Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

I feel in total agreement with your thoughts about Musharaf & his efforts pertaining bilateral relations with India.
While he also accomplished on many other fronts nationally & internationally but he is not from the politicians breed and thus remains an unacceptable subject to their entity.
He is and will be remembered for his achievements for which only those who know co-existence and mutual regard will subscribe to.

#292 Posted by vengatramanan,

No Sir! The demand of the poor is in the most part inelastic.

zeemax sahib.Looters and Plunderers was also written in ealy 2003.It was published by Shaheen Sehbai in his US based web journal.It was later also put on the PPP website.

Re: # 291

More people getting poor does not look plausible, as it would contribute to the downward spiral of the aggregate demand and therefore deflation.

Zeemax,

On the surface, the only way to sustain looks like we have to maintain the expenditure at the current levels, which is not practically possible. There can be chinks in the formula:

Growth-(Population Increase + Inflation).

Let me think over it for some more time.

Anilji,

The food production can still be doubled in India as yield are very low. But that would require substantial investments and also liberalisation of the agricultural sector.

Water and land scarcity could become critical though and thus water and soil conservation should acquire topmost priority.

(within in the next 50 year period, india would again be a net importer)

It is of course quite possible that India could become a substantial net food importer by 2050 but that should not be a matter of concern if India's economy is large and mature enuff to absorb the burden. As Amartya da pointed out, people dont go hungry because there is no food but becuase they can't afford it. As an example, oil prices which were lower than US$30 till 2003 have touched US$100 but India hasn't gone bust-yet.

Regards

Re: # 288

Majumdar:

Purchasing power parity based calculations more accurately reflect the effect of inflation on growth numbers. Can you compare PPP based agri-business numbers.

A few years ago, commerce attache at consulate of India in San Francisco, made a very interesting point within in the next 50 year period, india would again be a net importer (Zeemax Sahib's population growth factor). He was involved previously with I believe FAO. He further mentioned that FAO has study to understand global trend would create be few countries, including - Canada, U.S., Argentina, Australia as net exporter of food and grain. China may be self sufficient, if not it will also be net importer too. Just as oil comes from few countries, food grain will come from concentrated areas.

This will be a new economic reality at the global level in the later half of 21st century. This did not considered global warming trends. The single biggest reason for this concentration will be water resources, and land grabbing due to industrialization.

Zee sahib,

Re: #287

OK. Lets assume the base year is 1990. Now if the growth is 2.6% in 2008 over 2007 it means the growth in real terms is 2.6% irrespective of what the inflation was in 2008. So if we adjust for inflation the nominal growth wud be (1.026*1.05)-1.

I think we will have to refer it to our resident mathematician Atif Payee for his final verdict.

Agri growth has been 3% or less throughout my lifetime (35 years) or at least as far I can remember it. While inflation has always been 10% or thereabouts (except maybe in recent years where it has been 5% or thereabouts).

So if I apply your formula and use the following assumptions:

Agri growth of 3.0%
Population growth of 1.5%
Inflation of ONLY 5%.

the real income of Injun farmers would have declined by close to 70% over my lifespan!!!

Regards

#286 Posted by majumdar,

majumdar saheb, the growth measure is on constant production prices of a given base year, while the change in inflation is year-on-year and follows no base year rule. If both the growth and the consumer inflation (and population increase) were measured against the same base year and netted out, the agri growth in India would actually turn out to be negative.

Think about it. This is the trick government statisticians play on you.

Zee sahib,

Re: 243

(So the commies whacking monkey cops by the dozens has had some effect. Good. Soon you'll have to write ALL of them off.)

The death of monkey cops had nothing to do with the write-offs. The killer of the monkey cops- the Naxals – have their support base among the poorest of poor tribals who have no access to any credit of any sort. So no bank loans to be written off either!!!

Re: 257

(the rural/agri growth is 2.6% for 70% of population, which after population growth of 1.4% leaves 1.2% to cover inflation, which is around 5%. Does it mean the vast majority of the entire population which is desperately poor is getting even poorer by 4% every year?)

I am surprised to see an economist make an elementary mistake like this. All growth figures are in real terms i.e. adjusted for inflation. Agri growth is indeed less than 3% but rural income include some non-agri income as well. Plus there is steady migration (year round or part of the year) to urban areas which relieves some amount of poverty. Having said that, it is true that growth is not inclusive and large masses of Injun population live in shameful levels of poverty.

Regards

Re: # 269

Pavo sahib:

"... and when this backlash is created India feels threatened. So India has to talk to USA ..."

You are putting too much importance to India. Traditionally, only after its economy had taken off the U.S. put India on its Radar. Prior to it, only Pakistan gave India such a prominent position in foreign policies and military strategies.

The U.S. could have called Indian PM to come and talk, someone would certainly fly DC to meet. However, when Nawaz reached DC on July 4th emergenct meeting, after Kargil, there was a speculation of camp David like diplomacy. Indian PM refused to meet Nawaz, out of whatever, and accepted to be available to Clinton on phone. Camp David never happened. That was a turning point in India-U.S. relations, and India-Pakistan relations. Pakistani Army accepted for the first time they cannot fight and win Kashmir. Ground reality changed even further after 9/11.

