Shiners versus Whiners; it’s Economics, Stupid

I don`t agree with the basic assumption that the federal government was rejected. I think that people vote in MPs on the same grounds they vote in MLAs...local issues of development rather then a far reaching national vision. The same people who voted for a Congress MP out of khunnas for the sitting BJP one but may still have preferred Vajpayee as the national leader. If this is an indictment of anything, it is of the parliamentary system and demonstrates the need for a Presidential one.

Good analysis.

BJP indeed took two bulls by the horns, First, the Nuclear Issue and secondly, the Economic Turnround. With people like Brijesh Misra and Jaswant Singh, it would be naive to think that they brushed aside the spectre of being rejected by the poor masses. Pakistan under ayub too passed through a similar decade of neck breaking progress. However, in the capitalist, Harvard imposed system, the wealth got accumulated in few hands called the 22 families. Whether some one agrees or not, the mommentum of that cahnge continues to move Pakistan`s economy even today. On this account I feel that BJP put the interests of the country before the interestS of electoral politics and THREE CHEERS TO THEM!

I dont agree with the minimilist economic theory. I think BJP took a gamble.

Could we draw comparisons between the India of today and Pakistan of the 60s.

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

Harish:

...being in media one question for you...

--how come every pollster came up short?

(ok some follow up qeries too;))

--what changes would you/they envisage in future polling
--have the `un-washed` been polled with the `usual` accuracy before?

Nicely done Harish. Like I said in a related topic, when I saw the India being advertised on many Indian TV channels, I thought this was not the India I visited as a collage student back in the mid-80s. Had it really changed so much? It was just too unreal. As if all these channels and free-market economists were celeberating only a particuler subculture. And it was only this subculture that was shining. But the world only got to see this. This subculture pretending to be the new India. All of it. Alas, as my cynical, ``neo-Marxist`` sense had concluded, it was nothing but an elaborate cherade. Even a hoax of sorts. A farce. The lofty excitability of teenaged globalization fantasy. And I just loved the shocked expressions of most middleclass Indian urbanites. As if asking: ``Ab kya hoga? Hum phir sey old fashioned hojain gey?`` The truth is, mejority of Indians tho kabi ``modern`` hoey hi nahi thay.

rgds,
NfP

Yes, we in India have to trace everything to the ONE man who initiated the liberalization process.

According to you, Harish, it is Narasimha Rao. According to true-red Congresswallahs, it is Rajiv Gandhi.

I think we need to go further than that.

There would have been no Narasimha Rao but for that single sperm that fertilized the egg in his mama`s uterus.

Let us all worship at the altar of the sperm!

Wow, that REALLY explains the shiv ling, doesn`t it?

[The rising Indian middle class, then, was the salaried ‘whiner’ who complained of being the first target of all budgets. The educated losers formed a huge and inordinately influential majority. Though technically, Chidambaram`s Income Tax reforms had quietened them after he brought the taxation policy on par with South Asian nations, and even inspired the biggest Indian mop up of black money through his successful Voluntary Disclosure Scheme....]

Typical Indian clap-trap.

Pray tell us, exactly how much black money was held by the ``middle class`` of India? The salaried `whiners` had their income tax deducted at source -- meaning, from the paycheck.

It is the Birlas, the Singhanias, the Chhabrias, the Hindujas, the Ambanis -- the folks who owned the companies -- who could cook their books and not pay their share of the taxes.

You must have gone to the same school as Jairam Ramesh.

This is what I posted in ``India Votes``.

Many tend to think that the narrow vertical pockets of prosperity called SHINNING INDIA would face some reversal due to presence of the left and the electrol promise of the Congress. I feel that unlike the FABIAN SOCIALISM OF Nehru, India is now tied to the international economics, multinationalism and trans nationalism. Something like this will now be impossible to reverse. Secondly, with the WTO in force, it will not be possible to give subsidies in electricity etc to farmers, as it appears was the promise made in the electrol rallies. So would we see stronger opposition from India, China and South Africa in the next round of WTO talks. Perhaps this is how the internal aspirations and agendas will frame the political economy.This notwithstanding, India`s dependency on the West will increase.

I tend to agree with Tahmed. Afterall, on the same board, we had many friends who had shown unflinching faith in the permanance of the growth of Indian economy. Why do they feel so vulnerable now?

My assessment is that the new Government will not be able to deliver on all its promises. The motorway from Aghra to Delhi will go ahead and provide jobs to many people and invigorate local economies. Contrary to the criticism of the communist party, efficiency will show in shorter travelling times/less maintainance, rather than the cost of Toll Plazas.

So the future government will have to seperate the biases from stark realities/economic exegencies. If so be it, the backwash may cause the electrorate to loose the confidence, followed by early elections and BJP crawling back.

SO BEAWARE OF THIS BACKWASH. IT USUALLY COMES IN THE IDES.

cheeeerios India!

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

Gujju Bania:

Usually I disagree with you but heck, I am getting sick of Pakistani leftists exulting over the Commie victory in India. Gimme the Jamaat e Islami calling Hindus idol worshippers any day.

I would rather be condemned for being an idol worshipper then congratulated for my country electing Commies :(

the writer is on the mark.Middle class India doesn`t vote.They think it is beneath their dignity to stand in a line with their poorer brethren.They would rather utilize their holiday reading about Bill gates or some other white man who makes a lot of money.I just returned from a trip to India and i had to retch with disgust after spending time with the new breed of bourgeois-smarmy,oily,smug and bigoted.Cheap imitations of corporate kiss-asses in the developed world is what they all are.The common man always rules anywhere and he has in India.``He` not only gave that pompous old ass vajpayee a kick out the door he snubbed all the bourgeois by electing a naturalized indian christian woman from italy to lord it over all.Oh, how the oily, fat, bullying middle class indian matron must be fuming right now.hehe.reality check , folks .another fork in the road.

