Sinister undercurrents of majority Hindu fundamentalism have waxed and waned in their hold on the Indian political process through recent history. Democracy, enshrined in the constitution, and dutifully executed as yet another religious ritual in election cycle after election cycle, has sometimes proved dominant over these instincts and sometimes, it has lain supine as communal madness has swept the country. At other times, political fronts and cliques have worked insidiously and assiduously to misuse existing structures, bend them beyond recognition in order to achieve their narrow sectarian aims and in the process reduce democracy to a mere circus.
Majority fundamentalism based on atavistic notions of cultural supremacy is a dangerous component in the political process of a democracy like India. In a recent High Court judgement, such atavistic considerations were laid out as justifications for the court’s decision. I have discussed this issue at some length in other articles. What I intend to do here is discuss how India’s democratic ethos has hemorrhaged from the attacks of communal forces.
Whenever the current constitutional system becomes inconvenient for the right-wing Hindu fascists, they try to involve the mob. Now, on the far left, Maoists also think that the constitutional system cannot solve the problems of the nation, and they also resort to extra-constitutional means and the use of force. That the far right wing and the far left wing both think that the constitution is an inconvenient barrier to realizing the most just society is a well-known fact in India. What is interesting, however, is how the right wingers, who themselves resort to violent means and themselves flout the law for their ideological objectives, waste no time in denouncing the tactics of the Maoists.
Take the demolition of the Babri mosque in the early 1990s, for example. A nationwide yaatra or journey with the aim of energizing the Hindu base resulted in the destruction of the most controversial structure in the country. An utterly careless administration in the state and an utterly irresponsible political formation combined to create a situation where mobs went on a rampage and destroyed the mosque. In typical Indian fashion, the constitutional system responded sluggishly. All the individuals responsible for this drama have yet to be brought to justice.
In another instance, a government led by right-wing elements has looked the other way as mobs went on the rampage in the aftermath of a train-burning incident. What should have been a straightforward law-and-order problem became an exercise in mobocracy. The state where this occurred has been aptly described by some writers as a laboratory of hatred. It is the standard tactic of those trying to impose their views of Hindu supremacy on the public.
The killing of Christians and the burning of Christian homes in India is another instance where the right-wing formations resort to extra-constitutional means to enforce their agendas along lines of cultural supremacy, cultural purity and a parochial interpretation of nationalism.
The right-wing political and ideological formations have succeeded in taking India down a road where the norms of constitutional democracy have been compromised and mobocracy has become an important element, if not the dominant element, in the nation’s affairs. The implications for the country’s future are grave. That the judiciary, in its recent verdict in the Ayodhya case, has put a stamp of approval on the ideologically motivated lawlessness of the past is a legitimization of these mobocratic trends. It is a shot in the arm of those who use these mobocratic methods to their advantage. It is a sign that undercurrents of Hindu fascism have finally manifested themselves in some of the most sacred quarters of the democratic system. How the same judicial system can justify prosecuting violent leftist ideologues is beyond the comprehension of this writer. No democracy can uphold the rule of law when the judiciary buckles under the pressure of mobocratic elements or actively colludes with them. That is what has happened in India. When future historians look back at the history of the first hundred years of independent India, they may well find that India’s journey from the Constituent Assembly to the tumultuous and violent days of the early 1990s represented a brief period of sanity when it tried to make some Western-style methods work in the best interests of all its citizens, irrespective of their group affiliations. The rest may well appear as a steady degeneration towards a mobocratic state of affairs that is ill-suited to India’s pluralistic society.
Democracy and the rule of law are inconvenient things when you want to pursue narrow agendas. You cannot pick and choose. You cannot charge the Maoists with being a danger to the country and at the same time try to impose a de-facto Hindu theocracy in the country by using non-democratic means or by deforming the democratic systems beyond recognition. The laboratory of hatred has now spread its tentacles beyond the streets of Gujarat. It now has a stranglehold on the sanctum-sanctorum of our democratic system, namely the judiciary. The signal is quite clear. The dilution of high democratic standards is likely to be the norm of the future. Mobocracy is here to stay in India.
The Global Analyst ( Commentary about economic, environmental, political and other topics )
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Reclaiming history and destroying a nation
India is a country of divisions. It is said that Winston Churchill believed independent India would not remain a cohesive unit for long. Others thought so too, believing that British rule held India together, and that fissiparous tendencies and mutual incompatibilities would tear the country apart. When Churchill died in 1965, India was still one nation and a functioning democracy, albeit one struggling with poverty and the need to provide social justice to the broad masses. Today, in the 21st century, India still is a democracy struggling with the issues of poverty and social justice. But something more dangerous has been added to the mix. Notions of civilizational supremacy and Hindu fascism have made their way into the mainstream of the political process and even into the corridors of political power. Pronouncements by judges prove that the secular ethos of the country has been severely compromised. These strands were always there in post-independence India. But their recent successes in gaining a stranglehold on the power structure of the country is a new reality that any serious analysis of India needs to contend with.
The notion of reclaiming the Hindu glory of the past is a passion for many in India. I am a skeptic when it comes to these ideas. For one, they are anachronistic. Also, in the public arena, they do smack of fascism. And also, they completely miss the multi-religious nature of the country. There are those in India who would have you believe that all of India’s ills are due to the non-authentic character of its political system. These people would also have you believe that all of India’s economic failures and its social evils will vanish when what is called Ram Rajya is established in India. Ram, who is an incarnation of God Vishnu according to Hindu belief, is held as the paragon of virtue. Ram Rajya, or the Kingdom of Ram, is the land of lost content for the Hindus. It is a mythical utopia where morality is uppermost and where everything proceeds from this adherence to morality. A little bit like the Biblical notion of a “ shining city on the hill “ that Ronald Reagan invoked in the US. Hindu fascists would have you believe that this moral kingdom is the pre-requisite for all positive transformation. It is a dangerous idea in a country with massive poverty and with built-in social injustice. It indirectly implies that the law and the constitution, by themselves, are incapable of upholding social morality to a reasonable extent. This group would have you believe that a society that proceeds from Ram-like morality, based on atavistic notions of purity and rigid rules of social behavior, is the one that will ensure the future success of India in every field. There are those who want to harness these archaic impulses to gain political power. They also happen to be what the media calls the Hindu nationalists. As opposed to the secular nationalists in the secular parties. Hindu nationalists, who swear by the notions of Hindu purity mentioned above, are not that different from the other political outfits though when it comes to things like corruption or the nexus between crime and politics. But they are the ones who constantly shout about purity and morality in India.
