
Stupid of me to not to realize that just like chinese made plastic Christmans tree ,he was never planted but moulded onlee.
VikasRaina wrote:Surinder,
This brings me back to a earlier question that I had raised. Most of us have no clue about our history or religion and interplay of various forces which shape our culture,society or history.
We have become rootless society which would accept every piece of trash from people who have nothing but contempt for us.
Examply, Outside Arya Samaj, How many people are aware of the work that Swami Dayanand or Swami Shradhanand did.
And Mr. Das makes us feel that Hindus were somehow afraid of *Sikhs* around them.
I am reminded of a couplet by Zafar-II...
Tujhe dushmano ka pata na tha, mujhe dosto ki khabar na thi..
Actually, Dharmic considerations aside, one needs to look at what work Mr.Gurcharan Das is doing with his influence.Prem wrote:I take my words back that he has started returning to his roots .
Stupid of me to not to realize that just like chinese made plastic Christmans tree ,he was never planted but moulded onlee.
Farmers, beware of the mealy bug!
NAGPUR; Cotton cultivators in Vidarbha may have reaped a bounty from the genetically modified Bt cotton last season but they should guard against mealy bug which attacks it. Last year it caused widespread devastation to cotton crop in Punjab, in India and Pakistan.
While the Bt seed can fight American bollworm, failure to use appropriate pesticide in time could lead to infestation of mealy bug. In Malwa region of Punjab, the snow-white sap-sucking bug covered large tracts of crop and destroyed a good crop, according to Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti president Kishor Tiwari.
According to him, buoyed by better results of Bt cotton, this year there are chances of the transgenic cotton seed of the American company, which has issued license to Indian companies, being sown in around three million hectares — nearly double the areas grown in last year. "But mealy bug that attacks Bt cotton has already arrived. It could pose a big threat to cotton growers in western Vidarbha whose dependence on Bt seeds is now total,’ warned Tiwari.
The farm activist has claimed to have written to prime minister Manmohan Singh to intervene in the matter and call for urgent steps to ban Bt seeds in Vidarbha to avoid the mealy bug infestation. "The bug attack was noticed in some areas of Vidarbha by late December. As the kharif season was coming to an end then, the damage was limited. But it spread to weeds and garden plants around the fields. Once Bt crop is grown in mid-June in the new kharif season, the mealy bug may multiply rapidly and destroy the fresh kharif crop," said Tiwari.
Fighting the bug is a very costly affair and involves intensive spraying of toxic chemical pesticides. The additional cost it entailed brought heavy losses to Punjab farmers last season. "The Vidarbha farmers who are already reeling under a debt and distress cycle could face a tough time if timely action is not taken," warned Tiwari. Andhra Pradesh government has advised farmers to avoid Bt seeds and a switch over to organic farming, he claimed. Divisional joint director of agriculture K J Nandeshwar could not be contacted for comment on preventive action.
Indians have been "South-Asianised" which sounds similar to Euthanized, which is what this term is about. I hold nothing but disgust for this term, and I think all Indians should too. But unfortunately, you will find normal Indians take to this new term with glee. Talk about blindly walking into a trap.anishns wrote: S Asians top US spelling contests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7443800.stm
As far as I can remember, it has always been Indians winning spelling bee contests in the US. In fact, many winners of physics/math olympiad's have also been predominantly Indians rather than other South Asians.
What is the problem with this western media of referring to us as Indians or S.Asians? when it suits them? I am not a racist but, its always the case that the role of Indians for genuine accomplishments are never highlighted.
Yes, when it comes to human rights, poverty, illiteracy woes we are always pointed out as Indians and not S.Asians even when the status of other S.Asian countries is on par or worse than India's![]()
![]()
Apologies if this is not the right thread for this piece.