Harish:
Your analogy with Narsimha Rao`s defeat is quite apt. Then too, the ``shiners`` were surprised how a govt. that had opened up India could suffer such a humiliating defeat. As you pointed out, Narsimha Rao also became a victim of his own cunning. Since everyone at that time -as always- was complaining about corruption, he made it his own issue by the hawala transaction and, by roping in his known enemies within the Congress, tried to kill two birds with one stone. However, the hawala scandal rebounded on him.
It is a truism that poor people count more than the well-off in the Indian elections, both because they are more numerous and because they are more likely to exercise their vote than the better-off. Vajpayee`s boys should have paid more attention to what happened in the 1996 elections. They didn`t, and paid the price.

This is a time of conflicting emotions for me, on one hand I am happy to see Murli Manohar Joshi and his ilk go. But the fact that the commies have power sends a chill up my spine. I hope and pray that Manmohan Singh and P. Chitambram can fend them off.

Regards,

Faruk

Ijaz_Gul #2: ``Could we draw comparisons between the India of today and Pakistan of the 60s.``

I agree and I think we can make a comparison. Though I don`t know the internals of India, too well (perhaps I will become an expert after taking my one week trip to India). And I have no memory of the 60s in Pakistan. But I have read some on both subjects.

The 60s converted Pakistan, from the boondocks of South Asia, to easily its most successful economy. I have not seen much infrastructure built in Pakistan, in my lifetime, and have read that Pakistan had nothing in 47. So everything must have been built in the 60s. Pakistan was way behind India in 47. But was ahead of India by the 60s, in most everything that counts, except political systems and literacy rates, on a per capita basis.

Paksitan averaged 6.7% growth in the 60s. According to Shahid Burki, Pakistan was taught as a case study at Harvard. And according to Omar Noman, Pakistan would have been where Malaysia is today, or furthur ahead, had the economic policies of Ayub been continued, regardless of political turmoil. Pakistan was a potential Asian tiger, when the Asian tigers were still figuring out what to do.

Dictatorship with an efficient economic team and policy is the easiest way to economic progress. We are currently seeing this with the Musharraf/Shaukut Aziz combination (even BB accepts this). Much faster than under a democracy. However the benefit of democracy is that it acts as a safegaurd against complete destruction, which can happen, very quickly, under a dictatorship with bad economic policies. So democracy`s biggest benefit is that it avoids disaster, not that it promotes efficiency.

Is the scenario of the rich getting richer, and the poor remaining where they are better than a scenario where the rich get poorer and the poor remain where they are? Probably not? But to the poor, it may seem so. Hence they will vote for Communists in India, and kick out Ayub Khans in Pakistan i.e. either everyone gets rich, or no one should get rich.

Ayub Khan`s economic progress`s biggest problem was that the economic progress was divided along ethnic lines. West Pakistanis, as a whole, were getting richer, while East Paksitanis were not. I always felt the BJP`s biggest problem would be that Hindus would get rich and empowered and Mulsims would not. That would be as disastrous for India, as 71 was for Pakistan. Perhaps the recent result has stopped that trend. Then it is good for India.

On the other hand, I have looked long and hard to find third-world countries that have quickly made it out of the third world through democracies. And I really cannot find any. The only examples I can find are the Asian tigers and China. And all of them, made gigantic ecnomic progress under military or civilian dictatorships. And are only now becoming democratic, after making ecnomic progress.

Could it be that democracy, due to certain built-in checks and balances, while keeping a check on, ``terrible`` rulers, also makes economic progress a very slow and laborious process. Thereby keeping third world countries in the third world, for long periods of time. Because the initial economic progress in any country coming out of the third world will always go to the middle and upper class (which are always a minority in a third world country). It only later trickles down to everyone else. However, in a democracy, the poorer class end up voting out the, ``rich`` people, too quickly, thereby never allowing the economy to reach the take-off stage, where they can benefit also. Or making the journey to the take-off stage very slow.

I think some economist should do a detailed study, on how easy or difficult it is for third world countries to come out of the third world, through democratic systems of governance. Has any country done it? And why is it that an overwhelming majority that have come out of the third world economically, happen to have been non-democratic, at the time?

correcton #14: ``Is the scenario of the rich getting richer, and the poor remaining where they are better than a scenario where the rich get poorer and the poor remain where they are? Probably not? But to the poor, it may seem so.``

should be,

``Is the scenario of the rich getting richer, and the poor remaining where they are better than a scenario where the rich get poorer and the poor remain where they are? Probably. But to the poor, it may not seem so.

stuka #1: ``The same people who voted for a Congress MP out of khunnas for the sitting BJP one but may still have preferred Vajpayee as the national leader. If this is an indictment of anything, it is of the parliamentary system and demonstrates the need for a Presidential one.``

I have always wondered whethered a Presidential form of govt. is better for third world countries. Vajpayee seems to be easily the most popular leader in India. What to talk of India, he is popular in Pakistan also. Yet he may not even become the leader of opposition. In a Presidential system, one would guess, he would be the President, regardless of who won the provinces.

In Pakistan, I think Imran Khan is easily the most popular politician, nationally. If Presidential elections were held, he would defeat everyone easily. His only competition would be Benazir, and I think he would defeat her also. All other names like Chaudhry Shujaat, Jamali, Altaf Hussain, Nawaz Sharif etc. do not have nearly the national popularity nor credibility that Imran Khan has.

