Yesterday’s Failures are Today’s Successes
Dost Mittar November 28, 2003
#33 Posted by dost_mittar on November 29, 2003 12:09:10 pm
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.
``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.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by dost_mittar on November 29, 2003 12:15:28 pm
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.
``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.
#35 Posted by dost_mittar on November 29, 2003 12:34:07 pm
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.
``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.
#36 Posted by dost_mittar on November 29, 2003 12:53:06 pm
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!
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!
#37 Posted by sadna on November 29, 2003 1:10:44 pm
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.
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.
#38 Posted by macgupta on November 29, 2003 1:10:44 pm
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.
#39 Posted by harimau on November 29, 2003 1:10:44 pm
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%.
[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%.
#40 Posted by Ahmadzai on November 29, 2003 1:10:45 pm
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.
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.
#41 Posted by nasah on November 29, 2003 1:10:45 pm
``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....:-)
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....:-)
#42 Posted by Fosa on November 29, 2003 1:58:00 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#43 Posted by ahmedmadani on November 29, 2003 1:58:00 pm
Thanks for looking at development of India. It is good thing for world India is improving and improving fast.
Mr. Nehru helped to stabilize democracy ( local democracy was well established under british crown). It always wonders me two mentors two countries two ways and two results.
Gandhi an defiaent law breaker and revolutionary- he made revolution in revolution , jail bird his legacy resulting in worlds largest stable democracy instead of all lawlessness. Jinnah a lawyer ( lawyer King - Q azam), reformist in given british system, followed basic lawful ways for most of time legacy most unstable nondemocratic a country still trying to find how to transfer power. Many times logic defies reason. Differences are stark in some sense- every election is called fraud by looser in pakistan in India they accept defeat angrily but no body say fraud as it is to regularised election. Nobody asks army to come down and throw out bunch of ``corroupt`` politicians.
Did nehru made magic ? Yes he may be partly responsible as he was so omnipotent that he could have declared as Badshah of poors. He did contributed healthy doses in democracy. Real credit goes to ethos of Indian people. I want to give due where it rests as leaders are marginal in effectiveness and long term effects. It is credit to Indian masses that they threw out ( kicked) Mrs. Ganghi when she was trying to deny democratic right and they STRUGGLED very strongly against suspension of democracy.
It is greatness of Indian masses and their civilan behaviour gave good name to Nehru.
IITs and other great institutions of learning are great contribution by indian academic community and general appreciation of education, reverence for education. If nehru ( I do not know what happened in india- was born in 1948)started is then it is one one of thing which will definitely outlasting him. Indian ethos is very great in this matter as Indian want education for educatuion. They are not practical in this matter compared to pakistanies. Overall effect is good on country as education brings potential benefits in several areas of life. Today these students from medical colleges, engg colleges , arts and science colleges are dominating world scene. They are not at mercy of anybody but they are writing their tickets. Indian engineer from IITis prized employee is more significant. Most indian or Pakistanis who are loosers and ellitist will find all problems with this. But think of Cambridge took 500 years, Harward , MIT college took over 200 years ( ? i do not know) to give prestige. The Indian education institutes took only about 30 to 35 years to start from scratch in dirt poor country without any infrastructure. I consider is great acknowledgement of Indian academic success their students are considered at par with any great engg institutions. ( I suspect many who could not get admissions will defame due to jelousy envey and greed). It is great thing a IIT boy or girl is better than most institutions in world. They say its visa to usa.
I think insread of spending 30 to 40 thousand dallars in usa/ per year and getting triavial degrees of no significance even in american market may be we pakistanis can think of going to IIT than little colleges in UK ( they run most colleges to pick up and steal pakistani`s hard earned money) or community colleges in usa. IIT college may be costing 500 dollars per year ? ( I read on govt of india web sites they have seats for foreign students reserved). When I went to middle east(gulf) there was different attitude.
Arab criteria
top most employee is american educated prof registration, then european, then arab educated, indian pak- they have no concept of IIT . ( whiter gets more salary as browns are stupid enough to be brown is thinking) Many indian engneers draw lesser salary than american draftsman. Even its hard for arab to tolerate american companies paying american salary to brown desi. Its still great things there. So there are places iit has no value. I have been to middle east one looks at their Arab mentality then you believe in miracles as only miracle can improve mental state
Nehru was Fabian socialist and influenced by soviet models and impressed by prof Laski and Manyard Keynes model of economic theories which were vougue in Europe at time in academic circles. More on central planning and pouring money at industrial plants and printing rupee bills.