Experience and analysis both show that this constant hankering for the moral kingdom actually undermines the quest for social justice and economic justice in serious ways. For example, the right-wing Hindu nationalist parties are often at odds with lower caste parties during elections and in the parliament. Also, while Ram is held as the paragon of virtue, the notion of the ideal woman as enshrined in the mythologies surrounding Ram is a misogynist one by modern standards. For one, an ideal woman in a Ram Rajya would be expected to maintain high standards of sexual purity and chastity. Whatever your personal views about this may be, it does not jell with modern notions of separation between religion and state. If the woman obediently adheres to these values, Ram-morality will elevate her to a divine status. Everything has a cost associated with it. To obtain this high position of respect within the ambits of Ram-morality, the woman has to be subservient to man in many ways. She must behave according to old Hindu norms where the husband is the equivalent of God. Finding a good basis of morality is a tricky philosophical question, and I am not trying to argue that this way of thinking cannot lead to the best society possible, but the fact is that in practice, this kind of thinking leads to exploitation of women in India. So, till the Ram-moralists lay out a clear plan as to how everybody’s happiness will be enhanced by following their archaic prescriptions, skepticism towards these notions is the right attitude.
And one of the pre-requisites for attaining this moral kingdom is the dilution or elimination of notions that are foreign in nature. For example, systems dating back to the Muslim rule in India, or systems stemming from the British rule in India or more recent trends due to the spread of American culture are things that are often anathema for this group. Somehow, they think that they can work towards these aims while simultaneously working towards geopolitical alliances with the West. Using selective amnesia, killing of Indian Christians by Hindu groups can co-exist with the courting of the West in areas of economic co-operation and strategic alliances. Calling America a “ natural ally “ and working towards an internal state of ideological purity that leads to violent confrontations with Christians are two seemingly incompatible things that these groups pursue, and also carry off with some reasonable success. Also, people celebrating Valentine’s Day in India have recently attracted the opprobrium of this group. Much tough love rhetoric issues from the mouths of Hindu groups about the undesirability of having Western notions of love pollute the old Hindu innocence.
But much more serious than the killing of Christians is the desire of these groups to eliminate some of the vestiges of Muslim rule. For example, old mosques built by Muslim rulers that may have had Hindu temples prior to the construction of the mosques become targets of political and physical attacks by these groups. Apart from provoking riots across the country, these campaigns aimed at “ reversing history “ divert attention away from the more serious tasks of nation-building in the areas of poverty reduction and other economic matters. The Hindu nationalist politicians proceed under the assumption that scientists and engineers will build the country’s missiles, and solve the “ trivial “ problems of satisfying economic want. And the politicians can go about their merry business of policing morality and enforcing morality according to some archaic norms. Both aspects of this line of thinking are terribly dangerous. One, that something beyond good constitutional ethic and good law enforcement is required for social morality. And that the economic problem is trivial compared to the morality problem. It is a line of thinking that has led to some serious problems for the nation. In the field of social morality, it has led to willful flouting of the nation’s laws, attacks on its secular fabric and a justification of mafia-like activities in the name of national purity. As for the economy, the negative impacts are both short-term and long-term in nature. Past cultural glory is no guarantee of present or future economic success. And harping too much on the halcyon days of the past is a recipe for compromising the nation’s scientific and economic achievements. Mindset is everything when it comes to science and the economy. It is an empirical reality that in the economic and scientific challenges that Mother Nature confronts man with, she does not care so much about national boundaries or even about supposedly high moral standards. A nation that does not realize this may well be consigned to historical irrelevance.
The notion of reclaiming the Hindu glory of the past is a passion for many in India. I am a skeptic when it comes to these ideas. For one, they are anachronistic. Also, in the public arena, they do smack of fascism. And also, they completely miss the multi-religious nature of the country. There are those in India who would have you believe that all of India’s ills are due to the non-authentic character of its political system. These people would also have you believe that all of India’s economic failures and its social evils will vanish when what is called Ram Rajya is established in India. Ram, who is an incarnation of God Vishnu according to Hindu belief, is held as the paragon of virtue. Ram Rajya, or the Kingdom of Ram, is the land of lost content for the Hindus. It is a mythical utopia where morality is uppermost and where everything proceeds from this adherence to morality. A little bit like the Biblical notion of a “ shining city on the hill “ that Ronald Reagan invoked in the US. Hindu fascists would have you believe that this moral kingdom is the pre-requisite for all positive transformation. It is a dangerous idea in a country with massive poverty and with built-in social injustice. It indirectly implies that the law and the constitution, by themselves, are incapable of upholding social morality to a reasonable extent. This group would have you believe that a society that proceeds from Ram-like morality, based on atavistic notions of purity and rigid rules of social behavior, is the one that will ensure the future success of India in every field. There are those who want to harness these archaic impulses to gain political power. They also happen to be what the media calls the Hindu nationalists. As opposed to the secular nationalists in the secular parties. Hindu nationalists, who swear by the notions of Hindu purity mentioned above, are not that different from the other political outfits though when it comes to things like corruption or the nexus between crime and politics. But they are the ones who constantly shout about purity and morality in India.
Experience and analysis both show that this constant hankering for the moral kingdom actually undermines the quest for social justice and economic justice in serious ways. For example, the right-wing Hindu nationalist parties are often at odds with lower caste parties during elections and in the parliament. Also, while Ram is held as the paragon of virtue, the notion of the ideal woman as enshrined in the mythologies surrounding Ram is a misogynist one by modern standards. For one, an ideal woman in a Ram Rajya would be expected to maintain high standards of sexual purity and chastity. Whatever your personal views about this may be, it does not jell with modern notions of separation between religion and state. If the woman obediently adheres to these values, Ram-morality will elevate her to a divine status. Everything has a cost associated with it. To obtain this high position of respect within the ambits of Ram-morality, the woman has to be subservient to man in many ways. She must behave according to old Hindu norms where the husband is the equivalent of God. Finding a good basis of morality is a tricky philosophical question, and I am not trying to argue that this way of thinking cannot lead to the best society possible, but the fact is that in practice, this kind of thinking leads to exploitation of women in India. So, till the Ram-moralists lay out a clear plan as to how everybody’s happiness will be enhanced by following their archaic prescriptions, skepticism towards these notions is the right attitude.