Ashok Sarraff wrote:Dear Nukkadites,
I had the “sowbhagyam” of meeting with a self-professed “left-leaning” intellectual yesterday. A brief background about the gentleman: he is a beef-eating, Tamil Brahmin (by birth), missionary school educated, IIM Graduate, about 45 yrs old, reached US some 15 years ago at the age of 30 or so, is an established management scholar, knows Balaji Sampath (of AID and “ranked 6th in JEE!”) personally, and thinks that Madhav Chavan of Pratham is a very famous person in India (sorry, but I heard this name for the first time!).
We had an approximately two hours “chat” in presence of American/Chinese folks. Well, actually, I and others prompted the gentleman and the gentleman talked and talked and talked. The Chinese and the Church going audience were enthralled by the gentleman’s thoughts about India.
What I heard directly from the horses mouth (this was my first direct interaction with a left-leaning, otherwise intelligent, individual) confirmed what I had heard second/third hand from some folks here and at other places. Here is a summary of what I heard first hand (and I am not making it up!):
1. India is a notional country.
2. The person openly professed that he is not an Indian because of (1) above.
3. In any case, this person is not comfortable being a part of the culture “that oppresses 600 million people”.
4. India has occupied Kashmir (and Juna Garh and Hyderabad to a lesser extent) by fraudulent means. Therefore, the people of Kashmir should decide whether they want to be a part of India or not.
5. Not only the Kashmiri terrorists, but also, LTTE folks are “freedom fighters”. LTTE “freedom fighters” are fighting for “liberation” of Tamil Nadu as well.
6. It is okay, in fact “logical”, if large chunks of India break away – special focus was on Kashmir, followed by Assam and the rest of the North East.
7. The gentleman’s inspiration to work comes from Jesus’s sermon on the mount. When I asked him whether he had heard anything about bhakti, karma, & jnana yoga, he answered in affirmative. But, of course, Indian philosophy cannot guide any good action.
8. Gujrat riots was a “pogrom” since the “entire government machinery was involved in the massacre”. Also a total of “5300” people were killed. Thankfully, the gentleman knew that about 25-30% of them were Hindus.
9. When I asked about “communist goons” in Kerala killing other people, the gentleman laughed it away.
10. There is no religious motive for Pakistan’s support to terrorism in Kashmir. The only thing they want is to avenge separation of Bangladesh, which makes terrorism and Pakistani support to it “understandable”.
11. Maintaining military in Kashmir costs “thousands” of crores annually. Therefore, we should allow it to separate.
12. India should not have any big dreams. In particular, the pursuit of UNSC seat takes away from poverty alleviation. And, in any case, UNSC seat is only to veto the Kashmir issue when required.
13. Indians should not be proud of their heritage and culture, not even be aware about it, since it does not matter at all. In any case, there is nothing at all to be proud about.
14. India is in an absolutely bad shape, and will continue to be in it. Nothing has improved at all on social, educational, technological fronts since independence.
15. “Aryans” did invade India and Dravids, especially Tamils, are the “original” inhabitants of India.
16. Communist support to India’s invasion in 1962 is okay since “Hindu parties also supported the British.”
17. India should not spend too much on defense (thankfully, he did not advocate zero spending). Places such as Siachin are especially useless and it costs thousands of crores to maintain troops there. We should also give up our “completely useless” territory where “not a blade of grass grows.” (reminded me so much of our Late Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru)
As we know, this guy and the ideology he represents is a grave threat to the Indian nation. E.g., Pratham reaches several million kids (or so they claim). I wonder whether this sort of “education” includes “deIndianizing” kids and turn them into self-loathing citizens and an easy target for our various friends from abroad.
I am sure everyone here does their bit to counter this challenge. To those who don’t, this is my humble request to do whatever they can to counter this threat the Indian nationhood. Every small action counts. Buy and distribute nationalist books, visit nationalist workers in the field – it’s a morale booster for them, donate, write articles, deliver lectures, organize shows, educate friends in US and India etc. - do whatever you can. Visiting BR is very good, but please be a BRF-ite in the real world as well (if you are not, that is)!
On a broader level, why does Indian education system produce people with such attitudes? How do we fix it? When Chinese communists can be Chinese nationalists and Cuban communists can be Cuban nationalists, why can't Indian communists be Indian nationalists?
