The Argumentative Amartya?

Oh another typical moslem crap...Mr. Sen is very brilliant and he is true global citizen with vast knowledge about Indian civilisation. Whether he is awarded with Noble or not, that does not matter. When the administration fears of public voice, you can not suppress people to a level that they will not survive. That is the beauty of empoering people.

The Witness

The bailiff’s raucous shout brought me back to reality with a start –

“Amartya Sen, haazir ho….!!!’

“The accused is already present here, your honor!”

I turned around to get a better look at my accuser – the sight was anything but inspiring. She flashed me a smile – the teeth appeared crooked – everything in that courtroom appeared so crooked.

The judge glared at both of us – he did not look friendly at all – he firmly held a mallet in one hand and was busily flipping through a printed book – at first glance it looked like Samuelson’s text book – but later I found out it was the latest edition of copyright laws. I had a feeling the judge had some serious problems with it – for one thing, he was holding it upside down!

“Who the hell are you and how come you became my accuser anyway?!”

“My dear, don’t worry about me. The focus is on you! You are the one being charged here!”

“And what the heck am I being charged of… and come to think of it….where the heck am I?”

“You want charges? I’ll read you the charges!”

The lady prosecutor appeared ready to tear somebody up! I suddenly came to the uncomfortable realization that somebody could be me. She was in full steam. She turned to the judge.

“Your honor, the crimes of this heinous creature are just too many to enumerate. Just look at him!”

All eye turned toward me suddenly. I was not ready – I was just about to start picking my nose – my mouth stayed open with surprise as words – like hot oil – were poured all over my head!



“I denounce that he did not renounce.”

“Why the heck did he have to write that book, so that I would have to read it!”

“He creates imaginary allegories – they should have been real allegories – or at least reel allegories! He sits on the fence – how dare him! And how dare he exploit our poverty and not be accused of it himself. How dare he be politically-correct – what’s wrong with being incorrect?”

“He never hung around to talk about the muck in my backyard from my backyard.”

“Why the hell could he not be like John Nash and spend two decades getting psychiatric treatment?”

“Am I saying that you have to be a little ‘mad’ to be brilliant? No. I firmly believe you can be mad without being brilliant – this court is full of such creatures!”

“Paying taxes is voodoo!”

I looked on in amazement!

“This beastly creature – he actually pays taxes where he legally resides!”

“Why could he not sweat like a pig himself?”

For a moment, I had a sinking feeling. Little did I know I had some defenders rooting for me, too. One of them interjected –

“Objection, your honor! What is the big deal with the green stuff…. Don’t we all like it?”

Another one stated – “Your honor – she is simply green with envy!”

A rowdy member of the audience chimed in “She is also all green inside!”

“What a waste of flesh…. Bring on that searchlight!” Somebody murmured, looking at me.

What appeared to be a deranged little lady with a lapdog chimed in – “At least you are alive! Just look at me!”

The little lapdog growled – “some strange love…”

The bailiff held her back forcibly – ma’m, this ain’t your show – you have had your chance and you turned tail faster than a cat on a hot tin roof!

The lapdog went – “woof!”

A snotty professor-type from some small town jumped in – “Don’t read her words – read BETWEEN her lines – so what if it looks empty there – I can see it – I can MAKE myself see it – and this guy is all WRONG – after all, he was born on the wrong side of the border! That Nobel was rightfully mine – now where did I put away that bottle!”

He started a desperate search through all his hiding places.

A librarian-type jumped in – “I don’t like your summary!” He threw a book at the prosecutor – “Here, eat Tharoor!”

A man holding an axe turned to me and whispered – “You must be peeing in your pants reading this autopsy of your life long work.” His gaze went lower – I suddenly felt very uncomfortable.

The mullah said – “Stop the bak bak! I truly don’t understand it – what’s Economics?!”

The courtroom was stunned – nobody had a clue to that baffling question – many hadn’t even crossed the threshold of zero percent interest rates!

But it was not long before the arguments resumed.

“You are facetious” – said a reporter. She pretended to ignore it!

The librarian threw another book at her. It went over her head.

The librarian went into a frenzy – as if a rabid dog had bit him. He threw a bunch of books at her. They all went over her head.

He wondered – “what to do next, what to do! It does not work – nothing works with this lawyer! Maybe I can throw in some pics – maybe THAT will open some eyes”!

He looked at the judge struggling with the copyright laws book. He resisted the impulse!

The judge continued to pore over the copyright book – he could use the services of a good lawyer, to advise him – or at least to wake him up!

The snotty professor-type from the small town spoke up – “Your honor, it is all the fault of the HH crowd – he should have converted to the right faith right away – preferably before he had the ability to decide for himself!”

Nobody paid him much attention – everybody was exchanging gaali-galauz at the lady prosecutor’s expense – the atmosphere was getting paradoxically festive – except perhaps for the lady prosecutor!

The prosecutor projected a hurt look, evidently the pain was a nuisance – this was supposedly a crowning moment – expose the big prize and the big catch of the season – to be bared, denuded, sliced, diced, and spliced – the hearty meal of the season to swallow!

Not the occasion to wallow – with no gain – only low pain!

The lady prosecutor turned to the judge and asked in an incredulous voice – “They expect me to be NICE!” She stomped out in a huff!

It was almost five – evidently the time to go home – the session was coming to a virtual end. Suddenly, loud explosions were heard outside – many people cleared out in a hurry – perhaps only to regroup elsewhere.

And then the scariest creature I had ever seen showed up just outside the door – perhaps also one of the most impudent creatures around – he showed zero respect for the authority of the court or for any of its pillars!

“And where the heck have you been – it’s almost night, Mr. Knight!” the judge looked ready to eat him alive.

That scary creature smiled – it was easy to see that he was no professional lawyer – perhaps not even a professional anything – he looked like he had hastily stepped out right in the midst of an unfinished job – perhaps cleaning toilets.

He stank so!

“Your honor, this is a court of law – or perhaps more accurately, your neighborhood chowk of law – I was just confusing the neighborhood with a plain hood! This is the chowk, where it is easy to loose way – for no matter how often the paths meet, they always continue to go their own respective ways.”

He said to me – “Don’t worry, you will be okay – those thrashings notwithstanding!”

I looked at him – suddenly, a ray of suspicion emerged.

“You DO know something of Economics – don’t you?”

“Not really, but nor does anybody else here….”

“What are you – a janitor?”

“At the moment, I am just another witness – moonlighting as the court reporter!”

I slumped back into the chair. As I looked overhead the sign in red near the entrance could be read bright and clear.

“Abandon hope – all who enter here!”

I closed my eyes. The clock struck five! They all left.

I was still alive!

#85 by godot

[He says ``mmmwwwwaaaahhhh`` to you and loves you without your dhoti...which is fluttering on a pole in Kashmir.]

Awwww...still no response? You`ve got to try harder beta. Did you follow my suggestion? If you did and there`s still no response, then I`m sorry, I can`t help you.

Re: # 84

Harish

He says ``mmmwwwwaaaahhhh`` to you and loves you without your dhoti...which is fluttering on a pole in Kashmir.

#61 by godot

[He actually despises me and hates my guts.]

Aww..feeling shattered about your feelings not being reciprocated? Never mind, its not the end of the world.

[But he loves the dhoti-clad...without their dhotis, that is.]

Try wearing a dhoti, you`ll then get the attention you`re so desperately clamoring for.

#59 by kaalchakra

[One shouldn`t let any hypothetical ``ideal`` or ``the best`` become the enemy of the reasonably good. People who fall into the habit of letting that happen, become depressed, socially or intellectually paralyzed, or instinctively anti-social. Sometimes they even become dangerous. ]


One shouldn`t let inane circumambulations become the enemy of his/her otherwise moronic pseudo-pedantic utterances made in a faux philosohical vein.

Because it becomes clear to others that the vagueness is a convenient attempt to deny critical accusations that may be forthcoming.


Another way to put this is - if you have to pontificate, have the courage to do so in a more direct manner.

the article is definitely a personal attack on sen. nowhere does the author display even a basic understanding of development economics. instead of going about in a round about manner about somebody you dislike in an article like this she should have just stated what the real grouse is. but then that wouldn`t be bitchy enough to attract the readership... wouldn`t it?

Re: #80

[Pakistan denounces New Delhi bombings as ``terrorism``]



South Asia Analysis Group

Paper no.283
24. 07. 2001

MUSHARRAF AND TERRORISM

by B.Raman

In our earlier paper titled ``Musharraf, bin Laden & the Lashkar`` disseminated on July 1 and available at www.saag.org/papers3/paper266.html, we had, inter alia, stated as follows about the links of Gen.Pervez Musharraf, the self-reinstated Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), the self-styled Chief Executive and the self-promoted President of Pakistan, with Osama bin Laden`s Al Qaeda, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM), terrorist organisations active in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).

