Yesterday’s Failures are Today’s Successes

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``As a matter of fact, economic vitality of any society is determined by barely 5%(rhetorical estimate) of its members who are energetic enterpreneurs and wealth creators, remaining 95% ride that wave.``(Pankaj)

True -- but the contribution of the 5% does depend upon the purchasing power of the 95% -- if the 95% are despicably destitute -- hand to mouth -- no spare money to buy anything else -- the 5% will surely wither away....

they will defintely be sapped of their economic vitality --

may be that`s why the the Great Capitalist the United States has some of the crypto-socialistic clauses in their economic system to promote a classless sort of a welfare state

that envisages -- in order to keep the economically contributing classes of Chiefs comfortable -- and able to continue to contribute -- the Indians (the consumers) have to be kept on some form of life support system....:-)

Mantolives at # 14:

I am late noting this post of yours. I would like to say that in Pakistan, unlike India, Urdu is spoken and understood all over Pakistan as Lingua Franca. There is no problem here. But I do agree that a Urdu-English-Punjabi combo is gaining ground.

Of course GEO TV tries its best to adhere to pure Urdu transmissions. For example, when showing speeches, press conferences, inteviews of foreigners in its News (GEO Clock), it takes the pains to make us hear the Urdu translation of whatever is being said. This is something which PTV always avoided. Therefore, if a person speaks Punjabi or English on PTV program, no translation is made and it is taken for granted that all Pakistanis understood Punjabi and English.

In days to come GEO TV, which is the most popular TV channel in Pakistan now, will contribute significantly towards making Urdu re-absorbed in our lives. Perhaps Urdu is their interest also due to Jang Newspaper.

Ref anil #27

[Elite education was always very close to elitist hindus of pre-independence time. They sent their kids to England for the studies. In fact I have read HBS case study which compared and questioned India`s elitist education vs. Korea`s basic education to create workforce for the industrial needs. Galbraith, a Harvard Professor, and a powerful liberal economist, had access to Nehru. Nehru chose Galbraith and got him to be the U.S. ambassador of the tim. Nehru, himself being the second generation product of elitist education, knew its catalytic and leveraging effect, if made meritocracy at its heart, it will bring the best out of the middle class who will then be the catalyst.]

Meritocracy? Where is the meritocracy in India when in general 50% of the admissions to professional education is reserved for the Backward Classes, meaning mentally backward people like Soysauce?

Why do you think your Mig-21s crash? I was jsut watching Discovery Wings yesterday and the US pilots flying in the China-Burma-India theater had a simple rule. After any mechanic (and this was a white American!) fixed anything to do with an airplane, he got to take the first ride with the pilot. That made sure that the mechanic did his job right. Just what we need in the Indian Air Force. If it gets rid of a few Maasanamuthus along with the pilots -- who alone die now -- all the better.

Just because IITs don`t admit people on quota basis doesn`t mean other universities don`t. That reservation as written into the Constitution was 25% for 25 years. Having put in a vote-bank clause, nobody has the guts to repeal it and now it is indefinite and not limited to 25%. The Mandal Commission set it at 50%.

Dost-Mittar:

Thinking in terms of static policies is the big mistake. One should make a try, and make policy corrections. Wherever this has been done, India has been successful. The failures lie in clinging to ideas that don`t work despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is way beyond human competence to pick the right ideas from day one. The best human characteristic is to be able to learn and to adapt, and squashing that freedom is wrong.

BTW, Hindus practice cremation and dispersal of ashes, presumably to avoid turning in one`s grave/samadhi. (On the other hand, maybe that is why the earth turns, the collective turning of all those ancestors at the harkat of the current generation. :-))

The language policy at the birth of the nation, has since undergone amendments, and that is the way it should be. The failure lies in the fact that it took some violence and severe agitations to make a course change.

The first two five-year plans were fairly successful. When thereafter growth slowed down, there should have been a policy shift. The wasted decades have cost India dearly.

The main change in India, as I see it, is that back in the first three decades after independence, deeply ingrained attitudes of people were that India is a natural third-rater, nothing better can be expected, only a few visionaries thought differently. I think Nehru was one of those visionaries. But that is not enough to carry a whole country. And visionaries get things wrong too, just like everyone else. But visionaries also have very strong egos and will-power (a requirement of the job) and only equally confident people can challenge them. In the absence of that, there is an almost ``religious`` clinging on to the ideas of the great leader. We should not blame Nehru for being so dominating, we should instead ask why so many other Indians behaved like pygmies in comparison.

