(Indian Express)
How do Nitish Kumar and L.K. Advani become secular? How does rainfall determine monetary policy?
When I woke up this morning/ Secularism was on my mind/ So I went to Nitish/ Just to ease my pain (with apologies to We Five, "You were on my mind")
How do Nitish Kumar and L.K. Advani become secular? How does rainfall determine monetary policy?
When I woke up this morning/ Secularism was on my mind/ So I went to Nitish/ Just to ease my pain (with apologies to We Five, "You were on my mind")
If I had enough hair, I would tear it out. Several
"events" of the last few days I am just not able to understand. See
if you can. Top of my madness list is the behaviour of Nitish Kumar, Bihar
chief minister and wannabe PM. Everybody wants to be PM, just like everybody
"must" get stoned. So that is not the problem. The issue is the
reason given for Nitish to be a born-again secularist. After being a
pseudo-secularist for the last 17 years (being pseudo comes with the territory
of being with the BJP), Nitish appears to have suddenly discovered religion.
Though we may never know the real reasons, most people see his actions as
something less than rank opportunism. The Congress is short of candidates
for PM — does he possibly see himself as a
Congress-front candidate (all
puns intended)?
Along the same lines has been the Congress-friendly
media's response to L.K. Advani's tantrums. The most amusing aspect about the
"Sonia is happy" networks was their projection of Advani as the
ultimate secularist. The man singly responsible for Babri Masjid — which then
led to the Mumbai communal riots, which then possibly influenced the Godhra
riots. The man who chose disturbing yatras over fasts as
his main weapon of political destruction. He is the
new Congress icon of secularism?
Can we all be honest and forbid
When I woke up this morning/ Secularism was on my
mind/ So I went to Nitish/ Just to ease my pain (with apologies to We Five,
"You were on my mind")
If I had enough hair, I would tear it out. Several
"events" of the last few days I am just not able to understand. See
if you can.
Top of my madness list is the behaviour of Nitish
Kumar, Bihar chief minister and wannabe PM. Everybody wants to be PM, just like
everybody "must" get stoned. So that is not the problem. The issue is
the reason given for Nitish to be a born-again secularist. After being a
pseudo-secularist for the last 17 years (being pseudo comes with the territory
of being with the BJP), Nitish appears to have suddenly discovered religion.
Though we may never know the real reasons, most people see his actions as
something less than rank opportunism. The Congress is short of candidates for
PM — does he possibly see himself as a Congress-front candidate (all puns
intended)?
Along the same lines has been the Congress-friendly
media's response to L.K. Advani's tantrums. The most amusing aspect about the
"Sonia is happy" networks was their projection of Advani as the
ultimate secularist. The man singly responsible for Babri Masjid — which then
led to the Mumbai communal riots, which then possibly influenced the Godhra
riots. The man who chose disturbing yatras over fasts as his main weapon of
political destruction. He is the new Congress icon of secularism?
Can we all be honest and forbid the use of the
S-word in our political discourse? Apart from delightedly watching all the
Congress leaders and Lalu and Mulayam and now Nitish squirm while they attempt
to find a new vocabulary with which to communicate with the masses, the banning
of the S-word will also help our democracy. The leaders of all stripes will be
forced to communicate on issues and not on empty platitudes. So my question to
journalists and politicians and spokespersons is: since we get nothing, and
actually negative nothings from insipid discussions about secularism, can we
ban its usage? If you disagree, call me mad.
Banning the S-word will also help in discussing
communal riots and mass killings objectively rather than suggesting that
"the Mumbai riots were secular and Godhra riots not secular". There
should be an objective comparison between the three major "communal"
events of the last 30 years — the pogrom against the Sikhs in 1984, and the
communal riots in Mumbai 1992-93, and Godhra-Gujarat, 2002. If Narendra Modi
has to be congratulated on any issue, it is in forcing the Indian media to
confront the comparison. Let us get some simple facts straight (else call me
mad) — there is no comparison between the Sikh pogrom and the communal riots.
Note: one was a pogrom, the others were communal clashes. The dictionary
defines a pogrom as "the organised killing of many helpless people usually
because of their race or religion". That is what happened in the capital
of India in 1984. The army wasn't called in until five days after the killing
had started. The number of helpless Sikhs killed — close to 8,000 with about
3,000 in Delhi alone. In other words, there were more innocent Sikhs killed in
the pogrom in Delhi than in the Mumbai and Godhra riots put together — about
2,000 killed, including about 1,500 Muslims and 500 Hindus. Note that both
Hindus and Muslims were killed in Mumbai-Godhra — unlike the killing of only
Sikhs in the pogrom.
My plea is that we recognise that atrocities have
been committed under the watch of both political parties — the Congress was
ruling India and Delhi during both the Sikh pogrom and the Mumbai riots and
Modi was at the helm in Gujarat in 2002. It is time for truth and
reconciliation, rather than arrogant holier-than-thou pronouncements from
political leaders. Again, let us shift the debate to governance rather than
indulge in vacuous polemics about bad morality.
And then, there is the question of terrorism and
development fighters. Why is there not a reasonable discussion, let alone a
debate, on the destruction of lives, civil liberties and governance by the
Taliban in Pakistan and the Naxals/Maoists in India? Why do learned intellectuals
and politicians of a particular ideological persuasion have a lump in their
throats criticising these different groups, both in India and Pakistan? Nobody
condemns their extraordinary violence outright — it is always qualified. Why?
