பங்காளிச் சண்டை/Blood Brothers

புத்தகம்: இந்தியாஸ் வார்: வோர்ல்ட் வார் II ஆண்ட் தி மேகிங்க் ஆஃப் ஸவுத் ஏஷியா
ஆசிரியர்: ஸ்ரீநாத் ராகவன்
பதிப்பாளர்: பெஸிக் புக்ஸ்
பதிப்பு வருடம்:  2016

அலசல்

Title: India's War: World War II and the Making of Modern South Asia
Author: Srinath Raghavan
Publisher: Basic Books
Year: 2016

Synopsis

Copyright © 2017 Kunthavaiyin Kaathalan

கண்டார்கள்...கொன்றார்கள்/Its Raining Men

புத்தகம்: அன்னாச்சுரல் ஸெலெக்ஷன் - சூஸிங்க் பாய்ஸ் ஓவர் கெர்ள்ஸ், ஆண்ட் தி காஸிக்வென்ஸெஸ் ஆஃப் எ வொர்ல்ட் ஃபுல் ஆஃப் மென்

ஆசிரியர்: மாரா ஹ்விஸ்டென்டாஹ்ல்

பதிப்பாளர்: பப்ளிக் அஃபயர்ஸ் புக்ஸ்

பதிப்பு வருடம்: 2011

அலசல்

Title: Unnatural Selection - Choosing boys over girls, and the consequences of a world full of men
Author: Mara Hvistendahl
Publisher: Public Affairs Books
Year: 2011

Synopsis

Copyright © 2017 Kunthavaiyin Kaathalan

களவாணிக் கூட்டம்/Criminal Enterprise

புத்தகம்: தி கேயாஸ் ஆஃப் எம்பையர் - பிரிட்டிஷ் ராஜ் ஆண்ட் தி காங்க்வெஸ்ட் ஆஃப் இந்தியா
ஆசிரியர்: ஜான் வில்ஸன்
பதிப்பாளர்: பப்ளிக் அஃபயர்ஸ் புக்ஸ்
பதிப்பு வருடம்: 2016

அலசல்

Title: The Chaos of Empire - British Raj and The Conquest of India
Author: Jon Wilson
Publisher: Public Affairs Books
Year: 2016

Synopsis

Copyright © 2017 Kunthavaiyin Kaathalan

Democracy only in name

Anyone growing up in India gets used to the fact that it is a democracy that gives its people the right to express and associate themselves. It is a matter of pride for them. The real life drawbacks in its application within India, while demoralising, serves to remind us of the ideal.

So, I was surprised to read about the requirement for a political party in India to swear allegiance to the "principle" of socialism to be registered with the election commission. Without registration with the election commission, there is no chance of contesting elections and effectively, this shuts the door on the right to express oneself and associate with fellow citizens, freely.

Till 1989, the only economic system that I knew was socialism. The textbooks I used and teachers I had, extolled its virtues without a fair discussion of alternatives. So, to me, communism was a success and socialism would make India better (which usually meant, beat pakistan in cricket). And then, came the fall of berlin wall and dissolution of USSR. It shook my faith in what I was taught and provided me an abject lesson in the error of ingesting information without scepticism. Add to it, the currency crisis in 1991 that led to liberalization of indian economy, my disillusionment with socialism was well under way. I didnt know much about capitalism except what I read from business magazines. So, for a long time, I didnt particularly care what economic system was followed as long as I had some way of living a comfortable life. As time has passed, I have realized that socialism was a worthless bill of goods that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history a long time back (analogy mouthed by Kamal Hassan's character in Varumaiyin Niram Sikappu when hunting through a garbage dump). As is true about every indian divorced from the legal reality in India, I realize now I am completely out of step with respect to the indian constitution and its legal framework.

The preamble to the constitution of india is very clear.

"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to
secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty- sixth day of November, 1949,do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."

Only on further reading, did I realize the words socialist, secular and unity and integrity of the Nation were inserted during the poisonous regime that infected indian democracy under Indira Gandhi. These changes were part of the infamous forty second amendment to the constitution. There were a whole host of changes as part of that amendment that cemented the socialist nature of the state. It is instructive to remember this amendment was passed during emergency. The amendment also placed directive principles of the state above fundamental rights of its citizens. The language in the amendment reflects the heady arrogance of unchecked state power as can be seen below.

"THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976
Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution
(Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1976 (Bill No. 91 of 1976) which was
enacted as THE CONSTITUTION (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
A Constitution to be living must be growing. If the impediments to
the growth of the Constitution are not removed, the Constitution will
suffer a virtual atrophy. The question of amending the Constitution
for removing the difficulties which have arisen in achieving the
objective of socio-economic revolution, which would end poverty and
ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity, has been engaging
the active attention of Government and the public for some years now.

3. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Constitution to spell out
expressly the high ideals of socialism, secularism and the integrity
of the nation, to make the directive principles more comprehensive and
give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been
allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socio-economic reforms for
implementing the directive principles. It is also proposed to specify
the fundamental duties of the citizens and make special provisions for
dealing with anti-national activities, whether by individuals or
associations.".

Only thing missing above is Indira taking out the portion on objective of socio-economic revolution, replacing it with 'garibi hatao'.

For all his faults, Nehru's intellect wouldnt have allowed him to exercise the unimaginable power his daughter exercised. There are unofficial claims about how Nehru wrote a letter, when he was prime minister, to the editor of a newspaper warning against giving too much power to himself. It also points to the difference between the Nehru and Indira. To my knowledge, Nehru was a socialist through and through but he didnt go so far as to enshrine it in the constitution even though he could have if he wanted to, in 1950. His daughter was far more petty in her exercise of political power and showed up socialism for what it was, an empty slogan that assured India was on its way to ruin. But then, Nehru lost the war with china while Indira won one against Pakistan. The aura of invincibility might have convinced Indira to go for it. It is also the first time the machinery of state is explicitly stated to be of greater importance than the people it is supposed to serve. It is an unfortunate legacy we still live with.

Some other 'gems' in our constitution that indirectly espouse socialist nature of the state include(from Directive principles of state policy):

Article 38 - State to secure a social order for the
promotion of welfare of the people.
- The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may
a social order in which justice, social, economic and
political, shall inform all the institutions of the
national life.
- The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the
inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in
status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but
also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations.

Article 41 - Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain
cases.
- The State shall, within the limits of its economic
capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the
right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of
undeserved want.

Article 43A - Participation of workers in management of industries.
- The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation
or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in
the management of undertakings, establishments or other
organisations engaged in any industry.

Article 43 - Living wage, etc., for workers.
- The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or
economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers,
agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions
of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of
leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the
State shall endeavour to promote cottage
industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural
areas.

Article 47 - Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
living and to improve public health.
- The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health
as among its primary duties and, in particular, the
State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes
of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to
health.

Article 48 - Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.
- The State shall endeavour to organise
agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific
lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and
improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of
cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 51A - Fundamental Duties.
- It shall be the duty of every citizens of
India
- to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly
rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.

In addition to the constitution, the representation of people act of 1951 governs who can contest the elections in India. As part IVA - REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES(Registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties) states,

"The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum or rules and regulations of the association or body, by whatever name called, and such memorandum or rules and regulations shall contain a specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India."

The above part seems to have been passed in 1989, based on references provided. I am not sure who pushed this through but given the "stellar" group of politicians we had at that time(V.P.Singh, Rajiv Gandhi, Advani et al), it isnt a surprise there wasnt any objections raised. The meltdown in foreign exchange reserves was still 2 years away.

The number of amendments to indian constitution also means it has become unwieldy. There is a good argument to be made that a party wishing to follow libertarian policies can sign the pledge to be socialist and maintain a schizophrenic existence. It only needs to worry about its identity the day indian voters understand what their rights are and get ready to demand it. However, it doesnt augur well for the democratic nature of indian polity that the constitution requires allegiance to a discredited economic system. While good arguments can be made for the other items in the list, socialism sticks out like a sore thumb. The current indian economy has moved away from socialism (mostly) and it would come as a surprise to the youth of India that their prosperity is assured by economic policies that bear no relation to what is enshrined in the constitution. A day might come when politicians would want to go back to socialism and the constitution would provide them with every justification to do that even if it means crushing the dreams of a bright future.

Inventing democratic india

Indian history textbooks treat Nehru as someone who didnt do any wrong, a status that is accorded equally to Gandhi. That the nehru-gandhi dynasty has had a stranglehold on the government has only helped extend that perception. The image of him as the benevolent leader, striving for the good of his people, has been encouraged through movies as well. Reading his Discovery of india, he comes across as someone very comfortable with the idea of india and its people on an intellectual level but not too much at home on an emotional level. He gets his message across when it comes to the plural nature of indian society and ability of democracy to serve and further it. He is also very convincing when it comes to reasons behind his preference of scientific thinking and attitude over religion in public and private life. I was surprised to see him offer an opinion to the effect that science at some point will encroach on the playing field of religion and be successful at it.

