It does not take much in the way of intellect, or even elementary common sense to enter public life in India. For those who think that I am being a mite harsh, I would draw your attention to the antics of some of our "leaders" in the aftermath of the Mangalore pub attacks.
It is often said that the hour findeth the man. But what is a state to do when the hour of reckoning arrives, and it finds itself saddled with a clown at the helm ? Karnataka Chief Minister Yeddyurappa and Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot have not exactly distinguished themselves with their highly insensitive comments. And of course, one could depend on that doyen of public morality, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss to wade into the mess with his customary lack of finesse.
Enter the one woman enquiry committee from the National Commission for Women to put the final seal of hilarity on the way our political class has responded to this incident. Mrs. Nirmala Venkatesh may have a great reputation as a social worker but clearly logical thinking is not part of her skill-set. Guess who, according to Mrs. Venkatesh, should take the maximum blame for the situation ?
(a) The Shri Rama Sene (wrong Watson, too obvious !)
(b) The women who were beaten ?(Ah, contrarian logic, but wrong again !)
(c) The media ? (No Sir !)
(d) The police and the local administration ? (Nah, not a chance)
It turns out that Mrs. Venkatesh is perhaps a fan of those lurid crime novels in which the murderer is always the least likely and most illogical suspect. And the people most to blame for the Mangalore pub incident were ...... the two hapless 'bouncers' at the pub. According to the sagely wisdom of Mrs. Venkatesh, the two worthies in question should have in true Bollywood fashion proceeded to decimate the 27 hoodlums from the Rama sene !
Please stand for elective office, Mrs. Venkatesh. You have all the qualities required to reach high office. Messers Ramadoss, Yeddyurappa and Gehlot have all shown that they have what it takes. Strike a blow for gender equality in the lunacy sweepstakes ! India badly needs even more comic relief.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
WHEN 'PROGRESSIVE' DENOTES SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER
In the era of the 10 second sound byte, selection of the right word is paramount. For instance, after research showed that the American publics' opinion of the word 'liberal' was pretty low (ranking somewhere just above a root canal procedure in popularity), those of the liberal persuasion in the US were faced with a tough task. How to lift this approval percentage without amending the basic policies which had caused the perception in the first place ? Along came the logical answer-- call the same set of failed policies "progressive" and watch the approval ratings mount !
The strategy was nothing short of brilliant. Not only did it ensure that policies which were tainted with the "liberal" tag were suddenly repackaged, but the use of the word "progressive" ensured that those who opposed these initiatives were suddenly stuck with the tag "regressive".
Nowhere have these strategies worked better than in the area of tax rates and tax policy and nowhere have they done more damage to the cause of economic well being among so many.
From time immemorial, societies levied a flat rate of tax proportionate to income. In ancient India for instance, it was customary to collect tax at 1/6th of a person's total income. It is obvious that the flat tax operating then collected revenues in proportion to a person's total income. That however did not suit the income re-distributionists. For them, it became necessary to devise a solution to penalize the rich for actually having the temerity to get rich ! From this ideological mire emerged the so-called progressive tax structure.
Note clearly that the only thing 'progressive' about the tax structure was the upward progression of rates. In fact this led to economists describing this system initially (and accurately) as "a progressive tax rate system". Later, by a breathtaking linguistic legerdemain, the word "rate" was quietly dropped from the description and this system of steadily escalating rates became the "progressive tax system". The next step was obvious. Proponents of a flat tax percentage started being described as advocating a "regressive income tax system".
To take charge of this debate requires adopting the same linguistic tools used by the re-distributionist class. Perhaps we could make a beginning by calling the flat income tax proposal the "fair tax rate system". The proponents of the present escalating rate system can then be re-packaged as supporters of the "existing unfair tax rate system".
I know that most people would prefer that tax policy be formulated with reference to logical and valid arguments in favor of and against specific proposals. Entering the murky world of linguistic sword-play would appear to be attempting to get into the same quicksand. However, perceptions matter, and if a new name will do the trick of getting attention to this subject, then why not ?
The strategy was nothing short of brilliant. Not only did it ensure that policies which were tainted with the "liberal" tag were suddenly repackaged, but the use of the word "progressive" ensured that those who opposed these initiatives were suddenly stuck with the tag "regressive".
Nowhere have these strategies worked better than in the area of tax rates and tax policy and nowhere have they done more damage to the cause of economic well being among so many.
From time immemorial, societies levied a flat rate of tax proportionate to income. In ancient India for instance, it was customary to collect tax at 1/6th of a person's total income. It is obvious that the flat tax operating then collected revenues in proportion to a person's total income. That however did not suit the income re-distributionists. For them, it became necessary to devise a solution to penalize the rich for actually having the temerity to get rich ! From this ideological mire emerged the so-called progressive tax structure.