He was greatly responsible for backwardness of India. He was very afraid of foreign domination and lost the sense and followed policies as if he was fighting British East India (of 1700 )Company in 1950. He wanted to do good but never understood problem. He was ( and his successors) were thoughtless that they were putting 80% of capitalization in Public Sector which was basically a job employment scheme at extremely high cost making sure private productive capital producers were paying extreme high rates of interest. Having lost competitive edge they only looked at captive indian as slaves to offer junk and they brought junk. After addition inflation and interest the companies were loosing capital. One has to say he was not vicious man and he thought he was doing good for poors of india but it ever entered his mind poors were only getting shaft in this deal. The indian spirit ( enterprising)which even in british time flourished was imprisoned, famed bengal Tiger was caged in Jungle to save him from jungle dangers. Worst thing was great developmen of Corrouption ( I read from indian sources) and corrouption became part of life.
Other great stupidty was reserving of small scale industry for small business. So these major goods used by poor indians were destined to be too costly. The economics of great scale never benifited this sector at all. It is toady also still reservation is there. This is sector where china producing giants economies of scale is selling great amounts to world and Indian govt is shooting itself by keeping restricted sector to small scale industries.
Indian infrastructure is very weak today, nehru policy- its joke. It takes 6 days to travel truch from delhi to Deep south for trucks( average). Most of Indian ports are bottlenecked and great dummages are paid. Export storage places are flooding as they can not move stuff. I am pakistani and do not say i am lafanga its in Indian trade journals.
Fortunately for india Vajpaie is good man and adminster. Its difficult duty in such large democratic country to slowly move direction of economy affecting billion people. He understand POLITICS and ECONOMICS and PRACTICAL difficulties.
It is to his credit he is slowly breaking through all this in every small way. Building of Quadrangle is goos way start. There is great development in port area specially in private sector along Gujrat cost. Several small to medium harbors are build and operating along Gujrat cost. It is amazing to read the amonut transcated through thesre posrts even exceed bombay port. ( They import and export bulk products like petrolium products and grains etc).
It is ironic Vaajpai who greatly respects Nehru (and nehru use to like him )has to do important work of demolishing nehruian economic models and for prosperity of of INDIA may be Nehru may thank Vajpai for dismantling his dreamy ideas.
It is my feeling Vajpai will me missed by indian people just like nehru for his pioneering work for dismantling nehru economic made slowy and gently with out too much destruction and privation. In long term Nehru and wajpai will be consider as continuation of change.(all others except MRs Gandhi werre forth to fith rate primeministers) One hope President general will be remembered but like General A. Y to Z but chances are that nobody will miss any ruler or militaty ruler except Jinnah.
Mr. Nehru helped to stabilize democracy ( local democracy was well established under british crown). It always wonders me two mentors two countries two ways and two results.
Gandhi an defiaent law breaker and revolutionary- he made revolution in revolution , jail bird his legacy resulting in worlds largest stable democracy instead of all lawlessness. Jinnah a lawyer ( lawyer King - Q azam), reformist in given british system, followed basic lawful ways for most of time legacy most unstable nondemocratic a country still trying to find how to transfer power. Many times logic defies reason. Differences are stark in some sense- every election is called fraud by looser in pakistan in India they accept defeat angrily but no body say fraud as it is to regularised election. Nobody asks army to come down and throw out bunch of ``corroupt`` politicians.
Did nehru made magic ? Yes he may be partly responsible as he was so omnipotent that he could have declared as Badshah of poors. He did contributed healthy doses in democracy. Real credit goes to ethos of Indian people. I want to give due where it rests as leaders are marginal in effectiveness and long term effects. It is credit to Indian masses that they threw out ( kicked) Mrs. Ganghi when she was trying to deny democratic right and they STRUGGLED very strongly against suspension of democracy.
It is greatness of Indian masses and their civilan behaviour gave good name to Nehru.
IITs and other great institutions of learning are great contribution by indian academic community and general appreciation of education, reverence for education. If nehru ( I do not know what happened in india- was born in 1948)started is then it is one one of thing which will definitely outlasting him. Indian ethos is very great in this matter as Indian want education for educatuion. They are not practical in this matter compared to pakistanies. Overall effect is good on country as education brings potential benefits in several areas of life. Today these students from medical colleges, engg colleges , arts and science colleges are dominating world scene. They are not at mercy of anybody but they are writing their tickets. Indian engineer from IITis prized employee is more significant. Most indian or Pakistanis who are loosers and ellitist will find all problems with this. But think of Cambridge took 500 years, Harward , MIT college took over 200 years ( ? i do not know) to give prestige. The Indian education institutes took only about 30 to 35 years to start from scratch in dirt poor country without any infrastructure. I consider is great acknowledgement of Indian academic success their students are considered at par with any great engg institutions. ( I suspect many who could not get admissions will defame due to jelousy envey and greed). It is great thing a IIT boy or girl is better than most institutions in world. They say its visa to usa.