``Musharraf denies any links of the Pakistan Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) with the LET and other jihadis. What more, he denies their very presence in Pakistani territory. On June 24, a fortnight after the famous rebuke of the Ulema of June 5, which was more shadow-boxing than reality on the eve of the Washington visit of Mr.Abul Sattar, Major-Gen.Rashid Quereshi, the media spokesman of Musharraf, was asked about the activities of the LET and other jihadi organisations. He replied without batting an eye-lid: `` No group operating in Kashmir has any base in Pakistan.`` (``The Hindu`` of June 25).

``In the past, Musharraf had been saying that if there was progress on the Kashmir issue in the bilateral talks with India, he might appeal to the jihadis to deescalate their activities. Now, his spokesmen have been saying that since these are indigenous Kashmiri organisations, Pakistan has no influence over them just as they have been telling the US that Pakistan has no influence over the Taliban and bin Laden.

``Pamela Constable of the ``Washington Post``, who was one of the foreign correspondents briefed by Musharraf last week on the forthcoming summit, has reported as follows: ``Musharraf brushed aside questions about whether he would rein in armed Islamic groups that support fighters in Kashmir, insisting that the Kashmiri insurgency is ``indigenous``.

``It is, therefore, likely that whatever be the outcome of the forthcoming summit, Pakistan will continue its proxy war against India through its jihadi surrogates even while denying any links with or control over them. Any optimism of a reduction in violence and cross-border terrorism as a result of the summit would be misplaced. Musharraf will continue to play his double game

---

overtly friendly, warm and seemingly accommodating and covertly continuing to make our security forces bleed. To expect anything different from him and to lower our guard against him could be suicidal. India will continue to pay a heavy price for its failure to evolve and implement consistently an effective counter proxy war policy. The policy of ``kabi naram, kabi garam`` (sometimes soft, sometimes hard) doesn`t pay against Pakistan. It will only confirm Musharraf in his perception that India is a soft State, which lends itself to easy manipulation.``

During his televised breakfast discussions with Indian editors at Agra on July 16 and his press conference at Islamabad on July 20, Musharraf described the terrorists operating in J & K as ``indigenous freedom-fighters`` and denied that they were based in Pakistan or that they were receiving any assistance from Pakistan. A similar stand was taken by Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the Pakistani High Commissioner in New Delhi, during a TV interview on July 22 when he was asked about the post-summit massacre of some Hindu pilgrims going on their annual pilgrimage to the Amarnath cave by the Al Umar Mujahideen and the massacre of the Hindu residents, including women and children, of a village in the Doda district of Jammu by the LET on July 22.

In its issues of February 13,1995, and March 27,1995, the ``News`` of Pakistan had carried two detailed investigative reports by Kamran Khan, a well-known Pakistani journalist, on an international terrorist network consisting of the HUM (then known as the Harkat-ul-Ansar) and other Islamic terrorist organisations operating from Pakistani territory with the knowledge and connivance of the Pakistani authorities. He reported that about 200 HUM members from Pakistan had died in clashes with the Indian security forces in J & K since 1991 and that its cadres were also active with the Abu Sayyaf group in Southern Philippines and with the terrorists in Chechnya. He also brought out the links of these organisations with Ramzi Yousuf, now undergoing imprisonment in the US for his role in the New York World Trade Centre bombing in February, 1993, and their role in the explosion at a holy shrine at Mashhad in Iran on June 20,1994, killing 70 people and in training Saudi fundamentalist elements opposed to the ruling family.

Subsequently, a number of other reports from equally well-known Pakistani journalists and published in the Pakistani press brought out in great detail the role of the Pakistani Army and the ISI in sponsoring terrorism against the Indian security forces in J & K in order to achieve their political objective of annexing J & K without the direct involvement of the Pakistan Army.

During the Kargil war of 1999 too, Musharraf used these terrorist groups to initially occupy the mountain heights before sending the Pakistan Army. In the transcript of the telephone conversation between Lt.Gen.Mohammed Aziz, then Chief of the General Staff (CGS) at the GHQ, and Musharraf, then on a visit to Beijing, which was released by the Government of India, Musharraf was assured by Aziz about his effective control over the terrorists in the following words: ``The scruff of their neck is in our hands.``

The US State Department`s annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism during 2000 released by Gen. Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, on April 30,2001, gave the following detailed account of Pakistani involvement with the terrorist groups in J & K and Afghanistan:

* ``The Government of Pakistan increased its support to the Taliban and continued its support to militant groups active in Indian-held Kashmir, such as the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM), some of which engaged in terrorism.
* ``Islamic extremists from around the world--including North America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Central, South, and Southeast Asia--continued to use Afghanistan as a training ground and base of operations for their worldwide terrorist activities in 2000. The Taliban, which controlled most Afghan territory, permitted the operation of training and indoctrination facilities for non-Afghans and provided logistics support to members of various terrorist organizations and mujahidin, including those waging jihads (holy wars) in Central Asia, Chechnya, and Kashmir.

* ``Throughout 2000 the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin despite UN sanctions and international pressure to hand him over to stand trial in the United States or a third country. In a serious and ongoing dialogue with the Taliban, the United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that it would be held responsible for any terrorist attacks undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in its territory.

* ``Massacres of civilians in Kashmir during March and August were attributed to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT) and other militant groups.

* ``Pakistan`s military government, headed by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, continued previous Pakistani Government support of the Kashmir insurgency, and Kashmiri militant groups continued to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and recruiting new cadre. Several of these groups were responsible for attacks against civilians in Indian-held Kashmir, and the largest of the groups, the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, claimed responsibility for a suicide car-bomb attack against an Indian garrison in Srinagar in April.

* ``In addition, the Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, continues to be active in Pakistan without discouragement by the Government of Pakistan. Members of the group were associated with the hijacking in December 1999 of an Air India (author`s comment: it was actually the Indian Airlines) flight that resulted in the release from an Indian jail of former HUM leader Maulana Masood Azhar. Azhar since has founded his own Kashmiri militant group,Jaish-e-Mohammed, and publicly has threatened the United States.

* ``The United States remains concerned about reports of continued Pakistani support for the Taliban`s military operations in Afghanistan. Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers. Pakistan has not prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the activities of certain madrassas, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting grounds for terrorism. Pakistan publicly and privately said it intends to comply fully with UNSCR 1333, which imposes an arms embargo on the Taliban.

* ``In South Asia, the United States has been increasingly concerned about reports of Pakistani support to terrorist groups and elements active in Kashmir, as well as Pakistani support, especially military support, to the Taliban, which continues to harbor terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, al-Gama`a al-Islamiyya, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.``

Pakistan denounces New Delhi bombings as ``terrorism``

ISLAMABAD, Oct 29 (AFP) Pakistan strongly condemned Saturday`s bombings in Indian capital New Delhi as a ``criminal act of terrorism,`` a foreign ministry statement said. ``Pakistan strongly condemns the terrorist attacks in New Delhi, which have resulted in the loss of a number of innocent lives,`` the statement said. ``The people and government of Pakistan are shocked at this barbaric act and express deep sympathy with the families of the victims,`` it said. Islamabad also called for a thorough investigation to punish the culprits. ``We hope that a thorough investigation will be carried out and the perpetrators of this act of terrorism will be brought to justice.`` At least 50 people were killed Saturday in serial blasts in New Delhi, India`s home minister and senior government officials said.

Re#77
{{Speaking of ``norms of common sense``... do you feel that I should get bombed in my next Diwali shopping to gain some norms of common sense ?}}

No.

Here`s an example from today`s news:

[Three schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia

JAKARTA, Oct. 29. — Three Christian teenage girls were found with their heads severed today in the latest attack against non-Muslims in the Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi, police said. The girls were believed to have been murdered while they were walking to school, Mr Adam said. He said two of the victims’ heads were found near a police post while the third was discovered outside a local Christian church in Poso. “We are still waiting for results from investigation in the field. We are still trying to determine whether this case is religiously-motivated or not,” he said. Parts of Central Sulawesi have been the scene of intermittent fighting. ANN]


In reality, of course, the three teenage girls cut off their own heads or had fellow christians cut off thier heads JUST TO BLACKEN THE GOOD NAMES OF THE GOOD MUSLIMS.

#75 by Delta_High

`` Hindvi and Sri are both outliers who defy all norms of common sense, display extreme love for each other, and refer to each with the choicest of adjectives. Perhaps they should get hitched. ``

Oh I am not sure it`s possible man. Hindvi simple sees me in too many avatars. It will be difficult for me to identify me.