A
People don't trust the Indian government for food, how could you possibly trust it to determine (without due process) that someone should be jailed/deported/killed? That is a very dangerous line of thinking. You can't trust everyone to be Vikramaditya and pass fair judgment on everyone and we shouldn't.sanjaychoudhry wrote:Also, it is about time India had its own version of the Patriot Act so that such people can be charged with treason and promoting sedition. There are enough Binayak Sens running around in America working against India, with the blessings of enemies of the country such as Bibile thumpers and the ISI-infiltrated SAJA crowd. How will these people learn correct behaviour if whatever they do against India goes unpunished and unacknowledged?
Why is that people are so willing to advocate war all the time? After tens of hundreds of regimes, you'd think some people would learn. Using violence is not the answer for the long term. You have to win hearts and minds. You have to make people feel from the bottom of their heart that they are correct and not being forced to believe in something external to themselves. If you want nationalists, you need people who can connect to the average person on even ground. Indians are already very distrustful of the government, using violence only cements that idea and does not breed nationalists - give them food, water, housing, jobs, etc. and you'll gain nationalists.abhischekcc wrote:Keshav,
Leftists do not hate India for any reason. They never needed a reason to hate India. Hatred is within the founding fabric of this creed.
They will not understand you if you talk to them, they understand only violence.
I don't understand Hindi. Could you translate that?Laaton ke boot, baaton se nahin maante.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Where are the objective news outlets? Where are the academics? Where are the schools?Methinks, the policy I was advocating is already in practice and is already showing prelim results. The lefty psecs are on the backfoot. Their propaganda is paying diminishing returns. Their credibility is in tatters. Their electoral influence is also waning (having waxed in 2004). An Arun Shourie as HRD mantri is all we need to keep the intellectual terrorists at bay (and an NM as griha mantri to keep the literal terrorists at bay). Aha.
And wishful thinking it may well be for now.Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Where are the objective news outlets? Where are the academics? Where are the schools?
You mean "lost oppurtunity" to have the pipelines exploded by ISI/pakjihadis or one of the other 100 million violent pakis? Pakistan needs to unravel further before any such pipeline can be allowed. Good luck to the pakis running a pipeline through their territory to China -- I am sure the Paki army has enough enemies who will want to "reconstruct" the pipeline using vaccum technology every month.yea..but the entry of the chinese will change the game from GoI enjoying it chai-biskoot to losing its sleep over another lost oppurtunity.
yea..but the entry of the chinese will change the game from GoI enjoying its chai-biskoot to losing its sleep over another lost oppurtunity. the Indo-US nuclear deal seems to be going nowhere either. at least one(both in an ideal situation) of these energy projects will be crucial for meeting the energy requirements in the future. If the chinese steal the IIPL from us or join it, thats a psy blow and relegates us to being seen as playing second fiddle rather than initiators or committed in other promising energy markets.Rye wrote:Did people think of why the IPI is a good concept as long as it exists and does not get implemented? Chai-biskooth while presenting the picture of cooperation...ideal stance for India.
The IPI project is not getting off the ground as long as Pakistan is what it is, a jihadi hellhole about to implode.at least one(both in an ideal situation) of these energy projects will be crucial for meeting the energy requirements in the future.
If the chinese steal the IIPL from us or join it, thats a psy blow and relegates us to being seen as playing second fiddle rather than initiators or committed in other promising energy markets.
implode? so, you are saying just because there are jihadis in pakistan all we have to do is do nothing, just sit back and wait till the problems are solved and finally, IF and when its all over and pakistan will turn into this ideal utopian state only then should india think about the IIPL? going by the same logic, india should give up developing infrastructure of any sort because there are insurgents in the north east? you sound meekier than the meekiest SDRE.The IPI project is not getting off the ground as long as Pakistan is what it is, a jihadi hellhole about to implode.