However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.

Some selected quotes,

On democracy for India

"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."

On drawbacks of religion

"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."

"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."

"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."

"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."

"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."

"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."

"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."

On benefits of science

"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."

"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."

On Soviet Union

"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."

To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.

Maha muddler

I am very unfavourably biased against Nehru and Gandhi. While I can at least see some rehabilitation for Nehru in the future because of his commitment(and subsequent success in delivery) to a particular form of political ideal especially one that has stood india in very good stead, I dont expect it for Gandhi.

It was in my first year in college I read biographies of Ambedkar, Savarkar and Patel. Some years later, I read Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah. Reading all of them, Gandhi came across as very selfish and obsessive, unlike what was portrayed in Attenborough's Gandhi. Why wouldnt Attenborough make such a movie ? Gandhi was very accomodating in his attitude towards british. Ambedkar, Patel and Jinnah were selfish too but they werent called Mahatmas(neither did they position themselves as one), even after they achieved things that Gandhi didnt(and couldnt have). Ambedkar said it best about Gandhi as Mahatma,'History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust but raise no level'.

Reading Gandhi's experiments with truth, one thing is clear. He is an extremely religious person in an era where being religious was synonymous with being good. Now we know better. Throughout the book, it is not india's independence he is concerned about. It is his adherence to truth. Even if it means mortgaging chances of indian independence. Is it any surprise we got our independence in 1947, when the british empire was at its knees and tired of holding onto its colonies ? If it was left to Gandhi, he might have carried it on even further. After all, in the end, it is his version of truth that mattered. Given the inexhaustible capacity of religion to enable grand delusions among its devoted followers, it is no wonder Gandhi took to the cult of mahatma with no difficulty.

Whether in south africa or india, he portrays all his activities as seeking truth which he interchangeably uses with God. He is very clear that his hindu upbringing has influenced him on his version of the truth. He compares himself against perfection that is God and finds the results wanting. At one point I could remember him repeating like Kamal Hassan's character in Guna when he goes around a room saying, 'Naan asingam, intha moonchi asingam...'. Gandhi comes across as someone who devalues anything to do with life on earth, the pleasures and pains associated with it. Which shouldnt be a surprise for someone as religious as he is. But he crosses into delusional territory when he dictates the choices for his kids in their education and health. Granted, parents decide what education and health care their kids will have. Gandhi takes his muddling experiments to a shameful extent when he insists on his sons being treated with 'wet earth' treatments when they fall sick and rejects doctor's recommendations. And he has the temerity to suggest it was not at all forced and he asked for his son's agreement before proceeding with the treatment. Wasnt Gandhi the adult here ? What else could his poor sons do ? Fight against their father especially when they are weakened by sickness, especially a father who has laid down morality and character as more important than knowledge? His insistence that moral education more than literal education is better for children is distasteful. He sets up a false dichotomy and uses his responses to screw up his kids' lives. He takes pride in narrating how his kids have built character through work and sacrifice. He is aware that he is putting his kids at a disadvantage as he comments how he might be mortgaging their future.

When he was alive, he desired for better treatment from british rather than complete independence. Only after the debacles of late 1930s and early 1940s did he change his tune and asked british to Quit India. It comes across very clearly in the book. He provides enough justifications for british for their actions(even when it is unfair) and supports them in all their adventures. So, his volunteering for ambulance service at the end of Boer war doesnt look out of place with his volunteering during first world war and his offer not to place independence demands on british when they were reeling from defeats in the second world war. He comes across as desperately seeking equal treatment from british.

If Gandhi was alive for longer than he was, I am sure India would have run into more troubles. He is above all concerned with himself, his distance from what he has defined as the truth and his experiments at reaching it. So, when striking workers or farmers from champaran, kheda ask for his help, it is his adherence to truth they are buying into, not an advocate for their cause. If they didnt know about it, it is their fault. It doesnt matter to him they look upto him for his legal acumen in solving their problems.

