara and Ajantha Mendis, are among the injured.
"We are assessing the situation," Pakistan cricket board chief Ejaz Butt said.
In Sri Lanka, sports minister Gamini Lokuge said two other players, Tharanga Paranavitana and Thilan Samaraweera, had been taken to hospital in Lahore, AFP reports.
Unidentified gunmen attacked the bus taking the Sri Lankan cricket squad and its police escort to a cricket stadium in Lahore, according to witnesses and cricket officials.
Five policemen have also been killed as the police van escorting Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore was fired upon, confirms the police chief in Lahore.
The Test match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan stands cancelled.
Security concerns have plagued Pakistan for years and some foreign sports teams have refused to play here.
What is the world coming to?
regards,
N. Raghavan
Friday, February 20, 2009
The more things change, the same they remain
It is actually coming across something that was wholly unexpected but was welcome by all means. A sort of pleasant surprise, one can say. I refer to the interview given by Cho way back in 2005. The funny thing is, it is fully relevant even today. This then explains the title of this post. A sort of déjà vu, I should say.
Cho Ramaswamy, political analyst and editor of the Tamil magazine Thuglak, was said to be the only man in Tamil Nadu who spoke openly and courageously against the Emergency. In this interview with Shobha Warrier, he recalls those dark days, most of the time satirically. It is always a pleasure talking to him and listening to him airing contrarian views.
How did you take the news of the declaration of the Emergency? Did you have a feeling that it was coming?
Mine was the only journal in the country that wrote that there could be an Emergency regime. We even published a mock cartoon, which showed JP, Kripalani, Morarji and many others in jail. In this imaginary piece, we said that all fundamental rights had been taken away. Of course, we exaggerated the prevailing situation before the Emergency.
What gave you the idea that the Emergency would be declared? We never had anything like that in India till then?
I had been interacting with many people like Chandrasekhar. The way things were going, I thought Mrs. (Indira) Gandhi might feel she was fighting a losing game mainly because of what was happening due to the JP movement. Of course, for her, the last straw was the Allahabad high court judgment.
Once the Emergency was declared, did you feel vindicated?
It's not a question of vindication. When VP Singh became the prime minister, I said the very same Devi Lal who propped him up could dump him and back Chandrasekhar quite soon. It happened.
Was it premonition?
It was not premonition. I can give you a list of things, which we had predicted. I asked Mrs. Gandhi in an interview, 'How long do you think Bangladesh will remain friendly?' I said it's going to be a problem for her. She asked, 'Why do you say so?' I said that was how I felt. She didn't agree. She said it was exaggerated.
When the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam set foot in India, I wrote it was going to be a menace as far as Tamil Nadu was concerned, and that we must sit up and take notice. I started campaigning against it. Everybody thought I was exaggerating a non-existent threat. Everybody thought I was anti-Tamil but ultimately it proved to be true.
When the Janata government came to power, I said Charan Singh was going to be a threat. When Sanjiva Reddy was elected President, I said he would be a problem to the government.
When the Emergency was declared, you were the editor of Thuglak. What were the problems you faced?
I was agitated initially and stopped the publication of Thuglak for two issues. Later, when I restarted, I published a black wrapper. In fact, two issues of Thuglak had black wrappers; one was during the Emergency and the other after Babri Masjid was pulled down.
Why did you restart after two issues?
I wanted some time to think and see how I could tackle it. I was busy writing for underground magazines, and also addressing meetings. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh mostly did these underground magazines. That is how I came into contact with them. They were very dedicated people publishing magazines against all odds.
Then, I started interacting with Ramnath Goenka. I had nothing to lose at that time but not Goenka. I used to say, I don't even have hair on my head to lose!! Goenka had an empire at stake. So also Irani. In spite of it, they spoke against the Emergency. Their courage is much greater than mine because I was a man with nothing to lose.
At any point of time, were you scared?
Somehow, my safety didn't bother me much. I am a fatalist. I strongly believe that when my time comes, nobody could do anything to make me live longer. Otherwise, even if you want to kill me, you will not be able to do so (laughs).
I restarted the magazine when I felt I could convey some messages to the people. There was an old Tamil movie called Sarvadhikari (Dictator) made in the fifties. I reviewed the movie during the Emergency. Luckily, it was showing in a theatre at the time. In the review, I condemned the dictatorship. A woman was behind it too! There were so many indirect ways to criticise the Emergency.
Didn't you have any problems with the censors?
I had problems. When I did these things, they started censoring even the advertisements. In the name of advertisement, I was sending messages. Ours was the only journal in the whole country for which even censorship of advertisement was clamped.
I was a regular visitor, with my magazine, to Sastri Bhavan, where the censors sat. I even took my salary to him telling, "This belongs to you. You are the editor!"
Were they amused?
They were embarrassed all the time. They were helpless. The governor's advisors warned me. I said I was not bothered.
Every issue was a problem. But I addressed meetings though meetings were banned. The Congress (O) was sponsoring meetings.
Please don't forget that I was not the only one who fought; there were many others. Rajmohan Gandhi fought it through Himmat. Goenka fought it. Irani did.
But all the time I knew the Emergency would be lifted sooner than later. I was saying that in all the meetings as it was becoming difficult to manage.
How was the general atmosphere in Tamil Nadu? Were there any excesses?
Karunanidhi was undecided. He went on praising Mrs. Gandhi now and then. Before he was dismissed, he supported the 20-point program, he supported Sanjay Gandhi's 5-point program. He thought he could escape by supporting her. He went to the extent of saying I am not your enemy. In fact, I am prepared to identify and give you information about people who are against you.
MGR also supported Mrs. Gandhi?
Yes, and Mrs. Gandhi preferred him to Karunanidhi. So, Karunanidhi had to be in the opposite camp. He became a reluctant opponent of the Emergency. Later on, he put on the mantle of a great fighter against the Emergency. But he was never happy with the Janata grouping because they were not prepared to withdraw the Sarakaria commission report and all that.
MGR kept warning me in his speeches that I would be arrested any time. But I was not arrested.
Why do you think they spared you even after your attacking (though indirectly) through the Thuglak?
It could have been my proximity to Kamaraj. The second reason could be that my father was a respected Congressman. Third, perhaps they thought "He is after all a satirist, let him say whatever he wants in an indirect fashion!"
Rajmohan (Gandhi) was not arrested. Goenka was not arrested. Irani was not arrested. All of them were working against the Emergency.
Were you at the receiving end of any direct or indirect threats?
Yes. People who were close to Sanjay Gandhi were asking him to do something about me. Certain industrialist friends of mine used to warn me. But nothing happened. I cannot say I went through hell and all that.
Were you getting a kind of pleasure by attacking the Emergency? A sense of adventure?
I think it must have been some kind of a thrill because I was only a five-year-old journalist then. My journal was launched in 1970. In hindsight, I feel I must have been thrilled fighting a mighty power. It could be that.
You said when the Emergency was lifted you were expecting it. Did you feel relieved when it was finally lifted?
It was no great relief or pain or anything. I took it in my stride, that's all. But I campaigned for the Janata all over India, attending meetings wherever Tamils lived.
What was the mood of the general public when the Emergency was lifted?
In Tamil Nadu, the Emergency was not unpopular. People actually welcomed it. There was no great abuse of power here. Maybe, because MGR did not oppose it. I have a feeling that the middle class throughout the country welcomed it.
To be honest with you, I attended a BJP meeting a few days ago. I said, the Emergency was then brought about by a wrong person for wrong reason at a wrong time and administered wrongly. There was no threat of war, no internal disturbance. All that happened was that there was JP's movement against corruption and the Allahabad high court unseated Mrs. Gandhi.
Now, you take the condition of the country. Naxalite groups are operating in several parts, and they are growing. The LTTE has not stopped its anti-India machinations. Khalistan movement has not been stopped totally. Infiltration of Bangladeshi refugees is going to be a big problem for the country. Look at the condition in the North-East and Kashmir.
And, workers go on strike for anything. During the Emergency, nobody even spoke of a strike. Every reform is being blocked now. So, this is the right time for an Emergency.
You are joking?
No, I am not. Today, nobody is aware of his duties in this country. Laws are there to be broken. Rules are there to be violated. Regulations are there to be ignored. That's the present mood of the country.
Why is China advancing at a more rapid rate than us? It is the discipline, which is helping them. We are the most indisciplined of all democracies in the world.
Those who were part of JP's movement against corruption are symbols of corruption now, like Laloo Prasad Yadav.
So, the time is right but the person over there is wrong again. By wrong person, I mean Sonia Gandhi, who is the real authority, the real power. So, there is a wrong person there. One can rest assured that it will be wrongly administrated. I will not welcome an Emergency if this government imposes it. But if a person like Vajpayee or Advani, real nationalists- not necessarily them but someone like them- does it at some point of time, I will welcome it. That's my present mood. I want to be honest when I give my opinion.
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan. Whether one likes or not, one cannot avoid Cho. As a person having vivid memories of things to a sufficient extent in order to warrant saying "Recently in 1975, the emergency was declared, I hasten to add that I find nothing that can be factually incorrect in Cho's statement.
Let me add however, I do not share his enthusiasm for emergency now or in foreseeable future.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Cho Ramaswamy, political analyst and editor of the Tamil magazine Thuglak, was said to be the only man in Tamil Nadu who spoke openly and courageously against the Emergency. In this interview with Shobha Warrier, he recalls those dark days, most of the time satirically. It is always a pleasure talking to him and listening to him airing contrarian views.
How did you take the news of the declaration of the Emergency? Did you have a feeling that it was coming?
Mine was the only journal in the country that wrote that there could be an Emergency regime. We even published a mock cartoon, which showed JP, Kripalani, Morarji and many others in jail. In this imaginary piece, we said that all fundamental rights had been taken away. Of course, we exaggerated the prevailing situation before the Emergency.
What gave you the idea that the Emergency would be declared? We never had anything like that in India till then?
I had been interacting with many people like Chandrasekhar. The way things were going, I thought Mrs. (Indira) Gandhi might feel she was fighting a losing game mainly because of what was happening due to the JP movement. Of course, for her, the last straw was the Allahabad high court judgment.
Once the Emergency was declared, did you feel vindicated?
It's not a question of vindication. When VP Singh became the prime minister, I said the very same Devi Lal who propped him up could dump him and back Chandrasekhar quite soon. It happened.
Was it premonition?
It was not premonition. I can give you a list of things, which we had predicted. I asked Mrs. Gandhi in an interview, 'How long do you think Bangladesh will remain friendly?' I said it's going to be a problem for her. She asked, 'Why do you say so?' I said that was how I felt. She didn't agree. She said it was exaggerated.
When the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam set foot in India, I wrote it was going to be a menace as far as Tamil Nadu was concerned, and that we must sit up and take notice. I started campaigning against it. Everybody thought I was exaggerating a non-existent threat. Everybody thought I was anti-Tamil but ultimately it proved to be true.
When the Janata government came to power, I said Charan Singh was going to be a threat. When Sanjiva Reddy was elected President, I said he would be a problem to the government.
When the Emergency was declared, you were the editor of Thuglak. What were the problems you faced?
I was agitated initially and stopped the publication of Thuglak for two issues. Later, when I restarted, I published a black wrapper. In fact, two issues of Thuglak had black wrappers; one was during the Emergency and the other after Babri Masjid was pulled down.
Why did you restart after two issues?
I wanted some time to think and see how I could tackle it. I was busy writing for underground magazines, and also addressing meetings. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh mostly did these underground magazines. That is how I came into contact with them. They were very dedicated people publishing magazines against all odds.
Then, I started interacting with Ramnath Goenka. I had nothing to lose at that time but not Goenka. I used to say, I don't even have hair on my head to lose!! Goenka had an empire at stake. So also Irani. In spite of it, they spoke against the Emergency. Their courage is much greater than mine because I was a man with nothing to lose.
At any point of time, were you scared?
Somehow, my safety didn't bother me much. I am a fatalist. I strongly believe that when my time comes, nobody could do anything to make me live longer. Otherwise, even if you want to kill me, you will not be able to do so (laughs).
I restarted the magazine when I felt I could convey some messages to the people. There was an old Tamil movie called Sarvadhikari (Dictator) made in the fifties. I reviewed the movie during the Emergency. Luckily, it was showing in a theatre at the time. In the review, I condemned the dictatorship. A woman was behind it too! There were so many indirect ways to criticise the Emergency.
Didn't you have any problems with the censors?
I had problems. When I did these things, they started censoring even the advertisements. In the name of advertisement, I was sending messages. Ours was the only journal in the whole country for which even censorship of advertisement was clamped.
I was a regular visitor, with my magazine, to Sastri Bhavan, where the censors sat. I even took my salary to him telling, "This belongs to you. You are the editor!"
Were they amused?
They were embarrassed all the time. They were helpless. The governor's advisors warned me. I said I was not bothered.
Every issue was a problem. But I addressed meetings though meetings were banned. The Congress (O) was sponsoring meetings.
Please don't forget that I was not the only one who fought; there were many others. Rajmohan Gandhi fought it through Himmat. Goenka fought it. Irani did.
But all the time I knew the Emergency would be lifted sooner than later. I was saying that in all the meetings as it was becoming difficult to manage.
How was the general atmosphere in Tamil Nadu? Were there any excesses?
Karunanidhi was undecided. He went on praising Mrs. Gandhi now and then. Before he was dismissed, he supported the 20-point program, he supported Sanjay Gandhi's 5-point program. He thought he could escape by supporting her. He went to the extent of saying I am not your enemy. In fact, I am prepared to identify and give you information about people who are against you.