Yet in a Parliamentary system, he can just win one seat, and loses at the local level to names like Shujaat and Sharif - in fact, to even unknown names. Hence he will never be in a position of power, because his party can never win. Even though, amonsgt the current crowd, he would make the best leader for Pakistan. And if you poll Pakistanis, they will tell you that, but they will not vote for his party.......

Faruk

On this one count I am extremely happy. M.M. Joshi deserved to go. Good riddance.

But it`s the commies, anarchists, and Rahul-worshipping slaves who scare me....what good are these nuts? God help India.

Hi T-Bhai . . . let me try to tell you why I think the media got it wrong . . . actully even the political parties themselves got it wrong . . . being almost out of media, here is one answer for you . . . almost everyone of us from the chattering classes in India are currently quite consumed by our own brilliance . . . means we can hardly see the true lights outide . . . now over the last few years the politicians started believing the media and vice-versa . . . as a result they forgot one thing . . . the underdog (and a large percentage, say 75%??, of India`s population is still underdog?) jut decided that s/he would collectively show ``them`` how much smarter s/he was . . . so is this a ``spite`` vote then?

No, it is:-

a) Smart electoral mathematics. To figure that out, ask any true Bengali (non Ghotee) how voting is really organised in West Bengal by the loyal and effieicent cadre. That will explain a lot of the Communist seats.

b) For the rest, the maths of votes polled is . . . exquisite.

I think many Indians just got tired of the smug looks on the faces of some of our erstwhile beloved leaders, and decided to give others who had had time to wipe off previous smug looks another chance.

The key word here is, therefore, cyclical.

And the key ministry may well be -Environment & Forests- . . .

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

#18 by veeresh

On the other thread Arjun posted these numbers:
``INC 26.8%
BJP 22.1%

Interestingly, these were the figures in 99
INC 28.3%
BJP 23.75%``

Now, what it says here is that the INC or BJP almost matched numbers from 1999. In fact, INC got less. In this scenario, I think what worked for INC was better alliances this time and perhaps less candidate of INC itself.

I think this would be a good comparison:

How many seats INC contested this year vs. 1999. With less number of seats to contest, they (INC) probably had resource to concentrate on the seats where they had a good shot to win Vs. spreading their resource thin like they probably did in 1999. With better alliances, they eliminated vote split also.
Now this theory would disappear in thin air, if they contested exactly the same number of seats in both elections.
I just don’t see any earth shattering victory here. Somebody in INC just did some home work on numbers from 1999 and worked on a better strategy. Core votes for both parties show that the parties are about even in public’s eye. INC ended up with more seats due to good election strategy.

Gajjubania # 20

If I recollect correctly, you were neither with the Hinutva types (RSS,VHP) nor with the socialist and controlled-economy Kangress types.

You were with the 10% growth, globalization and Industrialization types.

Now you seem to have modified your stance towards Indian heritage linked with its religious philosophy as

``message of the Vedas and Upanisads is universal brotherhood and equal respect for all faiths and methods of worship. The culture and traditions of this ancient nation have nurtured these values and preserved them for posterity and for nations and societies deprived of the benefit of this kind spiritual discipline``

No one can take away the Indian history or heritage. But does this have to form a part of the Indian Ideology. I think India does not need it.

Simple Democracy is good enough as a method of social change and progress. The recent elections have actually re-corrected the dangerous ideological bent in one direction.

Christianity has already played itself out. Islam is undergoing the final painful pangs of getting rejected from the mainstream everyday life.

Let Hinduism remain in the background and play out its liberal ethos quietly as it has done for thousands of years.

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

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

Ralph # 17
BJP had won the election on a swadeshi plank and then supported the reforms once in power. The congress supports the reforms. The problem is containing the commies ….
Being a gandhi family chumcha has been a career option for a while in India. What can I say


Faruk

Romair,
One of the major reason cited by Ian Talbott in his book ``Inventing a Nation``, cites the unholy alliance between the industrials and the bureaucracy as the major reason for accumulation of wealth in 22 hands. There was corruption involved in the allocation of grants and soft loans.This could have been checked rathet than bring in socialism of Bhutto`s populism. It is Bhutto who rolled back the decade of progress from which we are still to recover.

Yes I tend to agree with your suggestion of the Oligo Economic model.

The new Government will have to face the dilemma, but I feel there will be no major reversal. They have Pakistan to learn from.

I also feel that now India will be more pressed for trade with Pakistan. Pursuance of economic policies will pacify security concerns. I hope it is so because we in Pakistan need a long economic break.

Cheerios

re:#16 by Romair
After 50 years, you guys still do not know what kind of democracy would suit you. Why don`t u debate with your compatriots for another 50 years and let us know what u think?
This is from Ayaz Amir`s column:
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/ayaz/ayaz.htm
Sridhar

re:#14 by Romair
Japan, with much help from USA, turned from a poor war ravaged nation into a highly industrialised nation. South Korea has transformed itself into a prosperous nation. So has Taiwan. All are democracies.
Sridhar

India`s two highest elected offices would soon be held by a Muslim, and by a Roman Catholic. It is like having a Christian elected to President of Pakistan, and a Hindu elected to become Prime Minister of Pakistan. I wonder if any Pakistani or any muslim intellectual would speculate on how long it will take for this to happen in Pakistan or in any muslim country. Failure to even venture should tell them the first problems to tackle.

Clearly this is a victory for the arrival of more than 1 billion world citizens from India into democracy. With this about 18% or world citizens do not live under democracy. Majority of them are in Muslim or African countries. This should indicate something to the readers at the Chowk.