Gandhi comes across as any typical politician in this book. In south africa, he chides people for depending too much on public funds for running indian organizations there but once his fame takes off in india, he has no qualms soliciting funds for his public service. It is not good when others do it but it is good when he does it. Ditto for his politics. He is a politician through and through but keeps insisting to anyone who would listen he isnt one. His skillful maneuvering in congress politics is a testament to that. He uses Gokhale very well to establish a foothold in congress politics and builds a very good following after that. His ideals in removing caste system from hinduism and elevating the value of work is good but the way he goes about it says volumes about his general approach. He is clear why he wants to do it but doesnt convey it to his audience. Worse, he makes them suffer through it without adequately explaining why they have to do it.

Maybe there is something indians should have realized. For someone who accepts that he was a bad father(not out of humility but because of his parenting skills), being made father of the nation would have been a consolation. He shifted his playground from his family to nation. The results remained bad as always but the experiments continued. The aura of mahatma ensured any dissenting voices about gandhi's significance were muzzled by a nation that was grateful for its independence when it came.

A butterfly flaps its wings in china.....

This week, we had an inkling of what globalization can do to even mature economies. The US economy(or for that matter, Europe) is not so dependent that a little sneeze in china would cause a coughing spell here. However, the extent of investments that US companies and institutional investors have made in china carries with it a risk that can be exacerbated in bad times. If the signs in the US economy were healthy, any impact from china(or the so-called emerging markets) can be managed. But, given the borrowing binge US consumers have gone on for last 6 years, the indicators for US economy show a much more vulnerable picture. In the future, US consumers might shrug off any bad news to stocks and continue their spending even more. The extent of borrowing and decline in stock figures might just cause US economy to magnify chinese economy's influence much more. As the probability of chinese economic decisions impacting US economy(and by implication, US consumers too) increases, it might be helpful to think about how political stability inside china(or other countries which can materially impact US policy) can influence those choices.

Ian Bremmer's J Curve lays out a framework for thinking about how stability and openness of societies can play an important role in how they respond to changes from outside.



(From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/30/wjcurve30.xml&page=1).

The J curve stands for the shape of the curve where stability(on the Y-axis) is plotted against openness(on the X-axis) for different societies. Societies generally start on the shorter left hand side of 'J' with a certain amount of openness and stability. As openness progresses(either from within or imposed from without), the stability decreases first, reaches a low point and then proceeds upwards on the right hand side of the J curve. The level of the entire curve can be lifted up(or dragged down) by certain events that impact these societies. As an example, a beneficial event(like an increase in GDP or winning 2007 cricket world cup) can lift the entire curve allowing for a higher level of stability for the same openness as before. Some societies try to get back to where they started by reducing openness, thereby increasing stability. These societies generally lie on the left hand side of the J curve. Some examples include North Korea, Iraq(when Saddam was in power). Some societies have taken the brave step of more openness and have reached the bottom portion of the curve. Some examples include Russia, South Africa, Yugoslavia. Other societies have pursued openness vigorously and ended up with more stability, on the right hand side of the J curve. US is rightfully placed at the top of the right hand side of the J curve, given its track record of stability. Some other societies that fit this side, but at a lower level, include India, germany, france. In response to stimuli from outside pushing for openness, any society can respond in 2 ways.

Where they will end up at the end depends on where they are currently on the curve. So, a North Korea pushed towards openness(as attempted by US foreign policy for last 6 years) might experience a decrease in stability first before it proceeds to become more stable. The reaction of its dictator, Kim Jong Il, might be to push North Korea up the left hand side of the curve towards more stability and lesser openness. Lesser openness provides Kim Jong Il with more control over the country's resources. The end result is more suffering for longer time for people in North Korea with no obvious benefits and some dangers to US.
As an alternative, they can proceed to become more open. The decrease in stability can be counteracted by aid from the other parties currently involved in solving the issue(Russia, China, US, South Korea, Japan). If that happens, Kim Jong Il might just be persuaded to stop watching too many hollywood movies and start listening to his suffering populace. One of his responses might be to throw the society more open(as long as he is assured that the other parties will be there to back him if he fails).
My interest is focussed on south asia, considered to be India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma. In this post, I will focus only on India and Pakistan as their conflict seems to hold back both countries from achieving their potential(and writing about other countries in the region might expose my ignorance).