MGR also supported Mrs. Gandhi?
Yes, and Mrs. Gandhi preferred him to Karunanidhi. So, Karunanidhi had to be in the opposite camp. He became a reluctant opponent of the Emergency. Later on, he put on the mantle of a great fighter against the Emergency. But he was never happy with the Janata grouping because they were not prepared to withdraw the Sarakaria commission report and all that.
MGR kept warning me in his speeches that I would be arrested any time. But I was not arrested.
Why do you think they spared you even after your attacking (though indirectly) through the Thuglak?
It could have been my proximity to Kamaraj. The second reason could be that my father was a respected Congressman. Third, perhaps they thought "He is after all a satirist, let him say whatever he wants in an indirect fashion!"
Rajmohan (Gandhi) was not arrested. Goenka was not arrested. Irani was not arrested. All of them were working against the Emergency.
Were you at the receiving end of any direct or indirect threats?
Yes. People who were close to Sanjay Gandhi were asking him to do something about me. Certain industrialist friends of mine used to warn me. But nothing happened. I cannot say I went through hell and all that.
Were you getting a kind of pleasure by attacking the Emergency? A sense of adventure?
I think it must have been some kind of a thrill because I was only a five-year-old journalist then. My journal was launched in 1970. In hindsight, I feel I must have been thrilled fighting a mighty power. It could be that.
You said when the Emergency was lifted you were expecting it. Did you feel relieved when it was finally lifted?
It was no great relief or pain or anything. I took it in my stride, that's all. But I campaigned for the Janata all over India, attending meetings wherever Tamils lived.
What was the mood of the general public when the Emergency was lifted?
In Tamil Nadu, the Emergency was not unpopular. People actually welcomed it. There was no great abuse of power here. Maybe, because MGR did not oppose it. I have a feeling that the middle class throughout the country welcomed it.
To be honest with you, I attended a BJP meeting a few days ago. I said, the Emergency was then brought about by a wrong person for wrong reason at a wrong time and administered wrongly. There was no threat of war, no internal disturbance. All that happened was that there was JP's movement against corruption and the Allahabad high court unseated Mrs. Gandhi.
Now, you take the condition of the country. Naxalite groups are operating in several parts, and they are growing. The LTTE has not stopped its anti-India machinations. Khalistan movement has not been stopped totally. Infiltration of Bangladeshi refugees is going to be a big problem for the country. Look at the condition in the North-East and Kashmir.
And, workers go on strike for anything. During the Emergency, nobody even spoke of a strike. Every reform is being blocked now. So, this is the right time for an Emergency.
You are joking?
No, I am not. Today, nobody is aware of his duties in this country. Laws are there to be broken. Rules are there to be violated. Regulations are there to be ignored. That's the present mood of the country.
Why is China advancing at a more rapid rate than us? It is the discipline, which is helping them. We are the most indisciplined of all democracies in the world.
Those who were part of JP's movement against corruption are symbols of corruption now, like Laloo Prasad Yadav.
So, the time is right but the person over there is wrong again. By wrong person, I mean Sonia Gandhi, who is the real authority, the real power. So, there is a wrong person there. One can rest assured that it will be wrongly administrated. I will not welcome an Emergency if this government imposes it. But if a person like Vajpayee or Advani, real nationalists- not necessarily them but someone like them- does it at some point of time, I will welcome it. That's my present mood. I want to be honest when I give my opinion.
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan. Whether one likes or not, one cannot avoid Cho. As a person having vivid memories of things to a sufficient extent in order to warrant saying "Recently in 1975, the emergency was declared, I hasten to add that I find nothing that can be factually incorrect in Cho's statement.
Let me add however, I do not share his enthusiasm for emergency now or in foreseeable future.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Friday, December 26, 2008
From the dark pages of history
Today morning I received this email (reproduced in full below) from one Kashyapa Kumarilla. I feel it deserves to be converted into a blog post, at least as counter to the apologists of the Soviet Union. I am yet to go through the interviews given by the the Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov due to lack of time but will do so soon. Now for the email. I have suppressed the from address of the sender as it will not be proper to do so without the concerned person's consent. Now, over to email in bold italics:
from Kashyapa Kumarila
reply-to
to
date Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:42 AM
subject Fw: Video: How communist subversion of India happened
mailed-by xxx.com
signed-by xxx.com
Hello,
Can you post it in your blog ?
Thanks,
KK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Bezmenov was a member of Propaganda Team of KGB. He was posted in Delhi Embassy of Soviet Union in 60's to 1970. He defected in 1970 to USA .
In early 1980's there was a TV interview of Yuri Bezmenov which is given below in parts in YouTube link. It is interesting to know how communist subversion happens in many countries. He shows how the Journalists, Writers, Academicians, politicians etc from India were indoctrinated in communism/Marxism. Especially the videos 6, 7, 8 where he shows with pictures how Indian professors would be indoctrinated & how many Indian academicians were dishonest.
Play list : http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=96832BA85ECDC4FF
We don't have to accept everything he says or accept every analysis he makes. But he shows how "progressives”, "liberals", "human rights activists" etc are made.
Makes a lot of sense in Indian context. Nowadays, Christian churches & Arabian Mullahs are using the same above methods to create “pseudo secular activists , “journalists”, “Intellectuals” like Guha etc.
In case you are interested, you can read a transcript of the interview in 3 parts as follows.
part 1
part 2
part 3
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan. Please go through them. You will be amazed.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union a lot of information came out as to how the communists of all hues in various countries were in league with the Soviets. As they were already of a bent of mind susceptible to the communist lies, I guess the Soviets had no difficulty recruiting them, especially the Indians.
I will come back in another post within the next few days after making a thorough study of the tapes and the transcripts.
For the moment, ciao and Happy New Year to all of you.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
P.S. Well I read the transcripts. Quite shocking. By the way, the Tamil version of this post can be seen here.
from Kashyapa Kumarila
reply-to
to
date Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 6:42 AM
subject Fw: Video: How communist subversion of India happened
mailed-by xxx.com
signed-by xxx.com
Hello,
Can you post it in your blog ?
Thanks,
KK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Bezmenov was a member of Propaganda Team of KGB. He was posted in Delhi Embassy of Soviet Union in 60's to 1970. He defected in 1970 to USA .
In early 1980's there was a TV interview of Yuri Bezmenov which is given below in parts in YouTube link. It is interesting to know how communist subversion happens in many countries. He shows how the Journalists, Writers, Academicians, politicians etc from India were indoctrinated in communism/Marxism. Especially the videos 6, 7, 8 where he shows with pictures how Indian professors would be indoctrinated & how many Indian academicians were dishonest.
Play list : http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=96832BA85ECDC4FF
We don't have to accept everything he says or accept every analysis he makes. But he shows how "progressives”, "liberals", "human rights activists" etc are made.
Makes a lot of sense in Indian context. Nowadays, Christian churches & Arabian Mullahs are using the same above methods to create “pseudo secular activists , “journalists”, “Intellectuals” like Guha etc.
In case you are interested, you can read a transcript of the interview in 3 parts as follows.
part 1
part 2
part 3
Back to Dondu N. Raghavan. Please go through them. You will be amazed.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union a lot of information came out as to how the communists of all hues in various countries were in league with the Soviets. As they were already of a bent of mind susceptible to the communist lies, I guess the Soviets had no difficulty recruiting them, especially the Indians.
I will come back in another post within the next few days after making a thorough study of the tapes and the transcripts.
For the moment, ciao and Happy New Year to all of you.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
P.S. Well I read the transcripts. Quite shocking. By the way, the Tamil version of this post can be seen here.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Car rental services at airport: plea by call taxi firm rejected
In today's Hindu (14.12.2008) the following news item is published. Let us first see the item and then Dondu N. Raghavan shall comment.
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a call taxi services company seeking to call for records of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) in issuing tender for granting licence to internationally branded car rental services at the airport here, and quashing the same. Fast Track (P) Ltd. said it was running call taxi services in eight centres in South India, including Chennai. It submitted that as far as the tender was concerned, in view of the terms and conditions imposed, relating to internationally branded car rental services, the company and other local taxi operators were excluded from participating.
A.Xavier Arulraj, counsel for the AAI, submitted that the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender relating to internationally branded car rental services at the airport were based on the commercial policy of the AAI and approved by the board of directors of the Authority. The eligibility criteria for different services had been laid down.
In her order, Justice K.Suguna said a plain reading of the relevant clause of the notice inviting tender made it clear there was no prohibition on any local taxi operators from participating in the tender process. The only condition was they should fulfil the conditions.
Now for Dondu Raghavan's stance:
The term "plain reading" referred to in the last para is a little intriguing. What is meant by plain reading? Does the Honorable justice mean "prima facie"? If that is so, I would say that is precisely what the case is about. From the above news item I gather that the call taxi firm wanted to see what led to the decision of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to limit the tendering to just "internationally branded car rental services". What does the term "internationally branded" qualify? Is it the car or the rental services? And by the way what is exactly meant by "internationally branded"? Definitely the records would have held clues as to the various definitions and if they did not contain them the same would have been sufficient reason, I believe, to reverse the Authority's order. Presumably the records would have been shown to the Honorable judge, though the above news item does not specifically say so. (I would like to clarify that I shall not question a court's judgment. Nor am I doing it. But I can question the AAI).
Then another point. Why should it be limited to only internationally branded car rental services? I would have thought some specifications as to the quality of the cars deployed, drivers employed (should be capable of communicating well with the passengers etc) would have been more important.
I am reminded of an instance some years ago, when the tender calling for minivans clearly mentioned Matadors. Apparently the clerk formulating the tender thought that all minivans are called Matadors whereas it was just one of the brands of commercial minivans. Had this tender calling been challenged by a firm offering "Dynaclippers" (another brand of minivan), and if the judge had ruled on the virtue of plain reading and just dismisses the case saying that there is no ban on the firm offering Dynaclippers as they can very well offer Matadors too, what then?
Will any lawyer friends enlighten me on the subject?
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a call taxi services company seeking to call for records of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) in issuing tender for granting licence to internationally branded car rental services at the airport here, and quashing the same. Fast Track (P) Ltd. said it was running call taxi services in eight centres in South India, including Chennai. It submitted that as far as the tender was concerned, in view of the terms and conditions imposed, relating to internationally branded car rental services, the company and other local taxi operators were excluded from participating.
A.Xavier Arulraj, counsel for the AAI, submitted that the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender relating to internationally branded car rental services at the airport were based on the commercial policy of the AAI and approved by the board of directors of the Authority. The eligibility criteria for different services had been laid down.
In her order, Justice K.Suguna said a plain reading of the relevant clause of the notice inviting tender made it clear there was no prohibition on any local taxi operators from participating in the tender process. The only condition was they should fulfil the conditions.
Now for Dondu Raghavan's stance:
The term "plain reading" referred to in the last para is a little intriguing. What is meant by plain reading? Does the Honorable justice mean "prima facie"? If that is so, I would say that is precisely what the case is about. From the above news item I gather that the call taxi firm wanted to see what led to the decision of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) to limit the tendering to just "internationally branded car rental services". What does the term "internationally branded" qualify? Is it the car or the rental services? And by the way what is exactly meant by "internationally branded"? Definitely the records would have held clues as to the various definitions and if they did not contain them the same would have been sufficient reason, I believe, to reverse the Authority's order. Presumably the records would have been shown to the Honorable judge, though the above news item does not specifically say so. (I would like to clarify that I shall not question a court's judgment. Nor am I doing it. But I can question the AAI).
Then another point. Why should it be limited to only internationally branded car rental services? I would have thought some specifications as to the quality of the cars deployed, drivers employed (should be capable of communicating well with the passengers etc) would have been more important.
I am reminded of an instance some years ago, when the tender calling for minivans clearly mentioned Matadors. Apparently the clerk formulating the tender thought that all minivans are called Matadors whereas it was just one of the brands of commercial minivans. Had this tender calling been challenged by a firm offering "Dynaclippers" (another brand of minivan), and if the judge had ruled on the virtue of plain reading and just dismisses the case saying that there is no ban on the firm offering Dynaclippers as they can very well offer Matadors too, what then?
Will any lawyer friends enlighten me on the subject?
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The revival of a costly myth
My friend Chandrasekar forwarded this mail to me. It is an interesting article about government spending. The way governments work all over the world, any new scheme has to be gone through with a very fine toothcomb. It is sad but true that any socalled temporary measures on the part of the government tend to linger on quite long after the end of its need. One example that comes to my mind is the Rent Control Act in Bombay, Chennai and other metropoles. Started as a stop-gap arrangement immediately after the end of the Second World War, it is still hanging on creating havoc in the houseowner-tenant relationship, new house constructions, availability of rented accommodation to newcomers to the city and what not.
Yet we do not seem to learn. It is really tiresome the way people have a short memory, so laments Christopher Lingle in "the revival of a costly myth". Over to Christopher Lingle. Dondu N. Raghavan will come afterwards.
Deficit spending to boost a weak economy is an argument that has little justification in fact and reality.
Despite having a stake driven through its heart after being identified as the primary cause of the stagflation of the 1970s, a failed economic policy has risen from the dead. Yet, the consensus at the recent G-20 meeting is that governments can create jobs and end recessions simply by spending more money.
