Outsourcing policy to foreign NGOs (P.O.)

M.D. Nalapat

After a gap of more than six years, your columnist is once again in the country that a century ago ran half the world. For years, indeed decades, he has been fascinated with the way in which a small island nation expanded across the globe to secure territory and resources to fuel its prosperity. Some say that much of the cause can be attributed to the spirit of democracy that pervaded the United Kingdom. However, this may be a simplistic view, for the reality is that the UK of the Empire period was a class-ridden nation, where the nobility (both economic and ancestral) had privileges denied to the many. Unlike in France or Russia, where there was a revolution against the aristocracy, the English never revolted against their nobility, except for the brief spasm of republicanism led by Oliver Cromwell four centuries ago. Of course, the difference between Britain and Russia was that in the former, it was much more easy for a low-born person to become wealthy than during the reign of the Tsars. When the nobility monopolised top positions the way the upper castes did in ancient India.

Inequality of income is a fact of life, but if this is accompanied by as severe an inequality in opportunity, then the society concerned becomes brittle and easy to break. In any country where a “caste” system develops, in which power and money get monopolised by a small segment on the basis of birth, there will come a period when such a society can no longer meet the needs and begins to fall apart. Such a danger exists even in the country that is today well on the way to becoming the next superpower, China. Should the Communist Party of China (CCP) get dominated by “princelings” (the children of top party leaders), then the hold of the party over the people will slacken, as will morale and motivation inside the party, which would change into an instrument for the retention of privilege created by birth. Already, a disproportionate share of the top echelons of the CCP comprise of cadres who were lucky to be born of influential parents. If this segment grows at the expense of those (such as current CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao) who were born from humble stock, the rapidly-evolving population of China would begin to lose respect and loyalty towards a party that has made China once again a Great Power.

Outsourcing policy to foreign NGOs (PO)

M D Nalapat

After a gap of more than six years, your columnist is once again in the country that a century ago ran half the world. For years, indeed decades, he has been fascinated with the way in which a small island nation expanded across the globe to secure territory and resources to fuel its prosperity. Some say that much of the cause can be attributed to the spirit of democracy that pervaded the United Kingdom. However, this may be a simplistic view, for the reality is that the UK of the Empire period was a class-ridden nation, where the nobility (both economic and ancestral) had privileges denied to the many. Unlike in France or Russia, where there was a revolution against the aristocracy, the English never revolted against their nobility, except for the brief spasm of republicanism led by Oliver Cromwell four centuries ago. Of course, the difference between Britain and Russia was that in the former, it was much more easy for a low-born person to become wealthy than during the reign of the Tsars. When the nobility monopolised top positions the way the upper castes did in ancient India.

Inequality of income is a fact of life, but if this is accompanied by as severe an inequality in opportunity, then the society concerned becomes brittle and easy to break. In any country where a “caste” system develops, in which power and money get monopolised by a small segment on the basis of birth, there will come a period when such a society can no longer meet the needs and begins to fall apart. Such a danger exists even in the country that is today well on the way to becoming the next superpower, China. Should the Communist Party of China (CCP) get dominated by “princelings” (the children of top party leaders), then the hold of the party over the people will slacken, as will morale and motivation inside the party, which would change into an instrument for the retention of privilege created by birth. Already, a disproportionate share of the top echelons of the CCP comprise of cadres who were lucky to be born of influential parents. If this segment grows at the expense of those (such as current CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao) who were born from humble stock, the rapidly-evolving population of China would begin to lose respect and loyalty towards a party that has made China once again a Great Power.

Does “freedom” mean vote every 5 years? (PO)

M D Nalapat

Till two centuries ago, China comprised about 35% of the global economy while India accounted for around 26%. Only after the grip of European powers became strong in the 19th century that their economies contracted. The mentality of the European powers was that only they had the right to prosperity, while the rest of the world needed to be content as slaves. In India, Britain ensured the destruction of almost all of local industry, thereby seeking to create a market for its own manufactures. Certainly this brought some prosperity to the UK, but the wealth generated there would have been much more had India been allowed to continue to be a prosperous country. The markets for British produce would have been far larger. As for China, by squeezing revenue out of channels such as the opium trade, the European powers ensured the fall of the Imperial Dynasty and its replacement with a series of fractious and incompetent warlord regimes, a phase that ended only with the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China in 1949.