And one of the pre-requisites for attaining this moral kingdom is the dilution or elimination of notions that are foreign in nature. For example, systems dating back to the Muslim rule in India, or systems stemming from the British rule in India or more recent trends due to the spread of American culture are things that are often anathema for this group. Somehow, they think that they can work towards these aims while simultaneously working towards geopolitical alliances with the West. Using selective amnesia, killing of Indian Christians by Hindu groups can co-exist with the courting of the West in areas of economic co-operation and strategic alliances. Calling America a “ natural ally “ and working towards an internal state of ideological purity that leads to violent confrontations with Christians are two seemingly incompatible things that these groups pursue, and also carry off with some reasonable success. Also, people celebrating Valentine’s Day in India have recently attracted the opprobrium of this group. Much tough love rhetoric issues from the mouths of Hindu groups about the undesirability of having Western notions of love pollute the old Hindu innocence.
But much more serious than the killing of Christians is the desire of these groups to eliminate some of the vestiges of Muslim rule. For example, old mosques built by Muslim rulers that may have had Hindu temples prior to the construction of the mosques become targets of political and physical attacks by these groups. Apart from provoking riots across the country, these campaigns aimed at “ reversing history “ divert attention away from the more serious tasks of nation-building in the areas of poverty reduction and other economic matters. The Hindu nationalist politicians proceed under the assumption that scientists and engineers will build the country’s missiles, and solve the “ trivial “ problems of satisfying economic want. And the politicians can go about their merry business of policing morality and enforcing morality according to some archaic norms. Both aspects of this line of thinking are terribly dangerous. One, that something beyond good constitutional ethic and good law enforcement is required for social morality. And that the economic problem is trivial compared to the morality problem. It is a line of thinking that has led to some serious problems for the nation. In the field of social morality, it has led to willful flouting of the nation’s laws, attacks on its secular fabric and a justification of mafia-like activities in the name of national purity. As for the economy, the negative impacts are both short-term and long-term in nature. Past cultural glory is no guarantee of present or future economic success. And harping too much on the halcyon days of the past is a recipe for compromising the nation’s scientific and economic achievements. Mindset is everything when it comes to science and the economy. It is an empirical reality that in the economic and scientific challenges that Mother Nature confronts man with, she does not care so much about national boundaries or even about supposedly high moral standards. A nation that does not realize this may well be consigned to historical irrelevance.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Fundamentalism and judicial fundamentals in India
The recent judgement by the Allahabad High Court about the Babri mosque site in India revealed some interesting facets of the Indian polity. Fundamentalism has taken precedence over judicial fundamentals in India in a way that does not portend well for the future of the country and its internal cohesion.
The Babri mosque CONTROVERSY is, at its core, a political phenomenon. However, at the same time, the Babri mosque COURT CASE is technically a land dispute. The controversy is not the same as the court case. It is not clear if the communal parties involved in the controversy ( not the court case ) are ready to accept the court's verdict if it does not help further their divisive aims. If one or more parties have laid claim to the site, the ownership dispute must be decided first before the question of who builds what on that site can be considered. The desire of communal groups to build this or that on that site cannot take precedence over the issue of ownership of the land. In the case of a verdict that looks partial to one or more communal groups, riots are a definite possibility in this kind of case. To what extent a court can and should take this kind of danger into consideration is an interesting question that scholars of jurisprudence can debate to death. However, a few things about how Indian judges in places like Allahabad think can be gleaned from the recent judgement. Statements by judges to the effect that the site is " the birthplace of Ram " or that the site is " the birthplace of Ram according to Hindu belief " do not inspire confidence in the Indian judiciary as one that can be objective, impartial or competent.
A court can decide disputes and impose sentences on those who have broken the law. A court can direct a government or a group to work in such a manner as to preserve communal harmony. However, there is only so much the judiciary can do for communal harmony when there are powerful political groups hell-bent on fostering inter-communal hatred. In a country where state governments led by communal parties have been known to adopt a posture of passive collusion while blood flowed due to communal riots, the ability of courts to ensure communally amicable outcomes is limited. The recent Allahabad High Court judgement about the Babri mosque site is a case where the court has seemingly tried to juggle two aims - that of deciding the ownership of a site and also to ensure outcomes that are acceptable to different communally sensitive groups in the country. In the process of doing so, the judges have made some strange pronouncements and have set some dangerous precedents. For one, the judgement sets the ridiculous precedent that a judge can decide the birthplace of a mythical character. It sets the stage for other potential judgements where religious fundamentalists in India will demand that the court put a stamp of approval on their myths and personal beliefs. The second dangerous aspect of the judgement is that extraneous considerations having to do with religious beliefs have been made into explicit justifications for judgements concerning allocation of ownership of a site.
It is not the job of judges to publicly bless anyone's religious beliefs. That is the job of popes, swamis, imams etc. In a Western country, statements of this sort by judges would elicit howls of protest about judicial activism. In the ultimate analysis, labels are irrelevant. Only the facts matter. Activist or not, the judges who have made these parochial considerations into the basis of their ruling have, by their statements, cast serious doubts about the quality of Indian jurisprudence, about the character of the Indian nation and about the ability of the Indian system to prevent a slide towards a Hindu theocracy.
The Babri mosque CONTROVERSY is, at its core, a political phenomenon. However, at the same time, the Babri mosque COURT CASE is technically a land dispute. The controversy is not the same as the court case. It is not clear if the communal parties involved in the controversy ( not the court case ) are ready to accept the court's verdict if it does not help further their divisive aims. If one or more parties have laid claim to the site, the ownership dispute must be decided first before the question of who builds what on that site can be considered. The desire of communal groups to build this or that on that site cannot take precedence over the issue of ownership of the land. In the case of a verdict that looks partial to one or more communal groups, riots are a definite possibility in this kind of case. To what extent a court can and should take this kind of danger into consideration is an interesting question that scholars of jurisprudence can debate to death. However, a few things about how Indian judges in places like Allahabad think can be gleaned from the recent judgement. Statements by judges to the effect that the site is " the birthplace of Ram " or that the site is " the birthplace of Ram according to Hindu belief " do not inspire confidence in the Indian judiciary as one that can be objective, impartial or competent.