Indian voters threw out Indira Gandhi, voted out Narsimha Rao, and elected the shiners to power, and now voted in the whiners into the power. With these election results, the voters have rejected TNT as preached by Modis of India. The power of Indian voters is clear. They do not applaud a general hijacking an elected head of state to put in a jail. A few days before Delhi went to vote, Modi on campaign trail in Delhi was asking that no one will rent a house to Sonia so how can the nation give her the Prime Ministership. Prior to the previous election, out seven seats from Delhi, BJP had 6, and Congress had 1. Even after Modi`s campaiging, BJP has 1, and Congress now has 6. 6-1, became 1-6, let us hope shiners of yesterday do not become whiners of tomorrow.

Another good aspect of such a transition is that, politician - bureaucratic corrpution nexus will break too. Now shiners have tasted the power, and while out of power and corrput nexus, will not wait to expose if the media will remain as vigilant and available as tehlka.com was.

The whiners now have power with all time highest foreign exchange reserves, and the largest job creation process underway in Indian history.

Therefore, their only mission should be ``India Delivers with Honesty``.

The best part of this result is that with it Hindutva has been cremated, and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi will soon depart with its ashes and ``Astrology in IITs`` to Allahabad for the immersion. A sobering sight for the leader of Allahabad. Also, with these election results, no power in the U.S., the Europe or elsewhere in the world would come forward and can to India ``Please deliver Kashmir to Pakistan or else``. Finally, India can persue its foreign policy based on economic reasons, rather than purely on geo-politics.

Regarding Harvard case studies. These can be purchased for about $2,500 each. Pakistani intellectuals should purchase it and read. Also they should read the case study on Turkey. Both Pakistan and Turkey, had dictatorships and all ingradients according to these cases. Both floundered. Whereas, Romair indeed is correct, Korea, Taiwan, even Muslim Malayasia and others continued to progress. These phenomena must be looked from what economy needs. It needs, stability and ability to create markets. Asian tigers provided stability and the U.S. first and later Europe provided the market. Both Pakistan and Turkey failed to follow this paradigm of stability and market creation. Both are emotional countries, unlike muslim Malayasia, where economic development was left in the hands of Chinese and Indian entreprenuers first. Can Paksitan leave its economy in the hands of entreprenuers? Who is going to tell Fauji Foundation to get out of business and let Punjabi entreprenuers create post partition Delhi phenomena? Faujis only job should be to provide stability nothing more nothing less. This is my opinion on Pakistan from my arm chair.

Anil Kapuria

thank you sir veeru:

..tho` must confess am more still confused...;)...you need to elaborate for a simpleton like me... and i see harish is still in hibernation...

---

gujjubania:

...my first post to you...if you do not mind... despair not...it is not the end of the world...the growth will continue if not at 10.5 maybe above 9.0 (don`t quote me;))...growth has its own momentum...and it will still be higher than most regional countries...

Expect Gandhi to continue peace talks, and cricket matches, with Muslim Pakistan.

Expect resistance to American hegemony in the Middle East. Gandhi`s Congress party has traditionally been pro-Arab. Expect economic collaboration with the U.S. to continue, with one caveat: American corporations and the World Bank will face tougher negotiations.

from my friend haroon siddidiqui

rgds,

t

``With this about 18% or world citizens do not live under democracy. ``

18% should be 28%. My apologies for the typographic mistake.

Anil

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

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

Dear Anil,

Hi. Hope life is treating you well. Post # 28 was interesting and an informative read.

Regards.

> Pakis who think the NDA lost because of the muslim vote are like pakis who think they make the sun set when they close their eyes....


:)

Faruk #24
The question now is, is it better if the Left is in the government or outside.

democracy folks..until the law is changed to prohibit foreign-born persons from holding office there`s nothing that can be done to prevent the same...the commies will have to support the govt. from the outside as they have no choice...joining the govt. would go against their ideology as the new govt. will continue the same policies as set forth by successive govts. since 1990...maybe what has happened in india will force other nations to review or change their policies and allow foreign born citizens to hold high office...whatever way we look at it,india is once again in the news making us more enigmatic and intriging to the rest of this planet...india is a nation of contrasts and contradictions and that`s where its` strength really lies...we defy all predictions and still survive.

Anil#28 -sayz

{The whiners now have power with all time highest foreign exchange reserves, and the largest job creation process underway in Indian history.

Therefore, their only mission should be ``India Delivers with Honesty``. }

This is the most telling part of it all. Fundementally all right wing govts make the money. the left wingers do the job creation. Thatcher and the tories did it in enGLAND - with labour providing the jobs. Reagan did it with CLinton doing the job creation bit.

Now let us see what the left is made of.....

T-Bhai . . . how it goes is like this:- every once in a while, the brilliance of my leadership shines so vividly that I can not see too well as my sycophants go about giving me selected free prawns at the buffet or placing red and blue lights on top of my car or stuff like that.

This works in management theory, because it is not the blue/red lights but the balance sheet that will bring me down.

This works in dictatorships because soon too there are to many people for too few free prawns.

But in democracy, every now and then, the term as used in Calcutta is `` I will show you rascal fellow you nonsense``.

What happened to the BJP is something like that.

``These phenomena must be looked from what economy needs. It needs, stability and ability to create markets. Asian tigers provided stability and the U.S. first and later Europe provided the market. Both Pakistan and Turkey failed to follow this paradigm of stability and market creation. Both are emotional countries, unlike muslim Malayasia, where economic development was left in the hands of Chinese and Indian entreprenuers first. Can Paksitan leave its economy in the hands of entreprenuers?``

This is a comment, bordering on racism.

Malaysians were and are successful because of Muhathir`s leadership, and sound economic policies. If it was due to Indian and Chinese entreprenuers, than one would think that those entrepreneurs would have been successful in India and China first. Any entreprenuer of any ethnicity will be successful, anywhere, provided he/she is given the right environment. It has nothing to do with his Indainness or Chineseness.