Note clearly that the only thing 'progressive' about the tax structure was the upward progression of rates. In fact this led to economists describing this system initially (and accurately) as "a progressive tax rate system". Later, by a breathtaking linguistic legerdemain, the word "rate" was quietly dropped from the description and this system of steadily escalating rates became the "progressive tax system". The next step was obvious. Proponents of a flat tax percentage started being described as advocating a "regressive income tax system".
To take charge of this debate requires adopting the same linguistic tools used by the re-distributionist class. Perhaps we could make a beginning by calling the flat income tax proposal the "fair tax rate system". The proponents of the present escalating rate system can then be re-packaged as supporters of the "existing unfair tax rate system".
I know that most people would prefer that tax policy be formulated with reference to logical and valid arguments in favor of and against specific proposals. Entering the murky world of linguistic sword-play would appear to be attempting to get into the same quicksand. However, perceptions matter, and if a new name will do the trick of getting attention to this subject, then why not ?
PEOPLE LIVING IN GLASS HOUSES ...
Many Indians will not remember today the name of Inder Kumar Gujral. Not that there is much particularly noteworthy to remember him by ! A cringe inducing stint as Foreign Minister in the V.P. Singh government (remember the famous embrace of Saddam Hussein) was followed by the equally forgettable stint in the United Front Government, first as the External Affairs Minister and then, to add insult to injury, as Prime Minister.
One point of note amidst this less than glorious career however was the moment during Gujral's brief Prime Ministerial reign, where he famously referred to Britain as a "third rate power". That comment, though subsequently denied as a matter of pro-forma diplomatic courtesy, sent a powerful message not only to the target of his remarks but to the billion citizens of India. The message was loud and clear -- the British empire is dead and gone. India would no longer accept a servile and subservient status to its former colonial master. The message had its desired effect. For over a decade, British policy has been far more sensitive to India's positions on Kashmir, terrorism and the Pakistani issue than it had ever been earlier.
Enter David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, who, it appears, needs further reinforcement of the Gujral message delivered over a decade ago.
Taking a position which echoes Islamabad's talking points is bad enough. Having the bad taste and lack of manners to actually do it in New Delhi while on an official visit is worse.
Perhaps it is time for an Indian Government functionary (sufficiently senior to ensure the message hits home) to remind the world about Britain's handling of the Irish question and all the violence that was let loose as a result. This statement can, of course, be artfully denied or retracted officially after a few days.
As for Mr. Miliband, he is only playing the game beloved of Labour party leaders with large immigrant Pakistani communities in their constituencies. To choose to do so is Mr. Miliband's right. To refuse to take his tendentious mischief making lying down is India's responsibility.
One point of note amidst this less than glorious career however was the moment during Gujral's brief Prime Ministerial reign, where he famously referred to Britain as a "third rate power". That comment, though subsequently denied as a matter of pro-forma diplomatic courtesy, sent a powerful message not only to the target of his remarks but to the billion citizens of India. The message was loud and clear -- the British empire is dead and gone. India would no longer accept a servile and subservient status to its former colonial master. The message had its desired effect. For over a decade, British policy has been far more sensitive to India's positions on Kashmir, terrorism and the Pakistani issue than it had ever been earlier.
Enter David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, who, it appears, needs further reinforcement of the Gujral message delivered over a decade ago.
Taking a position which echoes Islamabad's talking points is bad enough. Having the bad taste and lack of manners to actually do it in New Delhi while on an official visit is worse.
Perhaps it is time for an Indian Government functionary (sufficiently senior to ensure the message hits home) to remind the world about Britain's handling of the Irish question and all the violence that was let loose as a result. This statement can, of course, be artfully denied or retracted officially after a few days.
As for Mr. Miliband, he is only playing the game beloved of Labour party leaders with large immigrant Pakistani communities in their constituencies. To choose to do so is Mr. Miliband's right. To refuse to take his tendentious mischief making lying down is India's responsibility.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
WHY WE CAN'T GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT (WHATEVER THAT MAY BE)
I have often spoken to friends and acquaintances who are convinced that India can buy peace with Pakistan by "just giving them Kashmir". These same people continue to be persuaded (quite sincerely I may add) that the entire middle east will become a shining beacon of peace in the world if Israel were to give the Palestinians "what they want". From somewhere in a long forgotten grave, Chamberlain must be smiling !
There are two fundamental reasons why the reasoning of these well meaning people is fallacious, naive and downright dangerous.