While China entered into its current period of economic growth through reform in the 1980s, till today India has continued with its colonial-era laws, that transfer obligations to the population and authority to the state Today, despite corrupt and incompetent governments at both the central and state levels, the Indian economy is growing at a speed of almost 10% annually, because of the savings of its people and their zeal for education and betterment. India is called a “free” country, while China is authoritarian, with no elections and single-party rule. However, here in Hong Kong, where your columnist has been since the beginning of the week, it would seem that people here have as much - if not more - freedom than people in Mumbai or Delhi, all of whom have to get permission from multiple authorities (usually in triplicate) before being allowed to do the simplest tasks.

Video: Prof. M. D. Nalapat at the Interfaith Dialogue, Madrid

Is Manmohan Singh’s time up? (PO)

M D Nalapat

Had Manmohan Singh ended his political career as Finance Minister of India during 1992-96, he would have earned a few pages in the history books as the individual who implemented the 1992-94 economic reforms, which did so much to ensure a higher rate of growth. However, once he took over as PM in 2004, that period was relegated to the background. Whatever be the soft-spoken thinker’s place in history, it will almost entirely get based on his performance as PM. And it must be said that the five years since he took office have been disappointing. Economic reform stalled, while corruption continued to skyrocket. Those tracking the workings of government claimed that the final decision on most issues - especially those involving procurement - were taken by Number Ten ( 10 Janpath, the official residence of Congress President Sonia Gandhi) rather than Number Seven ( 7 Racecourse Road, the PM House).

Although the habitually tame English-language media in India said otherwise, the fact is that the public were underwhelmed by the performance of the Central government. Prices shot up, while urban infrastructure deteriorated. The progress of road construction was slow, while the provision of broadband internet and affordable mobile telephone charges was delayed. The tax structure and the web of government restrictions became ever more oppressive, and yet the much-written about Father of Reform did nothing. Of course, he busied himself in foreign policy, but to the population of India, what matters is the home front, not the fact that Singh and his demure better half were lionized in capitals across the globe. Those who had for long admired the man and saw him as a redeemer felt bitter, and many did not hesitate to vent their frustration in public, although they were of course in a minority. As is their wont, much of the media were fulsome in their praise of the PM, compliments that they bestowed on every holder of that office.

However, since the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) returned to power in 2009, Manmohan Singh changed. Several VVIPs were jailed for corruption, a drive that finally began netting the big fish rather than minnows. Petroleum prices were decontrolled and the money earned from auction of spectrum went up by more than twenty times. It had been no secret that the PM was deeply unhappy at the meagre revenue secured by the auction of 2G, but could do nothing because the political leadership of the party protected the alliance partner responsible. But when 3G began to be auctioned, Singh stepped in rather than keep away the way he had from 2004 to that period, and ensured a huge windfall for the exchequer. Of course, there have been two major failures on his watch, the first being price rise and the second Kashmir. After a flawless election in 2009, the reins of office were handed over to an untested Omar Abdullah, who expected the people of his state to emulate the US electorate and choose good looks over competence. The grandson of Sheikh Abdullah has been a total failure as CM, and ought not to have been given the reins when experienced leaders were available. Omar is considered part of the Rahul Gandhi Brigade, and if so, this first test of fire of this youthful team has been a disaster.

India cannot ignore Myanmar and Iran (PO)

M D Nalapat

As Asian allies of the US know, in making demands - sorry, requests –of them, Washington looks only at what it perceives to be its own short-term advantage. Even if the recommended measure has the potential to have very harmful effects on its ally, the US ignores such an impact, and insists on its advice being followed. Small wonder that except for countries that are host to large numbers of US troops, few Asian countries uncritically follow the line given to them by the US State Department or other branches of the administration. If India has somehow managed to get by in a challenging neighbourhood, the reason lies in the fact that public opinion often forces even pro-US governments to reject advice coming from Washington.

Myanmar was an example of India going along with US and European wishes. For more than ten years, Delhi toed the line taken by these two geopolitical giants, joining them in demanding that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi be released and enabled to take over the governance of the country. It needs to be admitted that this columnist is also an admirer of the charismatic Myanmarese leader, and has been since he was in his teens. At the time - and we are talking of the 1960s - he used to stay in a government residential colony in Delhi named “Maan Nagar”, and used to watch a graceful girl clad in multicoloured lungis visit the home of the Burmese diplomat staying opposite. Even in those days, Suu Kyi was the very expression of grace and poise, who was moreover polite enough to once in a way return the greetings of the scrawny boy who used to look up from his book whenever she visited the neighbour’s quarters. Of course, despite this bias towards Myanmar’s valiant democracy warrior, he is in agreement that India’s geopolitical needs mandate engagement with the regime now ruling that country,and that the adoption of a US-style policy of sanctions would help neither the people of Myanmar nor India’s interests.