Turkey is still much wealthier, on a per capita basis, than Pakistan and India. And Pakistan`s privatization collapsed because Bhutto was voted in on, ``roti kapra makan`` and nationalized everything. It didn`t have anything to do with emotionalism. He was just pleasing the poor voters, much like the Congress may have to.

Have you done any research on Pakistan`s economy in the 60s, or are you just shooting from the hip (also)?

``Both are emotional countries,`` is an odd analysis. Who do you think controlled Pakistan`s economy in the 60s, other than entreprenuers. Who built the banks and hotel chains and industry houses? It wasn`t the govt.

In the 60s, Pakistan was booming. But the rich got richer, and the poor did not, or got poorer. Eventually the poor would have gotten richer also. But the cycle was broken, because the poor were fed-up and could not wait. So Bhutto came in with a socialist agenda, and nationalised everything. Pakistan has yet to recover from that.

The Communist vote now in India will have a lot of influence. The recent vote has obviously rejected the urban boom. And the stock market has rejected the recent vote. An 11% drop in the Stock market is no joke. 126,000 crore ruppees being wiped off, in hours, is no joke. 100,000 crore being wiped off the day before, is no joke either.

I think the next few years will be interesting for India. Will it slow down privatization, or will it continue.

The world has seen that it is extremely difficult to impose massive privatization in a country, with huge numbers of poor people, and has some sort of democratic system. As Pakistan discovered in the late 60s. India`s difference between rich and poor (Ginni index) is even larger, today, than Pakistan`s.

This is what needs to be studied. How do elections in third world countries help or hinder economic booms. And why is it that the countries that come out of the third world quickly, all happen to have done it without elections? Is it a coincidence?

Ijaz_Gul #23: ``It is Bhutto who rolled back the decade of progress from which we are still to recover......Yes I tend to agree with your suggestion of the Oligo Economic model......The new Government will have to face the dilemma, but I feel there will be no major reversal. They have Pakistan to learn from.``

I think this is an area that needs to be studied. I wonder if any detail research has been done into it.

Traditionally economic progress has been a very slow phenomenon. It took Western civilizations genarations, over centuries, to go from being poor to get to a point where everyone was looked after. During this process, the established democracy also. Perhaps democracy assisted in the economic growth, albeit at a very slow pace. In addition, they had a lot of income coming in from their dictatorships in their colonies also.

However, after WWII, we saw countries come out of the third world, very quickly, within decades. There are two trends that seem to stand out, in this. One group progressed due to oil wealth, i.e. they struck the lottery. This included Saudi Arabia, UAE. The other group made genuine economic progress, to came out of the third world. This includes the Asian Tigers, and China. All of these did so under civilian or military dictatorships.

The third world countries that have successfully or unsuccessfully tried democracy, before getting economic stability, are still stuck in poverty. This includes countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Even Cuba, with its communist dictatorship is so far ahead of Pakistan and Indian on the HDI, that it isn`t even funny (I don`t know if Indians and Pakistanis realize this).

Is the above a mere coindence? Or does it indicate something? That is not to say that all dictatorships lead to economic progress. Most probably do not. But all third world democracies certainly have not, led to economci progress. At least, not yet.

I think third world democracies, even succesful ones like India`s, by design, can only guarantee slow, though steady, progress. But not quick progress. They have too many in-built contradictions, to allow that.

For a country to get rich quickly, first and foremost there has to be a way for the rich to get richer. They will only set up big business houses if they know they can get richer faster in their home country, than abroad. These business houses will employ the middle educated and uneducated class, and it will get richer in the next stage. Only after all of this has happened, will the country have enough money to ensure that all the poor get rich also.

This is a long process, and in it, the poor eventually get frustrated, because they see the gap between them and the rich growing. Poor people don`t get angry, if everyone is poor, or as poor as them, in a society. They get angry, when they see some people are rich in a society. Non-democratic govts. like China`s, have been able to get their countries through this hump, through force. They did not let the poor or the revolutionaries rise and break this cycle, through their, ``Tianimun Squares.`` Cbina will now soon reach the stage where the poor will benefit also.

However, democratic or semi-democratic ones like India and Pakistan, have not been able to do so. Pakistan was almost through the stage by the late 60s. However, Bhutto, came in democratically, and to satisfy the voters, had to nationalize everything. Had that not happened, regardless of ethnic violence, dictatorships, Islamism and what not, Pakistan would have been Malysia, or somewhere close by. And then violence etc. would have automatically come down, minoriteis would have gotten more rights etc. because the pie would be bigger.

India, being more democratic, reached this take-off stage thirty years after Pakistan. Pakistan reached it quicker, because of a dictatorship. But India`s situation, one would assume, is based on more stable social structures, because it reached it with democracy.

However, has the same thing just happened in India, that happened in Pakistan in the 70s?

It is all well and good to talk about Manmohan Sing and what not. But what can Manmohan do, if the Communist party withdraws its support if privatization is continued? One could assume that the Communist party changes its thought process, but then it would cease to be Communist. And one could assume that the Congress govt. will ignore its voters. But isn`t that why the voters elected Communists and Congress into power, i.e. they don`t want the rich to get richer, and want their own lot to improve in the short term, even if makes India poorer in the long term, i.e. the same thing that happened to Pakistan in the 70s........

This will be a good case study........