Speaking of ``norms of common sense``... do you feel that I should get bombed in my next Diwali shopping to gain some norms of common sense ?

Wow! i now see the big picture man. So the Indian government periodically sends out these agents who go and bomb their own soldiers and citizens. Occasionally, these raw agents let themselves caught or killed along with the pakistani papers by the regular police. Amazing indeed.

Hindvi and Sri are both outliers who defy all norms of common sense, display extreme love for each other, and refer to each with the choicest of adjectives. Perhaps they should get hitched.

This is the typical Islamic mentality. Kill, kill, kill. And deny, deny deny. Always.

For example:

1) 9/11 was a Jewish plot.

2) Kamikaze RAW agents are pretending to be terrorists.

3) Muslims are the people that are good to minorities. (Everyone else is bad towards Muslims, when Muslims are the minorities).

4) Partitioning Palestine to create Israel was an evil act. But partitioning India to create Pakistan was A-OK.

I can go on for hours...

They are used to lying. Because how else would they defend ANYTHING about their heritage?

remember geelani the Kashmiri terrorist prof as well, no?

umm RAW agent?? nope but they do have moslems, and they are more efficient than the the FBI!!! they not only catch them faster but also with their pakistani papers on them, if not that then hey they are such great shots, job ur memory remember Chattisinghpura or Ansal Plaza. u were doing well until now.

However, this begs the question. Hypothetically speaking, what is stopping these suicidal raw agents to go to some mosque in islamabad and blow themselves up whenever large number of people congregate.

#69 by hindvi

`` hmmm that explains why they are often caught within hours of the act and are always carrying pakistani identity documents. see u know the truth.``

Man those indians are devious aren`t they. They apparantly have too many kamikazi Raw agents who want to sacrifice their lives just to pin the blame on pakistanis.

hmmm that explains why they are often caught within hours of the act and are always carrying pakistani identity documents. see u know the truth.

#64 by Ajeya

`` And all the pieces of garbage terrorists captured/killed every other day in India are just failed Bollywood actors. ``

you are wrong. They are all actually Raw agents that indian government periodically sends out to kill indian citizens or better yet... their own indian soldiers.

``gujju u are kanadigga not telegu. ``

So I am a gujju who is a kanadigga but not a kannadiga and definitely not a telugu. hmmmm... what is a kanadigga anyway ? anyway, thanks a lot for solving my identity crisis problem.

``Its not my responsibility to educate u about happenings in Moscow or Berlin or Godhra.``

Sure, i can understand that. It is not necessary to prove your assertions.

``You know it as well as i do, stop acting naive.``

It is amazing how you just assume everybody is naturally a crazy conspiracy theorist.

``after all Hitler isnt ur hero for nothing ``

hmmm... i always thought heros usually are the most successful people.

gujju u are kanadigga not telegu. stop prancing around with nicks. Its not my responsibility to educate u about happenings in Moscow or Berlin or Godhra. You know it as well as i do, stop acting naive. after all Hitler isnt ur hero for nothing, remember what he and goebbels used to say? repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

#63 by hindvi

``u do the action and create the reaction gujju, u fool no one,``

I am assuming your post is addressed to me ( ? ) It is not in my nature to respond to personal curses directed at me. But i would like to set the record straight. You should atleast check out my history on chowk`s site before assuming anything about my identity.

``nor did the moscow bombings before Putins elections.``

really ? and how did you figure that ? Please site examples from non-russian media sources or may be you can site examples of how chechens enjoy wide support outside of chechnya ( in non muslim world specifically ). Also, what is your diagnosis on 911 ? do you think it is an inside job by american government just like some apologist posters on chowk seem to think ?

On an unrelated note, I think most people here are fully capable of clicking hyperlinks and reading articles if they so wish. It is not necessary to rub your views on everybody by copy pasting 100 pages in your posts. you might want to consider that.

PS : My impulsive reaction to your post was to use some choicest words from my native Telangana but then i thought... what the heck... i don`t need to prove anything.

Re:#63

That`s right.

And all the pieces of garbage terrorists captured/killed every other day in India are just failed Bollywood actors.


Jihad will be exterminated. Satyameva Jayate.

u do the action and create the reaction gujju, u fool no one, just as the reichstag fire fooled no one, nor did the moscow bombings before Putins elections.

#61 by godot

`` Then how do you explain Modis, Thakarays, and assorted other Hindus at Chowk? ``

Reaction.

Hell, today`s bombing of delhi`s markets is enough to turn a non-brahmin, backward caste, no-interest-in-religion person like me in to a raging hater.

FYI, this may come as a news to many.... i can tell with my personal interactions that many in my relatives and in my caste ( biradari ) harbor feelings similar to Modis and thakarays towards muslims. I am just stating a fact.

Re: # 60

arstoo

``Wahabi Islam has only helped them to create one book zombies like Urstruly, Tahmat``

Then how do you explain Modis, Thakarays, and assorted other Hindus at Chowk?


Re: # 58

harish

``He`s all yours``

He actually despises me and hates my guts. But he loves the dhoti-clad...without their dhotis, that is.

#57
Dear Godot

The example you have given are exceptions and not the rules. And most of the countries you have mentioned and have done so much after those incidents to rectify themselves. More over that could only happen becuse they chose democracy.

For example countries like Pakistan who can only justfy their existence by hate of things Hindu, whether it is theie ancestory or language or culture or any thing.

Islam has not helped them either. Their hate of their ancestot and bigotry of present day Wahabi Islam has only helped them to create one book zombies like Urstruly, Tahmat and of late you are also showing the signs of great Muslim scholor.

All the best to you.

One shouldn`t let any hypothetical ``ideal`` or ``the best`` become the enemy of the reasonably good. People who fall into the habit of letting that happen, become depressed, socially or intellectually paralyzed, or instinctively anti-social. Sometimes they even become dangerous.

#55 by godot

[Go on, you two celebrate the beautiful night together...]

Looks like you`re suffering from the Jaundice syndrome. Just because you have Jaudnice doesn`t mean the world is yellow and just because you are gay doesn`t mean every man is trying to bed another.

BTW, I think you have a secret crush on kaka and you`re upset that someone else has liked his post. It alright beta, jealousy does that to lovers, but its just a post and nothing more. He`s all yours, if that`s what you want.

Re: # 56

khare

“why it does not happen in other parts of the world where minorities can live fine... Do you think oppression by majority in non muslim regions ONLY are typically Islam-related?”

Germany >Turks (democracy)
Germany > Jews (democracy)
Japan > South Koreans (democracy)
India > Christians, Muslims and assorted others (democracy)
Fiji > Indians (democracy?)
Malaysia > Chinese (democracy)
Yugoslavia > Muslims (democracy)
Africa > Various (doesn’t matter)

“I am a moinority in the US and was a minority in India. Never faced anything out of ordinary.”

That’s very individual and personally exceptional. I’m sure many expatriates at Chowk, including me, at individual level have not faced trauma vis-a-vis the majority. However, it’s the group of people (minority group) that’s being addressed; it’s the group that’s the target, not individuals.

Godot #49

.....I think you are correct about Farzana’s issue with the possibility of cruelty of the majority towards the minorities in a “majority rule” scenario.....

You are right. Look at A L L Muslim nations in the world. However, there is not much minority left in there so you can test these situations. And almost all of them without democracy...

Does it surprise you why it does not happen in other parts of the world where minorities can live fine. I am a moinority in the US and was a minority in India. Never faced anything out of ordinary. Do you think these thoughts (oppression by majority in non muslim regions ONLY) are typically Islam-related?

Re: # 52

harish

``some of my best friends are Muslim, and you know what, one of them is a Hafeez``

Congratulations!

Btw, happy bedding with an ignorant, fanatical mullah at Chowk...it`s just a one-night stand, though...that is, until Farzana shows up with her danda the next time!

Go on, you two celebrate the beautiful night together...

farzana -- use of the word `facetious` was simply a take on your title for this piece -- as for `not having arguments` that would be an incorrect reading of my response -- there are, in my view, many cogent arguments to counter what you have said and i suppose i could be held guilty on not wanting to list or discuss them here

also -- being a writer myself i save most of my arguments for my own articles which are usually not published on chowk -- hope that explains my lack of arguments here --

Re: #45 by BrainsGalore

Having managed to fool highly educated people all over the world for decades, Amartya Sen has finally come up short against the formidably erudite ``anti-establishment`` FarzanaIdiot with her incomparably strong grasp of Economics and socio-Economics.

Here`s the REAL reason for her ire:

First, the denial :

[Others have talked about a ``Muslim woman`` writing on an Indian - this reveals a mindset that i have no truck with. I have not discussed his `Hindu` leanings not only because he has none, but it would be of no interest to me.]