Who is going to insure/assure the security of any such pipeline through pakistan? What kind of energy requirements will be satisfied with a pipeline that can be turned off by some jihadi group with some plastic explosive....both of which are available in abundance in Pakistan (jihadis and semtex, that is). The IPI is a wet dream as long as pakistan is unstable whether or not china is involved.
Need to ponder if there are fixes that need to be implemented to prevent centrifugal tendencies due to obstinate and obsolete constructs. Its clear that command economies are bankrupting the State and with the high cost of energy it will only get worse. What unravelled the Mughals was the state expenditure not being in sync with revenues and farming out revenues to outsiders.OBSTACLE RACE
- States like Gujarat are impatient for a market-state
Swapan Dasgupta
In his new, much-acclaimed book, Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century, the American scholar, Philip Bobbit, has persuasively argued that the nation-state, a hallmark of the 20th century, is progressively yielding way to the market-state. Compared to the nation-state, the market-state “does not see the State as more than a minimal provider or redistributor. Whereas the nation state justified itself as an instrument to serve the welfare of the people (the nation), the market state exists to maximize the opportunities (of its citizens). Such a state depends on the international capital markets and, to a lesser extent, on modern multinational business network (including the news media and NGOs), in preference to management by national or transnational political bodies.”
Although Bobbit used these categories to plead for a more accurate understanding of the new terrorist menace, the shifting terrain of democratic statehood may help explain two completely unrelated developments: Ireland’s No vote in the June 12 referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon and the furore over Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi’s bid to refashion federal relations in India. Ireland’s clear rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon that would have transformed the European Union into a mega-state with overriding laws and a single foreign policy has been described by Europhiles as a monumental display of bloody-mindedness. There may be some truth in this assertion. An amateurish No campaign comprising an assortment of disparate causes, ranging from Irish nationalism and uncompromising Catholicism to libertarianism, did succeed in invoking the traditional Irish penchant for freedom and contrariness.
However, it was not all about an island’s innate suspicion of faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and their French and German masters. At a more serious level, as was convincingly argued by the maverick businessman, Declan Ganley, and his Libertas group, a Yes vote would have involved Ireland succumbing to uniformity and losing its competitive advantage. It is worth remembering that the emergence of the Celtic Tiger, as Ireland has often been called, didn’t happen merely because the country received a whopping 40 billion euros in aid from the EU since 1973. It also owed substantially to Ireland wooing multinational investment through generous tax incentives. A Yes vote would have forced fiscal uniformity down the throat of Dublin and made Ireland a less attractive destination for international capital.
Ireland was not rejecting its role in Europe; it was repudiating the right of a mega-state to remote control its affairs. A loss of national sovereignty has gone hand-in-hand with membership of multilateral bodies such as the EU and the World Trade Organization. The Irish No vote was a plea for defining the limits of this abdication. The message acquires importance because Ireland is not a rural backwater steeped in what Karl Marx would have called the “idiocy of rural life”; it is one of the fastest growing economies in the EU. There is a qualitative difference between Ireland demanding its own space and the Isle of Skye insisting it be left alone to wallow in its sheep and whisky.
The importance of a local space has never been really appreciated by a centralized State. Ever since nationalism was complemented by economic planning, national elites have assumed a monopoly over what it deems is the public good. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru was rightly concerned about building a modern nation-state out of a British raj that was founded on convenience and expediency. The British, in any case, always felt that India was a romantic construct that bore little relation to the kaleidoscope on the ground — an assertion that nationalists of all shades contested bitterly, sometimes with good reason.
Yet, Nehru’s alternative to the “night-watchman state” didn’t end with bolstering the steel frame, maintaining a professional army and subsuming indigenous arbitration with codified laws. He attempted to iron out the creases of nationhood with a constitutional order that was only nominally federal. The reality was an over-centralized State marked by a redistributive Centre — an agency that would channel resources by both defying the market and tailoring it to political convenience. West Bengal was an early casualty of this quest for uniform development, a principle that promoted inefficiency. A counter-factual history of post-Independence economic development may be able to identify the progress India may have made had Nehru and his daughter shown a greater sensitivity to the market. Certainly, the precipitate decline of Calcutta may not have happened if contrived measures such as the freight equalization of steel hadn’t been enforced.