Romair,
All this has been well studied and we do not need to re invent the wheel. An economic model built around dictatorships or its various shades is a case of pure economics that concentrates on growth at one hand and leaves out the people at another. It curbs the evolution of a strong civil society and therefore is not sustainable. When you talk of Japan, South Korea etc then do not forget the role of IBRD, Marshal Plan and the huge influx of grants and Aid from the West. These models and that of Pakistan in the 60s were primarily promoted to contain communism. I feel, discussing such airy fairy concepts is now totally out of place.

Economics and civil society have to go togather and this has always been my theme of Socio Economic Development. 90s onwards, India has made strides in vertical pockets and somehow the electorate feels dissatisfied. What need discussion is why so, and would there be a propensity for the new government to dilute the present pace and divert more to the common man.Would the non productive public sector units still be privatised and would productivity and the lower strata of society be granted subsidy. Coupled is also the political economy of religion, economic classes, caste system and fundamentalism.

Should we also conclude that the Indian success story was blown a bit out of propotion. After all on Fox News we only saw a makeshift Juggat Vehicle, use of calculaters for weighing milk and cane sugar, and softwares for Pooja as the forebearers of revolution. This may be some indication.

Romiar (#39):

````...unlike muslim Malayasia, where economic development was left in the hands of Chinese and Indian entreprenuers first. Can Paksitan leave its economy in the hands of entreprenuers?...``

``This is a comment, bordering on racism.``

Since when leaving economy in the hands of entreprenuers is racist? I thought you knew about Malayasia a little more than you showed in your comment ``... bordering on racism``. You might like to read the history of Malayasia, and wil find that British, there had a very deliberate policy to develop Chinese as entreprenuers and Indians as babus (who by default got educated and became entreprenuers sooner than bumi-putra Malays), and also brought plantation workers from South India. According to Malayasian Chinese, one would have hard time finding a Malay entreprenuer. They joke their that IC industry stands for Indian and Chinese industry. Now this is certainly racist, would you agree?

It probably will come as a rude shock to you that majority of Malayasia`s private industrial base is owned by these Chinese entreprenuers. Believe it or not, even as of late 90s, the last time I visited that part, the bulk of private wealth in Malayesia was still in the hands of Chinese entreprenuers. Even before Mahathir there was a leader named Tunku Abdul Rehman, both Malayesian leaders followed policy to provide stability that economy needs. My question, Can Pakistan leave its economy to entreprenuers was intentional (certainly not racist) in ommission of ethnicities.

Provide stability and tools for market creation, and let entreprenuers do the job.

``Turkey is still much wealthier, on a per capita basis, than Pakistan and India. And Pakistan`s privatization collapsed because Bhutto was voted in on, ``roti kapra makan`` and nationalized everything. It didn`t have anything to do with emotionalism. He was just pleasing the poor voters, much like the Congress may have to.``

Turkey is much wealthier beacuse it had Ottoman Empire doing what you suggested elsewhere European Empire did with their occupied colonies. Study how much new wealth Turkey has created, remarkably you will find notoriously very little new wealth, just as you will discover French economy created very little new wealth since the loss of their colonies. Allow me to share an anectodal account. P. Chidambaram, being HBS alumni, had come to meet an alumni group in Silicon Valley, while he was in power at the beginning of the Indian reforms and commerce minister of India. He commented that he and Turkey`s commerce minster were talking, and Turkish minister was commenting on Indian reform process that just wait till Indian rupee keeps devaluing and inflation sky rockets due to reforms, just as it has happened in Turkey. Do you know why India did not follow Turkey instead followed China on macro indicators? India like China showed real growth in GDP, whereas Turkey could not. That is because of internal markets of India and China are quite massive. Per capita GDP is good, but to total is GDP is true wealth of a nation.

``Have you done any research on Pakistan`s economy in the 60s, or are you just shooting from the hip (also)?``

I do not know what ``.... the hip (also)?`` means here. I would suggest that please keep your private parts to yourself.

My comment about Pakistan and Turkey being emotional countries is a comment of my Professor at HBS during his BGIE (Big Government and Industrial Economies) class during which he asked class to discuss Turkey and Korea`s development. Pakistan discussion was not a subject but was in context of Turkey. Likewise Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore were not subjects but were discussed in contrast to Korea. However Taiwan and Hong Kong were entreprenuer driven, whereas earlier Japan, later Korea, and Singapore were not entreprenuerial in the early stage of their development.

Regarding, stability and market creation is basic economics, coming from producer-consumer model. One cannot produce at a place which is not place is not stable. The same is true on the consumer side of the equation also.

``In the 60s, Pakistan was booming. But the rich got richer, and the poor did not, or got poorer. Eventually the poor would have gotten richer also. But the cycle was broken, because the poor were fed-up and could not wait. So Bhutto came in with a socialist agenda, and nationalised everything. Pakistan has yet to recover from that.``

Ten year is too short in nations economic development for to say whether Pakistan was booming. Just as 13 years in India is too short to say economic development has arrived. However, there are indeed certain macro and micro indicators that point to a trend. Chinese economy continues to create the rich-poor gap wider than probably Pakistan`s entire economy. Jobs are the mechanism to distribute wealth. This also creates a middle class that strengthens the economy and political process of democracy however defective that may be.

Whippinized (#37) has said that job creation by the left. Wealth creation has to follow by the job creation for distribution followed by more wealth creation and more job creation. So does the economic up turn cycle goes. The economic down turn, follows the reverse, jobs disappear first. About three years ago, my friend, Kanwal Rekhi, an avid pro-marketer had predicted a left of center government to come in power in India. Distribution of wealth is important part of the ballot power of democratic process.