Next, the REAL reason for her disapproval:

[2. The exotification of (Indian - read Hindu) roots from a distance. ]

#35 by godot

[aaah! Here’s a sight one doesn’t witness often. An idol-worshipper and an ignorant, fanatical mullah befriending each other, laughing with each other instead of at each other. It’s true! Need makes strange bed-fellows!

If you weren`t the ass that you are, it wouldn`t be too surprising for you. In fact, some of my best friends are Muslim, and you know what, one of them is a Hafeez (I don`t know what exactly it means, except that it is used for someone who has memorized the Quran).

Godot, Urstruly

Ultimately, people make any system work or not work. But Professor Sen (like many other theorists) suggests comparisons only between different systems of governance. So democracy`s potential problems could only be set off against the potential problems of other systems.

Khamkhwa,

Dullabatthi and I are the other sikhs on chowk.

Re: # 48


Urstruly

“Majority rule” leading to the elimination of poverty and famine does not hold true if one looks at China or the pre-democracy South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It’s the ruling elites’ vision and policies, not necessarily “majority rule,” that determine the outcome of how its subjects live.

Nobel, as I said before, is just a political tool. Many agree to it and this prize commands no respect outside perhaps for the natural sciences. Watch for Salman Rushdie joining Naipaul!

I think you are correct about Farzana’s issue with the possibility of cruelty of the majority towards the minorities in a “majority rule” scenario.

Godot,

What if in case of famine, a democracy enacts a Patriot Act and limits the food supply to a minority e.g. Blacks or Quadianis, would it be the expression of “aggregation of individual values into collective decisions,”. I think that is what FV`s beef is with Sen`s theory. It seems that Sen`s ideas are as politically charged and propaganda oriented as VS Naipauls.

Re: # 42

Urstruly

Sen is emphasizing that, to rid of famine and poverty, “majority rule,” ie, democracy, must prevail in a society/country. He theorized that since democracy is the “aggregation of individual values into collective decisions,” it is the road to eradication of poverty and famine; because, he apparently believes, a democracy reflects the wishes of the majority, and the majority does not want to live in poverty. I believe that was the basis of him getting the Nobel.

We knew chairman mao liked to do private exercises with nubile young comrades but this is new. the conclusion is even more enlightning, despite his behaviour china may be better prepared for growth than it would other wise have been:

NYTimes
October 23, 2005
`Mao`: The Real Mao
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
If Chairman Mao had been truly prescient, he would have located a little girl in Sichuan Province named Jung Chang and ``mie jiuzu``- killed her and wiped out all her relatives to the ninth degree.

But instead that girl grew up, moved to Britain and has now written a biography of Mao that will help destroy his reputation forever. Based on a decade of meticulous interviews and archival research, this magnificent biography methodically demolishes every pillar of Mao`s claim to sympathy or legitimacy.

Almost seven decades ago, Edgar Snow`s ``Red Star Over China`` helped make Mao a heroic figure to many around the world. It marked an opening bookend for Mao`s sunny place in history - and this biography will now mark the other bookend.

When I first opened this book, I was skeptical. Chang is the author of ``Wild Swans,`` a hugely successful account of three generations of women in her family, and it was engaging but not a work of scholarship. I was living in China when it appeared, and my Chinese friends and I were all surprised at its success, for the experiences she recounted were sad but not unusual. As for this biography, written together with her husband, Jon Halliday, a historian, I expected it to be similarly fat but slight. Also, the subtitle is ``The Unknown Story`` - which, after all that has been written about Mao, made me cringe.

Yet this is a magisterial work. True, much of Mao`s brutality has already emerged over the years, but this biography supplies substantial new information and presents it all in a stylish way that will put it on bedside tables around the world. No wonder the Chinese government has banned not only this book but issues of magazines with reviews of it, for Mao emerges from these pages as another Hitler or Stalin.

In that regard, I have reservations about the book`s judgments, for my own sense is that Mao, however monstrous, also brought useful changes to China. And at times the authors seem so eager to destroy him that I wonder if they exclude exculpatory evidence. But more on those cavils later.

Mao is not only a historical figure, of course, but is part of the (tattered) web of legitimacy on which the People`s Republic rests. He is part of the founding mythology of the Chinese government, the Romulus and Remus of ``People`s China,`` and that`s why his portrait hangs in Tiananmen Square. Even among ordinary Chinese, Mao retains a hold on the popular imagination, and some peasants in different parts of China have started traditional religious shrines honoring him. That`s the ultimate honor for an atheist - he has become a god.

Mao`s sins in later life are fairly well known, and even Chen Yun, one of the top Chinese leaders in the 1980`s, suggested that it might have been best if Mao had died in 1956. This biography shows, though, that Mao was something of a fraud from Day 1.

The authors assert, for example, that he was not in fact a founding member of the Chinese Communist Party, as is widely believed, and that the party was founded in 1920 rather than 1921. Moreover, they rely on extensive research in Russian archives to show that the Chinese party was entirely under the thumb of the Russians. In one nine-month period in the 1920`s, for example, 94 percent of the party`s funding came from Russia, and only 6 percent was raised locally. Mao rose to be party leader not because he was the favorite of his fellow Chinese, but because Moscow chose him. And one reason Moscow chose him was that he excelled in sycophancy: he once told the Russians that ``the latest Comintern order`` was so brilliant that ``it made me jump for joy 300 times.``

Mao has always been celebrated as a great peasant leader and military strategist. But this biography mocks that claim. The mythology dates from the ``Autumn Harvest Uprising`` of 1927. But, according to Chang and Halliday, Mao wasn`t involved in the fighting and in fact sabotaged it - until he hijacked credit for it afterward.

It`s well known that Mao`s first wife (or second, depending on how you count), Yang Kaihui, was killed in 1930 by a warlord rival of Mao`s. But not much else is known of her. Now Chang and Halliday quote from poignant unsent letters that were discovered during renovations of her old home in 1982 and in 1990. The letters reveal both a deep love for Mao and a revulsion for the brutality of her time (and of her husband). ``Kill, kill, kill!`` she wrote in one letter, which became a kind of memoir of her life. ``All I hear is this sound in my ears! Why are human beings so evil? Why so cruel?`` Mao could easily have saved this gentle woman, the mother of his first three children, for he passed near the home where he had left her. But he didn`t lift a finger, and she was shot to death at the age of 29.

By this time, the book relates, many in the Red Army distrusted Mao - so he launched a brutal purge of the Communist ranks. He wrote to party headquarters that he had discovered 4,400 subversives in the army and had tortured them all and executed most of them. A confidential report found that a quarter of the entire Red Army under Mao at the time was slaughtered, often after they were tortured in such ways as having red-hot rods forced into their rectums.

One of the most treasured elements of Chinese Communist history is the Long March, the iconic flight across China to safety in the northwest. It is usually memorialized as a journey in which Mao and his comrades showed incredible courage and wisdom in sneaking through enemy lines and overcoming every hardship. Chang and Halliday undermine every element of that conventional wisdom.

First, they argue that Mao and the Red Army escaped and began the Long March only because Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek deliberately allowed them to. They argue that Chiang wanted to send his own troops into three southwestern provinces but worried about antagonizing the local warlords. So he channeled the Red Army into those provinces on the Long March and then, at the invitation of the alarmed warlords, sent in troops to expel the Communists and thus succeeded in bringing the wayward provinces into his domain.

More startling, they argue that Mao didn`t even walk most of the Long March - he was carried. ``On the march, I was lying in a litter,`` they quote Mao as saying decades later. ``So what did I do? I read. I read a lot.`` Now, that`s bourgeois.

The most famous battle of the Long March was the Communists` crossing of the Dadu Bridge, supposedly a heroic assault under enemy fire. Harrison Salisbury`s 1985 book, ``The Long March,`` describes a ``suicide attack`` over a bridge that had been mostly dismantled, then soaked with kerosene and set on fire. But Chang and Halliday write that this battle was a complete fabrication, and in a triumph of scholarship they cite evidence that all 22 men who led the crossing survived and received gifts afterward of a Lenin suit and a fountain pen. None was even wounded. They quote Zhou Enlai as expressing concern afterward because a horse had been lost while crossing the bridge.

The story continues in a similar vein: Mao had a rival, Wang Ming, poisoned and nearly killed while in their refuge in Yenan. Mao welcomed the Japanese invasion of China, because he thought this would lead to a Russian counterinvasion and a chance for him to lead a Russian puppet regime. Far from leading the struggle against the Japanese invaders, Mao ordered the Red Army not to fight the Japanese and was furious when other Communist leaders skirmished with them. Indeed, Mao is said to have collaborated with Japanese intelligence to undermine the Chinese Nationalist forces.