A court can decide disputes and impose sentences on those who have broken the law. A court can direct a government or a group to work in such a manner as to preserve communal harmony. However, there is only so much the judiciary can do for communal harmony when there are powerful political groups hell-bent on fostering inter-communal hatred. In a country where state governments led by communal parties have been known to adopt a posture of passive collusion while blood flowed due to communal riots, the ability of courts to ensure communally amicable outcomes is limited. The recent Allahabad High Court judgement about the Babri mosque site is a case where the court has seemingly tried to juggle two aims - that of deciding the ownership of a site and also to ensure outcomes that are acceptable to different communally sensitive groups in the country. In the process of doing so, the judges have made some strange pronouncements and have set some dangerous precedents. For one, the judgement sets the ridiculous precedent that a judge can decide the birthplace of a mythical character. It sets the stage for other potential judgements where religious fundamentalists in India will demand that the court put a stamp of approval on their myths and personal beliefs. The second dangerous aspect of the judgement is that extraneous considerations having to do with religious beliefs have been made into explicit justifications for judgements concerning allocation of ownership of a site.
It is not the job of judges to publicly bless anyone's religious beliefs. That is the job of popes, swamis, imams etc. In a Western country, statements of this sort by judges would elicit howls of protest about judicial activism. In the ultimate analysis, labels are irrelevant. Only the facts matter. Activist or not, the judges who have made these parochial considerations into the basis of their ruling have, by their statements, cast serious doubts about the quality of Indian jurisprudence, about the character of the Indian nation and about the ability of the Indian system to prevent a slide towards a Hindu theocracy.
Recession metrics
We live in a strange period when unemployment rates that are high by historical standards co-exist with pronouncements by economic bureaus that the recession has ended. This has happened before in America also. All this is explained away by the term “ jobless recovery “. It is kind of an euphemism for a recession that has not really ended.
It will be useful to have two different recession metrics. One based on GDP and the other based on jobs. For one, people get desensitized to the unemployment issue if, on TV and in newspapers, they hear or read five times that the recession has officially ended, and another five times that unemployment is high. The announcements of the official end of recession will be taken by many, if not most, to mean that job growth is round the corner. However, this is not a given. The current level of unemployment in the economy can be of concern to those who are employed due to a number of reasons. First, a high rate of unemployment can be an indicator that further economic distress is possible, or that a slide towards a double-dip recession is possible. Secondly, there may be concern that the joblessness rate can increase.
Allowing governments and public officials to announce the official end of recessions while unemployment is high means that they can drag their feet on solving the pressing issue of job creation. In a capitalistic economy like the US, job creation is not an easy thing for a government to do. However, there are certain stimulus measures that the government can take and then hope for the best.
The other danger of announcing ends to recessions when unemployment rates are very high is that political groups that are enthusiastic about drastically reducing government spending can use the official end of recession as a cover to push their agendas. Drastic reductions in government spending when unemployment rates are high can have a severe de-stimulus effect, and can potentially cause a double-dip. In other words, unless the government is close to broke, drastic reductions in government spending in the midst of high unemployment is not a good idea. That in the current scenario, the federal and several state governments do have severe fiscal problems in the midst of high unemployment is unfortunate, and is the subject of a different debate about how things came to this pass in the first place. Republicans will parrot their usual lines about “ wasteful government “, and Democrats will parrot their usual lines about how tax-cuts for the super-wealthy are not conducive to either good fiscal health or good overall economic health.
Coming back to the topic of the article, it is believed by many that announcements by economic bureaus and governments determine overall economic sentiments among the general public, stock market etc. To that extent, there is a desire to publicize the positive changes more than the negative changes. However, that line of thinking can be allowed to determine public pronouncements only so much. A recession metric based on jobs may be a good idea.
It will be useful to have two different recession metrics. One based on GDP and the other based on jobs. For one, people get desensitized to the unemployment issue if, on TV and in newspapers, they hear or read five times that the recession has officially ended, and another five times that unemployment is high. The announcements of the official end of recession will be taken by many, if not most, to mean that job growth is round the corner. However, this is not a given. The current level of unemployment in the economy can be of concern to those who are employed due to a number of reasons. First, a high rate of unemployment can be an indicator that further economic distress is possible, or that a slide towards a double-dip recession is possible. Secondly, there may be concern that the joblessness rate can increase.
Allowing governments and public officials to announce the official end of recessions while unemployment is high means that they can drag their feet on solving the pressing issue of job creation. In a capitalistic economy like the US, job creation is not an easy thing for a government to do. However, there are certain stimulus measures that the government can take and then hope for the best.
The other danger of announcing ends to recessions when unemployment rates are very high is that political groups that are enthusiastic about drastically reducing government spending can use the official end of recession as a cover to push their agendas. Drastic reductions in government spending when unemployment rates are high can have a severe de-stimulus effect, and can potentially cause a double-dip. In other words, unless the government is close to broke, drastic reductions in government spending in the midst of high unemployment is not a good idea. That in the current scenario, the federal and several state governments do have severe fiscal problems in the midst of high unemployment is unfortunate, and is the subject of a different debate about how things came to this pass in the first place. Republicans will parrot their usual lines about “ wasteful government “, and Democrats will parrot their usual lines about how tax-cuts for the super-wealthy are not conducive to either good fiscal health or good overall economic health.
Coming back to the topic of the article, it is believed by many that announcements by economic bureaus and governments determine overall economic sentiments among the general public, stock market etc. To that extent, there is a desire to publicize the positive changes more than the negative changes. However, that line of thinking can be allowed to determine public pronouncements only so much. A recession metric based on jobs may be a good idea.
Food prices and the Indian growth story
Food price inflation has been in the news in recent months and years, both around the world and in India. In India, the reality is compounded by the fact that overall inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, has also been high recently. For example, according to an Indian Finance Ministry document that I downloaded from their website, from April-June 2009 to April-June 2010, Indian nominal GDP grew 21.7% and real GDP grew 8.8%. From this, one can form an idea that overall inflation was probably higher than 10% during this period in India. I am using “ probably “ because latest official numbers are difficult to come by.
A document I downloaded from the Reserve Bank of India website tells me that in 2009-10, food price inflation outpaced overall consumer price inflation by about 3%. If one considers specific food items like sugar or wheat, the prices have gone on a wild ride in recent months and years. Once again, the internet has a lot of information about this issue, but obtaining official numbers isn’t easy. However, a reasonably clear picture emerges from the available news items and documents. The very recent overall price inflation in India may be due to the money that was pumped into the economy in the aftermath of the global financial crisis back in 2008-09. However, food prices are going up not just due to this component, but also due to their own supply-demand dynamics. In fact, for some food items like sugar and wheat, supply-demand may well be the deciding factor. Again, I have to use phrases like “ may well be “ because with the documents I am going by, it is not that easy to reach quantitative conclusions that are both official and reliable or both credible and reliable.