It is in the context of post-liberalization India’s exasperation with babu raj that Narendra Modi’s outburst against the Centre’s iniquity has to be viewed. In a speech in Surat earlier this month, an angry Modi — fed up with petitioning Delhi for funds — said that he would have no objection to the Centre cutting off all “aid” as long as it simultaneously ensured that the Rs 40,000 crore or so raised from the state in Central taxes was spent on Gujarat, at least for a year.
Modi’s outburst occasioned a predictable outcry. The usual suspects from a hostile academia in Gujarat attacked his disrespect for federal principles. And a second-level Congress functionary, acting presumably on instructions, suggested that he be charged with sedition — an over-statement that Modi exploited to the hilt.
Cutting out the rhetorical flourishes, Modi’s argument corresponds to the needs of an emerging market-state. First, just as Ireland expressed its anger at bureaucrats in Brussels calling the shots at the behest of puppeteers in Berlin and Paris, Modi was calling into question the right of bodies like the Finance Commission and Planning Commission to determine the utilization of revenue. He would rather inject the process with a huge dose of market realism. Secondly, the Gujarat chief minister was questioning the very principle of a redistributive Centre.
A nation has some common obligations (the conduct of national security, foreign affairs and communication) and it may even feel the need to give the helping hand of subsidy to regions that need a leg up. However, apart from necessary obligations, the Centre cannot be allowed to ride roughshod over the interests of people and places that contribute to the exchequer. Modi’s contention that only 2.5 per cent of the taxes collected in Gujarat are ploughed back may or may not be exact — a Congress leader has argued the figure is more like 20 per cent. But his larger demand for taxation to be accompanied by accountability is crying out for a worthwhile political response.
The demand is certain to acquire greater urgency in the light of the Congress’s preference for the nation-state over the market-state. According to an article in Business Standard, in Congress-ruled Maharashtra, there is state procurement of cotton from the farmers which has burdened the state exchequer with accumulated losses of Rs 5,730 crore till 2005-06. In Gujarat, the state has used its resources to create an environment for better productivity — better irrigation and more technical know-how. In Maharashtra, cotton productivity is between 170 and 190 kg per hectare; in Gujarat, it is thrice as much. In 1991-92, Maharashtra produced 10.5 per cent of India’s cotton crop and Gujarat 12.7 per cent; in 2005-06, Maharashtra’s share rose to 14.8 per cent while Gujarat’s shot up to 36.5 per cent.
States such as Gujarat, which have outgrown the self-destructive socialism of the 20th century, are impatient for a market-state. India’s pseudo-federalism is a formidable obstacle to the country realizing its full potential.![]()
Ramana: I have come to the conclusion that these so called centrifugal tendencies have been over sold and other viable options could have been used, instead of continuing the unitary state model of the colonial era, with a nominal concept of federalism and a complete ba$tardization of the market economy.ramana wrote:Need to ponder if there are fixes that need to be implemented to prevent centrifugal tendencies due to obstinate and obsolete constructs. Its clear that command economies are bankrupting the State and with the high cost of energy it will only get worse. What unravelled the Mughals was the state expenditure not being in sync with revenues and farming out revenues to outsiders.
This is when the state politicians will take over the national party and will bring change to the center. This is how the evolution of political economy happens.ShauryaT wrote:
On this issue Modi is 100% right. If the center does not get its act together then the state should rightfully question, why should the people of the state of Gujrat suffer for such a long time, in the name of federalism?
believe there was an element of 'building up' of Nehru by western powers and their
press in contrast to more homegrown and dangerous folks like Patel.