The myth that higher public spending is good economic policy is so resilient that its supporters are unperturbed by all the evidence that contradicts it. Consider that Japan's policymakers began throwing massive amounts of money at the economy in the late 1980s to reignite it. This constant flow of deficits brought only a growing mountain of public sector debt with the economy regaining its long-term growth trajectory. Nor did it deter Japan from ushering in yet another recession.
More recently, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 gave so-called tax rebates worth $100 billion to US households in May, June and July. But the rise in spending was very small since most went into savings, including paying down debt.
Numerous studies show that one-time tax rebates cannot bring higher economic activity. This is because temporary increases in disposable income do not create incentives to increase consumption over time. The only certain thing is that stimulus packages based on increased public sector deficit will add to national debt.
Belief in the efficacy of deficit spending rests on a naïve notion that consumption is an important driver of economic growth. It is as though consumer goods and services are merely gifts of nature.
In reality, the path for sustainable economic growth requires more savings so that there can be more capital goods. As it is, capital goods are the basis of higher output and increased wages by boosting productivity. The provision of capital goods requires that consumption be deferred.
It seems that saving is not only a natural instinct, but it is also promoted by many fables, biblical and otherwise, that show the merits of thrift. In recent years, central bankers removed incentives to save by driving interest rates to unsustainable and artificially low levels while inducing more consumption.
This leads to a "paradox of spending" whereby consumers, deterred from saving by low deposit rates, are lured into low-interest borrowing to boost current living standards. This distortion in credit markets induces individuals to make decisions that lead to greater misery in the future for them and for others. Indeed, increased spending may cause incomes to fall by a greater amount since the attempt to buy more today backfires as there are fewer jobs and less to consume later.
By spending beyond means to create jobs, governments undermine or eliminate future employment
Therefore, policies that aim to raise consumption now lead to less capital being available for future production, so there will be less future consumption.
An enduring fable has it that governments can "create" jobs either through public spending to employ people in the public sector or to increase overall demand. During his campaign, Barack Obama promised to use $150 billion to promote windmills, solar panels and "energy efficiency" that would supposedly create five million "green" jobs.
In the first instance, government spending to "create" jobs costs more than jobs created in the private sector, since public sector recruitment involves massive bureaucracies. And since adding workers to the public payroll creates a new burden on taxpayers who have less to spend or invest, this means there can be no net gain to the economy.
In all events, government funding to "create" green jobs may be the worst of both worlds. Much of the support for green projects exists as they are thought to create more jobs because they involve more labour-intensive production. For example, supporters of initiatives for alternative fuels insist they would boost employment than would the building of conventional power stations. But conventional power stations operate with enormous economies of scale that bring lower unit costs so that more jobs can be created throughout the economy.
Job creation based on real economic merit does not require government involvement. But providing subsidies to support inefficient technology raises the labour-to-capital ratio so that the demand for labour will be lower and real wages will fall.
It is bad enough that deficit spending on job creation is simply ineffective. What is worse is that government spending schemes that expand public sector debt impose several burdens on future generations. Most obvious is the additional tax burden they must pay for debts incurred in the present.
By spending beyond their means to conjure up jobs, governments undermine or eliminate employment that would have been created in the private sector in the future. If increasing the share of GDP claimed by government leads to lower long-term economic growth, "creating" jobs today will mean fewer jobs in the future. The best way to avoid a future of booms and busts is to consign economic theories that support public sector deficits to the dustbin of history.
[Christopher Lingle is a research scholar at the Centre for Civil Society in New Delhi and a visiting professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala. Comments are welcome at theirview@livemint.com]
Back to Dondu Raghavan. It is really amazing the naive manner of people faithfully repeating the old mistakes. Creating job is different from creating posts in government departments. As per the Parkinson's law, the more the posts, the more the infructuous efforts and nothing else.
The depression of 1932 is said to have been overcome by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Actually what turned the economy around at that time was the onset of the Second World War creating acute demands for the war effort. Even in Germany the unemployment was reduced mainly due to Hitler's militarization of Germany, which triggered the Second World War.
Can this be repeated? I am afraid that the third world war if it comes may bring about things in such a way that the fourth world war can be fought with just bows and arrows, that too after some hundred years.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Yet we do not seem to learn. It is really tiresome the way people have a short memory, so laments Christopher Lingle in "the revival of a costly myth". Over to Christopher Lingle. Dondu N. Raghavan will come afterwards.
Deficit spending to boost a weak economy is an argument that has little justification in fact and reality.
Despite having a stake driven through its heart after being identified as the primary cause of the stagflation of the 1970s, a failed economic policy has risen from the dead. Yet, the consensus at the recent G-20 meeting is that governments can create jobs and end recessions simply by spending more money.
The myth that higher public spending is good economic policy is so resilient that its supporters are unperturbed by all the evidence that contradicts it. Consider that Japan's policymakers began throwing massive amounts of money at the economy in the late 1980s to reignite it. This constant flow of deficits brought only a growing mountain of public sector debt with the economy regaining its long-term growth trajectory. Nor did it deter Japan from ushering in yet another recession.
More recently, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 gave so-called tax rebates worth $100 billion to US households in May, June and July. But the rise in spending was very small since most went into savings, including paying down debt.
Numerous studies show that one-time tax rebates cannot bring higher economic activity. This is because temporary increases in disposable income do not create incentives to increase consumption over time. The only certain thing is that stimulus packages based on increased public sector deficit will add to national debt.
Belief in the efficacy of deficit spending rests on a naïve notion that consumption is an important driver of economic growth. It is as though consumer goods and services are merely gifts of nature.
In reality, the path for sustainable economic growth requires more savings so that there can be more capital goods. As it is, capital goods are the basis of higher output and increased wages by boosting productivity. The provision of capital goods requires that consumption be deferred.
It seems that saving is not only a natural instinct, but it is also promoted by many fables, biblical and otherwise, that show the merits of thrift. In recent years, central bankers removed incentives to save by driving interest rates to unsustainable and artificially low levels while inducing more consumption.
This leads to a "paradox of spending" whereby consumers, deterred from saving by low deposit rates, are lured into low-interest borrowing to boost current living standards. This distortion in credit markets induces individuals to make decisions that lead to greater misery in the future for them and for others. Indeed, increased spending may cause incomes to fall by a greater amount since the attempt to buy more today backfires as there are fewer jobs and less to consume later.
By spending beyond means to create jobs, governments undermine or eliminate future employment
Therefore, policies that aim to raise consumption now lead to less capital being available for future production, so there will be less future consumption.
An enduring fable has it that governments can "create" jobs either through public spending to employ people in the public sector or to increase overall demand. During his campaign, Barack Obama promised to use $150 billion to promote windmills, solar panels and "energy efficiency" that would supposedly create five million "green" jobs.
In the first instance, government spending to "create" jobs costs more than jobs created in the private sector, since public sector recruitment involves massive bureaucracies. And since adding workers to the public payroll creates a new burden on taxpayers who have less to spend or invest, this means there can be no net gain to the economy.
In all events, government funding to "create" green jobs may be the worst of both worlds. Much of the support for green projects exists as they are thought to create more jobs because they involve more labour-intensive production. For example, supporters of initiatives for alternative fuels insist they would boost employment than would the building of conventional power stations. But conventional power stations operate with enormous economies of scale that bring lower unit costs so that more jobs can be created throughout the economy.
Job creation based on real economic merit does not require government involvement. But providing subsidies to support inefficient technology raises the labour-to-capital ratio so that the demand for labour will be lower and real wages will fall.
It is bad enough that deficit spending on job creation is simply ineffective. What is worse is that government spending schemes that expand public sector debt impose several burdens on future generations. Most obvious is the additional tax burden they must pay for debts incurred in the present.
By spending beyond their means to conjure up jobs, governments undermine or eliminate employment that would have been created in the private sector in the future. If increasing the share of GDP claimed by government leads to lower long-term economic growth, "creating" jobs today will mean fewer jobs in the future. The best way to avoid a future of booms and busts is to consign economic theories that support public sector deficits to the dustbin of history.
[Christopher Lingle is a research scholar at the Centre for Civil Society in New Delhi and a visiting professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala. Comments are welcome at theirview@livemint.com]
Back to Dondu Raghavan. It is really amazing the naive manner of people faithfully repeating the old mistakes. Creating job is different from creating posts in government departments. As per the Parkinson's law, the more the posts, the more the infructuous efforts and nothing else.
The depression of 1932 is said to have been overcome by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Actually what turned the economy around at that time was the onset of the Second World War creating acute demands for the war effort. Even in Germany the unemployment was reduced mainly due to Hitler's militarization of Germany, which triggered the Second World War.
Can this be repeated? I am afraid that the third world war if it comes may bring about things in such a way that the fourth world war can be fought with just bows and arrows, that too after some hundred years.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Blind faith in the printed word
The English is clear enough to lorry drivers - but the Welsh reads "I am not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated."
The above image is courtesy this post.
This has brought about a lot of head scratching, as one can very well imagine.
The official entrusted with the task of getting the English message translated into Welsh sent an email to a translator incorporating the message to be translated. The translator was away as the mail went to his id and an automatic reply to the effect, "I am not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated" was generated and received by the concerned official. And the credulous official thought that this was the actual translation and this resulted in the above sign board. What is more incredible is the fact that nobody had spotted this howler till the last minute.
A similar thing happened recently in 1989, when I was working in IDPL. Our C&MD got Christmas & New Year Greetings from France, wishing him "Joyeux Noël" and "Bonne Année" respectively. The greetings were in big print and the signatures below were just scrawls. Contrary to his usual practice of sending them to me, the French translator, for translation of the French original into English and the English reply into French before dispatching them, he thought that he could just send the replies in English as he guessed that they were routine season's greetings.
Fortunately I happened to pass by when the replies were being sent to him for signing. I just threw a cursory glance at them and was dumbfounded to note that the letters started as follows.
Dear Joyeux Noël or Dear Bonne Année!!!!
If only the letters had gone out, they would have caused a lot of merriment at IDPL's expense.
Once my client's daughter corrected my French to English translation on the sole strength of her being a French learner. I had to tactfully tell the client that the lady was quite wrong.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Why India needs Narendra Modi? by Mr. Suhel Seth
My dear friend Jayakamal drew my attention to this posting by Mr. Suhel Seth, erstwhile critic (that too very strong) critic of Shri. Narendra Modi. My sincere thanks to Jayakamal. As per usual practice in such posts of mine, the "I" in the foloowing lines refer to Suhel Seth. Yours truly Dondu Raghavan will come afterwards.
Let me begin with a set of disclosures: I have perhaps written more articles against Modi and his handling of the post-Godhra scenario than most people have; I have called him a modern-day Hitler and have always said that Godhra shall remain an enduring blemish not just on him but on India's political class. I still believe that what happened in Gujarat during the Godhra riots is something we as a nation will pay a heavy price for. But the fact is that time has moved on. As has Narendra Modi. He is not the only politician in India who has been accused of communalism. It is strange that the whole country venerates the Congress Party as the secular messiah but it was that party that presided over the riots in 1984 in which over 3,500 Sikhs died: thrice the number killed in Gujarat.
The fact of the matter is that there is no better performer than Narendra Modi in India's political structure. Three weeks ago, I had gone to Ahmedabad to address the YPO and I thought it would be a good opportunity to catch up with Modi. I called him the evening before and I was given an appointment for the very day I was getting into Ahmedabad. And it was not some official meeting but instead one at his house. As frugal as the man Modi is.
And this is something that the Gandhis and Mayawatis need to learn from Modi. There were no fawning staff members; no secretaries running around; no hangers on…just the two of us with one servant who was there serving tea. And what was most impressive was the passion which Modi exuded. The passion for development; the passion for an invigorated Gujarat; the passion for the uplifting the living standards of the people in his state and the joy with which he recounted simple yet memorable data-points. For instance, almost all of the milk consumed in Singapore is supplied by Gujarat; or for that matter all the tomatoes that are eaten in Afghanistan are produced in Gujarat or the potatoes that Canadians gorge on are all farmed in Gujarat. But it was industry that was equally close to his heart.
It was almost like a child, that he rushed and got a coffee table book on GIFT: the proposed Gujarat Industrial City that will come up on the banks of the Sabarmarti: something that will put the Dubais and the Hong Kongs of this world to shame. And while on the Sabarmati, it is Modi who has created the inter-linking of rivers so that now the Sabarmati is no longer dry.
He then spoke about how he was very keen that Ratan Tata sets up the Nano plant in Gujarat: he told me how he had related the story of the Parsi Navsari priests to Ratan and how touched Ratan was: the story is, when the Navsari priests, (the first Parsis) landed in Gujarat, the ruler of Gujarat sent them a glass of milk, full to the brim and said, there was no place for them: the priests added some sugar to the milk and sent it back saying that they would integrate beautifully with the locals and would only add value to the state.
Narendra Modi is clearly a man in a hurry and he has every reason to be. There is no question in any one's mind that he is the trump card for the BJP after Advani and Modi realises that. People like Rajnath Singh are simply weak irritants I would imagine. He also believes that the country has no apolitical strategy to counter terrorism and in fact he told me how he had alerted the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the NSA about the impending bomb blasts in Delhi and they did not take him seriously. And then the September 13 blasts happened! It was this resolve of Modi's that I found very admirable. There is a clear intolerance of terrorism and terrorists which is evident in the way the man functions; now there are many cynics who call it minority-bashing but the truth of the matter is that Modi genuinely means business as far as law and order is concerned.