I think insread of spending 30 to 40 thousand dallars in usa/ per year and getting triavial degrees of no significance even in american market may be we pakistanis can think of going to IIT than little colleges in UK ( they run most colleges to pick up and steal pakistani`s hard earned money) or community colleges in usa. IIT college may be costing 500 dollars per year ? ( I read on govt of india web sites they have seats for foreign students reserved). When I went to middle east(gulf) there was different attitude.
Arab criteria
top most employee is american educated prof registration, then european, then arab educated, indian pak- they have no concept of IIT . ( whiter gets more salary as browns are stupid enough to be brown is thinking) Many indian engneers draw lesser salary than american draftsman. Even its hard for arab to tolerate american companies paying american salary to brown desi. Its still great things there. So there are places iit has no value. I have been to middle east one looks at their Arab mentality then you believe in miracles as only miracle can improve mental state
Nehru was Fabian socialist and influenced by soviet models and impressed by prof Laski and Manyard Keynes model of economic theories which were vougue in Europe at time in academic circles. More on central planning and pouring money at industrial plants and printing rupee bills.
He was greatly responsible for backwardness of India. He was very afraid of foreign domination and lost the sense and followed policies as if he was fighting British East India (of 1700 )Company in 1950. He wanted to do good but never understood problem. He was ( and his successors) were thoughtless that they were putting 80% of capitalization in Public Sector which was basically a job employment scheme at extremely high cost making sure private productive capital producers were paying extreme high rates of interest. Having lost competitive edge they only looked at captive indian as slaves to offer junk and they brought junk. After addition inflation and interest the companies were loosing capital. One has to say he was not vicious man and he thought he was doing good for poors of india but it ever entered his mind poors were only getting shaft in this deal. The indian spirit ( enterprising)which even in british time flourished was imprisoned, famed bengal Tiger was caged in Jungle to save him from jungle dangers. Worst thing was great developmen of Corrouption ( I read from indian sources) and corrouption became part of life.
Other great stupidty was reserving of small scale industry for small business. So these major goods used by poor indians were destined to be too costly. The economics of great scale never benifited this sector at all. It is toady also still reservation is there. This is sector where china producing giants economies of scale is selling great amounts to world and Indian govt is shooting itself by keeping restricted sector to small scale industries.
Indian infrastructure is very weak today, nehru policy- its joke. It takes 6 days to travel truch from delhi to Deep south for trucks( average). Most of Indian ports are bottlenecked and great dummages are paid. Export storage places are flooding as they can not move stuff. I am pakistani and do not say i am lafanga its in Indian trade journals.
Fortunately for india Vajpaie is good man and adminster. Its difficult duty in such large democratic country to slowly move direction of economy affecting billion people. He understand POLITICS and ECONOMICS and PRACTICAL difficulties.
It is to his credit he is slowly breaking through all this in every small way. Building of Quadrangle is goos way start. There is great development in port area specially in private sector along Gujrat cost. Several small to medium harbors are build and operating along Gujrat cost. It is amazing to read the amonut transcated through thesre posrts even exceed bombay port. ( They import and export bulk products like petrolium products and grains etc).
It is ironic Vaajpai who greatly respects Nehru (and nehru use to like him )has to do important work of demolishing nehruian economic models and for prosperity of of INDIA may be Nehru may thank Vajpai for dismantling his dreamy ideas.
It is my feeling Vajpai will me missed by indian people just like nehru for his pioneering work for dismantling nehru economic made slowy and gently with out too much destruction and privation. In long term Nehru and wajpai will be consider as continuation of change.(all others except MRs Gandhi werre forth to fith rate primeministers) One hope President general will be remembered but like General A. Y to Z but chances are that nobody will miss any ruler or militaty ruler except Jinnah.