The above betrays a lingering inferiority complex whether the author knows it or not. Other than being a sweeping statement with no evidence at all - I guess the US bending over backwards to give India access to nuclear technology counts as the 'goras' keeping india down in the author's logic ?? - it also overlooks the basic fact that at the end of the day no one can really hold back a nation as large as India for anything other than brief interludes unless it lets it. The real forces holding India back are people like the CPI (agents of China if any - not the 'goras') and I am amazed that India is not responding at the ballot box and consigning them to history. And nor do I see any popular campaigns to educate the people about just how anti-national the communists are."Basically, White Christians will do everthing to discredit and prevent the rise of native nationalism in India (denial of visa to Modi, etc). The nationalists can make the country developed and assertive, which the Goras do not want India to be at any cost."
varghese, the incidents, shameful as they were does not necessarily mean that the man is power is the perpetrator, unless proven otherwise in a court of law.varghese wrote:
As for the denial of visa to Modi - I would suggest that has everything to do with the appalling treatment of our Muslim brethren in Gujarat under his administration. Every self respecting and fair minded Indian should be ashamed of what happened. It is tragic that the lessons of history are so quickly forgotten. It was not that long ago another politician demonised and persecuted a minority community in the course of asserting his country's 'greatness'. And where did Hitler lead Germany to with the full democratic support of the majority of his country's people?
Modern Indians, including Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who argued the case for a modern India with Mahatma Gandhi, could neither own nor reject India’s past. Nehru bluntly told Mahatma Gandhi once that he did not consider Ram Rajya of the past, revered by the Mahatma, as the ideal road map for India’s polity, nor did he want it back. But with most Indians refusing to snap their links with the past, many modernists, silently — and some, even openly — had written off India as a lost cause, almost agreeing with the likes of Max Weber who asserted that Hindus and Buddhists who believed in karma and rebirth could not develop in a modern world. But it is now evident that India, once written off, has more than just survived, with loyalty to its past reasonably intact. Today it is perceived as a rising global power. If India could handle the future without disowning its past, is it not time that Indians also debated whether it was their past that is wrong, or their adjudication about it?
Begin from the run-up to India’s freedom. Winston Churchill predicted that free India would slip into anarchy; he even counselled the British “to leave India to God; and, if that is too much, leave her to anarchy”. But India did not oblige Churchill. Instead, within a couple of years, it formulated a Constitution based on the rule of law on which the British had based their right to civilise, even rule, others. India unfailingly conducted elections, installed elected governments. More. When Indira Gandhi attempted to undo this, the Indian villagers, whom the West and the Westernised in India — like Nehru did in his letter to Mahatma Gandhi way back in 1928 — despised as illiterate and uncivilised, handed an unforgettable defeat to her and restored democracy.
Some two decades after Churchill, another accomplished Westerner, but from the United States, J.K. Galbraith, confirmed India as an “anarchy”, but a “functioning” one. Galbraith, US Ambassador to India, was an admirer of Nehru, who proudly confided to Galbraith that he, Nehru, would be the last English Prime Minister of India! (Nehruji should be happy in heavens that he was wrong!) Many in the West believed that “anarchic” India would function only till Nehru was around. A leading American journalist, Welles Hangen, even wrote a book titled After Nehru, Who? (Err..India is despite Nehru, not because of Nehru) which concealed the implied question, what after Nehru — anarchy? But India has, by now, seen after an inevitable Nehru, two more inevitables from the Nehru stable, and many non-Nehrus, as Prime Ministers. It has proved that it could do business with even a Deve Gowda, a farmer, or Inder Gujral, a refugee from Pakistan, or Manmohan Singh, a World Bank pensioner, as Prime Ministers. Far from one Nehru or one party in charge, coalitions of two dozen parties have been running governments successively for full terms, something which an Italy, which is some 2% of India, could not do; and Japan — less than a tenth of India — did not; which is something unthinkable for a Britain, that is about 5% of India; and is something that might even break the United States.