I left Modi's house deeply impressed with the man as Chief Minister: he was clearly passionate and what's more deeply committed. When I sat in the car, I asked my driver what he thought of Modi and his simple reply was Modi is God. Before him, there was nothing. No roads, no power, no infrastructure. Today, Gujarat is a power surplus state. Today, Gujarat attracts more industry than all the states put together. Today, Gujarat is the preferred investment destination for almost every multi-national and what's more, there is an integrity that is missing in other states.
After I finished talking to the YPO (Young President's Organisation) members, I asked some of them very casually, what they thought of Modi. Strangely, this was one area there was no class differential on. They too said he was God.
But what they also added very quickly was if India has just five Narendra Modis, we would be a great country. I don't know if this was typical Gujarati exaggeration or a reflection of the kind of leadership India now needs! There is however, no question in my mind, that his flaws apart, Narendra Modi today, is truly a transformational leader! And we need many more like him!
The writer is Managing Partner, Counselage.
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. What is more, the author is a Muslim. And he has no hesitation in singing Modi's praise.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Let me begin with a set of disclosures: I have perhaps written more articles against Modi and his handling of the post-Godhra scenario than most people have; I have called him a modern-day Hitler and have always said that Godhra shall remain an enduring blemish not just on him but on India's political class. I still believe that what happened in Gujarat during the Godhra riots is something we as a nation will pay a heavy price for. But the fact is that time has moved on. As has Narendra Modi. He is not the only politician in India who has been accused of communalism. It is strange that the whole country venerates the Congress Party as the secular messiah but it was that party that presided over the riots in 1984 in which over 3,500 Sikhs died: thrice the number killed in Gujarat.
The fact of the matter is that there is no better performer than Narendra Modi in India's political structure. Three weeks ago, I had gone to Ahmedabad to address the YPO and I thought it would be a good opportunity to catch up with Modi. I called him the evening before and I was given an appointment for the very day I was getting into Ahmedabad. And it was not some official meeting but instead one at his house. As frugal as the man Modi is.
And this is something that the Gandhis and Mayawatis need to learn from Modi. There were no fawning staff members; no secretaries running around; no hangers on…just the two of us with one servant who was there serving tea. And what was most impressive was the passion which Modi exuded. The passion for development; the passion for an invigorated Gujarat; the passion for the uplifting the living standards of the people in his state and the joy with which he recounted simple yet memorable data-points. For instance, almost all of the milk consumed in Singapore is supplied by Gujarat; or for that matter all the tomatoes that are eaten in Afghanistan are produced in Gujarat or the potatoes that Canadians gorge on are all farmed in Gujarat. But it was industry that was equally close to his heart.
It was almost like a child, that he rushed and got a coffee table book on GIFT: the proposed Gujarat Industrial City that will come up on the banks of the Sabarmarti: something that will put the Dubais and the Hong Kongs of this world to shame. And while on the Sabarmati, it is Modi who has created the inter-linking of rivers so that now the Sabarmati is no longer dry.
He then spoke about how he was very keen that Ratan Tata sets up the Nano plant in Gujarat: he told me how he had related the story of the Parsi Navsari priests to Ratan and how touched Ratan was: the story is, when the Navsari priests, (the first Parsis) landed in Gujarat, the ruler of Gujarat sent them a glass of milk, full to the brim and said, there was no place for them: the priests added some sugar to the milk and sent it back saying that they would integrate beautifully with the locals and would only add value to the state.
Narendra Modi is clearly a man in a hurry and he has every reason to be. There is no question in any one's mind that he is the trump card for the BJP after Advani and Modi realises that. People like Rajnath Singh are simply weak irritants I would imagine. He also believes that the country has no apolitical strategy to counter terrorism and in fact he told me how he had alerted the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the NSA about the impending bomb blasts in Delhi and they did not take him seriously. And then the September 13 blasts happened! It was this resolve of Modi's that I found very admirable. There is a clear intolerance of terrorism and terrorists which is evident in the way the man functions; now there are many cynics who call it minority-bashing but the truth of the matter is that Modi genuinely means business as far as law and order is concerned.
I left Modi's house deeply impressed with the man as Chief Minister: he was clearly passionate and what's more deeply committed. When I sat in the car, I asked my driver what he thought of Modi and his simple reply was Modi is God. Before him, there was nothing. No roads, no power, no infrastructure. Today, Gujarat is a power surplus state. Today, Gujarat attracts more industry than all the states put together. Today, Gujarat is the preferred investment destination for almost every multi-national and what's more, there is an integrity that is missing in other states.
After I finished talking to the YPO (Young President's Organisation) members, I asked some of them very casually, what they thought of Modi. Strangely, this was one area there was no class differential on. They too said he was God.
But what they also added very quickly was if India has just five Narendra Modis, we would be a great country. I don't know if this was typical Gujarati exaggeration or a reflection of the kind of leadership India now needs! There is however, no question in my mind, that his flaws apart, Narendra Modi today, is truly a transformational leader! And we need many more like him!
The writer is Managing Partner, Counselage.
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. What is more, the author is a Muslim. And he has no hesitation in singing Modi's praise.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Henry Hazlitt on the Bailout by Scott A. Kjar
My dear friend Chandrasekaran forwarded me this very interesting article. First the article and then the comments by yours truly Dondu N. Raghavan. Over to Scott A. Kjar. By the way, Scott A. Kjar teaches economics at the University of Dallas.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson needs to change his reading list. Instead of reading the balance sheets and income statements of the failing banking industry, he needs to read Henry Hazlitt's classic book Economics in One Lesson. It will cost Paulson far less than the $700 billion that he is spending on the bailout, and he might just learn a little economics in the process.
Hazlitt delivers his "one lesson" in chapter 1, and proceeds to spend the rest of the book giving examples. His lesson, based on the work of Frédéric Bastiat, is that "the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
For example, in chapter 2, Hazlitt delivers the well-known "broken window fallacy" in which a hoodlum breaks a shopkeeper's window with a rock. The common folk see it as a tragedy, but an astute Washington bureaucrat could argue that it creates new jobs for glaziers. As Hazlitt points out, though, any resources that the shopkeeper spends on the new window would have been used elsewhere, perhaps for a new suit. So while the glazier gets new business, the tailor loses the same amount of business. There is no net benefit; in fact there is a net loss. Absent the hoodlum, the shopkeeper would have had both a window and a new suit; given the hoodlum, the shopkeeper has a window but no suit. Even though the damage was to the window, it is the suit that is lost to the shopkeeper and, hence, to society.
In chapter 6, entitled "Credit Diverts Production," Hazlitt discusses government lending policies, such as additional credit to farmers or business owners. However, he points out, the recipients of such programs are rarely the more-productive farmers and business owners. After all, the more-productive people are able to borrow their money from private lenders. It is only the less-productive individuals and firms, unable to get funds on the free market, that must turn to government.
For example, suppose that there is a farm for sale. A private lender would normally be willing to lend money to farmer A who has proven his abilities in the past, rather than to farmer B, who has demonstrated a lower level of productivity than has A. However, because government taxes citizens or borrows money itself in capital markets, private lenders have fewer funds available to lend to A. Instead, government lends the money to B on the grounds that B is underprivileged, in need of a hand, or some other politically based argument. The more productive borrower, A, loses out on the scarce land while the less productive borrower, B, gains the resources. Because the less-productive individual acquires the scarce resource, there will be less total production, and the entire society is worse off.
Further, Hazlitt states, the government takes bigger risks with taxpayers' money than private lenders take with their own money. Private lenders who make bad loans will go bankrupt and be forced out of business. But when the government gets involved, it lends funds for riskier ventures since the bureaucrats who approve the loan face no personal recriminations — much less loss of profit — for error.
In other words, private lenders would take Action A while government lenders would take Action B, and Action B is the less-productive path. After all, there is no need for government to take Action A: it can be handled quite well in the free market.
So it is with the current rash of bailouts. Whatever the final price tag — $500 billion, $750 billion, $1 trillion, more — the fact is that government gets its money either from taxes, borrowing, or the printing press. It is hard to raise taxes by $1 trillion on short notice, and since there is a small hurdle that slows the government's ability to print the money,[1] we know that government will issue bonds. In other words, government will borrow the money from private capital markets.
As Hazlitt points out, though, the private capital markets (those that aren't bankrupt and standing in line for a bailout) would otherwise lend their funds to more-productive ventures. If private capital wants to lend directly to the failing banks, it is already capable of doing so. The fact that such private capital is not lending to the banks is a clear indication that the government's current bailout is contrary to free-market principles.
The argument that the government is somehow pumping new capital into the market is absurd. Government is actually borrowing the money from the capital markets that it is in turn injecting into the capital markets. There is no additional source of funding; there is only a diversion of funds from more-productive outlets to less-productive outlets, with government acting as the middleman.
So when Henry Paulson argues that it is necessary to pump money into credit markets to prevent them from freezing up, he doesn't bother to realize that the money he pumps into the credit markets is coming directly out of the very same credit markets. He is doing little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; shuffling the money from one set of financial intermediaries to another does not increase either liquidity or solvency. It merely delays the problem for a few brief moments.
Even the failing banks pay lip service to their fiduciary responsibility, but any privately funded firm that took money from more-productive people to give it to less-productive people would soon go out of business. Only the government can violate Hazlitt's logic and survive, because only government can socialize its losses through the tax system.
Comment on the blog. As I am writing these lines around ten comments have come up and they do need to be reproduced here.
Comments
Tim Kern
Did anyone note that in the President's speech, after the House rejected the bailout, one of the reasons offered for the necessity of opening such a lending spigot was "to allow businesses to borrow for their day-to-day needs?"
A business that needs to borrow to cover daily operations is in a whole lot of trouble, already!
Lord, save us from more "experts!"
George
Saving in an inflationary environment is costly, borrowing is logical.
"income taxes, inflation, risk"
You can avoid any two, it's the third which is hard to avoid.
Aaron
Atleast the comedians have not drank the Keynesian Kool-Aid... very funny
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2959
Dayle Van Alstine
The article is a timely reminder of the wisdom which is available to those whom have influence in our national economic policies. We can be sure that they are familiar with it. This is what makes our current situation so frustrating. Our economic policy leaders have decided that it is not expedient to follow the the wise counsel and impose the proper prescription.
Our government, fortified and emboldened by a lazy and irresponsible citizenry, has no compunction about disregarding the wisdom and warnings provided by the observations of Messrs. Hazlitt, Mises, or Bastiat. When the ordinary people on the street do not recognize the responsibility they have to understand the consequences of purchasing things that they know they cannot afford; when the political elite reinforce such conduct by demanding that more credit be made available to such people; when financial leaders do not stand firm against such policies; when politicians are more concerned with acquiring and maintaining power and influence than doing what is best for the nation and its people, then we will all have to prepare to contend with the consequences of this folly.
Hazlitt is right, of course; but we in the choir already know that. What to do? Share the wisdom in hopes of enlarging the choir; stay out of debt; develop a portable skill.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Our "leaders", if they don't already know the principles described in Hazlitt's book, would not be interested in learning them. Following the principles would reduce their power, and that they cannot abide.
Stanley Pinchak
Enjoy Every Sandwich is quite right. The number of men who can follow the course of Cincinnatus is small indeed. We as the people must act on the consul of Étienne de La Boétie. We must remove our consent, refuse to subjugate our fellow man for the false promise of living on the backs of others. We end up as the associates of the tyrant do, subjects of tyrannical action ourselves, or worse when the administration changes. We weld our own bars. We forge the very chains which bind us.
Rothbard calls for radicalism. A radical call for liberty. A radical denunciation of the state and its works. Until we heed this advise we remain prisoners in an open cage, terrified of the unknown just across the threshold. Stuck in a liminal state, abused by our own inaction, fearful of change. Servants willingly submitting to an unworthy master. A master who's hands we have placed around our throats.
The emperor wears no clothes! The state must be itself subjugated. We must throw off the mental yoke, reach out and grasp freedom.
Greg Fisher
The hoodlum breaks a window, it cost the economy a window. If he continues to break windows, he must be stopped before he underminds the economy. And if the shop keepers cannot pay to fix their windows, it would be in the best intersest of the society to help fix the windows to keep the shops open and contributing to society.
Since the world is not static, things change. The unproductive farmer may become more productive with additional capital. Many times it is these people that come up with better ways of doing things and the economy advances.
We need to understand the problem in order to form a solution and the role of society.
Michael A. Clem
And if the shop keepers cannot pay to fix their windows, it would be in the best intersest of the society to help fix the windows to keep the shops open and contributing to society.
If the shopkeepers cannot pay to fix the windows, where do you think the money to fix them is going to come from?? And why should the unproductive farmer become productive, when he's getting paid to remain unproductive? You fail to see the moral hazards of your proposed actions. The problem is that it is the government that is "breaking the windows", instead of some hoodlum, with their flawed policies and interventionism. We do indeed need to stop breaking the windows, but the bailout is like breaking more windows in the hopes that it will fix the other windows.
Eric
The wise entrepreneur would foresee that the hoodlums out there like to break glass and so might invest in Plexiglas.
Alternatively, the entrepreneur might invest in security services. Then only those that remain open for business (with non-broken windows) would continue to make profits. Others, with less business sense, would go bust - and society would benefit from having a smarter class of shop owners in business.
However, if society bails out the shop owner as Greg suggests they should, then society would be subsidizing "mal" shop owner behavior. In addition, not only doesn't this solve the real problem, but it makes any real solution less likely to be discovered.
Moreover, there'd be little incentive for the shop owner to upgrade his windows (or security or whatever else would solve the problem) even if he knew how to solve it. This is the moral hazard produced by bailouts.