Almost everybody is tarnished. Madame Sun Yat-sen, also known as Song Qingling, is portrayed as a Soviet agent, albeit not very convincingly. And Zhang Xueliang, the ``Young Marshal`` who is widely remembered as a hero in China for kidnapping Chiang Kai-shek to force him to fight the Japanese, is portrayed as a power-hungry coup-monger. I knew the Young Marshal late in his life, and his calligraphy for my Chinese name adorns the Chinese version of my business cards, but now I`m wondering if I should get new cards.

After Mao comes to power, Chang and Halliday show him continuing his thuggery. This is more familiar ground, but still there are revelations. Mao used the Korean War as a chance to slaughter former Nationalist soldiers. And Mao says some remarkable things about the peasants he was supposed to be championing. When they were starving in the 1950`s, he instructed: ``Educate peasants to eat less, and have more thin gruel. The State should try its hardest . . . to prevent peasants eating too much.`` In Moscow, he offered to sacrifice the lives of 300 million Chinese, half the population at the time, and in 1958 he blithely declared of the overworked population: ``Working like this, with all these projects, half of China may well have to die.``

At times, Mao seems nuts. He toyed with getting rid of people`s names and replacing them with numbers. And discussing the possible destruction of the earth with nuclear weapons, he mused that ``this might be a big thing for the solar system, but it would still be an insignificant matter as far as the universe as a whole is concerned.``

Chang and Halliday recount how the Great Leap Forward led to the worst famine in world history in the late 1950`s and early 1960`s, and how in 1966 Mao clawed his way back to supreme power in the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. Some of the most fascinating material involves Zhou Enlai, the longtime prime minister, who comes across as a complete toady of Mao, even though Mao tormented him by forcing him to make self-criticisms and by seating him in third-rate seats during meetings. In the mid-1970`s, Zhou was suffering from cancer and yet Mao refused to allow him to get treatment - wanting Zhou to be the one to die first. ``Operations are ruled out for now`` for Zhou, Mao declared on May 9, 1974. ``Absolutely no room for argument.`` And so, sure enough, Zhou died in early 1976, and Mao in September that year.

This is an extraordinary portrait of a monster, who the authors say was responsible for more than 70 million deaths. But how accurate is it? A bibliography and endnotes give a sense of sourcing, and they are impressive: the authors claim to have talked to everyone from Mao`s daughter, Li Na, to his mistress, Zhang Yufeng, to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford. But it`s not clear how much these people said. One of those listed as a source is Zhang Hanzhi, Mao`s English teacher and close associate; she`s also one of my oldest Chinese friends, so I checked with her. Zhang Hanzhi said that she had indeed met informally with Chang two or three times but had declined to be interviewed and never said anything substantial. I hope that Chang and Halliday will share some of their source materials, either on the Web or with other scholars, so that it will be possible to judge how fairly and accurately they have reached their conclusions.

My own feeling is that most of the facts and revelations seem pretty well backed up, but that ambiguities are not always adequately acknowledged. To their credit, the authors seem to have steered clear of relying on some of the Hong Kong magazines that traffic in a blurry mix of fact and fiction, but it is still much harder to ferret out the truth than they acknowledge. The memoirs and memories they rely on may be trustworthy, most of the time, but I question the tone of brisk self-confidence that the authors use in recounting events and quotations - and I worry that some things may be hyped.

Take the great famine from 1958 to 1961. The authors declare that ``close to 38 million people died,`` and in a footnote they cite a Chinese population analysis of mortality figures in those years. Well, maybe. But there have been many expert estimates in scholarly books and journals of the death toll, ranging widely, and in reality no one really knows for sure - and certainly the mortality data are too crude to inspire confidence. The most meticulous estimates by demographers who have researched the famine toll are mostly lower than this book`s: Judith Banister estimated 30 million; Basil Ashton also came up with 30 million; and Xizhe Peng suggested about 23 million. Simply plucking a high-end estimate out of an article and embracing it as the one true estimate worries me; if that is stretched, then what else is?

Another problem: Mao comes across as such a villain that he never really becomes three-dimensional. As readers, we recoil from him but don`t really understand him. He is presented as such a bumbling psychopath that it`s hard to comprehend how he bested all his rivals to lead China and emerge as one of the most worshipped figures of the last century.

Finally, there is Mao`s place in history. I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao`s legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao`s entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world`s new economic dragon.

Perhaps the best comparison is with Qinshihuang, the first Qin emperor, who 2,200 years ago unified China, built much of the Great Wall, standardized weights and measures and created a common currency and legal system - but burned books and buried scholars alive. The Qin emperor was as savage and at times as insane as Mao - but his success in integrating and strengthening China laid the groundwork for the next dynasty, the Han, one of the golden eras of Chinese civilization. In the same way, I think, Mao`s ruthlessness was a catastrophe at the time, brilliantly captured in this extraordinary book - and yet there`s more to the story: Mao also helped lay the groundwork for the rebirth and rise of China after five centuries of slumber.

Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, has written books about China and Asia together with his wife, Sheryl WuDunn.

I can see a whole lot of respect for Amartya sen here without a lot of people having a clue as to what they are respecting. When one sets out to contradict a viewpoint, there ought to be a basis to it.

The fact that one is asked whether the writer has anything positive to say about anyone I find disconcerting. It only means that `niceness` should be enshrined when one talks about Nobel laureates and visible idols.

I have a position on three issues...

1. Prof. Sen`s analysis of democracy.
2. The exotification of roots from a distance.
3. The blind deification on any and everything that comes with a West-approved tag.

Yes, I did hold forth on `madness`. Anyone with some understanding of psychology will tell you that it is not about lunacy. There are several factors; one of them being able to confront one`s own truths.

I am not amazed that some people have mentioned his being a Bengali. I do not suffer from such parochialism. Others have talked about a ``Muslim woman`` writing on an Indian - this reveals a mindset that i have no truck with. I have not discussed his `Hindu` leanings not only because he has none, but it would be of no interest to me.

For the rest, I would have been happy to listen to other points of view, whenever they are given.

PS: I personally have no problems with interactors calling a writer facetious, especially since they have no arguments to back the assertion with. I believe letting such posts stay as they are is a fantastic display of the ability to argue that some imagine they possess.

Thanks for reading, anyway...

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

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

Godot,

Like every other interactor on this website I also claim to be the expert on everything but frankly Dr. Sen`s thesis zoomed past above my head. But thanks for trying.

The issue of corporations is a different issue. That is a matter of competition, a matter on which one could be a very pro-market person and be very anti-corporation. Indeed, trust-busting is a very old capitalist virtue, that is, a virtue of a pro-market economy where you want competitive capitalism. A kind of Smithian pro-marketing person would want some restraint on the corporations. That`s a different question. One has to separate out the question of inequality within the market economy in the form of corporations at one level, which is the highest level, and inequality at the other end, whereby a lot of people are prevented from entering the market because they can`t borrow money, they are not educated enough and skilled enough to enter the modern economy. That is one kind of issue. There is the other issue of the state and the market. The market is after all only an instrument.To be anti-market, pro-market, anti-state, pro-state, I think that`s not the right way of thinking about the issue. One has to take it in terms of what it does to the lives and freedom of the human beings that make up society. We need different institutions, not choose ``between`` them to get exclusiveness.

What drives you?

I wish I knew. We live for a short stretch of time in a world we share with others. Virtually everything we do is dependent on others, from the arts and culture to farmers who grow the food we eat. We live in an interdependent world. Given that fact, the idea that somehow a person could feel very comfortable being enormously ahead of others seems to me to be ultimately a mistake. Quite a lot of the differences that make us rich and poor are matters just of luck. To somehow revel in one`s privilege would be a mistake. An even bigger mistake would be trying to convert that into a theory that the rich are so much more productive than the others. That`s at the one end. But the other end, if one thinks about the people who live in a world in which they need not be hungry, in which they need not die without medical care, in which they need not be illiterate, they need not feel hopeless and miserable so much of the time, and yet they are, that seems to be scandalous. But this is not just a matter of poverty. There are some people who say that they`re concerned only with poverty but not inequality. I find that very difficult for the reason that Adam Smith discussed a long time ago in The Wealth of Nations. He pointed out that the same thing that everyone likes doing, talking with others, appearing in public without shame, taking part in the life of the community, if you live in a community that`s relatively rich, you need a much bigger income to be able to do these elementary things. If you are a villager in rural Bangladesh or Uganda, you might be able to meet with people very easily even if you`re not schooled or if you don`t have a car or if you`re not clothed in a way that`s regarded as obligatory in some cultures. But in, say, America, if you don`t have a television at home your kids might find it hard to converse with each other in school. The income that we need in order not to be poor is much higher in a richer society. So that relative poverty, which is really a matter of inequality, in terms of income can be the cause of absolute poverty, the inability to do the basic things which Adam Smith noted we all like doing. The idea that we can be interested only in poverty but not in inequality I don`t think is a sustainable thought. A lot of poverty is in fact inequality because of this connection between income and capability. The same capability to take part in thelife of the community requires a much bigger basket of commodities and therefore a much bigger income in a rich society. So you have to be interested in inequality. And since we live in a global village, events in different parts of the world influence each other. The Internet begins to penetrate in my country. Indians begin to find out how other people live in the rest of the world. Given these circumstances, the issues of inequality and the issue of poverty are not separable even globally. They`re very closely linked, both in terms of the need to ask the moral question, Is it right that I should enjoy my privileges, and not feel I owe anything to others? As well as the other level, Do I have a right to be content living in a world with so much poverty and inequality? Both these questions motivate us to take these issues to be central to human living. Ultimately, the old Socratic question, How should I live? has to include a very strong component of awareness and response to inequality.

