[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some Home Truths
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinod,
You misunderstand. The point I was trying to make is that the social gains -
in terms of schooling and healthcare provision - had been made before
liberal economic policies were introduced. A. Sen discusses this at length
in 'India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity'. The point is that,
whilst economic growth may certainly *facilitate* higer social spending,
political will is still required to ensure the poorest benefit. Sen argues
for less government intervention in economic areas, but *radical* increases
in health and education spending, particularly primary services.
Sorry for not being clearer originaly.
Regards
Richard Parr
>From: VPanicker@aol.com
>Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>Subject: Re: Some Home Truths
>Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 10:20:51 -0800 (PST)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard,
>
>I'd appreciate some evidence to back up your claim that Thailand, Korea and
>Singapore have experienced decreases in life expectancy and literacy since
>they liberalised their economies.
>
>Thanks,
>Vinod
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Left-wing intellectuals, among whom you
> are counted, failed to see that outward-looking policies
> would soon make Thailand 10-times richer than India,
> Korea 30-times, and Singapore almost a hundred-times
> richer. You leftists sneered at these countries for being
> neo-colonial puppets. The supposed puppets have become
> prosperous, literate and healthy, while the system you
> espoused has failed on all three counts."
>
> Actualy, these three examples all had far higher literacy levels and life
> expectancy *before* liberalisation. Only liberalisation accompanied with
> higher spending on primary education and basic, preventative healthcare
>will
> alow the Indian population to take advantage of the opportunities offered
>by
> globalisation.
>
>
> >From: Atul Kumar Gupta <atulg@rcf-fs.usc.edu>
> >Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> >To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> >Subject: Some Home Truths
> >Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:42:57 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >[from moderator: usually, only authors should send in their articles. If
> >you send in another person's article, pl. send in your comments on the
> >article ALONG with the article. This article, however, is superb and a
>must
> >read. So it goes thro'. ]
> >
> >SWAMINOMICS: Home truths for the President
> >
> >Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar
> >
> >Dear President Narayanan, Congratulations for telling us
> >some home truths in your address on the 50th anniversary
> >of the Indian republic. You rightly say that our moth-eaten
> >republic has fallen far short of the ideals set by its framers.
> >Forgive my rudeness if I point out that you yourself are a
> >prominent member of the system that has let us down so
> >badly.
> >
> >You rightly say that 50 years after becoming a republic, we
> >should be ashamed of our appalling poverty and illiteracy,
> >our mistreatment of women and social and religious
> >minorities, the erosion of accountability and criminalisation
> >of politics, the sad lack of justice or voice for the common
> >man. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the way public
> >servants treat the public, the manner in which we squander
> >or pollute precious reserves like water, the way we allow
> >children to be exploited and the disabled to be passed by,
> >all speak of a stony-hearted society, not a compassionate
> >one.
> >
> >But who is responsible for this state of affairs? On this you
> >have little to say, and what little you say is incomplete or
> >false. Many people, many political parties, many sections of
> >society are responsible for the mess we are in. But the
> >Congress Party has been at the helm of the country's affairs
> >for the overwhelming part of the last half-century, and must
> >bear the overwhelming share of the blame for the mess.
> >
> >You knew this when you retired from the foreign service.
> >Yet you joined the Congress. It was a passport to power.
> >You rose fast in its ranks, and this helped ultimately elevate
> >you to the Presidency. So you have done rather well by
> >joining a party which bears the most responsibility for the
> >stony- hearted mess that you decry in your Republic Day
> >address.
> >
> >This is a time for home truths. Too many of us have done
> >well by joining the existing system instead of opposing it
> >from outside; too many of us have compromised with
> >corruption, banditry and injustice because it helps us get
> >ahead. You are not the only one; I and many fellow
> >journalists are also guilty of making too many compromises.
> >But you are the President and we are not, so excuse me for
> >focusing on you in this column.