Therefore, the same theory that describes bailouts of industry X can be used to analyze the broken window fallacy.
Back to yours truly, Dondu N. Raghavan
As I read the above lines, I am more and more reminded of Ayn Rand's Atlas shrugged. There was in that novel a story about a private owner turning over her ownership to all the workers and every worker started discussing company policy. Since all were responsible no one felt any particular responsibility. Each one was out to get more for himself at the expense of others. One or two with some initiatives were saddled with more work and they too rapidly lost that initiative and kept mum. At the end the factory folded and only the ex-owner was surprised. That she was spat upon is but a feeble comfort to yours truly Dondu N. Raghavan.
Regards,
Dondu n. Raghavan
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson needs to change his reading list. Instead of reading the balance sheets and income statements of the failing banking industry, he needs to read Henry Hazlitt's classic book Economics in One Lesson. It will cost Paulson far less than the $700 billion that he is spending on the bailout, and he might just learn a little economics in the process.
Hazlitt delivers his "one lesson" in chapter 1, and proceeds to spend the rest of the book giving examples. His lesson, based on the work of Frédéric Bastiat, is that "the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
For example, in chapter 2, Hazlitt delivers the well-known "broken window fallacy" in which a hoodlum breaks a shopkeeper's window with a rock. The common folk see it as a tragedy, but an astute Washington bureaucrat could argue that it creates new jobs for glaziers. As Hazlitt points out, though, any resources that the shopkeeper spends on the new window would have been used elsewhere, perhaps for a new suit. So while the glazier gets new business, the tailor loses the same amount of business. There is no net benefit; in fact there is a net loss. Absent the hoodlum, the shopkeeper would have had both a window and a new suit; given the hoodlum, the shopkeeper has a window but no suit. Even though the damage was to the window, it is the suit that is lost to the shopkeeper and, hence, to society.
In chapter 6, entitled "Credit Diverts Production," Hazlitt discusses government lending policies, such as additional credit to farmers or business owners. However, he points out, the recipients of such programs are rarely the more-productive farmers and business owners. After all, the more-productive people are able to borrow their money from private lenders. It is only the less-productive individuals and firms, unable to get funds on the free market, that must turn to government.
For example, suppose that there is a farm for sale. A private lender would normally be willing to lend money to farmer A who has proven his abilities in the past, rather than to farmer B, who has demonstrated a lower level of productivity than has A. However, because government taxes citizens or borrows money itself in capital markets, private lenders have fewer funds available to lend to A. Instead, government lends the money to B on the grounds that B is underprivileged, in need of a hand, or some other politically based argument. The more productive borrower, A, loses out on the scarce land while the less productive borrower, B, gains the resources. Because the less-productive individual acquires the scarce resource, there will be less total production, and the entire society is worse off.
Further, Hazlitt states, the government takes bigger risks with taxpayers' money than private lenders take with their own money. Private lenders who make bad loans will go bankrupt and be forced out of business. But when the government gets involved, it lends funds for riskier ventures since the bureaucrats who approve the loan face no personal recriminations — much less loss of profit — for error.
In other words, private lenders would take Action A while government lenders would take Action B, and Action B is the less-productive path. After all, there is no need for government to take Action A: it can be handled quite well in the free market.
So it is with the current rash of bailouts. Whatever the final price tag — $500 billion, $750 billion, $1 trillion, more — the fact is that government gets its money either from taxes, borrowing, or the printing press. It is hard to raise taxes by $1 trillion on short notice, and since there is a small hurdle that slows the government's ability to print the money,[1] we know that government will issue bonds. In other words, government will borrow the money from private capital markets.
As Hazlitt points out, though, the private capital markets (those that aren't bankrupt and standing in line for a bailout) would otherwise lend their funds to more-productive ventures. If private capital wants to lend directly to the failing banks, it is already capable of doing so. The fact that such private capital is not lending to the banks is a clear indication that the government's current bailout is contrary to free-market principles.
The argument that the government is somehow pumping new capital into the market is absurd. Government is actually borrowing the money from the capital markets that it is in turn injecting into the capital markets. There is no additional source of funding; there is only a diversion of funds from more-productive outlets to less-productive outlets, with government acting as the middleman.
So when Henry Paulson argues that it is necessary to pump money into credit markets to prevent them from freezing up, he doesn't bother to realize that the money he pumps into the credit markets is coming directly out of the very same credit markets. He is doing little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; shuffling the money from one set of financial intermediaries to another does not increase either liquidity or solvency. It merely delays the problem for a few brief moments.
Even the failing banks pay lip service to their fiduciary responsibility, but any privately funded firm that took money from more-productive people to give it to less-productive people would soon go out of business. Only the government can violate Hazlitt's logic and survive, because only government can socialize its losses through the tax system.
Comment on the blog. As I am writing these lines around ten comments have come up and they do need to be reproduced here.
Comments
Tim Kern
Did anyone note that in the President's speech, after the House rejected the bailout, one of the reasons offered for the necessity of opening such a lending spigot was "to allow businesses to borrow for their day-to-day needs?"
A business that needs to borrow to cover daily operations is in a whole lot of trouble, already!
Lord, save us from more "experts!"
George
Saving in an inflationary environment is costly, borrowing is logical.
"income taxes, inflation, risk"
You can avoid any two, it's the third which is hard to avoid.
Aaron
Atleast the comedians have not drank the Keynesian Kool-Aid... very funny
http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2959
Dayle Van Alstine
The article is a timely reminder of the wisdom which is available to those whom have influence in our national economic policies. We can be sure that they are familiar with it. This is what makes our current situation so frustrating. Our economic policy leaders have decided that it is not expedient to follow the the wise counsel and impose the proper prescription.
Our government, fortified and emboldened by a lazy and irresponsible citizenry, has no compunction about disregarding the wisdom and warnings provided by the observations of Messrs. Hazlitt, Mises, or Bastiat. When the ordinary people on the street do not recognize the responsibility they have to understand the consequences of purchasing things that they know they cannot afford; when the political elite reinforce such conduct by demanding that more credit be made available to such people; when financial leaders do not stand firm against such policies; when politicians are more concerned with acquiring and maintaining power and influence than doing what is best for the nation and its people, then we will all have to prepare to contend with the consequences of this folly.
Hazlitt is right, of course; but we in the choir already know that. What to do? Share the wisdom in hopes of enlarging the choir; stay out of debt; develop a portable skill.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Our "leaders", if they don't already know the principles described in Hazlitt's book, would not be interested in learning them. Following the principles would reduce their power, and that they cannot abide.
Stanley Pinchak
Enjoy Every Sandwich is quite right. The number of men who can follow the course of Cincinnatus is small indeed. We as the people must act on the consul of Étienne de La Boétie. We must remove our consent, refuse to subjugate our fellow man for the false promise of living on the backs of others. We end up as the associates of the tyrant do, subjects of tyrannical action ourselves, or worse when the administration changes. We weld our own bars. We forge the very chains which bind us.
Rothbard calls for radicalism. A radical call for liberty. A radical denunciation of the state and its works. Until we heed this advise we remain prisoners in an open cage, terrified of the unknown just across the threshold. Stuck in a liminal state, abused by our own inaction, fearful of change. Servants willingly submitting to an unworthy master. A master who's hands we have placed around our throats.
The emperor wears no clothes! The state must be itself subjugated. We must throw off the mental yoke, reach out and grasp freedom.
Greg Fisher
The hoodlum breaks a window, it cost the economy a window. If he continues to break windows, he must be stopped before he underminds the economy. And if the shop keepers cannot pay to fix their windows, it would be in the best intersest of the society to help fix the windows to keep the shops open and contributing to society.
Since the world is not static, things change. The unproductive farmer may become more productive with additional capital. Many times it is these people that come up with better ways of doing things and the economy advances.
We need to understand the problem in order to form a solution and the role of society.
Michael A. Clem
And if the shop keepers cannot pay to fix their windows, it would be in the best intersest of the society to help fix the windows to keep the shops open and contributing to society.
If the shopkeepers cannot pay to fix the windows, where do you think the money to fix them is going to come from?? And why should the unproductive farmer become productive, when he's getting paid to remain unproductive? You fail to see the moral hazards of your proposed actions. The problem is that it is the government that is "breaking the windows", instead of some hoodlum, with their flawed policies and interventionism. We do indeed need to stop breaking the windows, but the bailout is like breaking more windows in the hopes that it will fix the other windows.
Eric
The wise entrepreneur would foresee that the hoodlums out there like to break glass and so might invest in Plexiglas.
Alternatively, the entrepreneur might invest in security services. Then only those that remain open for business (with non-broken windows) would continue to make profits. Others, with less business sense, would go bust - and society would benefit from having a smarter class of shop owners in business.
However, if society bails out the shop owner as Greg suggests they should, then society would be subsidizing "mal" shop owner behavior. In addition, not only doesn't this solve the real problem, but it makes any real solution less likely to be discovered.
Moreover, there'd be little incentive for the shop owner to upgrade his windows (or security or whatever else would solve the problem) even if he knew how to solve it. This is the moral hazard produced by bailouts.
Therefore, the same theory that describes bailouts of industry X can be used to analyze the broken window fallacy.
Back to yours truly, Dondu N. Raghavan
As I read the above lines, I am more and more reminded of Ayn Rand's Atlas shrugged. There was in that novel a story about a private owner turning over her ownership to all the workers and every worker started discussing company policy. Since all were responsible no one felt any particular responsibility. Each one was out to get more for himself at the expense of others. One or two with some initiatives were saddled with more work and they too rapidly lost that initiative and kept mum. At the end the factory folded and only the ex-owner was surprised. That she was spat upon is but a feeble comfort to yours truly Dondu N. Raghavan.
Regards,
Dondu n. Raghavan
Friday, September 26, 2008
"US Congress Should Back U.S.-India Nuclear Power Deal", says Jeff Immelt
Congress should back U.S.-India nuclear power deal according to Jeff Immelt, the chief executive officer of General Electric Co. Over now to Jeff Immelt.
In the U.S.-India agreement on civilian nuclear-power cooperation, Congress has the opportunity to create thousands of U.S. high-tech jobs, to encourage adoption of the safest, non-polluting energy-generation technology and to help solve the energy needs of India's 1 billion people. It also would solidify relations with a key democratic ally.
In a time of market turmoil and economic instability, this is a remarkable opportunity for the U.S. and a rising economic partner. It must not be missed. Congress should approve the agreement as soon as possible.
Finding a solution to India's mounting energy needs is more important than ever. As one of the world's fastest-growing economies, India has an escalating power demand that is straining international energy supplies. Unchanged, this demand will be met with a greater reliance on fossil fuels, squeezing global oil prices while exacerbating greenhouse-gas emissions.
India understands this. So does the international Nuclear Suppliers Group, or NSG, those countries seeking to contribute to non-proliferation through the implementation of guidelines for nuclear-related exports.
Earlier this month, the NSG waived a 34-year ban on nuclear technology trade with India, giving it access to nuclear services from suppliers around the world. For the U.S., there remains one problem: Without congressional approval, the NSG waiver is moot, as U.S. firms and their employees will, by law, be forced to sit on the sidelines.
Reactor Construction
The agreement is good for the U.S.-India relationship, good for global energy policy and security and good for U.S. jobs. It opens up prospects for U.S. companies to supply potentially billions of dollars worth of reactor technology, fuel and other services to India -- especially given the ambitious nuclear-plant construction program planned by India. About 30 domestic and foreign-supplied reactors may be built by 2030 alone.
As chief executive officer of a company making this technology, I want to retain and hire those workers who can build the products that will help India realize its future. Preventing U.S. companies from competing with international suppliers isn't sensible policy. It risks thousands of high-paying jobs and would diminish the U.S.'s ability to participate in India's peaceful nuclear-power development.
Refusal to approve this agreement would also miss an opportunity to expand the broader U.S.-India trade relationship.
Lackluster Trade
For decades, trade between these two great democracies was lackluster. In 2000, the U.S.'s bilateral goods trade with India was around $14 billion -- less than our trade with Ireland or Venezuela. Today, thanks to concerted efforts by the U.S. and Indian governments, bilateral trade has almost tripled. Still, this is far less than it should be for two of the world's most dynamic economies.
Because nuclear energy can meet so many of India's energy and economic needs, this trade agreement has significance that resonates beyond a single industry. The agreement, if adopted, will strengthen the economic, strategic and diplomatic ties between the world's two largest democracies. To fail to approve the agreement would undermine the goodwill generated in India by U.S. efforts to conclude an agreement.
The U.S. government, and Congress specifically, deserve praise for their hard work in getting us to this point. After all, it was Congress that voted, overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis, to support the launch of negotiations two years ago. Now Congress must do its final part by approving this agreement expeditiously. A signed U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement will signal a new era in U.S.-India relations. This is a rare opportunity that must not be missed.
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. The Indian Prime Minister is to be congratulated for having played his cards properly and got the NSG approval. At this juncture, even in the worst scenario of the US congress not ratifying the deal, India can now freely approach other suppliers. It is now really in the interest of the US to get the deal ratified and become an important supplier to India. The pressure is now on the US.
Let us now worry about India's interests and let the US do its thing or lose out to other supplier countries.
I thank my friend Mr. Jayakamal for having brought this to my notice.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
In the U.S.-India agreement on civilian nuclear-power cooperation, Congress has the opportunity to create thousands of U.S. high-tech jobs, to encourage adoption of the safest, non-polluting energy-generation technology and to help solve the energy needs of India's 1 billion people. It also would solidify relations with a key democratic ally.