Of these, India started on the left hand side of the curve and has ended up on the right hand side of the J curve, courtesy of its political and military leaders. As much as I despise Nehru for squandering away precious time in improving india's economy, I give him credit for having a vision of a democratic india and laying down foundations for its institutions, working in concert with other leaders for the last 50 years. India now has a functioning democracy that has ensured some level of openness and stability. It is reasonably more open than many other countries and has a system which assures its citizens of some voice inspite of its imperfections.
On an anecdotal basis, emergency promulgated by Indira Gandhi(along with Sanjay Gandhi and a remarkably supine congress party of that era) might have been the reaction of someone trying to push India up the left hand side of the curve towards greater stability and lesser openness. It came right after the liberation of bangladesh that provided as much political leverage to Indira Gandhi as she could handle. As the apocryphal story goes, popularity of General Sam Manekshaw(Field Marshal of Indian Army) led Indira Gandhi to query him as to the military's inclination towards democracy within the country. If the story is true, it might have been the ever present insecurity of Indira Gandhi that led her to do that. Manekshaw has to be commended for sticking to military matters. It might also have been her desire to see off any challenges to her vision(at that time) of a more stable but less open india. As long as the steady vision of Nehru(in the political sphere, that is) of a democratic India was there, decrease in stability was accepted in return for adhering to the overarching vision. Beginning in 1970, the political leaders who fought for indian independence were losing their pull with the electorate and the new generation of political leaders did not have the baggage of Nehruvian vision. India, at this time, was probably at the bottom portion of the J curve.

It is also to the credit of other leaders(Janata Party, DMK in addition to others) that they resolutely resisted it and were willing to suffer arrest. The loss for Indira Gandhi in 1977 elections might have marked the moment when India rejected the short term safety and long term peril of lesser openness(and more stability at that time with Sanjay Gandhi snapping off reproductive organs as and when he wished) in favour of short term pain and long term pleasure of more openness(higher stability currently). Subsequent events(like assassinations of prime ministers, serious danger of default with IMF, frequently maddening religious riots) have brought India to the brink of the bottom portion of the J curve but its leaders seem to have learnt the art of sticking to the right hand portion of the curve even if it seems unpopular at the time.

As long the future leaders commit themselves to the right hand portion of the J curve, people in India will do much better in terms of expressing their opinions and fashioning policies responsive to their concerns. Over the long term, that course will prepare India for changes on a global scale than remaining a closed society.

Pakistan started on the left hand side of the curve as India did but their response has been resolutely towards left hand side of the curve with periodic flirtations towards the right hand side of the curve with little success. India and Pakistan started on an equal footing with their leaders educated mostly in western democracies and hence, amenable to developing institutions for grooming democracy. After their independence in 1947, India had the luxury of bench strength when it came to leaders. While all the credit has been given to Nehru and Gandhi, people have forgotten the talents of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Ambedkar, Moulana Azad in the service of the new nation(Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel does give credit where it is due). Whatever be their shortcomings, they applied their knowledge and skills to the betterment of a new nation.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah had a similar vision as Nehru but was hobbled by the lack of reliable leaders assisting him in administration of the country. Pakistan stumbled in its attempts to establish democracy after Jinnah died. With him went the vision of a nation trying to become a democracy and whatever attempts towards more openness. The lack of democratic leaders brought in military leaders to fill the vaccuum and lead Pakistan towards more stability. Given their military background(as against politics), they pushed the country up the left hand side of the curve leading to more stability but lesser openness. The military dictators did have a vision. However, that focussed on stability within Pakistan rather than encouraging openness. When the military suffered a setback(as in losses to India in 1965 and 1971), the long suffering politicians inside Pakistan had their chance. However, they squandered it through ineffectual governance and corruption and one of them ended up hanging for it. The military given its resources, came roaring back to take back the power. Thus, every war(and its attendant loss) to India pushed the military to consolidate their power and push Pakistan even further up the left hand portion of the curve.