The U.S. never needed Pakistan as a wrench to twist India into talking.

HAHAHA....yatha raja, tatha praja...frikking morons..

APP adds: Caretaker Minister for Interior Lt Gen (r) Hamid Nawaz Khan Sunday said there are reports that Indian Intelligence Agency RAW was involved in violent incidents in the country.
“We are sure that RAW is involved and there was no doubt in it,” he told a private television.
He said terrorist activities could not be sustained for long period without the help of foreign elements and there was growing perception that there might also be some other countries which are involved in these activities.
About the recent Swat incident in which a police officer was martyred and later his funeral procession was also targeted by terrorists, he strongly condemned the incident and said it seems like personal enmity and hatred against the victim.

Re: # 282
Tahmed Sahib:

The following last lines got left out:

"There is a history of such happenings in France, where republics were trashed and re-established. You may like to get your answers from French republics."

Re: # 280

Tahmed sahib:

Issues you bring out are valid constitutional issues. Constitution of each country enshrines various guarantees for every citizen. Implementation, however, has varied in countries solely because how much respect responsible leaders show toward the constitution.

Habeas Corpus is a legal procedure that comes from the constitutional (fundamental rights as called in Indian constitution) rights. In Pakistan's case constitution has been suspended quite a few times.

Founding fathers of constitutional form of the government made a basic assumption that constitution is not violated and no one can suspend it.

It is above all citizens.

The emergency powers provisions are enough to deal with all emergencies. Only legislative branch is empowered to change (give more powers or give less powers) constitution, powers or acts that come from the constitution.

I did try to read the U.S. constitution and Indian constitution to find out what would have happened if someone did what Musharraff and three previous military leaders. Indira Gandhi acted within the emergency powers and manipulated the system to get President to declare emergency. She never suspended the constitution.

In Pakistan's case everything is suspended. Therefore answers are not clear, as the basis of the union or federation is trashed in Pakistan.

So what law? The rule then is that of tyranny and anarchy (Jiski lathi uski bhains) as I see.

New constitution that replaces this tyranny and anarchy would have answer to deal with the culprits, when power is restored.

Re: # 280 Tahmed

"...in the US constitution, the all-important "etc." (i.e. powers not specifically placed anywhere) are placed with the states. I am not sure what the situation is in the indian constitution...."

Through the Indian Constitution the states enjoy relative autonomy in India. There is autonomy in the legislative, executive as well as the judicial powers for the states of India. However, the autonomy is limited by clear powers that are vested on the Union. The division of the powers of the Union and the State can be traced to the distribution of the powers as stated by the three lists laid down by the Indian Constitution. Derived from the Australian constitution, these lists clearly divide the powers vested on the State and the Union. They are the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List.

The Union List: Also referred to as List I, this list contains legislations, on which the Union enjoys exclusive control. Of the total 99 subjects that are included in the Union list, some are enlisted below:
Defence
Banking
Taxes
Coinage
Insurance
Currency
Union Duties
Foreign Affairs

The State List: This is the List II of the Indian Legislative. There are a total of 69 subjects in this particular list, all of which are exclusive legislative powers of the State. Some of the subjects enlisted in the State list are as follows:
Public Order and Police
State Taxes and Duties
Agriculture
Sanitation
Local governments
Forests
Fisheries
Public Health


The Concurrent List: This list contains 52 items, which are powers vested on the State as well as the Union. Some of the subjects included in the Concurrent List are as follows:
Economic and Social Planning
Criminal Law and Procedure
Civil Procedure
Torts
Trusts
Marriage
Education
Welfare and Labor
Contracts



However, in case there is any repugnance, the Union legislature will prevail over the State legislature. In case a State Law has already been reserved for the consent of the President, or if such an assent has already been granted, then the State Law will hold irrespective of the repugnance. However, the Parliament can override the Law through subsequent legislation.

The Residuary Powers are the legislative powers that fall in none of the above categories. The lists are usually exhaustive enough to include all possible subjects, and it is generally believed that the field of application will be very narrow. These powers are neither under the legislative powers of the State nor the Union, but is under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary.


source: http://www.mapsofindia.com/events/republic-day/India-union-states-relation.html

anil sahib #250 Thanks for the link. I read your article, which was very informative concerning the federal vs state relations in India.

I basically agree with your suggestion that the federal government should be limited to foreign affairs, defense and communications, buit think it leaves out an increasingly important issue - namely, basic human rights. The right to free speech, the right to habeas corpus, the right to the rule of law.

Tbus, the US civil rights would not have benefitted from the intervention of the feds to enforce school de-segregation if this all-important right had been left to the states.

Also - in the US constitution, the all-important "etc." (i.e. powers not specifically placed anywhere) are placed with the states. I am not sure what the situation is in the indian constitution. In Pakistan I believe it is with the federal government.