In a time of market turmoil and economic instability, this is a remarkable opportunity for the U.S. and a rising economic partner. It must not be missed. Congress should approve the agreement as soon as possible.
Finding a solution to India's mounting energy needs is more important than ever. As one of the world's fastest-growing economies, India has an escalating power demand that is straining international energy supplies. Unchanged, this demand will be met with a greater reliance on fossil fuels, squeezing global oil prices while exacerbating greenhouse-gas emissions.
India understands this. So does the international Nuclear Suppliers Group, or NSG, those countries seeking to contribute to non-proliferation through the implementation of guidelines for nuclear-related exports.
Earlier this month, the NSG waived a 34-year ban on nuclear technology trade with India, giving it access to nuclear services from suppliers around the world. For the U.S., there remains one problem: Without congressional approval, the NSG waiver is moot, as U.S. firms and their employees will, by law, be forced to sit on the sidelines.
Reactor Construction
The agreement is good for the U.S.-India relationship, good for global energy policy and security and good for U.S. jobs. It opens up prospects for U.S. companies to supply potentially billions of dollars worth of reactor technology, fuel and other services to India -- especially given the ambitious nuclear-plant construction program planned by India. About 30 domestic and foreign-supplied reactors may be built by 2030 alone.
As chief executive officer of a company making this technology, I want to retain and hire those workers who can build the products that will help India realize its future. Preventing U.S. companies from competing with international suppliers isn't sensible policy. It risks thousands of high-paying jobs and would diminish the U.S.'s ability to participate in India's peaceful nuclear-power development.
Refusal to approve this agreement would also miss an opportunity to expand the broader U.S.-India trade relationship.
Lackluster Trade
For decades, trade between these two great democracies was lackluster. In 2000, the U.S.'s bilateral goods trade with India was around $14 billion -- less than our trade with Ireland or Venezuela. Today, thanks to concerted efforts by the U.S. and Indian governments, bilateral trade has almost tripled. Still, this is far less than it should be for two of the world's most dynamic economies.
Because nuclear energy can meet so many of India's energy and economic needs, this trade agreement has significance that resonates beyond a single industry. The agreement, if adopted, will strengthen the economic, strategic and diplomatic ties between the world's two largest democracies. To fail to approve the agreement would undermine the goodwill generated in India by U.S. efforts to conclude an agreement.
The U.S. government, and Congress specifically, deserve praise for their hard work in getting us to this point. After all, it was Congress that voted, overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis, to support the launch of negotiations two years ago. Now Congress must do its final part by approving this agreement expeditiously. A signed U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement will signal a new era in U.S.-India relations. This is a rare opportunity that must not be missed.
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan. The Indian Prime Minister is to be congratulated for having played his cards properly and got the NSG approval. At this juncture, even in the worst scenario of the US congress not ratifying the deal, India can now freely approach other suppliers. It is now really in the interest of the US to get the deal ratified and become an important supplier to India. The pressure is now on the US.
Let us now worry about India's interests and let the US do its thing or lose out to other supplier countries.
I thank my friend Mr. Jayakamal for having brought this to my notice.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Dreaming of Swatantra by Niranjan Rajadhyaksha
The article with the title "Dreaming of Swatantra" was forwarded to me by my friend Chandrasekhar. It raises an interesting question about the now defunct Swtantra Party founded by Rajai, Masani amd Ranga recently in 1959. First let us go to the article reproduced here in bold italics.
Modern India's only stab at a successful liberal party started in August 1959; the Swatantra Party would have entered its 50th year this month, if it had survived as a national political force
(Cafe Economics | Niranjan Rajadhyaksha)
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen — who is not a free-market liberal — has spoken on how contemporary India needs a right-wing political party that is both secular and committed to an open economy. This is a good time to go back to the issue, for two reasons. First, we have seen how economic reforms were blocked by the Left to begin with and have now been hijacked by the crony capitalism of the Samajwadi Party. Second, modern India's only stab at a successful liberal party started in August 1959; the Swatantra Party would have entered its 50th year this month, if it had survived as a national political force.
Countries with low levels of trust and high levels of corruption tend to be more wary of free market capitalism
Fifteen years of high growth, thanks to economic reforms, should have created a strong political base for liberal party. It hasn't. I am often surprised at how even people who have benefited from economic reforms still believe that the government should control prices to beat inflation or that companies are making too much profit at the cost of society. Is it any wonder that no party is ready to face the electorate with a free market agenda?
The interesting question is why this happens. The answer involves more than political failure. The nature of Indian society and capitalism are also part of the answer.
An interesting new research paper by Philippe Aghion of Harvard University, Yann Algan of the Paris School of Economics, Pierre Cahuc of the Ecole Polytechnique and Andrei Schleifer of Harvard University offers one set of clues. They have mapped the relationship between demands for regulation in a country and the level of distrust between its citizens.
What these four economists show from their study of rich nations is that people ask for more government regulation when they do not trust their fellow citizens. They have used a concept that has attracted a lot of attention over the past decade and more — social capital. Any economy needs physical capital (tools), financial capital (money) and human capital (skills) to grow. It also needs social capital (trust). Economist Kenneth Arrow once said that virtually "every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust, certainly any transaction conducted over a period of time. It can be plausibly argued that much of economic backwardness in the world can be explained by the lack of mutual confidence."
Aghion and his three fellow authors show in their July paper, Regulation and Distrust, that countries with low levels of trust in other persons, companies and political institutions are more likely to have more regulations on economic activity. But this regulation leads to low growth and corruption, as we know from our own experience of the licence permit raj. "What is perhaps most interesting about this finding…is that distrust generates demand for regulation even when people realize that the government is corrupt and ineffective; they prefer state control to unbridled production by uncivil firms," say the economists.
The way companies earn profits does affect the popularity of capitalism. In a paper published in 2006, Rafael Di Tella of Harvard Business School and Robert MacCulloch of Imperial College ask: Why Doesn't Capitalism Flow to Poor Countries? They say the most important factor is corruption, which cuts into the "moral legitimacy of capitalism". Di Tella and MacCulloch add: "Existence of corrupt entrepreneurs hurts good entrepreneurs by reducing the general appeal of capitalism."
These two pieces of research show that the popularity of a free market political party will depend on both the level of trust in a country and whether profits come from competitive markets or oligopolies protected by the state.
Economic historian Douglass C. North and his colleagues have given us what they call a conceptual framework to interpret human history. They say that societies emerge as "limited access orders". Here, the political system is used to limit economic participation and impose social order. The lack of economic competition leads to excess profits that are used to limit violence and maintain political stability.
North says that some societies later evolve into "open access" orders. Here, there are few restrictions on economic and political participation, which is another way of saying that these societies have open economies and open political systems. Order is maintained through the competitive process.
There is a famous story about Margaret Thatcher. Soon after she became head of the Conservative Party in the UK, she is said to have reached into her briefcase and pulled out a copy of F.A. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, a book that explains with great clarity why liberal systems lead to freedom and prosperity. Interrupting the speaker, she is said to have banged the book down on the table and said: "This is what we believe."
Is there any Indian politician who has similar convictions — and the guts to make them public?
Now back to Dondu Raghavan. A few minutes after forwarding the article, Mr. Chandrasekhar has sent another mail saying,
"The important point I wanted to mention here that Mr Sen lectured at Indian Parliament recently (on this monday) on "demanding Social Justice". What a naive request! Where can he can get this social justice, when it is nowhere available in the world? (That what F A Hayek said years ago. "There is no such thing as Social Justice").
Thanks Chandrasekhar. But there is one small snag. It will not be possible to renew the Swatantra Party with things as they are obtaining in India now. A party has to take a constitutional oath owing allegiance to socialism, the selfsame bankrupt ideology, which the Swatantra Party was by default opposing. See my Tamil blog post on this subject. Unfortunately the original economic times article is no longer readily reachable; fortunately I had reproduced it at that time in toto just for such contingency.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Modern India's only stab at a successful liberal party started in August 1959; the Swatantra Party would have entered its 50th year this month, if it had survived as a national political force
(Cafe Economics | Niranjan Rajadhyaksha)
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen — who is not a free-market liberal — has spoken on how contemporary India needs a right-wing political party that is both secular and committed to an open economy. This is a good time to go back to the issue, for two reasons. First, we have seen how economic reforms were blocked by the Left to begin with and have now been hijacked by the crony capitalism of the Samajwadi Party. Second, modern India's only stab at a successful liberal party started in August 1959; the Swatantra Party would have entered its 50th year this month, if it had survived as a national political force.
Countries with low levels of trust and high levels of corruption tend to be more wary of free market capitalism
Fifteen years of high growth, thanks to economic reforms, should have created a strong political base for liberal party. It hasn't. I am often surprised at how even people who have benefited from economic reforms still believe that the government should control prices to beat inflation or that companies are making too much profit at the cost of society. Is it any wonder that no party is ready to face the electorate with a free market agenda?
The interesting question is why this happens. The answer involves more than political failure. The nature of Indian society and capitalism are also part of the answer.
An interesting new research paper by Philippe Aghion of Harvard University, Yann Algan of the Paris School of Economics, Pierre Cahuc of the Ecole Polytechnique and Andrei Schleifer of Harvard University offers one set of clues. They have mapped the relationship between demands for regulation in a country and the level of distrust between its citizens.
What these four economists show from their study of rich nations is that people ask for more government regulation when they do not trust their fellow citizens. They have used a concept that has attracted a lot of attention over the past decade and more — social capital. Any economy needs physical capital (tools), financial capital (money) and human capital (skills) to grow. It also needs social capital (trust). Economist Kenneth Arrow once said that virtually "every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust, certainly any transaction conducted over a period of time. It can be plausibly argued that much of economic backwardness in the world can be explained by the lack of mutual confidence."
Aghion and his three fellow authors show in their July paper, Regulation and Distrust, that countries with low levels of trust in other persons, companies and political institutions are more likely to have more regulations on economic activity. But this regulation leads to low growth and corruption, as we know from our own experience of the licence permit raj. "What is perhaps most interesting about this finding…is that distrust generates demand for regulation even when people realize that the government is corrupt and ineffective; they prefer state control to unbridled production by uncivil firms," say the economists.
The way companies earn profits does affect the popularity of capitalism. In a paper published in 2006, Rafael Di Tella of Harvard Business School and Robert MacCulloch of Imperial College ask: Why Doesn't Capitalism Flow to Poor Countries? They say the most important factor is corruption, which cuts into the "moral legitimacy of capitalism". Di Tella and MacCulloch add: "Existence of corrupt entrepreneurs hurts good entrepreneurs by reducing the general appeal of capitalism."
These two pieces of research show that the popularity of a free market political party will depend on both the level of trust in a country and whether profits come from competitive markets or oligopolies protected by the state.
Economic historian Douglass C. North and his colleagues have given us what they call a conceptual framework to interpret human history. They say that societies emerge as "limited access orders". Here, the political system is used to limit economic participation and impose social order. The lack of economic competition leads to excess profits that are used to limit violence and maintain political stability.
North says that some societies later evolve into "open access" orders. Here, there are few restrictions on economic and political participation, which is another way of saying that these societies have open economies and open political systems. Order is maintained through the competitive process.
There is a famous story about Margaret Thatcher. Soon after she became head of the Conservative Party in the UK, she is said to have reached into her briefcase and pulled out a copy of F.A. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, a book that explains with great clarity why liberal systems lead to freedom and prosperity. Interrupting the speaker, she is said to have banged the book down on the table and said: "This is what we believe."
Is there any Indian politician who has similar convictions — and the guts to make them public?
Now back to Dondu Raghavan. A few minutes after forwarding the article, Mr. Chandrasekhar has sent another mail saying,
"The important point I wanted to mention here that Mr Sen lectured at Indian Parliament recently (on this monday) on "demanding Social Justice". What a naive request! Where can he can get this social justice, when it is nowhere available in the world? (That what F A Hayek said years ago. "There is no such thing as Social Justice").
Thanks Chandrasekhar. But there is one small snag. It will not be possible to renew the Swatantra Party with things as they are obtaining in India now. A party has to take a constitutional oath owing allegiance to socialism, the selfsame bankrupt ideology, which the Swatantra Party was by default opposing. See my Tamil blog post on this subject. Unfortunately the original economic times article is no longer readily reachable; fortunately I had reproduced it at that time in toto just for such contingency.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Monday, August 11, 2008
Rich job offers cause poor response for economics PhDs
This article penned by John Samuel Raja D and forwarded to me by my friend Chandrasekharan (Hayek Order) goes on to add that poor faculty and scholarships also dissuade students.
It reminds me of Agatha Christie's novel 4.50 from Paddington starring the lovable old detective Miss Marple. In this novel she is assisted by one Lucy, who has majored in Mathematics but instead of pursuing a career in mathematics opts for the job of a housekeeper after a thorough study of the market needs. She goes on to become a highly successful housekeeper very well-paid and much in demand.
My reason to mention this is illustrated more starkly in the article referred to above. Now over to the article in bold italics.
D K Srivastava, director of Madras School of Economics (MSE), is disappointed when he sees 50 Master's students graduate every year with lucrative job offers.
He is unhappy because none of the 50 students apply for a PhD or doctoral degree and the Chennai-based institute is finding it difficult to attract high-quality students for this programme.
Like the MSE, the poor response to programmes for Economics PhDs (the abbreviation of the Latin Philosophiæ Doctor) appears to be a chronic problem in India.