The genius of pakistan military leadership also lay in their eye for playing US against Soviet Union(at that time). The financial support provided by US helped Pakistan address economic concerns of its people(at least what the military perceived as economic concerns of Pakistan) while keeping their requests for democracy in check. In effect, it shifted its J curve up. However, the military's refusal towards more openness also meant Pakistan squandered a valuable opportunity. The financial support of US could have mitigated, to some extent, the instability Pakistan would have faced if it pushed for more openness. Pushing for openness would have meant reducing military's control over all aspects of Pakistani politics. Over the long term, it could have led Pakistan over the bottom portion of the J curve and planted it on the right hand portion. Unfortunately, the military establishment(including ISI) decided to stay put on the left hand portion and poured its resources towards supporting terrorists(at that time, euphemistically called, afghan(followed later by kashmiri) freedom fighters). US also neglected its responsibility in demanding Pakistan become more open for all the financial support it was getting. As the terrorists went from strength to strength, Pakistan military looked on indulgently as they served its purpose of slowly bleeding India. After Zia-Ul Haq, the pakistan military leadership were not upto the task of keeping a lid on the grumblings within Pakistan. The short timeframe within which elections were called after Zia-Ul-Haq's death showed the brittleness of the remaining military establishment in holding the country together. The military establishment's incompetence and short sighted policies in administering the country came home to roost as the elections moved Pakistan towards more openness(with associated decrease in stability). When the soviet union pulled out of afghanistan(and promptly crumbled as a nation state some years later), Pakistan got saddled with the problem of well trained terrorists within and on its border. The young democracy's inexperience and widespread nepotism, as evidenced during the period of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, in the new political parties disillusioned the public very quickly and made the option of military leadership look positively warm. The final straw was the bumbling over kargil that led to the current military dictatorship of Musharraf. For a population tired of instability, Musharraf responded with clamping down on openness in the interest of stability and once again, Pakistan started its movement up the left hand portion of the curve. The current situation of Musharraf is dicey as there is the pressure from within Pakistan for bringing democracy(as he promised when he took over). He has delivered stability, for the most part, as promised even with the after effects of september 11. There have been bombings inside that have brought the level of the J curve down even though it is par for the course for the region. The openness level has gone down enough to pinch everyone, from Imran Khan to islamist parties. If Musharraf proceeds to open Pakistan's political environment even more, he has to contend with lesser stability and take a hit on what he promised when he took over the country. Hence, his gestures earlier to allow islamist parties to have some measure of power in the parliament. However, that might cause them to demand even more and Musharraf has to contend with a potential slide towards the bottom portion of the J curve and its attendant instability. Opening up the political environment even more to get to the right hand portion can lead to instability that would make Musharraf's position more untenable and strengthen the possibility that Pakistan would descend into chaos. The lack of democratic institutions improves the chances that it will happen in the above scenario.
The response of India is something which puts it in a tough position. India's security would be strengthened if the south asia region becomes home to societies on the right hand portion. It cannot afford to wait till the current military dictatorship transforms Pakistan and lets go its chokehold on the political freedoms. By the time that transformation occurs, it might be too late for Pakistan to move to the right hand portion. A better response might be to assist Pakistan in establishing durable institutions(and maybe, a better movie industry) as it lurches towards democracy. India can keep lines of communication between the two countries open, to handle any problems that might arise. India might even offer Musharraf help in tracking down terrorists(not arms) along their border allowing him more breathing room to purge military establishment of anti-democratic forces. This recommendation does assume Musharraf has seen the benefits of a functioning democracy.
There would always be forces on both sides of the border who have stake in a Pakistan on the left hand portion of the J curve. The Indian side allows for that expression through its democracy, thereby making it one among multitude of ideas. In case of Pakistan, the lack of democracy leads to a depleted exchange of diverse ideas among its people, making it more susceptible to crises that would push it up the left portion of the curve.

I would be interested in exploring how different states(and at a micro level, political parties) within india deal with change.

India unbound

I finished reading this book by Gurcharan Das. It was written in 2001 and is his reflection on economic, social and political life in post independent india. He has an easy writing style that is engaging. That he has written a book pointing out flaws in the economic policies of holy cows of indian national politics, Nehru, Gandhi, Indira and Rajiv, is just icing on the cake for me. I do hold the Nehru family responsible for many ills plaguing India. That doesnt mean I excuse the rest of the country. It is just that, Nehru family had the opportunity to shape the future of millions of people and its track record is filled with lamentable failures. To hide behind years of public service, multiple assassinations and italian widows doesnt exonerate them from their abysmal economic record.