Communist vote in India will have less influence than the communist have on Chinese economy. Their staying out of government, in my view, is healthy for India. They do not have the power to bring the government down, Congress`s rigid policies in the past brought their down fall. Congress and BJP can very easily cooperate to keep stbility going for job creation momentum going. Even Congress selectively supported BJP, when Jaya Lalitha (I believe) bolted out.

Elections don`t help or hinder economic boom. They are merely an a method of distribution of power and wealth. I do ardently believe in them. Greece was run by Colonels, and Spain was run by a dictator, and so was Portugal. These three are among the poorest of the European countries and distribution of wealth is very skewed as well. Italy on the other hand have not been able to provide stabile government despite being democratic, and suffers from animic growth in GDP. These amplify that stability is more important.

I do not think privatization will slow down. The center in India controls only 50% of the GDP, the rest of the GDP is controlled by the states. Reforms at state level are needed, especially among the laggard states like Bihar, U.P., and Orissa with negative growth rate in GDP. Laloo Prasad and others from the laggard states may be needed. Ram Vilas Paswan, a union leader, when made the telecommunications minister, helped in privatization and break up of telecommunication monopoly without a strike. In democracy many times, Labor in England could do what Tories could not do with the unions. Similarly, I feel, making Mehbooba Mufti the home minister would be right to restore and bring Indian Kashmiris back with dignity into the Indian tent.

Anil

Re : sadna # 34
I think the best-case scenario is that the communist are not in a position to bring the govt., that might happen if all the other parties join the congress bandwagon. On the other hand the communist have been trying to attract industry to west Bengal.

Regards,

Faruk

#39..romair..i agree with you...you have made an objective assessment...however as far as malaysia is concerned it is a democracy...malaysia is much smaller than india though it too follows a policy of integration rather than exclusion based on race or religion...the tamils from india form the largest indian minority and have representation in govt. and tamil is considered an official language along with malay, chinese and english...same in singapore...the president is a tamil...the tamils trace their ancestry to the state of tamilnadu in india...the indian experiment is a gigantic, multiracial and complex one..that we have survived so long as one nation is in itself a triumph for all to see...that stability has to be maintained regardless of govt. change is a concept that only now has seeped into the consiousness of the political class...right now we see manipulation of the market and threatening utterances by the BJP...you will see that as time goes things will settle down till the next round comes about...multinationals rule the seas and that is something that we in south asia have yet to come to grips with...we like all the nice things that modernity might bring , yet we rarely seem to be willing to pay the price...the west made its` peace with progress a long time ago...

the best road to take is always the middle road and any govt. that wants to survive has to pursue a policy of aggressive liberalization tempered with sops to those sectors such as agriculture and public sector undertakings....these sops are the cost of doing business and a portion of that cost can be passed on or absorbed by the multinationals that profit tremendously by investing in huge markets such as india,brazil and china...look at the subsidies awarded to the agricultural sector in the US...pure pork as they say here...the BJP govt. missed the wood for the trees and they surely paid the price for it..i hope the congress doesn`t repeat the same mistake all over again...

Ref Romair #39

[``These phenomena must be looked from what economy needs. It needs, stability and ability to create markets. Asian tigers provided stability and the U.S. first and later Europe provided the market. Both Pakistan and Turkey failed to follow this paradigm of stability and market creation. Both are emotional countries, unlike muslim Malayasia, where economic development was left in the hands of Chinese and Indian entreprenuers first. Can Paksitan leave its economy in the hands of entreprenuers?``

This is a comment, bordering on racism.

Malaysians were and are successful because of Muhathir`s leadership, and sound economic policies. If it was due to Indian and Chinese entreprenuers, than one would think that those entrepreneurs would have been successful in India and China first. Any entreprenuer of any ethnicity will be successful, anywhere, provided he/she is given the right environment. It has nothing to do with his Indainness or Chineseness.]

Malaysia`s growth was due to oil and natural resources. Without oil from Sarawak, Malaysia would be another third-rate, third-world backwater.

Why is it that you cite the progress of Malaysia but not that of Brunei? Brunei is floating on oil and has been pumping it out as fast as it can. Its per capita income is probably higher than that of Malaysia.

In case you didn`t know it, Brunei is ruled by a Muslim sultan.

So start quoting Brunei in the future.

Ejaz Gul # 41

(An economic model built around dictatorships or its various shades is a case of pure economics that concentrates on growth at one hand and leaves out the people at another. It curbs the evolution of a strong civil society and therefore is not sustainable)

Fully Agree.

And the Chinese case has yet to be finally decided. So far, they have played it rather well. But the end game towards a fully democratic society has yet to be played out.

So far, I will place my bets on India. They may be slower than China but are way ahead on their political freedoms and the strength of their civil society.

Does Sonia`s refusal to opt as PM and cancellation of the agenda on Srinagar-Muzzafarabad Bus Service mean that it finds itself in a Hobson`s Choice/Prisoner`s dilemma, created by the crafty BJP.

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

Why do guys have to grumble if BJP was booted out by the indian people from power? We have to accept the fact that they lost because the majority of the country did not share their sentiments and claims of having done shining work in distributive justice and providing equitable benefits for greatest number of people across all the classes.
Perhaps their campaign itself was defective- not highlighting the short comings of the state governments in making negative contribution towards the efforts of the central government confused the voters- since every small lapse and ommission on part of the state governments in contributing to the miseries to the man on street was wrongly construed as a refutation of the india shining claims of the NDA.

Still, the best riposte to the India shining campaign was that TV clip which showed an un-employed youth striking down the claim of shining india and then making a resolve -`` Is baar to mujhe hi kuch karna hoga...`` -that sums up the resolve-