> >
> >You say the three-way fast lane of liberalisation,
> >privatisation and globalisation must provide a safe
> >pedestrian crossing for the unempowered. Fair enough. But
> >why do you not say that this very scepticism about
> >economic freedom was the excuse for imposing the neta-
> >babu raj which has ruined us? Or that you yourself were
> >part of and supportive of that same neta-babu raj which
> >castrated economic freedom? You fail to mention that
> >poverty and illiteracy dropped much faster in neighbouring
> >Asian countries that emphasised the very policies which you
> >now warn against. Left-wing intellectuals, among whom you
> >are counted, failed to see that outward-looking policies
> >would soon make Thailand 10-times richer than India,
> >Korea 30-times, and Singapore almost a hundred-times
> >richer. You leftists sneered at these countries for being
> >neo-colonial puppets. The supposed puppets have become
> >prosperous, literate and healthy, while the system you
> >espoused has failed on all three counts. I wish you had
> >talked about this home truth too.
> >
> >India today is a land without justice. Nobody is convicted
> >for corruption although it is omnipresent. Murderers and
> >thieves are not in jail, they are in Parliament. Law-breakers
> >have become law- makers. Why? For many reasons, but
> >one stands out: The dissipation of government energy on
> >issues other than the ones crucial for good governance. You
> >socialists saw the prime role of government as being the
> >ownership and control of industry and commerce. In your
> >eagerness to snatch economic control, you neglected
> >primary education and health, administrative fairness, legal
> >fairness, and all systems of accountability. Indeed, in the
> >name of protecting workers, you created a system where
> >no government employee could be sacked for
> >incompetence or corruption, thus encouraging both.
> >
> >In the holy name of socialism, Left-wing politicians imposed
> >a thousand controls, and then used these to line their
> >pockets and create patronage networks. In the name of
> >democracy, ministers obtained the power to transfer any
> >official at will, and then used this power to literally sell
> >lucrative transfers and make officials accomplices in political
> >crimes.
> >
> >All this was supposed to strengthen socialism and the
> >power of the state to do good. In fact it created the callous,
> >stone-hearted mess you now complain of. Merit and
> >excellence today do not count for much. Money, muscle
> >and influence count for much more. This has caused glaring
> >inequalities and injustice, not economic freedom. Bihar is
> >poor today not because it was neglected in Plan allocations,
> >not because it had insufficient quotas for dalits or tribals,
> >not because of liberalisation or globalisation, but because
> >governance there collapsed long ago and shows no sign of
> >reviving.
> >
> >This is the root cause of injustice, Mr Narayanan, and it
> >cannot be tackled just by quotas for dalits, tribals or
> >backward classes. Justice rests ultimately on good
> >governance, not on giving every community a quota in bad
> >governance and banditry. There is indeed a case for reverse
> >discrimination as a temporary measure, but there is a much
> >stronger case for meritocracy and good governance.
> >
> >Consider two prominent dalits, Mayawati and you.
> >Mayawati represents dalit power through quotas,
> >maladministration and a division of spoils. You represent
> >honesty, meritocracy and dignity. Which of you two
> >constitutes the better route to social justice? Your speech,
> >surprisingly, suggests that Mayawati is the superior route. I
> >much prefer you. I may criticise your policies, but cannot
> >fault your professionalism. You have risen to the top not
> >through quotas or reservations, but through professional
> >excellence. We badly need social justice, but this must
> >ultimately be achieved through good governance for all, not
> >a division of spoils among rogues of all communities. That is
> >a home truth I sorely missed in your Republic Day speech.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >This is the National Debate on System Reform.
>debate@indiapolicy.org
> >Rules, Procedures, Archives:
>http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.
>debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:
>http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <owner-india_policy@cinenet.net>
> Received: from rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (rly-zb03.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.3])
>by
>air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:41:50
>-0500
> Received: from tahoe.cinenet.net (ns1.cinenet.net [198.147.76.65]) by
>rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (v67_b1.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 21:41:26 -0500
> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by tahoe.cinenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21852
> for india_policy-list; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:30:47 -0800 (PST)
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 18:30:47 -0800 (PST)
> Message-Id: <200002010230.SAA21852@tahoe.cinenet.net>
> X-Authentication-Warning: tahoe.cinenet.net: majordomo set sender to
>owner-india_policy@cinenet.net using -f
> From: "Richard Parr" <rjparr@hotmail.com>
> To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject: Re: Some Home Truths
> Sender: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>
> >>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
>Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives: http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------