#44 Posted by Fosa on November 29, 2003 2:45:24 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#45 Posted by rsaxena on November 29, 2003 3:24:57 pm
The latest BusinessWeek cover:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_49/b3861001_mz001.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_49/b3861001_mz001.htm
#46 Posted by PM on November 29, 2003 5:10:52 pm
re. PunjabiZulu #23:
``And while [the Socialists] moan, whinge and whine, more Indians are being pulled out of poverty and aspiration is transforming the possibilities of lives across India.``
It is beyond dispute that the rich in India are getting richer, and even that the not-so-rich are getting nouveau riche. But is it true that the poor are getting out of poverty and if so, at comparable rate as their more fortunate compatriots.
Also, if the poor are indeed climbing out of poverty, to what particular soico-economics policies is this attributable? In what way is capitalism, per se, playing a part in this process? And equally important, what are the prospects for sustainable growth/development in this area?
(And why is noone asking what critreon for poverty is being applied? Are we using the sustenance-level critereon?)
Answers from any takers would be much appreciated.
rgds,
PM
``And while [the Socialists] moan, whinge and whine, more Indians are being pulled out of poverty and aspiration is transforming the possibilities of lives across India.``
It is beyond dispute that the rich in India are getting richer, and even that the not-so-rich are getting nouveau riche. But is it true that the poor are getting out of poverty and if so, at comparable rate as their more fortunate compatriots.
Also, if the poor are indeed climbing out of poverty, to what particular soico-economics policies is this attributable? In what way is capitalism, per se, playing a part in this process? And equally important, what are the prospects for sustainable growth/development in this area?
(And why is noone asking what critreon for poverty is being applied? Are we using the sustenance-level critereon?)
Answers from any takers would be much appreciated.
rgds,
PM
#47 Posted by Pankaj on November 29, 2003 5:30:20 pm
PM
``It is beyond dispute that the rich in India are getting richer, and even that the not-so-rich are getting nouveau riche. But is it true that the poor are getting out of poverty and if so, at comparable rate as their more fortunate compatriots.
Also, if the poor are indeed climbing out of poverty, to what particular soico-economics policies is this attributable? In what way is capitalism, per se, playing a part in this process``
The poverty rate in India in 1990 before economic liberalization stood at approximately 40%. In just over a decade, the poverty rate in India now stands at about 25% according to the latest data. In short, India almost managed to pull out an entire Pakistan over poverty line in a decade. This is nothing short of dramatic when you compare the rate of poverty decrease in any other decade in the entire Indian post independence history. I believe the ``trickle down effect`` is at work here.
``It is beyond dispute that the rich in India are getting richer, and even that the not-so-rich are getting nouveau riche. But is it true that the poor are getting out of poverty and if so, at comparable rate as their more fortunate compatriots.
Also, if the poor are indeed climbing out of poverty, to what particular soico-economics policies is this attributable? In what way is capitalism, per se, playing a part in this process``
The poverty rate in India in 1990 before economic liberalization stood at approximately 40%. In just over a decade, the poverty rate in India now stands at about 25% according to the latest data. In short, India almost managed to pull out an entire Pakistan over poverty line in a decade. This is nothing short of dramatic when you compare the rate of poverty decrease in any other decade in the entire Indian post independence history. I believe the ``trickle down effect`` is at work here.
#48 Posted by anil on November 29, 2003 5:30:20 pm
Dear Dost-Mitter:
``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.``
This case study was done in 80s. I will try to get a copy, and permission to post it as it is. This case study was very criticial of Indian emphasis on higher education so early in its development. It wondered if Indian emphasis on higher education triggered a brain drain from a developing economy into developed economy. China was still closed in those days. Korea had already joined the league of asian miracle.
``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.``
I have personal experience of making significant investment there. Any way, you can see the length of time and amount of FDI, China took to reach growth rates it achieved, and compare it with India. Apparently there is a private body in Mumbai, its name slips my mind, which monitor`s Indian economy (CMIE ??). Investment bankers in Singapore who have dealt in China and in India openly say the same thing. Although, they do predicate that when you pay in China the work is done, but when you pay in India, you are not sure until the work is done. Enron is case in point.
Singer`s Indian subsidiary was its most profitable. India never stopped any repatriation of profits ever. Singer while divesting, sold their real-estate holdings and got capital gains repatriated as well, because they had come into India way before foreign exchange control regime.
Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) freely quoted these as late as 1997, the last time I was in India.