The success of Indians in diaspora led to the understanding that nothing is wrong with Indians per se, failures are not failures of individuals but of systems. I think the lesson is sinking in that when people are not performing to world-standards, it is very often because of the environment that they are embedded in - i.e., perverse systems of incentives and disincentives. The second realization is that the environment that we are embedded in itself can be changed. The third realization is that the seemingly insurmountable problems are not so impossible. And so, more so than any time in the past century, Indians (at least some of them) feel in control of their own destiny.

dost-mittar
I agree with jay who says crony capitalism results without proper checks and balances. Thats the case in many newly independent poor countries where a few rich people are more empowered and distort the system to guard their own commerical interests under guise of `national interest`. They also often get their countries into huge debt traps, take a large cut of it for themselves personally(along with their friends) and retire on it when deposed by their angry countrymen.



Re Nehru`s industrial policy, it was not a total failure.
Indian govt sector companies have built railways, roads, prospected for oil, been in shipping, built heavy machinery, bought and sold steel, and done it successfully all over the world for last many decades. India has a good heavy engineering base, which is not restricted to the private sector only.

Banking/insurance have been mainly public sector too whose performance has been not bad. Regulatory frameworks for financial markets even in the most capitalist of countries(creation of fair game and level playing field) of course ALWAYS comes from government involvement.

Re high tech : IITs were not the only schools and silicon valley successes were not the only ones(though the Western media gives this impression). Indigenous developments in space, biotech, agriculture, pharmeceuticals were possible due to availability of domestic talent.

In short, Nehru did get some of his modern temples.

By hindsight, his socialistic spirit of inclusion needed to be combined with the evolution of a competitive economy, if such a thing was possible.

anil:
A most enlightening post. nasah is right. You should write an article based on the HBS case studies that you have referred to in your post. I am most interested in what the HBS studies` conclusions were wrt the different educational models pursued by Korea and India. BTW as of now, except for the IITs, I think that Korea has more educational institutes of excellence in learning than does India.

``Nehru`s vision of independent line and coexistence of private and public sector had its flaws but it uses the capital more efficiently than say China or Japan at the similar stage of the game.``

Could you please give the basis of this statement. From what I know, India should have gone for industries which were labour intensive where its cheap labour was an advantage and spent its mopped-up resources in developing the infrastructure which would facilitate the growth of such industries. Instead, we went into capital intensive industries, and that too in the wasteful public sector, which took our most precious capital resources without providing jobs for the jobless.

nasah:
``what India is TODAY is mostly BECAUSE of -- Nehru of Yesterday --``
I have no doubt in admitting that whatever I am today, and this is perhaps also true of most Indian chowkies, it is because of Nehruji. However, I am not willing to give him the credit for whatever India is today, except for the stron democratic and secular foundations -consitution and democratic institutions- laid by him.
[see my post to Jay below]
Once one gets beyond the slogans, what were the concrete indicators of social, let alone economic development in India. How did our literacy and health indicators compare with those of the other countries, even Pakistan at the time of Nehru`s death? How were our roads? How many villages were without drinking water? without electricity? without pucca roads? How much improvement was there in the poverty levels?
...after all, aur bhi dukh hain zamane mein secularism ke siva!

Jay:
``This is yet another pathetic article reaking of ignorence of pakistani kind.``

What else do you expect from someone born in Pakistan?:-)

``The crony capitalism is the only type that could survive and flourish in a country where the social instituions are not develped, and every newly independant country has to create a large public sector till the checks and balances to guide the capitalism are developed.
Again take philippines that opened up labour exports, the so called educated, english speaking variety that emerged after independance.``
...May I present you exhibit `A`, Taiwan or even Singapore? As for as Phillipines is concerned, I dont think it inherited the kind of robust administrative, educational, industrial and financial infrastructure that inherited at the time of independence. I believe we were second only to Japan at that time on most indices of development and the Bombay and Calcutta Stock exchanges were probably more established than even the Tokyo stock exchange. We were producing cars long before Toyota did and Air India was flying planes, Institute of Science producing reputable scientists and Indian Statistical Institute was producing reputable statisticians.

Look at the facts and not slogans: We were ahead of every other country in Asia BEFORE Nehru took over; we were practically the last WHEN he died.

`` it is the american capitalist giospel for the diost mitters, repeated quoted and applied at in appropriate settings.``
I do not believe in the American gospel. As I said to Pankaj, the US model does not deliver a caring society. For that you need to have a state which is committed to a caring and just society. In fact, even the Mao model was better; at least it improved general literacy, health and societal discipline even if its economic results were no better.

harimou:
``Nehru didn`t lay much emphasis on Family Planning. This led to the disastrous rise in population that could not be easily supported. ``

The ironic fact of life is that, regardless of the intellengentia`s later day boasts, the single most important reason for Indira Gandhi losing her election after her Emergency was the rather robust birth control measures used during that period, and not due to people missing the daily theatre of the absurd in the Lok Sabha.

Mantolives:
``That confidence , positive image, or identity will either:

1) Accentuate the communal divide... the confusion of Hindu civilization with Indian civilization... whether that is true or not is an another question.