But the thing I am really trying to come to is what the food price inflation means for the advertisement of the growth story in India. For many in India, which has a large number of poor, food prices form a major component of daily and monthly expenditure. As a quick and dirty calculation, one can take the 3-4% by which food price inflation is higher than overall inflation, and subtract it from the real GDP growth. Subtract another 1% for population growth. As far as the reality of day-to-day existence goes for a vast majority of Indians, this means that the advertised real GDP growth rate of 8.8% is not the true story. The reality is more like the doldrums. And basic food security is at risk for many. Remember, the weighted average consumer price index incorporates food items, fuel prices, rents, automobiles, luxury items and other items. For those living at the edge of poverty, and for whom food security is the critical issue, the food price increase matters way more than the overall consumer price index. And from this perspective, the growth story repeated in the media based on the overall GDP is grossly misleading.
That trickle-down in India happens too slowly to enable inclusive growth is a fact that is backed by the experience of distant decades and recent decades. The recent food price problem is proof that not only is trickle-down too slow, but when it comes to affordability of basic items, it may well be non-existent. It is time for the proponents of laissez-faire and trickle-down in India to face up to the fact that further complacency based on blind belief in these concepts can lead to disastrous consequences. What may be a short-term supply-demand morass, if not attended to with the sense of urgency it deserves, can turn into the long-term systemic human rights nightmare of the future.
A document I downloaded from the Reserve Bank of India website tells me that in 2009-10, food price inflation outpaced overall consumer price inflation by about 3%. If one considers specific food items like sugar or wheat, the prices have gone on a wild ride in recent months and years. Once again, the internet has a lot of information about this issue, but obtaining official numbers isn’t easy. However, a reasonably clear picture emerges from the available news items and documents. The very recent overall price inflation in India may be due to the money that was pumped into the economy in the aftermath of the global financial crisis back in 2008-09. However, food prices are going up not just due to this component, but also due to their own supply-demand dynamics. In fact, for some food items like sugar and wheat, supply-demand may well be the deciding factor. Again, I have to use phrases like “ may well be “ because with the documents I am going by, it is not that easy to reach quantitative conclusions that are both official and reliable or both credible and reliable.
But the thing I am really trying to come to is what the food price inflation means for the advertisement of the growth story in India. For many in India, which has a large number of poor, food prices form a major component of daily and monthly expenditure. As a quick and dirty calculation, one can take the 3-4% by which food price inflation is higher than overall inflation, and subtract it from the real GDP growth. Subtract another 1% for population growth. As far as the reality of day-to-day existence goes for a vast majority of Indians, this means that the advertised real GDP growth rate of 8.8% is not the true story. The reality is more like the doldrums. And basic food security is at risk for many. Remember, the weighted average consumer price index incorporates food items, fuel prices, rents, automobiles, luxury items and other items. For those living at the edge of poverty, and for whom food security is the critical issue, the food price increase matters way more than the overall consumer price index. And from this perspective, the growth story repeated in the media based on the overall GDP is grossly misleading.
That trickle-down in India happens too slowly to enable inclusive growth is a fact that is backed by the experience of distant decades and recent decades. The recent food price problem is proof that not only is trickle-down too slow, but when it comes to affordability of basic items, it may well be non-existent. It is time for the proponents of laissez-faire and trickle-down in India to face up to the fact that further complacency based on blind belief in these concepts can lead to disastrous consequences. What may be a short-term supply-demand morass, if not attended to with the sense of urgency it deserves, can turn into the long-term systemic human rights nightmare of the future.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Science, climate change and realization
Oil companies who sponsored research aimed at alternative views of climate change that were skeptical about anthropogenic climate change, especially about the effect of human-activity-generated CO2 on global temperatures, are often cast as the villains by climate change progressives in the entire climate change debate. Analysts will debate this issue for quite some time to come. However, there is a bigger picture that has implications for the human race. And that is the amount of time the experts had to determine the level of seriousness of the issue and the limited options they have for mitigating and controlling some of the serious fallouts of climate change caused by human activity.
A longer historical perspective is revealing in many ways. The science of radiation absorption by molecules was the subject of intensive study by a number of leading research groups around the world about sixty years ago. That carbon dioxide absorbed in the infrared was well-known. That carbon dioxide caused a greenhouse effect was also well-known. That factories emitted carbon-dioxide, especially in developed countries, was also well-known. Since economic growth is exponential in nature and carbon-dioxide emission in a conventional non-green economy is expected to closely track economic growth, it was in principle possible to predict back then that serious global warming could occur by the year 2000. The growth of countries like China may or may not have been predictable. However, a case can be made that had there been sufficient cross-fertilization of ideas among the fields of molecular radiation, atmospheric sciences and economics, the possible catastrophic nature of global warming could have been predicted. Of course, as recent experience has shown, the effect of global warming on polar ice and other such effects are more difficult to quantify and predict. However, the alarm bells could have started ringing way back then. I have not come across any studies that made such predictions. May be there are some such studies. May be they are in obscure journals or obscure books. I don’t know if Keeling of Keeling curve fame had an idea about how the curve would look like when he started measuring CO2 concentrations decades ago. For example, did he anticipate the exponential growth ?
Coming back to the last twenty years and the furor about the delay caused by scientists who took a skeptical position on global warming, it is interesting that just fifteen years of delay could tip the balance of the earth in certain dangerous directions in some key areas. Solar power, wind power and other green alternatives for energy, for example, still have a long way to go before they can fully replace technologies that emit CO2. Research into efficiency improvements of energy generators like solar cells still continues and new ideas are still being discovered. Would a fifteen years head-start have helped the human community or particular nations to reduce CO2 emissions in time to lessen the severity of global warming ? It is very difficult to tell. Fifteen years seems like too small a time span for the human community to deal with civilization-changing trend shifts.
There is now talk of what is called geo-engineering, which involves things like spraying sunlight-reflecting sulfur aerosol layers, to reverse the effects of global warming. These are early days to know if these technologies can be made workable. It is a sobering thought that human arrogance in the field of science and technology has received a walloping from the global warming nightmare.