India Together
September 2001
{concluded)

Indiatogether.org

---

Reflections of an economist
David Barsamian of Alternative Radio talks to Amartya Sen on various influences on his life and his take on issues like globalization.

Amartya Sen was born in Santiniketan, India, and studied at Presidency College, Calcutta, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, UK. He is Professor Emeritus at Harvard and honorary president of the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (OXFAM). He has taught at the London School of Economics, Oxford University, and Delhi University. His research has ranged over a number of fields in economics and philosophy. In 1998 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in development economics. His best-known work, Poverty and Famines, causally investigates a number of major famines including the Bangladesh famine of 1974 and other catastrophes in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In this study, Sen challenged the view that a shortage of food is the main explanation for famine and proved that a more profound analysis of complex economic and social mechanisms is needed to understand and avert thesed evastating events. His most recent book is Development as Freedom. Sen was interviewed by David Barsamian, producer and director of Alternative Radio.

---

Part 1 | Part 2

Tell me about your family background.

My maternal grandfather Kshiti Mohan Sen was also called Sen, as it happened. He was professor of Sanskrit in Santiniketan. In India, the first child was often born in the mother`s parental home. So I was born at their house. My parents lived in Dhaka. My father was a professor of chemistry there. My paternal grandfather was a judge, a lawyer. So there was a very spread-out background. My mother, who is close to 90, edits a literary magazine in Bengali. She was also a dancer and played the lead role in several of Rabindranath Tagore`s(1861-1941) dance dramas in Calcutta. It was relatively uncommon,for middle-class women to actually dance on the stage. She was quite good at it.

When did Tagore establish the school at Santiniketan?

It was established in the very beginning of the twentieth century. My mother was a student there. I have one sister, Supurna, who now lives in Santiniketan and she also went to school there. We`ve all been there.

Would it be fair to say in the shadow of Tagore?

To some extent. He was clearly the strongest influence. Later on,thinking about it, I thought that I agreed much more with Tagore than I recognized then, because his presence was so strong there. There wasn`t enough contrast. But only when I was thinking about other people who influenced my thinking, like Mahatma Gandhi, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx and Adam Smith, I did think that Tagore had a very particular role which I wasn`t fully aware of at that time.

He was not only a Nobel Prize winner but a Renaissance man, a musician, a writer, a playwright. He did so many things.

A great essayist, too. A visionary man in addition to being extremely talented. And his painting, which was originally thought to have just been a hobby, of course now is very highly prized.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1913. He was celebrated in the West. Then he went into a bit of an eclipse a few decades later.

The appreciation of Tagore was very peculiarly slanted in England and through England else where in the West. It emphasized his religious side. It overemphasized his mystical side, which was not all that strong in reality, and underemphasized his secularism and his interest in science, reason and social equity. It made him into more of a guru figure from the East than he could be fairly described as. While Gitanjali, the book that won the Nobel Prize, is a very fine collection of poetry, many people wouldn`t regard that as being his best work in any sense. Those poems are quite often written in a religious style, but in many of them there was a great deal of ambiguity as to whether the addressee is God or a lover.

That`s true of much of Tagore`s love poetry, either it`s a gentle love poem or a devotional poem. That ambiguity is very important because the language is used in a way that transcends that. It`s part of one of the schools of Hindu thought that the relation with God is like the relation to a lover. That`s certainly not a Christian thought. It`s part of the Bhakti movement and the Bauls. The Bauls are kind of the wandering minstrels of Bengal. They are strongly influenced by the Islamic Sufi tradition. But in the rigid hands of W.B. Yeats, possibly the greatest English poet of the twentieth century, Tagore`s poems took something of a turn. Yeats was pretty merciless in eliminating all those ambiguities as much as possible and making Gitanjali distinctly mystical and devotional. To a Bengali reader something was lost because ambiguity is a very important part of that poetry. The religious was only one aspect of one side of Tagore. Another aspect was this rather mystical experience with God rather than the fearless, warm friendship; that is a characteristic feature of his religious thought and is also absent. There`s no God-fearing devotion there. There isn`t very much in Gitanjali either. But some of the affectionate closeness with God is gone. I say that with some hesitation as a non-religious person. It`s an intellectual subject one can react to. Something of Tagore`s religion is also reduced. He gave a wonderful set of lectures called ``Religion of Man`` at Oxford in 1930. He also made use of a lot of Baul and Bhakti poetry, from a collection that my grandfather K.M.Sen put together. He was a great collector of songs. I think he did the first modern collection of Kabir`s and Dadoo`s songs. Kabir and Dadoo were mystics who combined elements from Hinduism and Islam, from the Sufi and Bhakti movement. Tagore used that extensively in his Oxford lectures.

What was your personal contact with Tagore?

I was very young. Up to the age of three I was in India, mainly in Dhaka. Then we moved to Burma. My father taught at the Agricultural College in Mandalay. During that period when I was in Mandalay, we went to Santiniketan regularly in my father`s vacations. During those visits, I must have been four or five then, my grandfather thought that the time had come when I should not only speak Bengali but also start doing a little bit of Sanskrit. I was very grateful that I was introduced to a classical language very early in my life. But I didn`t start doing that very seriously until at the age of six I cameback to Dhaka. For about a year I was a student at St. Gregory`s School in Dhaka. Then I went to Santiniketan. But by the time I got there in 1941, Tagore had just died. I had met him a number of times as a child, but I didn`t have any real communication with him. I remember him as a benign, friendly presence.

There was an interesting split between Tagore and Gandhi. It`s kind of ironic, because it was Tagore who popularized the term Mahatma, ``great soul.``

Faith was more important for Gandhi. Reason was more important for Tagore. That`s one contrast. Being free to determine what you want to do rather than being guided by tradition, received wisdom, was much more important to Tagore than it was for Gandhi. These are matters of somewhat fine distinction. In some ways Gandhi was also interested in reason and freedom, indeed, much of his life was concerned with that. But there was more constraint on what is an appropriate field of reason for Gandhi than for Tagore. Emperor Akbar, whom I cited in the New York Review piece I did called ``Reach of Reason,`` said that there`s nothing that we can accept without first reasoning about it. To some extent that was true of Tagore, even though he wouldn`t deny the immediate role of raw sentiments and unexamined affection. But the point comes when you have to decide what you want to do.

In his novel The Home and the World, there`s a very sharp division on the issue of the swadeshi movement. Tagore had strong opinions about that.

That`s the third distinction vis-à-vis Gandhi, other than the greater focus on reason and freedom, and not unconnected with that. Tagore was very keen on traditional Indian culture. He also felt that the civilization of every country was a personal inheritance from which he himself had benefited, and so does everyone. He insisted that any idea or any cultural contribution which I enjoy instantly becomes mine for that reason, no matter where it has its origin. I don`t think that would have been Gandhi`s attitude. There was a clear distinction between the nation, its own contribution, and other nations. He was respectful of other nations. He was very tolerant of diversity in the world, but there wasn`t a great pride in world civilization as such, even though he himself was influenced by Tolstoy and by English legal thinking, Ruskin, as well as Thoreau and Emerson. The concept of the Other was much less sharp in the case of Tagore. There`s a kind of seamless wholeness to world civilization. And I grew up in that culture.

Didn`t Tagore feel that the burning of British-made clothes would exacerbate communal feeling, particularly in Bengal?