2) or more success will help the youth of minority communities associate with the Majority community.. thereby abandoning their hang ups and taking pride in common hindu heritage. ``

Good observation!
...I hope that a third option would be that once the initial hoopla about the newfound pride in hindu/indian civilization is over, the new generaion will become more confident, more secure in its identity and lose this urge to wear its nationalism on its sleeves.
It seems to me that the next general elections will be crucial. I wont be surprised if the BJP uses Modi as its star campaigner to paint the muslim as a backward, fast-breeding and disloyal citizen to whip up the same kind of frenzy that led to the BJP sweeping the elections in Gujarat last year. If that happens, Indians should say good-bye to peace and prosperity and be prepared for a long-drawn civil war.
However, if the Vajpayee brand of soft hindutva succeeds or if the BJP is defeated in the next elections, they can look forward to a bright future.

nasah ji

Allow me to explain why I think choice of ``equality`` over freedom is disastrous even theoretically, whta to say about its application.

When socialists talk about ``equality``, they primarily mean economic equality. Now as I discussed before people differ in their ability to generate wealth, just as they differ in their ability to write poetry or academic excellence. In other words, people are born unequal; they are born equal only so far as right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is concerned. As a matter of fact, economic vitality of any society is determined by barely 5%(rhetorical estimate) of its members who are energetic enterpreneurs and wealth creators, remaining 95% ride that wave. The only way to impose economic equality upon a society would be to erect barriers in the path of this energetic core and prevent them from generating wealth. Then all that remains is the distribution of poverty, and not distribution of wealth. You can argue why this energetic core is not selfless and gives up its wealth to poor . Lets face it- this group is selfish and not made up of Mahatmas.The beauty of capitalism is that this group will let wealth trickle down to the increase purchasing power of the people so that market for its own goods widens. Thus it is the same old ``invisible hand`` that drives overall prosperity in a capitalist society even though each member of that society is selfish.

Another way to make myself clearer by choosing an example from chowk itself. Arguing about economic equality is like aguing that I have the same capability to write poetry as temporal. If Chowk staff was socialist/communist, it would allow my trash to be published exactly at the same frequency as temporal`s and insist that the members give my trash same respect they give to temporal`s poetry or Sameerjb/Khamkhwa`s shayari. It wont be long before this farcical arrangement collapses and the people would stop visiting chowk. That individuals are ``unequal`` in their capabilities is pure commonsense and a common person on the street knows it but somehow intellectuals deny its existence. Equality is only possible by extermination of the most dynamic and vibrant core of the society through a murderous and totalitarian regime, and that is what Communism does.

Anil -- great post -- should have a separate board --

what India is TODAY is mostly BECAUSE of -- Nehru of Yesterday -- despite the BJP vultures -- who no doubt also serve a great purpose in the `cleaning up` process -- somebody has to do the dirty work...

your are right -- may be if Jinnah would have lived -- his old Congress instinct would have revived -- and he would have reformed into a modernizing Nehruite -- but I doubt it because the opputunistic League was no grass root Congress --

even if Jinnah could have who can be sure his vision of secular Pakistan could have survived a bullet -- like his deputy Liaqat Ali......

You are right Nehru was all for English --

Hindi -- besides Ambedkars -- was a Upiite and Bihari baggage as well -- that of the Sapurnanadis and Tandonite hordes...and that of the first President Rajendre Prasad JP and Ram Manohar Lohias .........

khotasikka, dost-mittar sahib:

It is not consumerism, per se, that I find to be the problem. In my inital post, #1, I referred to the `love for consumerism` that d-m used in his artice, and in my second, I said ``unbridled consumerism.``

However consumerism as charachter trait-- national or individual, is, IMHO, as innocuous, or insiduous, as alcoholism. Add to the general mindset of the consumeristically oriented individual the concerted--and unrelenting-- efforts by producers to make yesterday`s luxuries today`s `necessities`, and you have some notion of the danger that consumerism poses. A couple of weeks ago, we had a chowkie of a middle class Indian background, now in an Ivy-league business chool, suggesting that a family of four could not get by on a $90K salary!! And he thinks in all earnestness he`s a moderate in his tastes.

To be sure, this has litte to do with the idea of spending or splurging, that khotasikka mentioned. I`m all for spending and re-investing assets. It`s simply a question of WHAT and WHERE! You can spend Rs 3,000 a month on new imported gadgets from China, or on the products that keep the local baker and actor honest. Now THAT is comsumerism (if it can be called that at all) with a heart.

rgds,
PM

Dost,
You are correct in saying that the state level congress leaders are just faithful dogs of Nehru family. No wonder even to this date the Andhra Pradesh (state whre i am from) Congress leaders talk about bringing the glorious days of Nehru and Indira Gandhi if they come to power without specifying any details and never realising that those days were not great for the poor of India. They ruled the state for 30 or so odd years yet they don`t put forward anything they did in those 30 yrs before asking for votes.

re: Dost-Mittar

Interesting article.