Free India has handled a Constitution that is based on an Anglo-Saxon worldview, with marginal indigenous input. The Indian Constitution instituted parliamentary democracy, but Indian polity has formalised dynasty; it preaches secularism, but our politics patronises communal vote banks; it celebrates socialism, but our economy functions on free market; it proscribes caste-oriented discrimination, but our polity prescribes caste-based differentiation; it is centred on individuals, but our politics is built around crowds; it makes Hindi the link language, but India is branded as the world’s second largest English-speaking nation. What does this mean? Indian civilisation seems to possess unbelievable flexibility to handle these seemingly irreconcilable contradictions. Destiny has given India a durability which it seems to have denied to its cousins in the West and Middle West. There is no Greek or Roman or Egyptian or Babylonian or Arab or Persian civilisation today. Spiders weave a web where Caesars ruled, said Swami Vivekananda. Yet, more than a century ago, he foresaw India’s rise, when no one suspected it would ever happen.
India is now seen, even by those who had earlier written its obituary, as a rising geopolitical, economic power. Responsible analysts assert that three decades from now, India is likely to rank on par with the US as the second largest economy in the world; and as one of the top three world powers — the other two being US and China — reducing Germany, England, France, Japan and Russia to just regional status. Is this the rise of a backward nation?
British historian William Dalrymple sees rising India as merely claiming back its original status as a leading global power. Pre-colonial India was the leading economic powerhouse of the world. But, led by the colonial view that India had no proud past, distant or recent, free India’s leadership worked, unsuccessfully, to bury the past which it found difficult to handle. Worse, it trivialised its past by labelling the slow progress of the nation under a socialist regime as the “Hindu rate of growth”, implying that India’s past was holding down its growth rate. But the truth is the other way round. If the label Hindu rate of growth is acceptable in economics, it has to be equally conceded that it had made India the leading economic power for 17 centuries. A study of global economic history by Angus Maddison, adviser to OECD, has confirmed that from the dawn of the Common Era, till 1700 India was the global economic leader. Maddison’s study says that, in 1725, China overtook India, but India was the next, with France and Britain much lower down. This order continued till 1800. Later, the deepening colonial exploitation pushed India to the third position, and slowly, with the rise of the US and other countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, India was pushed into backwardness. It was colonialism, as Dadabhai Nowrojee substantiated first and as Will Durant eloquently articulated later in his paper, “The Case for India”, that ruined India.
It is not over yet. The education system that free India adopted from colonialists kept these facts away from young Indians and instead addicted them to self-flagellation and negativism, making many of them feel shy, rather than proud, of their past. Result? Most Indians, finance minister P. Chidambaram included, are unaware that India was the global economic topper till the 18th century and that it lost that position only due to colonial assault. Recently the finance minister even chided those who maintained that India that was once prosperous was ruined by colonialism. Free India’s leaders had blamed its underdevelopment on its past, trusting Western sociologists like Max Weber who certified in the 1920s that India was unfit for socio-economic development on modern lines as it believed in caste, karma and rebirth. But today in many American universities, says the International Business Week, capitalism aligned to the philosophy of karma is being taught as the way out of the current corporate capitalist mess.
Back in India, a Harish Damodaran from the Marxist stable, being the grandson of E.M.S. Namboodiripad, and others write books on how different castes — not just Vaishyas or other Savarnas, but also OBCs and even Dalits — have risen up on the development ladder. And thanks to their entry, business has generated a mass entrepreneurial movement in India. The Global Entrepreneur Monitor Study [2002] identifies that 18% of the Indian people in the age group of 16 to 64 are entrepreneurs, while in China it is 12% and in the US it is 10%. That is why the growth story of India, with foreign investment less than 2% of its total investment, is regarded as entrepreneur-driven, while China’s is seen as largely foreign investment-driven.
Finally, India has only 12,404 police stations, as per Indian home ministry’s statistics for December 2004, to supervise thousands of towns and lakhs of villages, and yet it has the lowest crime rate, according to UNDP. Evidence is mounting against those who blamed India’s past to escape all blame for the present.
William Dalrymple is right when he says that for India it is back to prosperity, not backwardness to prosperity. Hence the question: Is its past that is to blame for India’s underperformance for half a century after freedom, or was that just an alibi for a leadership that did not perform?