"The best brains are going to industry after completing the Master's degree," said Srivastava, who has specialised in public finance and economic forecasting. "This is the malaise of good institutions where highly qualified students don't stay back," he added.
Even the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), a premier institute set up by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for research in development issues, found it difficult to attract students for its PhD programme a couple of years ago.
MSE admits two or three students every year for its doctoral programme, a third of what it can accommodate. Aggregate data on the number of students completing their PhD in Economics are not available.
While PhD programmes run by universities across India have faced problems in attracting high-quality students for a long time, it is only now the top economic research institutions are facing the problem of student shortage, given the jobs boom that is attracting the best and brightest among Master's students.
Though there are globally recognised Indian economists like Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati, universities based in India have not kept pace with cutting-edge research produced by their counterparts in the United States and Europe, resulting in poor research output.
Three issues — faculty profile, poor scholarship funding and job opportunities — are being cited as reasons Indian universities have failed to attract good quality students, said four economists, including three heads of the institutions, who were contacted for this article.
For the few students who want to pursue a PhD, foreign universities have emerged as a viable option. These overseas institutions are targeting Indian students and are offering liberal scholarships that are hard for Indian counterparts to match, said D M Nachane, director of IGIDR.
Research scholars in Indian institutes are mostly paid between Rs 6,000 per month and Rs14,000, except in a few management institutes where they are offered around Rs 25,000 a month. Compare this with foreign universities that provide a tuition fee waiver and a monthly stipend ranging from $800 to $1,500, depending on the financial strength of the institute and its location.
Both Nachane and Srivastava agree that it's vital to increase the scholarship amount to attract students and provide an alternative within India. Both, MSE and IGIDR are exploring ways to increase their scholarship amount. Delhi School of Economics (DSE) did not respond to a questionnaire.
Students graduating from Master's programme in MSE and IGIDR get job offers in the salary range of Rs 6 lakh and Rs 8 lakh a year -- mostly from banks, financial institutions and consultancies. Candidates even after completing the PhD would get only Rs 50,000 more than what a Master's level students would get, said IGIDR's Nachane.
"The opportunity cost for a student with Masters Degree to pursue a PhD in economics is very high," he added referring to Rs 6 lakh salary the PhD student would have earned for four years, if employed.
Apart from scholarships, the faculty profile and the syllabus play an important role in attracting students. "What I learnt ten years ago is not even offered here in India," said Parth J Shah, economist and former professor of Economics at the University of Michigan.
Lack of quality faculty is often linked to salary structure in Indian universities that fail to differentiate between a professor who has done cutting-edge research with publications in leading journals and faculty who has only concentrated on teaching. "The sixth pay commission will solve this problem because it allows flexibility in salary structure," said Nachane.
But for Shah, who is now involved in a not-for-profit research and education institution Centre for Civil Society, the solution could also lie in giving choices to institutes to decide whom to affiliate.
At present, an institute present in a city has to affiliate in a university based in that city. "The geographical monopoly of the universities should be broken. This will create competition among the institutions," he added.
In the meantime, every year around five students of Madras School of Economics (MSE) come back to pursue research after working for a couple of years in the industry. But, as of now, they come to MSE to prepare for admission to foreign universities and Srivastava is hoping that some will stay back in days to come.
Now back to Dondu Raghavan. I would like to close this topic with an anecdote. A heart specialist calls in a plumber by name John Updike to have his washbasin repaired. After the work is over, John gives him the bill, which is for a hefty amount. The doctor sighs and exclaims, this is way above what I would have earned as consulting physician, whereupon he gets the reply "I know doc from my personal experience as doctor before changing over to plumber profession" from Doctor John Updike.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
It reminds me of Agatha Christie's novel 4.50 from Paddington starring the lovable old detective Miss Marple. In this novel she is assisted by one Lucy, who has majored in Mathematics but instead of pursuing a career in mathematics opts for the job of a housekeeper after a thorough study of the market needs. She goes on to become a highly successful housekeeper very well-paid and much in demand.
My reason to mention this is illustrated more starkly in the article referred to above. Now over to the article in bold italics.
D K Srivastava, director of Madras School of Economics (MSE), is disappointed when he sees 50 Master's students graduate every year with lucrative job offers.
He is unhappy because none of the 50 students apply for a PhD or doctoral degree and the Chennai-based institute is finding it difficult to attract high-quality students for this programme.
Like the MSE, the poor response to programmes for Economics PhDs (the abbreviation of the Latin Philosophiæ Doctor) appears to be a chronic problem in India.
"The best brains are going to industry after completing the Master's degree," said Srivastava, who has specialised in public finance and economic forecasting. "This is the malaise of good institutions where highly qualified students don't stay back," he added.
Even the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), a premier institute set up by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for research in development issues, found it difficult to attract students for its PhD programme a couple of years ago.
MSE admits two or three students every year for its doctoral programme, a third of what it can accommodate. Aggregate data on the number of students completing their PhD in Economics are not available.
While PhD programmes run by universities across India have faced problems in attracting high-quality students for a long time, it is only now the top economic research institutions are facing the problem of student shortage, given the jobs boom that is attracting the best and brightest among Master's students.
Though there are globally recognised Indian economists like Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati, universities based in India have not kept pace with cutting-edge research produced by their counterparts in the United States and Europe, resulting in poor research output.
Three issues — faculty profile, poor scholarship funding and job opportunities — are being cited as reasons Indian universities have failed to attract good quality students, said four economists, including three heads of the institutions, who were contacted for this article.
For the few students who want to pursue a PhD, foreign universities have emerged as a viable option. These overseas institutions are targeting Indian students and are offering liberal scholarships that are hard for Indian counterparts to match, said D M Nachane, director of IGIDR.
Research scholars in Indian institutes are mostly paid between Rs 6,000 per month and Rs14,000, except in a few management institutes where they are offered around Rs 25,000 a month. Compare this with foreign universities that provide a tuition fee waiver and a monthly stipend ranging from $800 to $1,500, depending on the financial strength of the institute and its location.
Both Nachane and Srivastava agree that it's vital to increase the scholarship amount to attract students and provide an alternative within India. Both, MSE and IGIDR are exploring ways to increase their scholarship amount. Delhi School of Economics (DSE) did not respond to a questionnaire.
Students graduating from Master's programme in MSE and IGIDR get job offers in the salary range of Rs 6 lakh and Rs 8 lakh a year -- mostly from banks, financial institutions and consultancies. Candidates even after completing the PhD would get only Rs 50,000 more than what a Master's level students would get, said IGIDR's Nachane.
"The opportunity cost for a student with Masters Degree to pursue a PhD in economics is very high," he added referring to Rs 6 lakh salary the PhD student would have earned for four years, if employed.
Apart from scholarships, the faculty profile and the syllabus play an important role in attracting students. "What I learnt ten years ago is not even offered here in India," said Parth J Shah, economist and former professor of Economics at the University of Michigan.
Lack of quality faculty is often linked to salary structure in Indian universities that fail to differentiate between a professor who has done cutting-edge research with publications in leading journals and faculty who has only concentrated on teaching. "The sixth pay commission will solve this problem because it allows flexibility in salary structure," said Nachane.
But for Shah, who is now involved in a not-for-profit research and education institution Centre for Civil Society, the solution could also lie in giving choices to institutes to decide whom to affiliate.
At present, an institute present in a city has to affiliate in a university based in that city. "The geographical monopoly of the universities should be broken. This will create competition among the institutions," he added.
In the meantime, every year around five students of Madras School of Economics (MSE) come back to pursue research after working for a couple of years in the industry. But, as of now, they come to MSE to prepare for admission to foreign universities and Srivastava is hoping that some will stay back in days to come.
Now back to Dondu Raghavan. I would like to close this topic with an anecdote. A heart specialist calls in a plumber by name John Updike to have his washbasin repaired. After the work is over, John gives him the bill, which is for a hefty amount. The doctor sighs and exclaims, this is way above what I would have earned as consulting physician, whereupon he gets the reply "I know doc from my personal experience as doctor before changing over to plumber profession" from Doctor John Updike.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Mr. Lee and Mr. Chee agreed to have a fight
My friend Jayakamal has the welcome habit of forwarding articles that kindle my interest. I do use them for my blog posting in Tamil. Now due to a certain development in the blogger facilities, I would like to post the same in this English blog of mine as well. My Tamil post for those able to read Tamil is here. Now for the forwarded article Mr. Lee and Mr. Chee agreed to have a fight. Over to Atanou. The "I" in the succedding lines in bold italics refer to Atanou.
The NY Times of 30th May reports ("Power and Tenacity Collide in Singapore Courtroom" — Thanks, Naman) on the clash between two personalities — one powerful and famous, the other powerless — in a Singapore courtroom. Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, 84, met his political adversary Chee Soon Juan, 45, in court where the former is suing the latter for libel. In a newsletter published in 2006, Mr Chee had accused the Singapore government of corruption. Mr Lee takes charges of corruption seriously and refused to let Mr Chee’s accusation go unchallenged.
I suppose the court would figure out if Mr Chee’s charge is true or not. If the charge is false, I would be much relieved because I would hate to find out that the man I have very high regard for — Mr Lee Kuan Yew — has feet of clay.
Why do I admire the man so much? Perhaps because of what he achieved. Here’s the NY Times:
“The final test is what Singapore was when I became prime minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now,” Mr. Lee said. “We had less than $100 million in the kitty.” Today, he said, “global financial services assess Singapore to have sovereign wealth funds of over $300 billion.”
Singapore is just a few million people. LKY worked the miracle of transforming a third world resource-poor mosquito-infested swamp into a wealthy first world nation state admired around the world for efficiency, lack of corruption, order and cleanliness. He didn’t make pretty speeches about scaling the commanding heights of the economy. He just did it and did it within a generation. Not just the phenomenal infrastructure of the tiny place, not just the rich stock of human capital, Singapore has also amassed $300 billion in reserves. Under LKY’s guidance, Singapore’s reserves have multiplied 3000 times. How great is that?
Lee says that Singapore has $300 billion in the kitty. Chee says that it does not make up for the silencing of political opponents, the closing down of independent media “and all your shenanigans, including making sure that I’m not allowed to speak during an election rally.”
Speaking strictly for myself, I value political freedom and the freedom of expression. A civilized human existence requires freedom. But in what sense is there freedom if one is starving? Isn’t one willing to sell one’s soul for a piece of bread when starvation threatens one’s life? What would you give up in exchange for not seeing your child starve to death? I know that I would give up a lot of my highly prized freedom of political expression if in the process I could at least see my children not starve.
Mr Chee says that $300 billion in the bank (and of course all other goodies that Singapore enjoys) is too high a price to pay for the lack of political freedom and the muzzling of the press. Perhaps the restrictions on the press and on political opposition were wholly unnecessary and Singapore would have been what it is today even otherwise. Perhaps it was merely to satisfy LKY’s personal whims and fancies that political opposition was curbed and which actually did not serve any instrumental purpose. But I doubt it. When a country is poor, the squabbling for resources does push to the fore the most opportunistic criminals to enter the policymaking circles.
I know that no one reading this is actually starving. When one is sitting comfortably with a full tummy, it is easy to see how valuable it is to have the freedom to speak your mind. It is clearly better to have political freedom than not to have it, all else being equal. But how would one rank these two: one, a very full stomach but limited political freedom; two, a very empty stomach but unlimited political freedom.
At which point does the benefits of political freedom of the few outweigh the material concerns of 500 million others? How many million people is it ok to condemn to a pitiably poor life so as to guarantee that a few people have the right to make fiery political speeches?
And often times, the only political speeches made are ostensibly on behalf of the starving millions. If those starving millions did not exist, these politicians would have little to make speeches about. So it would seem that if by banning idiotic political speeches, one achieves a level of prosperity such that it makes political speeches about poverty completely irrelevant and inconsequential, it would be a good thing.
I think that there is a hierarchy of needs, as Maslow pointed out. Only after the lower level needs are met can one attempt to satisfy needs higher up. I will secure air before I start worrying about food and water. I will not worry about free speech if I am in imminent danger of keeling over from hunger. I would trade in a lot of pretty political speeches in exchange for a decent shot at living a comfortable life. If I were in the bottom 300 million in India, I would happily trade in my situationally useless right to political freedom in exchange for the life of an average Singaporean.
All the above with the usual disclaimer that your mileage may vary.
POSTSCRIPT:
Why do I stress so much on the starvation bit? Because I know how it feels to starve for 2 days. If it feels that awful to starve for just 2 days, I wonder how it must be to chronically starve — as do an estimated 200 million in India. I know that I could not handle it and I would make a deal with the devil himself to try to avoid it. That is what I fear: that millions of people at the edge of starvation are quite capable of making deals with the devil. Don’t believe me? Well, then, how do you think the communists get elected in India?
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan.
It is really very naughty of you Atanu. I refer of course to your last line. The commies do get their vote by promising the socialist utopia. In a way they keep their promise. The inequality between the haves and have-nots diminish as evry one tends to become a have-not except for the commissars with their filthy power of life and death. Let us keep aside for the moment their loyalty to the People's Republic of China and talk economics. In a way both Lee and the commies are alike in the matter of denying political freedom, but at least Lee delivered while the commies just took away everything.