Nehru was an aristocrat and he ruled India in that mold of mind and when the aristocrats rule with the best of intentions, people suffer.

Ciao

Dear Dost-Mitter:

I do not want to eulogize Nehru`s socialism. But Hindi provision, IIT and education, and industrial policies you have questionably portrayed as result of failed policies. Policies goals may be flawed, but results are rarely what policies are set out to achieve.

Hindi provision in Indian constitution was drafted by Amabedkar on insistence of Rajagopalachari, then Indian governor general of India. It was Gandhi and Rajgopalachari, not Nehru who saw it as the uniting force. In late 1969, as an engineering student, I was in Bangalore for industrial training, and the ferver of opposition was very strong, even though Shastri, a strong proponent of Hindi, from Banares, had amended the constitution to delay implementation of Hindi provision. I remember a distinct incidence, a bangolre three-wheeler scooter wala was fighting with his passenger, everything except the gaali`s were in kanada, but gaali`s were in hindi. We three students had nothing better to do after the training, so stayed on to watch this interesting fight. Afterwards, the scooter wala laughed and said it was all hindi movies.

Today if you go to Bangalore, you will find hindi as a link language in the lower rank. Economic reason and Bollywood effect.

Elite education was always very close to elitist hindus of pre-independence time. They sent their kids to England for the studies. In fact I have read HBS case study which compared and questioned India`s elitist education vs. Korea`s basic education to create workforce for the industrial needs. Galbraith, a Harvard Professor, and a powerful liberal economist, had access to Nehru. Nehru chose Galbraith and got him to be the U.S. ambassador of the tim. Nehru, himself being the second generation product of elitist education, knew its catalytic and leveraging effect, if made meritocracy at its heart, it will bring the best out of the middle class who will then be the catalyst.

Nehru knew through his interactions with Einstein at Princeton, Bertrand Russell and many others the advantage meritocracy in education created for the U.S. over aristocracy based education of then Europe. In fact Bertrand Russell in one of his essays in 1900`s, very early had written that the U.S. broke ahead of Europe due to meritcocracy in Education system. European capital then chased by J.P. Morgan creator of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, started pouring in, as a shelter from W.W. I, and the talent pool of America.

Nehru sought elitist educatio and got it too. He did not do it to feed the socialist engine. He brought the best from the U.S. (IIT Kanpur), England (IIT Delhi), Germany (IIT - Chennai), and Soviet Union (IIT-Bombay). IIT Kharagpur was already functioning on Indian lines by then. He did it, because he was elitist. I am sure, if Jinnah had lived, and not seen the power going to the fuedals, he would have done it in Pakistan as well.

I was fortunate to be taught by a professor at HBS, who was appointed to host Nehru on his first trip to the U.S. He and Galbraith (also of Harvard) were given a blank check to show and offer Nehru the best of capitalism in the U.S. Geo-politically, with Korean war raging, India was very important to the U.S. They lined up meetings for him with the best of the Wall Street, and corporate America, who were told in advance, that the U.S. would guarantee return on their invesments in India. I met one of the directors of Intel, who spent time, in 50s in India to India nuclear technology to counter balance China. Nehru did not accept it, instead chose Canada. The U.S. allowed Canada to offer India.

Interestingly Nehru simply wanted to meet the workers of Steel Plants in Pittsburg. He did not even care for Car manufacturer, but wanted to meet the manufacturer of bicycles.

For a long time, according to this professor, a debate raged about India v Korea v Turkey at HBS, which remained inconclusive whether the U.S. would have sufficient FDI to offer India a solid development when it was reconstructing, Europe (Marshall Plan), Bombed out Japan and fighting a war in Korean Penninsula. Without FDI, a school of thought could have seen a Pakistan like situation, a blurb in Ayub era, and no ability to sustain and give continuity. Nehru`s vision of independent line and coexistence of private and public sector had its flaws but it uses the capital more efficiently than say China or Japan at the similar stage of the game. He certainly relied on flawed socialist model. I think, history of a nation is not measured in ten or 15 years. He will be remembered as a grand visionary who got involved in building a nation. Even Advani in his recent trip to the U.S. acknowledged the contributions of Nehru. I also believe that Vajpayee will be remembered for managing devolution of power through coalition. I think the alternative to BJP coalition will come from Laloo and not from Congress.

My conclusion is what was right for India at that time. Nothing else would have worked. He from his Shanti Van is happily meditating (not turning in his grave) that India is moving toward entreprenuer-driven growth, and not policy-driven growth.

How about writing on contribution of Liberal Education, Bollywood, and Cricket as the unifying force in India, and these would be the forces of the future in entire South Asia.

Thank you.
ANIL KAPURIA