A longer historical perspective is revealing in many ways. The science of radiation absorption by molecules was the subject of intensive study by a number of leading research groups around the world about sixty years ago. That carbon dioxide absorbed in the infrared was well-known. That carbon dioxide caused a greenhouse effect was also well-known. That factories emitted carbon-dioxide, especially in developed countries, was also well-known. Since economic growth is exponential in nature and carbon-dioxide emission in a conventional non-green economy is expected to closely track economic growth, it was in principle possible to predict back then that serious global warming could occur by the year 2000. The growth of countries like China may or may not have been predictable. However, a case can be made that had there been sufficient cross-fertilization of ideas among the fields of molecular radiation, atmospheric sciences and economics, the possible catastrophic nature of global warming could have been predicted. Of course, as recent experience has shown, the effect of global warming on polar ice and other such effects are more difficult to quantify and predict. However, the alarm bells could have started ringing way back then. I have not come across any studies that made such predictions. May be there are some such studies. May be they are in obscure journals or obscure books. I don’t know if Keeling of Keeling curve fame had an idea about how the curve would look like when he started measuring CO2 concentrations decades ago. For example, did he anticipate the exponential growth ?
Coming back to the last twenty years and the furor about the delay caused by scientists who took a skeptical position on global warming, it is interesting that just fifteen years of delay could tip the balance of the earth in certain dangerous directions in some key areas. Solar power, wind power and other green alternatives for energy, for example, still have a long way to go before they can fully replace technologies that emit CO2. Research into efficiency improvements of energy generators like solar cells still continues and new ideas are still being discovered. Would a fifteen years head-start have helped the human community or particular nations to reduce CO2 emissions in time to lessen the severity of global warming ? It is very difficult to tell. Fifteen years seems like too small a time span for the human community to deal with civilization-changing trend shifts.
There is now talk of what is called geo-engineering, which involves things like spraying sunlight-reflecting sulfur aerosol layers, to reverse the effects of global warming. These are early days to know if these technologies can be made workable. It is a sobering thought that human arrogance in the field of science and technology has received a walloping from the global warming nightmare.
Ads in the 2010 US elections
Most political ads in the US election campaigns are lies at worst and distortions at best. Too many statements taken out of context leave too little room for the truth. And the debates really don’t offer a convenient format to dispel wrong notions. But, they are here to stay.
Among the recent defending ads, the best so far is from Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. “ I’m not a witch. I am just like you. I will go to Washington and do the things that you do “. Or something like that. A very good ad to answer a nonsensical objection and a nonsensical question by whoever her opponent is. Who cares if she is a witch or not ? Who cares if she WAS a witch or not ? Who cares if she believes in witchcraft or not ? Christian belief has space for angels, spirits, angels talking to saints, angels talking to poets, the Devil and the Devil’s minions. So, why not witches ? I would be more interested in things like - Is there something similar to what Jerry Brown says about Meg Whitman in California ? Like laying off many people from her company while drawing multi-million dollar salaries herself ? Everything depends on the details of the case, but at least it is a more germane topic for voters than witchcraft, I think.
Then there is the Carly Fiorina ad berating Barbara Boxer for putting style before substance. So, a general or an army officer calls you ‘ ma’am “ instead of ‘ Senator “. Yeah, whatever.
Then there is the Boxer ad saying Fiorina shipped jobs to China as CEO of HP. In today’s economic environment, a CEO would be amiss not to ship jobs to China if it is required to maximize investor profits. That’s the job of a CEO. USA is a capitalistic society, and if Boxer’s objections were to be taken seriously, then most or all CEOs of big companies won’t be able to run for public office. Now, what does Fiorina plan to do as senator to stop jobs from going to China ? That’s a different question. And the voters will most likely not know the answer before the elections given the nature of the debate formats. That’s the nature of American democracy.
And the one that I think deserves the most serious thought and analysis. The Jerry Brown ad saying he will never raise taxes in California without consulting the voters. A dangerous stance of economic populism. What does the public know about debts, deficits and the details about the expenditures of the state ? Or about possible fallacies of composition when it comes to the standard of living and the level of taxes ? Just enough to vote every four years on these issues, I guess. But not every year. The kind of practice Brown wants to follow would require education camps where the broad public can get educated about the nitty gritty details of tax policy. Of course, every one wants to pay less taxes. But the implication of tax policy for broader society is something that the cognoscenti and intellectuals and public policy framers are better at deciding. Alas, they are bitterly divided. Is he going to consult the voters every time he wants to REDUCE taxes ? I guess not. He will probably use some libertarian argument like – taxation is coercion. Relief from taxation is relief from coercion. But, these are quaint eighteenth century ideas. We don’t live in that kind of society any more. That taxation is coercion is an obvious truth, but that’s what living in a society like this entails. Let me not put words into his mouth though. Will he ? Will he consult the voters before reducing taxes also ?
I am having a moment of déjà vu. Seriously. As I am writing this. I am not a wizard. Smoke. I am not even a spirit. Smoke.
Among the recent defending ads, the best so far is from Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. “ I’m not a witch. I am just like you. I will go to Washington and do the things that you do “. Or something like that. A very good ad to answer a nonsensical objection and a nonsensical question by whoever her opponent is. Who cares if she is a witch or not ? Who cares if she WAS a witch or not ? Who cares if she believes in witchcraft or not ? Christian belief has space for angels, spirits, angels talking to saints, angels talking to poets, the Devil and the Devil’s minions. So, why not witches ? I would be more interested in things like - Is there something similar to what Jerry Brown says about Meg Whitman in California ? Like laying off many people from her company while drawing multi-million dollar salaries herself ? Everything depends on the details of the case, but at least it is a more germane topic for voters than witchcraft, I think.
Then there is the Carly Fiorina ad berating Barbara Boxer for putting style before substance. So, a general or an army officer calls you ‘ ma’am “ instead of ‘ Senator “. Yeah, whatever.
Then there is the Boxer ad saying Fiorina shipped jobs to China as CEO of HP. In today’s economic environment, a CEO would be amiss not to ship jobs to China if it is required to maximize investor profits. That’s the job of a CEO. USA is a capitalistic society, and if Boxer’s objections were to be taken seriously, then most or all CEOs of big companies won’t be able to run for public office. Now, what does Fiorina plan to do as senator to stop jobs from going to China ? That’s a different question. And the voters will most likely not know the answer before the elections given the nature of the debate formats. That’s the nature of American democracy.
And the one that I think deserves the most serious thought and analysis. The Jerry Brown ad saying he will never raise taxes in California without consulting the voters. A dangerous stance of economic populism. What does the public know about debts, deficits and the details about the expenditures of the state ? Or about possible fallacies of composition when it comes to the standard of living and the level of taxes ? Just enough to vote every four years on these issues, I guess. But not every year. The kind of practice Brown wants to follow would require education camps where the broad public can get educated about the nitty gritty details of tax policy. Of course, every one wants to pay less taxes. But the implication of tax policy for broader society is something that the cognoscenti and intellectuals and public policy framers are better at deciding. Alas, they are bitterly divided. Is he going to consult the voters every time he wants to REDUCE taxes ? I guess not. He will probably use some libertarian argument like – taxation is coercion. Relief from taxation is relief from coercion. But, these are quaint eighteenth century ideas. We don’t live in that kind of society any more. That taxation is coercion is an obvious truth, but that’s what living in a society like this entails. Let me not put words into his mouth though. Will he ? Will he consult the voters before reducing taxes also ?