I personally feel that Lee should not bother his head about Chee. Lee has already made his point.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
The NY Times of 30th May reports ("Power and Tenacity Collide in Singapore Courtroom" — Thanks, Naman) on the clash between two personalities — one powerful and famous, the other powerless — in a Singapore courtroom. Former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, 84, met his political adversary Chee Soon Juan, 45, in court where the former is suing the latter for libel. In a newsletter published in 2006, Mr Chee had accused the Singapore government of corruption. Mr Lee takes charges of corruption seriously and refused to let Mr Chee’s accusation go unchallenged.
I suppose the court would figure out if Mr Chee’s charge is true or not. If the charge is false, I would be much relieved because I would hate to find out that the man I have very high regard for — Mr Lee Kuan Yew — has feet of clay.
Why do I admire the man so much? Perhaps because of what he achieved. Here’s the NY Times:
“The final test is what Singapore was when I became prime minister in 1959 and what Singapore is now,” Mr. Lee said. “We had less than $100 million in the kitty.” Today, he said, “global financial services assess Singapore to have sovereign wealth funds of over $300 billion.”
Singapore is just a few million people. LKY worked the miracle of transforming a third world resource-poor mosquito-infested swamp into a wealthy first world nation state admired around the world for efficiency, lack of corruption, order and cleanliness. He didn’t make pretty speeches about scaling the commanding heights of the economy. He just did it and did it within a generation. Not just the phenomenal infrastructure of the tiny place, not just the rich stock of human capital, Singapore has also amassed $300 billion in reserves. Under LKY’s guidance, Singapore’s reserves have multiplied 3000 times. How great is that?
Lee says that Singapore has $300 billion in the kitty. Chee says that it does not make up for the silencing of political opponents, the closing down of independent media “and all your shenanigans, including making sure that I’m not allowed to speak during an election rally.”
Speaking strictly for myself, I value political freedom and the freedom of expression. A civilized human existence requires freedom. But in what sense is there freedom if one is starving? Isn’t one willing to sell one’s soul for a piece of bread when starvation threatens one’s life? What would you give up in exchange for not seeing your child starve to death? I know that I would give up a lot of my highly prized freedom of political expression if in the process I could at least see my children not starve.
Mr Chee says that $300 billion in the bank (and of course all other goodies that Singapore enjoys) is too high a price to pay for the lack of political freedom and the muzzling of the press. Perhaps the restrictions on the press and on political opposition were wholly unnecessary and Singapore would have been what it is today even otherwise. Perhaps it was merely to satisfy LKY’s personal whims and fancies that political opposition was curbed and which actually did not serve any instrumental purpose. But I doubt it. When a country is poor, the squabbling for resources does push to the fore the most opportunistic criminals to enter the policymaking circles.
I know that no one reading this is actually starving. When one is sitting comfortably with a full tummy, it is easy to see how valuable it is to have the freedom to speak your mind. It is clearly better to have political freedom than not to have it, all else being equal. But how would one rank these two: one, a very full stomach but limited political freedom; two, a very empty stomach but unlimited political freedom.
At which point does the benefits of political freedom of the few outweigh the material concerns of 500 million others? How many million people is it ok to condemn to a pitiably poor life so as to guarantee that a few people have the right to make fiery political speeches?
And often times, the only political speeches made are ostensibly on behalf of the starving millions. If those starving millions did not exist, these politicians would have little to make speeches about. So it would seem that if by banning idiotic political speeches, one achieves a level of prosperity such that it makes political speeches about poverty completely irrelevant and inconsequential, it would be a good thing.
I think that there is a hierarchy of needs, as Maslow pointed out. Only after the lower level needs are met can one attempt to satisfy needs higher up. I will secure air before I start worrying about food and water. I will not worry about free speech if I am in imminent danger of keeling over from hunger. I would trade in a lot of pretty political speeches in exchange for a decent shot at living a comfortable life. If I were in the bottom 300 million in India, I would happily trade in my situationally useless right to political freedom in exchange for the life of an average Singaporean.
All the above with the usual disclaimer that your mileage may vary.
POSTSCRIPT:
Why do I stress so much on the starvation bit? Because I know how it feels to starve for 2 days. If it feels that awful to starve for just 2 days, I wonder how it must be to chronically starve — as do an estimated 200 million in India. I know that I could not handle it and I would make a deal with the devil himself to try to avoid it. That is what I fear: that millions of people at the edge of starvation are quite capable of making deals with the devil. Don’t believe me? Well, then, how do you think the communists get elected in India?
Now back to Dondu N. Raghavan.
It is really very naughty of you Atanu. I refer of course to your last line. The commies do get their vote by promising the socialist utopia. In a way they keep their promise. The inequality between the haves and have-nots diminish as evry one tends to become a have-not except for the commissars with their filthy power of life and death. Let us keep aside for the moment their loyalty to the People's Republic of China and talk economics. In a way both Lee and the commies are alike in the matter of denying political freedom, but at least Lee delivered while the commies just took away everything.
I personally feel that Lee should not bother his head about Chee. Lee has already made his point.
Regards,
Dondu N. Raghavan
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Officespeak
This came in an email forwarded to me. Quite hilarious, the unusual translations.
Office Language.... ...
It's too good........ .
1.."We will do it" means" You will do it"
2."You have done a great job" means" More work will be given to you"
3."We are working on it" means" We have not yet started working it"
4."Tomorrow first thing in the morning" means" Its not getting done, At least not till tomorrow!"
5."After discussion we will decide-I am very open to views" means" I have already decided, I will tell you what to do.
6."There was a slight miscommunication" means" We lied"
7."Lets call a meeting and discuss" means" I have no time to talk now"
8."We can always do it" means" We cannot do it on time"
9."We are on the right track but there needs to be a slight extension of the deadline" means "We screwed up, we cannot deliver on time."
10."We had slight differences of opinion "means" We fought"
11."Make a list of the work that you do and let's see how I can help you" means" find a way out yourself, no help from me"
12."You should have told me earlier" means" Well even if you told me earlier that would not have mattered!"
13."We need to find out the real reason" means" I will tell you where your fault is"
14."Well Family is important, your leave is always granted. Just ensure that the work is not affected,"means," You are not going home unless you finish your job"
15."We are a team," means," Everybody shares the blame"
16."That's actually a good question" means "I do not know anything about it"
17."All the Best" means" You are in trouble"
Regards,
N.Raghavan
Office Language.... ...
It's too good........ .
1.."We will do it" means" You will do it"
2."You have done a great job" means" More work will be given to you"
3."We are working on it" means" We have not yet started working it"
4."Tomorrow first thing in the morning" means" Its not getting done, At least not till tomorrow!"
5."After discussion we will decide-I am very open to views" means" I have already decided, I will tell you what to do.
6."There was a slight miscommunication" means" We lied"
7."Lets call a meeting and discuss" means" I have no time to talk now"
8."We can always do it" means" We cannot do it on time"
9."We are on the right track but there needs to be a slight extension of the deadline" means "We screwed up, we cannot deliver on time."
10."We had slight differences of opinion "means" We fought"
11."Make a list of the work that you do and let's see how I can help you" means" find a way out yourself, no help from me"
12."You should have told me earlier" means" Well even if you told me earlier that would not have mattered!"
13."We need to find out the real reason" means" I will tell you where your fault is"
14."Well Family is important, your leave is always granted. Just ensure that the work is not affected,"means," You are not going home unless you finish your job"
15."We are a team," means," Everybody shares the blame"
16."That's actually a good question" means "I do not know anything about it"
17."All the Best" means" You are in trouble"
Regards,
N.Raghavan
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Need to educate the client - 2
Need to educate the client - 2
The other day a new client of mine called me to his place for discussions. It seems he wanted a menu translated from English into German as well as into French. He represents a 4-star hotel, here in Chennai.
The requirement for translation into French was straight forward enough. He wanted the entire menu translated. But for translation into German he wanted to economize. He told me that the new menu in English was just a slight modification of the existing menu, whose German translation was already with him. I was to translate only the modifications. I asked him to give the modifications in a different color font. He agreed and emailed me the English menu.
I took up the French translation first and sent him the finished translation. Then I took up the second part of the assignment and then sent him the German translation duly incorporated in the original English menu. All he had to do was to copy paste from the existing German version the entries into the new menu so that he can get at the revised menu in German.
Here he ran into rough weather. It seems that the new menu in English is a fully revised one and bore no resemblance to the original version in matters of sequence or even formatting. He quietly sent me the old German version and asked me to insert the suitable German translations into the new revised menu.
I refused. I told him that this is entirely a different work and as the German words already exist and my work was just to hunt them and put them in proper places in the new English menu, this work was not susceptible to straight forward word counting. I suggested that I come to his place, sit with the manager in charge of the menu and put the words in proper places, carrying out any further modifications in the format as might be found necessary by the manager at that time. After hearing my hourly rates and learning about the minimum billing for two hours as well as other conditions such as to- and fro taxi fare plus food while working, he became quiet. Though the conversation was being conducted over phone, I could almost hear his mental gears moving around and meshing into place. He quietly asked me about the possible additional cost were I to translate the entire menu into German, not bothering about the old translation. Here there was no problem as I was already aware of the full word count of the English menu, on which I based my bill. The difference was not much and he said he would let me know. That was yesterday. He is yet to give me his decision. But the reason for my posting this rests elsewhere.
Trouble comes with clients, who try to cut corners and economize. I will not blame the person negotiating with me as he is just an employee of the organization in question and his instructions are just to get the work done at the cheapest price. So the client goes into rigmaroles to restrict the work. He forgets that by just getting the entire package translated, he saves a lot in terms of time and avoidable botheration. Let me give a few examples.
One officer negotiating with me said that his Director knows French and at a pinch he can very well look after the visiting French expert. Hence I should reduce my rates. I just took a few minutes to demolish his assumption. The French expert was supposed to work with the Indian workers giving them training. Did the officer expect that the company's top official will sit with them and do interpreting? I told the officer that that person was expected to manage the company on the whole and not lose himself in a lower-end job as far as he was concerned. The officer quickly agreed and we proceeded with the rate negotiation.
In another firm, there was a bunch of German drawings. The officer entrusting the work to me marked a few words in each sheet and told me to translate just them as he understood the other words. I obliged without argument as it was a job paid on an hourly basis, finished the work as instructed and got paid. The trouble was, the concerned officer left the company soon afterwards. His successor was not so knowledgeable and he wanted the meaning of words that were left without being translated. You guessed it correctly. It was just another work for me. Needless to say, the company ended up paying me much more.
Here is one place, where you have to educate the client. But then many clients do not appreciate such talks. They are the real losers.
I will come up with more in the next instalment.
N. Raghavan
The other day a new client of mine called me to his place for discussions. It seems he wanted a menu translated from English into German as well as into French. He represents a 4-star hotel, here in Chennai.
The requirement for translation into French was straight forward enough. He wanted the entire menu translated. But for translation into German he wanted to economize. He told me that the new menu in English was just a slight modification of the existing menu, whose German translation was already with him. I was to translate only the modifications. I asked him to give the modifications in a different color font. He agreed and emailed me the English menu.
I took up the French translation first and sent him the finished translation. Then I took up the second part of the assignment and then sent him the German translation duly incorporated in the original English menu. All he had to do was to copy paste from the existing German version the entries into the new menu so that he can get at the revised menu in German.
Here he ran into rough weather. It seems that the new menu in English is a fully revised one and bore no resemblance to the original version in matters of sequence or even formatting. He quietly sent me the old German version and asked me to insert the suitable German translations into the new revised menu.
I refused. I told him that this is entirely a different work and as the German words already exist and my work was just to hunt them and put them in proper places in the new English menu, this work was not susceptible to straight forward word counting. I suggested that I come to his place, sit with the manager in charge of the menu and put the words in proper places, carrying out any further modifications in the format as might be found necessary by the manager at that time. After hearing my hourly rates and learning about the minimum billing for two hours as well as other conditions such as to- and fro taxi fare plus food while working, he became quiet. Though the conversation was being conducted over phone, I could almost hear his mental gears moving around and meshing into place. He quietly asked me about the possible additional cost were I to translate the entire menu into German, not bothering about the old translation. Here there was no problem as I was already aware of the full word count of the English menu, on which I based my bill. The difference was not much and he said he would let me know. That was yesterday. He is yet to give me his decision. But the reason for my posting this rests elsewhere.
Trouble comes with clients, who try to cut corners and economize. I will not blame the person negotiating with me as he is just an employee of the organization in question and his instructions are just to get the work done at the cheapest price. So the client goes into rigmaroles to restrict the work. He forgets that by just getting the entire package translated, he saves a lot in terms of time and avoidable botheration. Let me give a few examples.
One officer negotiating with me said that his Director knows French and at a pinch he can very well look after the visiting French expert. Hence I should reduce my rates. I just took a few minutes to demolish his assumption. The French expert was supposed to work with the Indian workers giving them training. Did the officer expect that the company's top official will sit with them and do interpreting? I told the officer that that person was expected to manage the company on the whole and not lose himself in a lower-end job as far as he was concerned. The officer quickly agreed and we proceeded with the rate negotiation.
In another firm, there was a bunch of German drawings. The officer entrusting the work to me marked a few words in each sheet and told me to translate just them as he understood the other words. I obliged without argument as it was a job paid on an hourly basis, finished the work as instructed and got paid. The trouble was, the concerned officer left the company soon afterwards. His successor was not so knowledgeable and he wanted the meaning of words that were left without being translated. You guessed it correctly. It was just another work for me. Needless to say, the company ended up paying me much more.
Here is one place, where you have to educate the client. But then many clients do not appreciate such talks. They are the real losers.
I will come up with more in the next instalment.
N. Raghavan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