Maybe I am mad.
And now for something (almost) completely
different. I find the economic debate in India, as conducted by the RBI,
professionals and the media, extremely unenlightening. The economy has
literally collapsed, yet we are not looking for causes and cures. Let me illustrate
my problem with a recent quote from the monetary authorities. RBI governor D.
Subbarao, at an event in Hyderabad, said: "...Most importantly, we also
chase the monsoon like millions of farmers across the country. So, the monsoon
outlook, the monsoon performance is going to be the important factor in
determining the RBI policy in the next three months."
We all recognise that food inflation is a major
problem in India, and that food inflation has been primarily caused by the
misguided and wrong procurement pricing policies of the UPA government. But it
is for the first time that I have heard of the level of rainfall determining
monetary policy in India or any other country. Given the depressing and
depressed state of the Indian economy, no matter what happens to rainfall, the
argument is for a cut in the interest rates. Assume for a moment the rainfall
is bad — growth declines and there is close to a zero effect on food inflation,
since the prices of all the important food items are administered. The RBI
should cut repo rates to help growth. Assume rainfall is plentiful. Again, not
much effect on inflation. But agricultural growth will be up and the RBI
should... I get it — the RBI should tighten up because growth will be too high!
Tell me I am mad to think so.
The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an
emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor
to Blufin, a leading financial information
companythe use of the S-word in our political discourse? Apart from delightedly
watching all the Congress leaders and Lalu and Mulayam and now Nitish squirm
while they attempt to find a new vocabulary with which to communicate with the
masses, the banning of the S-word will also help our democracy. The leaders of
all stripes will be forced to communicate on issues and not on empty
platitudes. So my question to journalists and politicians and spokespersons is:
since we get nothing, and actually negative nothings from insipid discussions
about secularism, can we ban its usage? If you disagree, call me mad.
Banning the S-word will also help in discussing
communal riots and mass killings objectively rather than suggesting that
"the Mumbai riots were secular and Godhra riots not secular". There
should be an objective comparison between the three major "communal"
events of the last 30 years — the pogrom against the Sikhs in 1984, and the
communal riots in Mumbai 1992-93, and Godhra-Gujarat, 2002. If Narendra Modi
has to be congratulated on any issue, it is in forcing the Indian media to
confront the comparison. Let us get some simple facts straight (else call me
mad) — there is no comparison between the Sikh pogrom and the communal riots.
Note: one was a pogrom, the others were communal clashes. The dictionary
defines a pogrom as "the organised killing of many helpless people usually
because of their race or religion". That is what happened in the capital
of India in 1984. The army wasn't called in until five days after the killing
had started. The number of helpless Sikhs killed — close to 8,000 with about
3,000 in Delhi alone. In other words, there were more innocent Sikhs killed in
the pogrom in Delhi than in the Mumbai and Godhra riots put together — about
2,000 killed, including about 1,500 Muslims and 500 Hindus. Note that both
Hindus and Muslims were killed in Mumbai-Godhra — unlike the killing of only
Sikhs in the pogrom.
My plea is that we recognise that atrocities have
been committed under the watch of both political parties — the Congress was
ruling India and Delhi during both the Sikh pogrom and the Mumbai riots and
Modi was at the helm in Gujarat in 2002. It is time for truth and
reconciliation, rather than arrogant holier-than-thou pronouncements from
political leaders. Again, let us shift the debate to governance rather than
indulge in vacuous polemics about bad morality.
And then, there is the question of terrorism and
development fighters. Why is there not a reasonable discussion, let alone a
debate, on the destruction of lives, civil liberties and governance by the
Taliban in Pakistan and the Naxals/Maoists in India? Why do learned
intellectuals and politicians of a particular ideological persuasion have a
lump in their throats criticising these different groups, both in India and
Pakistan? Nobody condemns their extraordinary violence outright — it is always
qualified. Why? Maybe I am mad.
And now for something (almost) completely
different. I find the economic debate in India, as conducted by the RBI,
professionals and the media, extremely unenlightening. The economy has
literally collapsed, yet we are not looking for causes and cures. Let me
illustrate my problem with a recent quote from the monetary authorities. RBI
governor D. Subbarao, at an event in Hyderabad, said: "...Most
importantly, we also chase the monsoon like millions of farmers across the country.
So, the monsoon outlook, the monsoon performance is going to be the important
factor in determining the RBI policy in the next three months."
We all recognise that food inflation is a major
problem in India, and that food inflation has been primarily caused by the
misguided and wrong procurement pricing policies of the UPA government. But it
is for the first time that I have heard of the level of rainfall determining
monetary policy in India or any other country. Given the depressing and
depressed state of the Indian economy, no matter what happens to rainfall, the
argument is for a cut in the interest rates. Assume for a moment the rainfall
is bad — growth declines and there is close to a zero effect on food inflation,
since the prices of all the important food items are administered. The RBI
should cut repo rates to help growth. Assume rainfall is plentiful. Again, not
much effect on inflation. But agricultural growth will be up and the RBI
should... I get it — the RBI should tighten up because growth will be too high!
Tell me I am mad to think so.
The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an
emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor to Blufin, a leading
financial information company
No comments:
Post a Comment