I am having a moment of déjà vu. Seriously. As I am writing this. I am not a wizard. Smoke. I am not even a spirit. Smoke.
Risky trade wars
So a tariff bill directed against China has been passed by the House and probably the Senate. As even straight F students in economics should know, increasing tariffs in the middle of something that has words like “ Great “ and “ Recession “ is a risky business. The Smooth-Hawley tariffs are sometimes held as a major causal factor in the prolongation of the Great Depression. And trade wars are definitely not the way to go in the middle of a worldwide slowdown.
A House document cites economist Paul Krugman’s calculation that a low yuan costs America 1.4% of GDP. It is not clear if this calculation refers to a 1.4% GDP level shift with no growth dynamics incorporated. In good times, American GDP grows by 2-4% annually. So a 1.4% GDP shift should be relatively negligible compared with what 2-4% growth can bring year after year. And that really is the big American problem right now.
Also, the 1.4% GDP level shift cannot happen overnight. There needs to be slack capacity in precisely those manufacturing sectors for the thing to happen quickly. There is no clear text out there that says that this tariff bill has been designed in a way as to quickly shift manufacturing from China to the US in specific goods.
Overall, it looks like a risky thing just like the yuan pressure diplomacy being pursued by the Obama administration on the global stage. It is not clear if the short-term and long-term objectives and consequences have been thought out prior to this onslaught.
A House document cites economist Paul Krugman’s calculation that a low yuan costs America 1.4% of GDP. It is not clear if this calculation refers to a 1.4% GDP level shift with no growth dynamics incorporated. In good times, American GDP grows by 2-4% annually. So a 1.4% GDP shift should be relatively negligible compared with what 2-4% growth can bring year after year. And that really is the big American problem right now.
Also, the 1.4% GDP level shift cannot happen overnight. There needs to be slack capacity in precisely those manufacturing sectors for the thing to happen quickly. There is no clear text out there that says that this tariff bill has been designed in a way as to quickly shift manufacturing from China to the US in specific goods.
Overall, it looks like a risky thing just like the yuan pressure diplomacy being pursued by the Obama administration on the global stage. It is not clear if the short-term and long-term objectives and consequences have been thought out prior to this onslaught.
Yuan diplomacy to wreck the world economy
The Obama-Geithner duo is busy pursuing yuan pressure diplomacy, with statements to the effect that the global community should make the Chinese increase the value of the yuan vis-à-vis the dollar. Also, recently Donald Trump took the Obama team to task for not exerting enough pressure on China to let the yuan appreciate. What exactly does Donald Trump want the administration to do when he talks about using muscle against China ? He has charged that the Chinese use their best and brightest brains while the Obama administration does not. What exactly does Trump want the US negotiators to do ? Engage the Chinese mandarins in a battle of sophistry, confuse them into believing that they should increase the price of the yuan and have them walk away scratching their heads ? Or does he want the administration to use the threat of nuclear weapons ? Or does he want the Obama economic team to dazzle the Chinese team with false and misleading computer models about how a more expensive yuan is better for everybody ? And then have four laughing Buddhas go about the job of lifting the yuan higher ?
Coming back to this Obama-Geithner obsession with the yuan, if the yuan appreciates, all Chinese goods become more expensive. Since China and the US specialize in different areas of the value-added chain, one possible scenario is that the Americans end up buying less from the Chinese and the Chinese end up buying less from the Americans ( although the relative amounts shift towards more purchase of US goods ) and the overall volume of trade shrinks. In this scenario, jobs will be lost both in China and in the US. Clearly not a good thing in the middle of a job slump.
The other possibility is that if American demand for low and medium value added Chinese manufactures is inelastic, then Americans will buy about the same amount of Chinese goods despite the higher yuan, leading to inflation in America. Whether the Chinese buy more American goods or whether they end up buying more American bonds or whether they end up buying more of other forms of American assets is anybody’s guess. Without computer modeling, it is very difficult to predict if the first scenario, the second scenario or some other scenario will obtain. Nothing that I have read or heard assures me that the Obama team has done such modeling to predict the impact and to understand the cost-benefit aspects.
The first scenario leads to job losses in the US ( and may be inflation as well ). The second scenario leads to inflation in the US, with no clear indication as to whether it will reduce the trade deficit. Either way, it looks like the team in charge in Washington has a visceral dislike for the current crankshaft, while it has no idea about what to do about the engine, the transmission, the axle or the wheel. Clearly, tinkering with the crankshaft alone without changing the entire design is a dangerous exercise. And it seems that is precisely what the administration is hell-bent on doing. China is being increasingly regarded as the manufacturer to the world, and the Obama economic team wants to make Chinese goods more expensive for everybody. This may be a recipe for unnecessarily forcing a worldwide double dip recession when everybody wants to avoid it.
Coming back to this Obama-Geithner obsession with the yuan, if the yuan appreciates, all Chinese goods become more expensive. Since China and the US specialize in different areas of the value-added chain, one possible scenario is that the Americans end up buying less from the Chinese and the Chinese end up buying less from the Americans ( although the relative amounts shift towards more purchase of US goods ) and the overall volume of trade shrinks. In this scenario, jobs will be lost both in China and in the US. Clearly not a good thing in the middle of a job slump.
The other possibility is that if American demand for low and medium value added Chinese manufactures is inelastic, then Americans will buy about the same amount of Chinese goods despite the higher yuan, leading to inflation in America. Whether the Chinese buy more American goods or whether they end up buying more American bonds or whether they end up buying more of other forms of American assets is anybody’s guess. Without computer modeling, it is very difficult to predict if the first scenario, the second scenario or some other scenario will obtain. Nothing that I have read or heard assures me that the Obama team has done such modeling to predict the impact and to understand the cost-benefit aspects.