In my experience, Indian domestic markets, were hugely (and still are) profitable. Although with the integration of its economy with the global economy, things are chaning. In the absence of needed equity, and poorer capital markets, substantial investments came in the form of debt in depcreciating ruppee due to inflationary pressures. Thus on paper many projects, gave great return on equity through asset appreciation, on the basis of restated balance sheet to reflect the value of built up assets. Even 20 year old ambassador car could be sold for higher than it was bought. Debt-Equity ratio of 10:1 was the norm (better than, a family must put down to buy a home in Canada). On a simple spreadsheet, you can calculate what double digit inflation will do to the rebuilding of assets, debt carried and its service, and hence what would happen to the return on equity.
No doubt, a very strong case can be made against Nehru`s socialism. However, I make my case on the grounds, that he squandered a generation on aping Soviet model. I also say that India won political freedom with the help of British trained Indian lawyers. India will now get its economic freedom, through its entreprenuers.
My point regarding Nehru`e industrial policies, or interference of ``policies`` with the market, be it in Canada too, was contemporaneous. There was not sufficient FDI going around to uplift 250-million Indian at the time of its political independence.
``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.``
Developmental Economics, as I studied has stages, labor intensive jobs with limited or no capital, I doubt would have got India even closer to North Korea.
JRD Tata, Indian economic visionary saw it, and set up the first Indian Steel Plant much much before Nehru got the power. Today`s phenomena in IT should not be confused with 50`s need for jobs and economic growth. A few years ago, I had read an article in National Geographic, that how in matter of 50 years, Indian entreprenuers (weavers) had almost shut down the textile mills of Manchester.
Thank you.
ANIL
``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.``
This case study was done in 80s. I will try to get a copy, and permission to post it as it is. This case study was very criticial of Indian emphasis on higher education so early in its development. It wondered if Indian emphasis on higher education triggered a brain drain from a developing economy into developed economy. China was still closed in those days. Korea had already joined the league of asian miracle.
``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.``
I have personal experience of making significant investment there. Any way, you can see the length of time and amount of FDI, China took to reach growth rates it achieved, and compare it with India. Apparently there is a private body in Mumbai, its name slips my mind, which monitor`s Indian economy (CMIE ??). Investment bankers in Singapore who have dealt in China and in India openly say the same thing. Although, they do predicate that when you pay in China the work is done, but when you pay in India, you are not sure until the work is done. Enron is case in point.
Singer`s Indian subsidiary was its most profitable. India never stopped any repatriation of profits ever. Singer while divesting, sold their real-estate holdings and got capital gains repatriated as well, because they had come into India way before foreign exchange control regime.
Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) freely quoted these as late as 1997, the last time I was in India.
In my experience, Indian domestic markets, were hugely (and still are) profitable. Although with the integration of its economy with the global economy, things are chaning. In the absence of needed equity, and poorer capital markets, substantial investments came in the form of debt in depcreciating ruppee due to inflationary pressures. Thus on paper many projects, gave great return on equity through asset appreciation, on the basis of restated balance sheet to reflect the value of built up assets. Even 20 year old ambassador car could be sold for higher than it was bought. Debt-Equity ratio of 10:1 was the norm (better than, a family must put down to buy a home in Canada). On a simple spreadsheet, you can calculate what double digit inflation will do to the rebuilding of assets, debt carried and its service, and hence what would happen to the return on equity.
No doubt, a very strong case can be made against Nehru`s socialism. However, I make my case on the grounds, that he squandered a generation on aping Soviet model. I also say that India won political freedom with the help of British trained Indian lawyers. India will now get its economic freedom, through its entreprenuers.
My point regarding Nehru`e industrial policies, or interference of ``policies`` with the market, be it in Canada too, was contemporaneous. There was not sufficient FDI going around to uplift 250-million Indian at the time of its political independence.
``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.``
Developmental Economics, as I studied has stages, labor intensive jobs with limited or no capital, I doubt would have got India even closer to North Korea.
JRD Tata, Indian economic visionary saw it, and set up the first Indian Steel Plant much much before Nehru got the power. Today`s phenomena in IT should not be confused with 50`s need for jobs and economic growth. A few years ago, I had read an article in National Geographic, that how in matter of 50 years, Indian entreprenuers (weavers) had almost shut down the textile mills of Manchester.
Thank you.
ANIL
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- krbhatti: Author, [The car is an... Losing the Battle, Losing
- nb: Akcheema, out of interest,... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- tahmed32: #68 hamidm: i have... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- rahul_capri: This is the typical... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: "Do you favour lynch... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: re: # 58 Beej bhaiyya, You... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- hamidm2: tahmed mian, ......... i think... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- KaalChakra: "only raises this one... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