The book does lament a lot on how India, first under Nehru and then under Indira, moved away from a choice of communism or capitalism and chose a third path, 'mixed economy'. The one thing that we can be thankful is that Gandhi didnt get more say in the economic policy after independence. He would have insisted on his crackpot ideas, reason be damned. So, we would have had regression towards handicrafts and appropriate technologies. Ambedkar and Nehru were correct in slamming him for those fantasy theories. I dont have anything against handicrafts but to make them the driver of the economy would be suicide for a country as large and as needy as India. If they are done well, they could be a profitable sector, providing profits and sustenance to those who are good at it.
The economic policy after independence reflected the confusions and idealisms of Nehru as he went about fashioning India in his own image. As someone inimical to profit seeking motives, Nehru created a socialist hell that progressively got worse. While other asian countries realised the power of capitalism and provided their people a new lease of life, India languished on the sidelines with its moral righteousness, even as millions suffered. For Nehru, profit seeking motive represented a base concern. He proceeded to lay the foundation of an economy that actively stifled any entrepeneurial spirit among its merchants, traders and industrialists. By focussing on state backed import substitution instead of export promotion, Nehru showed a weakness of judgement about indian businessmen. There is some justification in Nehru's fear that, without protection after 1947, a nascent indian industry would be wiped out even before it got started. But his response to that fear was to have the state administer all aspects of business sphere. That might be one reason, to this day, India is a nation of laws that are implemented sporadically. Even the state has a limited amount of resources. You can print only so much money before it becomes worthless. The state after 1947 could have focussed on how to bring india's economy on par with other developing nations by setting the playing field within the country for economic activity and enforcing the regulations. But, Nehru decided to plunge the state into an orgy of building 'temples of modern india' a.k.a steel plants. Why was he so afraid of allowing businessmen to do what they do best, run a business seeking profit, use profit to live comfortably, pay their employees, invest in technological developments that improve profitability in the long run and close plants that are unprofitable ? Did he think Indians werent ready for changes that come with private industry ? Did he think the state should be a surrogate parent assuring its citizens jobs where you dont get fired ? How does someone improve their lot if they are doing a job where they know there is no penalty for not doing any work ? Where is the incentive ?
As the author points out, a businessman's focus on economic interests precludes rigidity in their thinking. They can afford to be rigid but then their business has a higher chance to go bankrupt. They might undercut their opposition but as long as the playing field is neutral, they will try to make money the best way they can. At least they provide a purpose where people get together and work for a common purpose. The state support immediately after independence allowed indian businessmen to produce shoddy products because (1) they were constrained in how much they could invest so research and development took a big hit (2) they couldnt set productivity goals for their employees that would serve to achieve progressively higher standards in production (3) They couldnt introduce new products if the market demanded it without approval from the bureaucracy that had only a vague idea of how industry worked and (4) Competition was minimal given the headaches suffered by anyone who wanted to start a business.

Then came Indira. If nothing else, she was smart in a no holds barred survival way. She proceeded to tighten the government policies that discouraged active investment in industry and made sure entrepeneurs were at the mercy of bureaucrats dispensing license permits. Her 'Garibi Hatao' slogan was devious as she should have known it was her government's policies that were causing 'garib' in the first place. She did win a war against pakistan and dismembered it in political sphere. Knowing her father's policies were wrong should have at least alerted Indira towards course correction in the economy but her political instincts probably took over and she decided to continue the short sighted policies that brought nothing but misery.

Obviously, indian people deserved a lot of blame for sticking with congress party this much. Yes, there were reasons why Congress was so successful for this long(power allowed them to build a dedicated base that did their bidding, they had the distribution network in the form of AIR and DD to put out their side of the story most of the time at minimal cost to themselves and so on). But, Congress should have been thrown out long time back for dragging india to the depths of default and ignominy. They have had their chances running on the platform of being the party that got us independence.

Losing a piece of myself

This past month, I went on vacation to India. I came away with mostly positive emotions. I am writing this when I am still reeling from homesickness. Everything there looks green inspite of the heat and humidity . Change seems to be everywhere and most of it is for the good. The dynamism is something different and it is not only restricted to the metros.

I lost quite a lot of my weight during this trip inspite of my mom's best efforts to feed me stuff I havent eaten in ages. I went in the month of may to chennai. Even if it is not the hottest place, it is hot enough to wish for year round rains. As the song from Gentleman goes 'April Mayilae pasumaiyae illae.......' . That song was sung in an entirely different context but one can appreciate it keeping the weather in mind.

I went to places in and around chennai randomly given my procastination. I still managed to cover places I wanted to see with some exceptions.

My first trip was to St.Thomas Mount. I always wanted to visit it ever since I came to know it had some historical importance attached to it. Once you reach the entrance to the church, it is very easy to go up as the way up is paved and has places to rest. But once you go up,there is not much to look at. It was a disappointment that was somewhat mitigated on seeing a painting in fort st. george museum that shows a pristine mount with a clear view of the village that was chennai at that time. That doubting thomas was killed on top of the mount in 72 AD wasnt enough to hold my interest to me anyway.