Thanks to all the citizens of my country! You are all wise guys, I love you all! Thanks for getting rid of rascals like Yashwant Sinha and Advani from the North and South Blocks! And thanks for NOT giving Sonia a full majority and letting their old rivals -the commies- to keep checks and balances on them!!!

Anil seems to be giving the correct idea.

Romair, here is an example (we see it everyday on Chowk not withstanding your rather naive comments)

Veereesh/arjun_m and farzy_gal/dost_dude are just two sides of the same coin. Flip them you get to see the same story or different stories. But the unerlying facts/themes are the same.

India is steaming ahead and this change is an attempt to get the people lagging behind up to steam.

As they say full steam ahead - congress/left, BJP/right are the two hands of the country and they are both needed to hear the GREAT CLAP OF THUNDER from India.

re: Harish

This was a really interesting article.

Politicans on the whole do tend to ignore the common sense of an average voter. Occasionally, the politicans make a mistake by failing to understand the power of the politics of the stomach. Just like Pakistan is not a collection of a handful of cities, India is not the sum of its many cities. India lives, works and dies in its countless villages.

Ciao

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

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

Ijaz_Gul #41: ``All this has been well studied and we do not need to re invent the wheel. An economic model built around dictatorships or its various shades is a case of pure economics that concentrates on growth at one hand and leaves out the people at another. It curbs the evolution of a strong civil society and therefore is not sustainable.you talk of Japan, South Korea etc then do not forget the role of IBRD, Marshal Plan and the huge influx of grants and Aid from the West``

Could you point me to some studies on this.....

I don`t think aid is the deciding factor in all of this. Neither is the dictatorship. In fact, most dictatorships lead to ruin, hence this is obviously unsafe as a long term phenomenon. But it is an undeniable fact that countries that have pursued elections, have and are, taking a long time to get out of the third world. While the ones that have gotten out, have had efficient civilian or military dictatorships. One cannot deny this reality. It doesn`t justify dictatorships, but it should be anlayzed.

Pakistan has received a lot of aid. Marshall Plans went to Germany, not to Hong Kong and Malaysia. Japan is a different story. It was not a third-world country. But what about China and Singapore and Taiwan etc. There economies certainly are not leaving out anyone. The average citizen of these countries is far wealthier than the average citizen of South Asia. In some cases upto ten to twenty times as wealth. And they have a much stronger and sustainable society.

I think economic policies and human rights have to be given as much importance as democracy and elections, when evaluating govts; specifically in case of third world countries. The former have much more weight in creating a civil society than democracy or elections do. In fact, the whole purpose of holding elections and having democracy is to get to the end goal of high economic standard and human rights for citizens. These are the end goals, while elections are just a means of getting there.

If the end goal is not being achieved, then the means require a re-think, in the case of third world countries, to try to figure out what is wrong. Just because something works in Germany and Lichtenstein, does not automatically mean, it will work in South Asia......

Talbott Ian, ``Inventing a Nation``
Hassan Gardezi, ``Pakistan, the Unstable State``
Suggest go look up some libraries and do some reading.
Its otherwise pointless to discuss.
My interact at #47 is far more important.

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

Ballukhan:

I am happy that Manmohan Singh is the PM. I did not want Sonia as PM. Basically, the Gandhi family presides over the Congress party by bringing out the worst sentiments of Iindians. No doubt, BJP does the same. But Vajpayee was a statesman. But Manmohan is PM so that is all good.

Now, in fact, the only thing I am unhappy about is what you seem to celebrate. The rise of leftists. Hmm, I don`t know what your economic agenda is but I would be surprised if you like Leftists agenda.

Anyways, I am also surprised that u are happy about Yashwant Sinha and Advani being kicked out? Why? The one I am happy about being kicked out is that idiot MM Joshi. Yashwant Sinha did a tolerably fine job as foreign minister tho he was no patch on Jaswant Singh.

I really am missing something. Why is Murli Manohar Joshi being called names? He doesn`t seem any worse than your average indian politician.Please don`t tell me it`s about the IIMs feeling threatened. Like they`re so important that everyone has sinister designs on them.What are they, the KGB?

NB:

astrology in IITs???

Ref stuka #59

[NB:

astrology in IITs???]

Can you tell me which IIT offers a course in Astrology? Is it one subject, or is it a major for a BTech, MTech or even PhD?

If you do not have facts to back up your statement, you should withdraw it instead of repeating mindlessly the propaganda of the Left.

While you are at it, would you demand that the BUMS degree course (Bachelor of Unani Medical System) should be withdrawn from various universities? Or do you believe that it is okay for Indian Muslims to have medical care based on no provable scientific principles?

There`s BUMS and BAMS..I think if these are traditional systems of medicine, they do deserve a trial before we decide they`re no good.
Equally, I think if people what to study Vedic mathematics at university, they should be able to do so. You can do a Bachelors in Jewish studies at many universities-not in India, of course. You should be able to do papers on the Koran, and again I think you can at some American universities. You can study theology at Oxford. What is wrong with studying the Vedas? I`m not so sure about astrology, but how do we say it doesn`t work if we don`t study it? I have been told some really spooky stuff by people who couldn`t possibly know. There have been papers in the British Medical Journal about complementary medicine, including massage and aromatherapy. How do we find anything new and keep a knowledge base going if we don`t study it? Being a scientist is all about keeping an open mind.
Astrology isn`t at the IITs though. That I`m sure of!
Why do we need to look down on indigenous knowledge? Arundhati Roy talks about respecting tribal knowledge-why not also respect ayurvedic principles that are thousands of years old? Why do we need to think our ancestors were so clueless? Isn`t that a product of a colonised mind? It doesn`t surprise me that Marxists do this so well because Marx himself thought India needed colonisation and the British were good for India. Of course, the CPM doesn`t announce this when it goes campaigning...