So, the Great Recession is here. American unemployment rate is 9.6%, the highest since the Great Depression. American poverty rate is around 17%, the highest since the 1960s. And add to that mind-boggling poverty in countries like India. For example, India has anywhere between 300 million and 500 million people in poverty. The growth rate that gets advertised in India is confined mainly to urban areas, and that too, mostly to a narrow self-serving elite. And the future growth trajectory of the world economy as a whole does not inspire great optimism at the moment. Add to that possible long-term losses due to environmental catastrophe, and the picture turns pessimistic.
Despite the presence of incorrigible optimists who would work on nothing other than space exploration technology, the time is one for deep introspection about how to order society in the economic domain. All of a sudden, some old dictums have become very relevant. And the ones I have in mind are from socialistic parlance. One says “ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need “. The other goes “ From each according to his ability, to each according to his work “.
American Republicans will probably eagerly embrace the second dictum. They have spent and intend to spend most of their fire-power to defeat the first dictum. They do believe in a particular version of “ from each according to his ability “, that version being the capitalistic free-market demand-supply version. And the version of “ from each according to his work “ that they are okay with is that represented by the free-market wage. If you are illiterate or old or disabled, and if the unemployment rate is high, most of the Republicans are happy with a “ take care of your own needs “ kind of principle.
Of course, with CEOs of top companies drawing millions in salaries as the job market suffers, the principle being followed sounds more like “ from each according to his superficiality, to each according to his greed “. Given how the American establishment has genuflected before Reaganomics and Social Darwinist ideas, this should not come as a surprise. And yes, there is a precedent – of robber barons carrying out their agenda of greed while America reeled from the Great Depression.
While America is not a right-wing dictatorship, there are aspects of it that make one wonder if it is any different. The amount of investment in the creation and satisfaction of artificial wants and the utter lack of urgency about the welfare system effectively means a decoupling between the well-to-do and the struggling masses, somewhat similar to the urban-rural divide in India. If this decoupling becomes more pronounced, and if right-wing attempts to destroy the public school system and the welfare system succeed, we may well see a slide towards a state of affairs described by “ to only the few who have power “.
The actual final equilibrium can be anywhere between “ to each according to his needs “ and “ to only the few who have power “. The latter state of affairs is untenable, and much conflict may result to pull society towards some semblance of the former. In countries like India, that process is already underway in the form of food riots and violence. America, staid America, fastidious about adherence to a locally optimal rule-of-law, will have to find its own way to solve the economic justice problem.
The Global Analyst ( Commentary about economic, environmental, political and other topics )
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
India - The land of denial
About 90 years ago, an American tourist named Katherine Mayo wrote a scathing attack on the contemporary Indian scenes and what she understood to be Indian attitudes about important socio-economic questions. The book, called " Mother India ", pulled no punches in its denunciation of Indian attitude to women's health, untouchability etc. The reaction was swift, and equally scathing. Gandhi described her book as a " drain inspector's report ". The Mahatma lost no time in berating her for focussing on the country's seedy aspects. Lala Lajpat Rai was equally acerbic in his denunciations of the American tourist, basically stating that this is a writer that looks for mud, and wallows in it when she finds it.
About 90 years have passed since Miss Mayo wrote her criticism of Indian society. Somewhere between 300 million and 500 million Indians live in dire poverty in 2010. Millions of children die from preventable causes every year. Caste distinctions and caste-based exploitation are still realities in India. What would the Mahatma say if he saw today's India ? In many ways, the " drain " that the Mahatma referred to so sarcastically has become more pervasive and more ubiquitious.
How do you explain away such gargantuan failures ? By pointing to a few successful software firms and a few billionaires ? And dismissing the travails of the country's majority as a case of " drains ", as Gandhi did 90 years ago ? No matter what the merits of Miss Mayo's book, or of the counter-attack against her, today, in 2010, the " drain " is a living reality and it stinks. It stinks even more than it did 90 years ago because we live in the 21st century.
About 90 years have passed since Miss Mayo wrote her criticism of Indian society. Somewhere between 300 million and 500 million Indians live in dire poverty in 2010. Millions of children die from preventable causes every year. Caste distinctions and caste-based exploitation are still realities in India. What would the Mahatma say if he saw today's India ? In many ways, the " drain " that the Mahatma referred to so sarcastically has become more pervasive and more ubiquitious.
How do you explain away such gargantuan failures ? By pointing to a few successful software firms and a few billionaires ? And dismissing the travails of the country's majority as a case of " drains ", as Gandhi did 90 years ago ? No matter what the merits of Miss Mayo's book, or of the counter-attack against her, today, in 2010, the " drain " is a living reality and it stinks. It stinks even more than it did 90 years ago because we live in the 21st century.
Words and action in India
India is a land of appalling poverty and vices. Today, sixty years after independence, the number of people in poverty is a staggering 300 million to 500 million. There are more people living in abject poverty than there were people in India in 1947, when the country became independent.
The explanations for this sorry state of affairs are diverse. Initial conditions having to do with the state of the country when the British left and the exigencies of dealing with wars, defence budgets and terrorism are often proferred as the reasons for this gargantuan economic failure. Others go for facile explanations like socialistic inefficiencies during the first few decades of independent India, conveniently overlooking the fact that almost twenty years after economic liberalization, poverty and the accompanying evils continue unabated, with little or no change in the trend of poverty reduction. Those who believe in cultural factors as being paramount determinants of economic performance will pounce on the fatalistic oputlook of Indians. Or the propensity to keep women and untouchables in an uneducated and unenlightened state. Whatever the major reasons for India's dismal economic state may be, and whatever the proportions in which these different factors contributed to the current sorry mess, the evidence is now overwhelming that when it comes to poverty eradication, there has been a yawning gap between words and actions, between stated intent and actual implementation.