The fort st. george museum is very well maintained even though they could use some guides. Most of the visitors had to browse through the museum and make of the artifacts what they could. Places like St.Thomas Mount seemed to be so different from what they are now. There were even items from french period of occupation of Fort St.George. The official letters written by Robert Clive were another treat. Looking at them, I couldnt help wonder how someone like him, down and out when he landed in india, could transform his life and go on to establish east india company as a force to be reckoned with. Like those international cricketers making their career against india with a bang even if they were nondescript players before in their respective countries. Or as they say in tamil 'Vandharai vaazhavaikum tamizhagam' (Providing livelihood for all comers).

The government museum in Egmore is another treasure trove of historical pieces. It has sculptures and scripts dating from asoka's period(B.C.) to around 11th century AD. They have different complexes for stone sculptures and metal sculptures. The metal sculptures are housed in that rarity of a government space, an airconditioned room. They have done a very good job of putting all the metal sculptures inside glass casings knowing very well the propensity of visitors to touch and spoil the sculptures. The stone sculptures get no such protection. It was a pathetic sight to see valuable sculptures lying around as painters whitewashed the walls of the museum and generously dripped the paint onto the sculptures. Then there were the confiscated pieces from thieves and smugglers. The museum administrators in their infinite wisdom have put them all in the open backyard behind the museum almost as if inviting a thief to have a go at them again. All said and done, it is still a worthwhile effort to have all these marvelous sculptures in a single place even though they can do a better job of maintaining them from the spoiling hands of visitors/maintenance crew.

Senji fort lies between chennai and tiruvannamalai. For a fort that is sorrounded by paddy fields and generous water sources, it is really hot. The fort complex is actually a ring of forts built on rock strewn hills sorrounding Chennai Tiruvannamalai bypass road. The main ones are Krishnagiri, Chitradurg and Rajagiri. The initial construction seems to have been done by Kone chieftains and after they relinquished their hold, it was developed further by Vijaynagara empire, Adil Shah and the british. Militarily, attacking the fort head on is suicidal given the approach steps are at an incline and turn at right angles every 10 steps or so. There are enough outer rings outside each fort to provide the defenders with a very clear view of whoever is attacking the fort. The forts dont have as much visitors now except for young lovers who seem to be intent on leaving their mark on history. Given the way the forts are constructed, I am sure the testament to their love scribbled on the walls of the fort will die much earlier than the fort itself. Krishnagiri and Chitradurg were smaller forts compared to Rajagiri. Rajagiri seems to have been the main fort. The inner fort is at least a mile inside the outer fort. On way to the inner fort, there are granaries, gunpowder dumps and different temples. If the granaries were a sign of the prosperity of the kingdom, they should have been mighty rich those days. Getting to the top of Rajagiri fort is a challenge in itself. It is very steep compared to the other two forts and walking up in 100 degree heat and humidity is tough even with bottles and bottles of water and soft drinks. Some of the surprises along the way were a tank in the middle of ascent to the top. Whoever designed the fort was really paranoid. From the top one has a clear view of everything down below. There are the watch towers which lead to lower rings around the fort through underground passages. There are mortars that look out from the top of the fort to the fields below just in case the farmers get any ideas of self sustenance.

As a sign of the changes in ownership, the structures on top of the fort vary from solid rock structures to cement and concrete structures. Krishnagiri fort has a temple and a mosque on top of it.

The respect indians in general have for monuments in their history was illustrated when I asked for a way to get to the top of another fort behind Chitradurg. He wanted to know if I wanted to go there and smoke whatever drugs I carried with me.

I wanted to visit mahabalipuram to see the new complex that was supposed to have been unearthed by the tsunami. For lack of time, I didnt get to see it. I saw only a portion of the sculptures and that itself was impressive. To have had the imagination to sculpt them out of rocks by the sea was itself commendable. Because it is a world heritage monument, mahabalipuram seems to be getting much better conservation treatment. They have guards posted at the entrance all the sculpture complexes so the visitors remain honest.

The one mistake in my visit was my visit to kutralam which is a system of waterfalls supposed to have medicinal value because the water in it gathers medicinal plants as it flows through the mountains nearby. It is a seasonal waterfall and when I visited it, the season hadnt yet set in. So, I had a good look at the sides of those hills which would be blanketed by water come june or july. All I got in return were blisters and swelling in my foot from indiscriminate walking. I should have realised the season was not in when the bus I was travelling approached the towns around the falls. If the season has started, the area has a cool breeze that makes it wrthwhile just to walk around. When I visited the place, it was hot and dusty not at all like when the falls are full of water.

That mistake in scheduling cost me the time to visit badami which houses the ruins of chalukya dynasty from 6 - 8 century AD. Maybe next time.....