The first scenario leads to job losses in the US ( and may be inflation as well ). The second scenario leads to inflation in the US, with no clear indication as to whether it will reduce the trade deficit. Either way, it looks like the team in charge in Washington has a visceral dislike for the current crankshaft, while it has no idea about what to do about the engine, the transmission, the axle or the wheel. Clearly, tinkering with the crankshaft alone without changing the entire design is a dangerous exercise. And it seems that is precisely what the administration is hell-bent on doing. China is being increasingly regarded as the manufacturer to the world, and the Obama economic team wants to make Chinese goods more expensive for everybody. This may be a recipe for unnecessarily forcing a worldwide double dip recession when everybody wants to avoid it.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Primitive thinking in a modern nation
A court system does not a modern judicial system make. The exercise of voting in elections does not a democracy make. Sixty years after independence, India still has severe problems distinguishing appearance from reality.
The recent judgement in one of India's most high profile cases, namely the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid case, reveals several interesting features of the way India works. In particular, it reveals a lot about how the Indian elite goes about its business. It is proof positive that modernity is yet to permeate the Indian psyche and that when it comes to systems introduced by Westerners, the Indian elite mistakes appearance for essence. Clearly, not everything Western fits Indian realities. However, Indians, and especially the Indian elites, pride themselves on a Western-style constitution and Western-style judicial systems. In fact, these are some of the factors that underlie the thinking of the Indian political class when it calls America a " natural ally ". However, the recent judgement in this case reveals how haphazard and scatter-brained the Indian approach to these systems is.
The judges ask the three claimants to the site to split it among themselves. That is not the strange aspect of the judgement. It is the reasons cited by some of the judges, however, that leave one wondering if one is reading about a modern nation or about an obscurantist, superstition-ridden society. One of the judges states outight that the site under dispute is " the birthplace of Ram ". Ram is one of the incarnations of God Vishnu according to Hindu belief. It is not much of a stretch to say that Ram can be considered as an incarnation of the Lord Himself on earth according to Hindu belief. Serious questions arise, however, as to how judges in some of the top courts in the country reach their conclusions. In fact, this kind of statement raises disturbing questions as to whether one can trust the objectivity of these judges.
How did judge Sharma determine that Ram was born at this site ? From the most popular versions of the mythical stories associated with Ram, he was born to King Dasrath and Queen Kaushalya in Ayodhya. Have archeaologists uncovered the remains of Dasrath's palace at the site ? Clearly not. There is disputed " evidence " that a temple existed at that site before the Muslim emperor Babar built a mosque at that site. The presence of a previous temple, even if true, is not proof that the site is Ram's birthplace.
Another judge, Justice Agarwal, states that Ram was born at that site according to Hindu belief. Which Hindus ? North Indian Hindus ? East Indian Hindus ? South Indian Hindus ? In fact, this is a gross mischaracterization of Hindu belief. Very few Hindus have any firm conviction about that particular site being the birthplace of Lord Ram. This is a canard spread by a group of politically motivated people that want to impose a communal agenda on India's secular character. This entire drama about the exact birthplace of Ram has never constituted the essence of Hindu belief, and it has never been a top priority item for Hindu belief except when it gets enmeshed with politics. And it is the pet agenda of a Hindu political cabal that has made no secret about its penchant for violent confrontation as a means of settling grievances.
And most importantly, when it comes to deciding land ownership, how does it matter whether or not God Ram was born there ? It is not an idle or unimportant question. If judges can make careless statements like these and use specious justifications like these in a high profile case, what should the common Indian expect from the Indian judicial system in terms of objectivity and intelligence ?
It is time for deep introspection for the Indian elites. Do they want to bolster modern systems and make them work for the people and for society ? Or do they want to turn their back on criteria of objectivity and fairness, and allow dangerous ideas of cultural supremacism to color judicial decisions ?
The recent judgement in one of India's most high profile cases, namely the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid case, reveals several interesting features of the way India works. In particular, it reveals a lot about how the Indian elite goes about its business. It is proof positive that modernity is yet to permeate the Indian psyche and that when it comes to systems introduced by Westerners, the Indian elite mistakes appearance for essence. Clearly, not everything Western fits Indian realities. However, Indians, and especially the Indian elites, pride themselves on a Western-style constitution and Western-style judicial systems. In fact, these are some of the factors that underlie the thinking of the Indian political class when it calls America a " natural ally ". However, the recent judgement in this case reveals how haphazard and scatter-brained the Indian approach to these systems is.
The judges ask the three claimants to the site to split it among themselves. That is not the strange aspect of the judgement. It is the reasons cited by some of the judges, however, that leave one wondering if one is reading about a modern nation or about an obscurantist, superstition-ridden society. One of the judges states outight that the site under dispute is " the birthplace of Ram ". Ram is one of the incarnations of God Vishnu according to Hindu belief. It is not much of a stretch to say that Ram can be considered as an incarnation of the Lord Himself on earth according to Hindu belief. Serious questions arise, however, as to how judges in some of the top courts in the country reach their conclusions. In fact, this kind of statement raises disturbing questions as to whether one can trust the objectivity of these judges.
How did judge Sharma determine that Ram was born at this site ? From the most popular versions of the mythical stories associated with Ram, he was born to King Dasrath and Queen Kaushalya in Ayodhya. Have archeaologists uncovered the remains of Dasrath's palace at the site ? Clearly not. There is disputed " evidence " that a temple existed at that site before the Muslim emperor Babar built a mosque at that site. The presence of a previous temple, even if true, is not proof that the site is Ram's birthplace.
Another judge, Justice Agarwal, states that Ram was born at that site according to Hindu belief. Which Hindus ? North Indian Hindus ? East Indian Hindus ? South Indian Hindus ? In fact, this is a gross mischaracterization of Hindu belief. Very few Hindus have any firm conviction about that particular site being the birthplace of Lord Ram. This is a canard spread by a group of politically motivated people that want to impose a communal agenda on India's secular character. This entire drama about the exact birthplace of Ram has never constituted the essence of Hindu belief, and it has never been a top priority item for Hindu belief except when it gets enmeshed with politics. And it is the pet agenda of a Hindu political cabal that has made no secret about its penchant for violent confrontation as a means of settling grievances.
And most importantly, when it comes to deciding land ownership, how does it matter whether or not God Ram was born there ? It is not an idle or unimportant question. If judges can make careless statements like these and use specious justifications like these in a high profile case, what should the common Indian expect from the Indian judicial system in terms of objectivity and intelligence ?
It is time for deep introspection for the Indian elites. Do they want to bolster modern systems and make them work for the people and for society ? Or do they want to turn their back on criteria of objectivity and fairness, and allow dangerous ideas of cultural supremacism to color judicial decisions ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)