Indian leaders during the British rule differed subatantially in their outlooks about the right way to approach the questions of poverty, untouchability and inequality. Gandhi brought his concept of God into almost every discussion about Indian society, believed in self-sufficiency and expressed his distrust of modern industry. Nehru was explicit about his atheism and believed in big industry.
Gandhi has stated somewhere that he intuitively believes that natural disasters are ways for God to express his anger at man's failings. For example, he has stated that the 1934 Bihar earthquake was a punishment for India's lack of progress in dealing with untouchability. It is interesting to note here that Gandhi has himself come under attack from leaders of India's untouchable classes for his gradualistic approach to the untouchability problem. Moreover, by making such pronouncements, Gandhi was leaving the field open for those in Hindu society who argued, and still argue, that being born an untouchable was itself a punishment for past sins. Gandhi clearly believed in the transmigration of souls. While making this statement about his intuitive belief about natural disasters as a tool of retribution, Gandhi was clearly forgetting that other people might argue that India's subjugation to the British was possibly retribution for past sins, or that untouchability itself was possibly retribution for past sins or that war stemming from human greed was possibly retribution for past sins. Surely, Gandhi must have been aware that the same kind of " intuitive " arguments are very much used by reactionay elements in Hindu society when it comes to untouchability.
By taking Gandhi's " intuitive " argument to its logical conclusion, arguments may be made that God has punished Indians with crushing poverty. And surely, the lack of initiative and action on the part of most Indians about socio-economic issues must, if Gandhi's moral framework is valid, invite further retribution from the same God. It reminds one of facile arguments that give kudos to India for its democratic framework and its avoidance of catastrophic famines, when, in fact, a slow and prolonged holocaust takes place in the form of starvation deaths and deaths from preventable diseases. Gandhi's argument seems even more strange when one takes into account the fact that untouchability was not limited to any specific region in India. The question will surely be asked - What kind of God punishes a region to send a message about a national problem ? Useless theorizing and neglecting " intuitively " correct action is an Indian malaise. No wonder, almost 80 years after Gandhi's statement, all the makings of a retribution-like environment still exist in India. It would be interesting to know what Gandhi would say about today's challenges pertaining to environmental disasters and poverty.
The explanations for this sorry state of affairs are diverse. Initial conditions having to do with the state of the country when the British left and the exigencies of dealing with wars, defence budgets and terrorism are often proferred as the reasons for this gargantuan economic failure. Others go for facile explanations like socialistic inefficiencies during the first few decades of independent India, conveniently overlooking the fact that almost twenty years after economic liberalization, poverty and the accompanying evils continue unabated, with little or no change in the trend of poverty reduction. Those who believe in cultural factors as being paramount determinants of economic performance will pounce on the fatalistic oputlook of Indians. Or the propensity to keep women and untouchables in an uneducated and unenlightened state. Whatever the major reasons for India's dismal economic state may be, and whatever the proportions in which these different factors contributed to the current sorry mess, the evidence is now overwhelming that when it comes to poverty eradication, there has been a yawning gap between words and actions, between stated intent and actual implementation.
Indian leaders during the British rule differed subatantially in their outlooks about the right way to approach the questions of poverty, untouchability and inequality. Gandhi brought his concept of God into almost every discussion about Indian society, believed in self-sufficiency and expressed his distrust of modern industry. Nehru was explicit about his atheism and believed in big industry.
Gandhi has stated somewhere that he intuitively believes that natural disasters are ways for God to express his anger at man's failings. For example, he has stated that the 1934 Bihar earthquake was a punishment for India's lack of progress in dealing with untouchability. It is interesting to note here that Gandhi has himself come under attack from leaders of India's untouchable classes for his gradualistic approach to the untouchability problem. Moreover, by making such pronouncements, Gandhi was leaving the field open for those in Hindu society who argued, and still argue, that being born an untouchable was itself a punishment for past sins. Gandhi clearly believed in the transmigration of souls. While making this statement about his intuitive belief about natural disasters as a tool of retribution, Gandhi was clearly forgetting that other people might argue that India's subjugation to the British was possibly retribution for past sins, or that untouchability itself was possibly retribution for past sins or that war stemming from human greed was possibly retribution for past sins. Surely, Gandhi must have been aware that the same kind of " intuitive " arguments are very much used by reactionay elements in Hindu society when it comes to untouchability.
By taking Gandhi's " intuitive " argument to its logical conclusion, arguments may be made that God has punished Indians with crushing poverty. And surely, the lack of initiative and action on the part of most Indians about socio-economic issues must, if Gandhi's moral framework is valid, invite further retribution from the same God. It reminds one of facile arguments that give kudos to India for its democratic framework and its avoidance of catastrophic famines, when, in fact, a slow and prolonged holocaust takes place in the form of starvation deaths and deaths from preventable diseases. Gandhi's argument seems even more strange when one takes into account the fact that untouchability was not limited to any specific region in India. The question will surely be asked - What kind of God punishes a region to send a message about a national problem ? Useless theorizing and neglecting " intuitively " correct action is an Indian malaise. No wonder, almost 80 years after Gandhi's statement, all the makings of a retribution-like environment still exist in India. It would be interesting to know what Gandhi would say about today's challenges pertaining to environmental disasters and poverty.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The scum also rises
I am heartbroken today. I am reading a book about a former US politician. I am aghast to find out the extent to which crime, sex and money power has had a stranglehold on US politics. I always knew that the Americans take a superior attitude on the world stage. And they are callous to the extreme about foreign lives during wars. However, the level of cynicism in internal US politics is disturbing, to put it mildly. I guess it goes with the territory. Only a group of politicains that are this corrupt can behave like brigands on the world stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)