There were two things here. He thought that burning any useful product seemed a negative and basically unattractive gesture. One could say that Tagore was not being sufficiently political. Gandhi was capturing the high ground of politics by burning British made clothing by showing how it had brought about the decimation of the Indian textile industry. I think Gandhi was making his point, which Tagore, being not such a political person, may not have attached importance to and could actually have missed. But there`s a second aspect of it connected with your question, namely that it so happens that a number of people involved in the cotton trade were Muslims, so that the burning of these cloths would be particularly detrimental to the interests of that community. Tagore foresees in The Home and the World that the Muslim traders` resistance to the swadeshi movement and reluctance to join it, for which they had good economic interests, would actually exacerbate tension between Hindus and Muslims, which in effect it did. Here Tagore was being a more far-seeing statesman than the followers of Gandhi who are portrayed in the novel. Tagore was careful not to make it a criticism of Gandhi himself, and I think that`s fair.

What impact did the first partition of Bengal have in the early 1900s?

The partition was clearly politically motivated. Like any decision you take, there are several reasons. But one of them was the political agitation. Bengal was certainly the hotbed of political revolt at that time. Virtually all of what the British would say were terrorist activities at that time was coming from Bengal. Throughout the nineteenth century the British found the Bengalis particularly difficult to control. A distinguished member of my college, Macaulay, was very explicit on the failings of the Bengalis. In Kipling`s stories there is often the caricature of the Bengali babu. Hence there is often the dislike of Bengal, which was resisting British rule more and more. Oddly enough, much of the administration of the British Indian Empire was basically based in Bengal and the capital was in Calcutta until past the 1905 partition. The Bengalis had produced a new urban middle class to a great extent connected with the Raj. They served as the junior boys in the administration, but by the middle of the nineteenth century the rebellious element is beginning to get strong. By the beginning of the twentieth century it had become very strong. That political consideration must have played a part in the thinking of the Viceroy Lord Curzon and others involved in that partition.

And the shifting of the capital from Calcutta to New Delhi, to build a new imperial city in 1911, what was that about?

There are at least three good reasons for moving it. First of all, Delhi had been the capital of Mughal India for a long time and therefore held a position such that even when there was a rebellion against the East India Company and British rule in 1857 in the so-called Sepoy Mutiny, while the British headquarters remained in Calcutta, the rebels wanted to have their headquarters in Delhi. Second, Delhi offered a much greater opportunity of expansion, more open land than Calcutta could offer. A place like New Delhi, which was built as it were almost like the ninth city of Delhi. There were seven Islamic cities, and then there was an earlier Indian city, near Hastinapur, and at last comes the British city. The third reason was that Delhi was much more central in the days before partition, as it no longer now is because it`s so close to the Pakistan border. At that time it was very central. On top of that, the irritation of the occasionally sharp-shooting Bengali must have been quite strong also at that time. All these contributed to that. I don`t want to insist on a purely political (narrowsense) explanation. But it would have been a matter of relief for the British that they were moving out of Calcutta to safer ground elsewhere.

Today the position that Gandhi and Tagore occupy in the Indian imagination, some people have said they have been deified. They`re icons. The content of their work has largely been vacuumed out.

To a certain extent that is true. That statement is often made, and you can see why. They are both respectfully remembered, Gandhi more and much more often than Tagore, and yet Gandhi was very concerned that his model of self-sufficient village economy, his opposition to technology, his skepticism of international trade, these have not really survived in today`s India. But after having said that, one also has to recognize that this cannot be a just criticism of modern India, partly because many of Gandhi`s ideas were very difficult to relate to a program of economic and social development. I don`t just mean things like opposition to big dams. It`s not clear exactly what Gandhi`s position on that was. Certainly it was less clear than Nehru`s. But these are not issues that seemed that big. Dams looked very good in Nehru`s time, too. At that time the analysis seemed to indicate that that would raise living standards, like the Tennessee Valley Project. They looked promising, but they often proved to be creating more problems than they solved. But the general hostility to modern technology and to modernity as such wasn`t such an easy thing to deal with. Gandhi was opposed to railroads. He was opposed to modern medicine. One of his children suffered from illness and infact died without getting the benefit of modern medicine. There are many aspects of Gandhi which are not the reasons we remember him. We remember him because of his message to love humanity, because of his perfecting of the technique of nonviolence, because he was able to show that to fight evil you don`t have to be evil yourself. You can fight evil with good. All these are major thoughts. Those, too, are often not remembered sufficiently. That I would complain about. But the neglect of some of his other ideas, including the self-sufficient village economy, opposition to railways and other modern technologies and modern medicine, that I don`t lament.

There are more thoughts needed about his attitude about our position in the world. I am very opposed to the Indian nuclearization.There is something to be learned from Gandhi here, since he was soopposed to militarism. But at the same time, I don`t think there the analysis has to be primarily Gandhi-oriented. We have to see what India gets from the nuclear bomb. All Indians lose by insecurity and diversion of resources. Rational economic and political analyses show that we have good reason to reject militarization. There Tagore has more to offer. That`s Tagore`s territory. You ask yourself why you are doing it, what do you get out of it. You ask yourself, Am I being sufficiently self-critical? Am I asking the right questions? Is this right for me? What will it do to other people, because we also belong to a world community? What do we owe to others and what do others owe to us? How do we relate to each other? One could say that Tagore`s ideas, not so much ideas but techniques of analysis are more relevant than Gandhi, who was less concerned with reason in a very broad sense. To take into account affection and sentiments and emotions but at the same time subject them all to reasoned scrutiny. That is quintessential Tagore territory.

Tagore had been knighted by the British. After the Jallianwala Baghmassacre in Punjab in 1919, he renounced his knighthood. What kind of impact did that have on the nationalist struggle?

He denounced the British action and that made dramatic headlines. As a political act it drew attention to his renouncing an honor that the Rajhad given to him, and that was quite important. The beastliness of that massacre was so great that it would have been very hard for somebody as sympathetic to humanity in general to live quietly with the kind of distinction that the Raj had offered him in the form of the knighthood. So it was a natural act to undertake. I don`t think Tagore undertook it as a political action. Gandhiji, who was much more a political person, would have probably seen the political consequences much more clearly than Tagore. For him it was a gut reaction. He did not want to associate with murderers. But it so happened that it was a politically important step. I personally don`t think he thought of it as a political step at all, but it proved to be one.

Tagore is the only composer in the world who wrote the national anthems of two countries, India and Bangladesh.

I mentioned that in my New York Review article. I kept on thinking and searching to see whether there was anybody else who might have that distinction, but I didn`t find any. I think it`s remarkable. Both the Indian anthem ``Jana Gana Mana`` an the Bangladesh anthem ``Amar Sonar Bangla`` are not only poems of Tagore, but they had been very well-known poems before they were adopted in the two countries as the national anthem. I have a very strong association with Bangladesh myself. I come from there and to a great extent grew up in Dhaka. If somebody asked me where is my home I would have to say Dhaka and go more deeply into the village in the Dhaka district where I come from, Manikganj, and a small village called Matto, that sense of belonging is very strong. I`ve visited it recently also. Given that sense of attachment, it`s particularly pleasing for me that somebody whom I knew, namely Tagore, who also happened to have given me my name, is also remembered in Bangladesh not just through his rich artistic output, but also in having one of his poems as its national anthem. The other one is similarly a very powerful song on India and its diversity. That`s what the song is about, a celebration of India`s diversity. Nevertheless there is an attempt to stick together. That`s the main theme of the Indian national anthem. That comes through very well. The two songs are in a very different spirit, but they both work respectively, one for a large federal country like India, and the other as a culturally integrated country like Bangladesh. Both nations chose their anthems very well.

Part 1 | Part 2

You had an early childhood experience in Dhaka involving a man named Kader Mia. Can you tell that story and the influence it had on you?

I was very small then. I think it happened when I was ten. I was playing alone in the garden of our home in Dhaka, ``Jagat Kutir,`` which means world cottage. I was suddenly made aware of the presence of somebody. I looked up and there was a person profusely bleeding from his stomach. He had clearly been knifed. He came through the door wanting help and some water. I had never seen somebody knifed like that before. I shouted for help while trying to make him lie down on the ground. There was a little cement seat where I helped to place him. While my father, who was upstairs, came down, I brought him a glass of water. I was chatting with him. He was a Muslim daily laborer who had come for work in this largely Hindu area called Wari. He had come despite knowing that these were troubled times, where in Hindu areas Muslims were getting butchered and in Muslim areas Hindus were getting butchered. He came with great reluctance, but he was poor. His family had very little to eat. He wanted to come and earn some income. He was offered a job. He was on his way there when he was knifed. He kept on telling me then, as well as when I went to the hospital with my father in the car, that his wife had said not to go to such a dangerous area. But he felt economically compelled to do so in order to have an income. The penalty of that economic unfreedom proved to be death. It had a tremendous impact on me. First of all, it was incredible to me that members of one community could be killing members of another community not for anything personal that they hold against the person other than the identity of the person as a member of another community. That`s a very difficult thought. People get used to it because of experiencing that kind of event so often. It`s still a hard thought for a human mind to comprehend, why you should try to take the life of someone who has done you no harm, whom you don`t even know, just because he belongs to some group. I found that terrifying and utterly perplexing, both from an ethical point of view and intellectually. What kind of thought process can lead to such an act? Secondly, it also had the impact of making me deeply skeptical of community-base identities. Even to this day, I remain instinctively hostile to communitarian philosophy and communitarian politics. Part of that hostility is based on some analyses, which I`ve tried to present in my writings. But I think the instinctive revulsion is connected with having seen some of the ugly sides of community identity. That was a very strong thing. I knew that there were riots going on, but until I held somebody in my own arms who was bleeding to death, and he did finally die in the hospital, it wasn`t as real to me. I think nothing could have made it as real as an experience of that kind. Thirdly, of course, what he told me, and that he particularly told me about his decision to risk it, which was the second sentence after I had given him some water. He said that his wife had told him not to come. It`s difficult for me even to recollect those moments now. The lack of freedom in his life, if he was to be a good father and feed his children, he had to take every opportunity that came his way, even at great personal risk. He took the risk and lost his life and the earning power for his family. I was overwhelmed even to think about it. It also made me take a view that I`ve tried to develop in my book Development as Freedom. Different kinds of freedoms interrelate, lack of economic freedom, could be avery major reason for loss of liberty, in this case, liberty of life. The fact that freedom of different kinds interrelate was a central notion for me. The beginning of that idea was those moments. It stayed with me in my student days in Santiniketen and at Presidency College in Calcutta, where I was politically quite active, and later at Trinity College in Cambridge. Over those years, Kader Mia`s explanation of why he could not listen to the wise counsel of his wife, was a strong presence in my thinking. It was a very important experience for me.

In 1943 the Bengal famine occurs. Three million Bengalis die. Your call as a child handing out a tin of rice to starving refugees as they passed your grandfather`s house in Santiniketan. There was no evidence that there was a shortage of food supplies, even though it was during World War II. What did you later learn about this horrific event?

First a comment on the tin of rice. It`s true that I remember that, but that`s not my strong memory. Somehow in one of the interviews that was done of me, I did mention, among many other things, that my grandfather allowed me to take a cigarette tin and from the large jar of rice we had I was allowed to give one tin to any family that came for help. But it`s not a big thing. I sometimes dislike the focus on that because it makes it look like too much of a charitable activity. The main memory that I have of that period is not of my trying to help in a tiny little way, but the opposite. The bewilderment as to why suddenly people were dying in such numbers. Where did they come from? I didn`t know any of them. Like all famines, this was a rigidly class-based one. Depending on which occupation group you belonged to, which class you came from, you either got decimated or you had no problem whatsoever. Ninety to ninety-five percent of Bengalis` lives went on absolutely normally, while three million died. Three million, by the way, was my estimate. The official estimate was much lower, a million, perhaps a million and a half. That was far too low, but it is possible that my number, three million, overestimated it somewhat. On the basis of later statistics it would seem that a more acceptable number is somewhat lower than that, like two and a half million. It was a large number, but they all came from a small community, a small class. Famine is a kind of subject in which class-based analysis is very helpful. The people who died were primarily rural wage earners working and cultivating fields, but also wageworkers working in river transport, minor trade, minor services like barbers and craftsmen producing crafts to sell, for none of which there was a market once the famine hit. They belonged to a small group of people who were economically most vulnerable. They got drowned by the famine. I had not met anyone of that kind. They didn`t come to the school that I went to, not a rich person`s school, but primarily a middle-class school. I don`t think there was any fee worth mentioning, but you had to be moderately well off to be able to send your children to a school. There was a very nominal fee. So I think the class basis was a very strong memory of that. Later I would find studying famine that that`s true everywhere. Hardly any famine affects more than five percent, almost never more than ten percent of the population. The largest proportion of population affected was the Irish famine of the 1840s, which came close to ten percent over a number of years. But mostly this is a small proportion of the underdogs of the society.

Secondly, there`s also considerable evidence which I already knew, as a child, from my parents and others that the crop hadn`t been bad in any sense, so it was surprising that there would be a famine. The Famine Inquiry Commission appointed by the Raj later reported that the food statistics must have been wrong. But in fact, when I studied it much later, it was clear that the food statistics weren`t really very wrong. They needed only minor correction, and that wouldn`t explain the famine. One must see it plainly in terms of a fuller economic analysis of how people earn a living and how they can use their wages and income to buy food. Just to give an example, sharecroppers and cash wage laborers in normal circumstances are almost equally poor, but the famine hit the wage laborers much harder than the sharecroppers. It happened during World War II. The Japanese were in Burma and the British army was in Bengal. There was war-based production. Prices shot up. When prices shot up, the wage earners, with fixed money wages, started going down right away, whereas sharecroppers, since they get their income in the form of part of the food, didn`t suffer in the same way. Indeed, I found on the basis of indicators of mortality as well as indicators of occupational distress on which we had data that sharecroppers were not distressed at all in the way that cash wage laborers were. This indicated that I was on the right line. So the kind of economic analysis, the complexity of the entire economic system could be brought into the story. This is a simple example; there were more complex issues as well, such as the effect of government procurement and of speculation by traders. The recognition that the story was not just about food was already clear when I watched the famine and its class-based nature, its suddenness and its contrariness.

In Development as Freedom, you write that ``No famine has evertaken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.``

It became increasingly clear to me by the 1970s that both empirically famines have actually not occurred in functioning democracies and also that that didn`t seem like a fluke but there was a good reason. My first book on famines, Poverty and Famines, came out in 1981, by then I thought I understood something about how famines operate and how easy it is to prevent them. You can`t prevent undernourishment so easily, but famines you can stop with half an effort, without difficulty. Then the question was, Why don`t the governments stop them? The first answer is that the government servants and the leaders, whether they be military or non-military, are upper class. They never starve. They never suffer from famine, and therefore they don`t have a personal incentive to stop it. However, if the government were vulnerable to public opinion, then famines are a dreadfully bad thing to have. You can`t win many elections after a famine, and you don`t like being criticized by newspapers, opposition parties in Parliament an so on if you are in a democratic country. Democracy gives the government an immediate political incentive to act.

Given that political incentive, and taking note of the economic analysis that famines are easy to prevent, you would expect that in a democracy there will be no famine. Whereas in the absence of a democracy you may avoid famine if you are lucky. A famine may not develop. On the other hand, if one were to develop, there`s no guarantee that the government will try to prevent it. Some time there will be a visionary leader who will actually do it without needing the political incentive, but you don`t have the guaranteed reaction by the government which you would expect in a democracy if there is no democracy but a dictatorship, either of an alienated kind, like a colonial administration, like the British Raj in India or for that matter in Ireland, or military dictators in one country after another, like Somalia, Ethiopia and many other countries. Also, the one-party states like we had in the Soviet Union and China, despite the fact that the governments were generally committed to the interests of the underdog, indeed, that`s how they had come to power, they were so dominated by theory that they were not in a position to react. Often they were particularly in humane in not feeling the manifest suffering that they saw around them, thinking that somehow in the long run this would turn out to be right. The Chinese had the failure of the Great Leap Forward, which led to a famine between 1958 and 1961 inwhich nearly thirty million people died. While tens of millions were dying every year, the disastrous policies of the government were not revised for three years. This would be unthinkable in a democracy. Similarly, while the famine was going on, there were also starving of information for the government. This is an additional factor, the informational connection as opposed to the political incentive connection. This is because each commune in China, each collective, obviously saw that they were not doing very well themselves but they read in the papers that everything was fine in the rest of the country. That`s what censorship does. They all came to the conclusion respectively that they alone were failing. So rather than admitting failure, they cooked the numbers and reported higher food output than was true. When Beijing added these up at the height of the famine, they thought that they had a hundred million more metric tons of rice than they actually had. So the censorship of the press which often goes with lack of a democratic system had the effect not only of hoodwinking the public but ultimately hoodwinking the state. Something similar happened in the Soviet Union. They were partly deluded and partly theoretically arrogant and overconfident of their policy. But in the case of the Ukraine and the Soviet famine, there was also a kind of dislike of one group, the Kulaks, so there was somewhat of a basic lack of sympathy for the rural areas. But on top of that, the lack of democracy, of political incentives that go with democracy and the lack of information added to the story. So I think the one-party state in the Soviet Union or China (or Cambodia, or North Korea) or the military dictatorship as in many of the African countries or the colonial rule like in the British Empire and the French Empire bring out plentifully the penalty of political unfreedom, the lack of democracy.

Talk about what you`ve described as ``subcontinental nuclear adventures.`` In May 1998, India conducts nuclear tests. A month later Pakistan follo