In the first place, "what they want" is itself highly nebulous. If we consider the Middle East for a moment, the objectives of Hamas and Fatah who at present administer two different parts of the so called Palestinian state are not exactly congruent. If we step beyond these two entities and then look at the various Arab states who are actively interfering in the Israeli-Palestinian problem, then again we fail to find any convergence of objectives. To take but one example, the objectives of Mr. Bashar Assad and his murderous regime in Syria are hardly similar to the goals of say, Jordan. The question then arises as to whose demands are to be met or if the solution then is to somehow meet a "Super set" of demands encompassing the objectives of virtually everybody who is disposed to raise a demand !
In the context of the West Asian problem, there is yet another issue. Because of the overwhelming presence of Arab despotic regimes, whose popular support is highly questionable, the question arises as to whether the demands or opinions being expressed by a particular country's government is equivalent to the popular position in that country. For instance, if one considers the case of Mr. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, there is ample evidence that the vast majority of the citizenry have a very different opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian question than their unelected leader (yes I know Mr. Mubarak nominally holds elections but his democratic credentials are barely better than Mao or Brezhnev)
Nor is this a peculiarity of West Asia politics. If we consider what Pakistan's aims are with reference to India, again one has to ask the question "Which Pakistan ?". Is it the Government of the day, the army (the real arbiters of institutional power), the ISI (which virtually behaves like a parallel state) or the so called "non-state actors" ? Is the Kashmir issue really central to the entire India-Pakistan conundrum ? I would argue that it is not and has not been so for a long period of time. The real issue is that the idea of India, a secular democratic nation where people submerge their religious and regional identities to a larger national objective, shows up the utter bankruptcy of the Pakistan ideal itself. I would therefore argue that no peace in the true sense can ever occur with Pakistan at all for there are significant forces within that country who will never be able to live with the idea of an India showing the world 24 x 7 the contrast between their own failed country and India.
In the second place, conceding demands begins to feed further demands putting pressure on the state conceding demands to concede some more. No better example exists than that of Hitler but I think that anyone who has seen the behavior of a high-school bully knows that giving in seldom buys any relief from further unreasonable demands.
It is said that Chamberlain after negotiating his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler returned to England in triumph and amidst great popularity. The leader of the opposition, one Winston Churchill, then quite unpopular in Britain for his militaristic stance had this to say about the Chamberlain mission: "The Prime Minister had to choose between war and dishonor. He has chosen both !"
All of us want peace. What kind of peace and with whom is the question ? And is any peace worth having if we have to sacrifice the basic values we hold dear ?
There are two fundamental reasons why the reasoning of these well meaning people is fallacious, naive and downright dangerous.
In the first place, "what they want" is itself highly nebulous. If we consider the Middle East for a moment, the objectives of Hamas and Fatah who at present administer two different parts of the so called Palestinian state are not exactly congruent. If we step beyond these two entities and then look at the various Arab states who are actively interfering in the Israeli-Palestinian problem, then again we fail to find any convergence of objectives. To take but one example, the objectives of Mr. Bashar Assad and his murderous regime in Syria are hardly similar to the goals of say, Jordan. The question then arises as to whose demands are to be met or if the solution then is to somehow meet a "Super set" of demands encompassing the objectives of virtually everybody who is disposed to raise a demand !
In the context of the West Asian problem, there is yet another issue. Because of the overwhelming presence of Arab despotic regimes, whose popular support is highly questionable, the question arises as to whether the demands or opinions being expressed by a particular country's government is equivalent to the popular position in that country. For instance, if one considers the case of Mr. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, there is ample evidence that the vast majority of the citizenry have a very different opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian question than their unelected leader (yes I know Mr. Mubarak nominally holds elections but his democratic credentials are barely better than Mao or Brezhnev)
Nor is this a peculiarity of West Asia politics. If we consider what Pakistan's aims are with reference to India, again one has to ask the question "Which Pakistan ?". Is it the Government of the day, the army (the real arbiters of institutional power), the ISI (which virtually behaves like a parallel state) or the so called "non-state actors" ? Is the Kashmir issue really central to the entire India-Pakistan conundrum ? I would argue that it is not and has not been so for a long period of time. The real issue is that the idea of India, a secular democratic nation where people submerge their religious and regional identities to a larger national objective, shows up the utter bankruptcy of the Pakistan ideal itself. I would therefore argue that no peace in the true sense can ever occur with Pakistan at all for there are significant forces within that country who will never be able to live with the idea of an India showing the world 24 x 7 the contrast between their own failed country and India.
In the second place, conceding demands begins to feed further demands putting pressure on the state conceding demands to concede some more. No better example exists than that of Hitler but I think that anyone who has seen the behavior of a high-school bully knows that giving in seldom buys any relief from further unreasonable demands.
It is said that Chamberlain after negotiating his infamous "peace in our time" deal with Hitler returned to England in triumph and amidst great popularity. The leader of the opposition, one Winston Churchill, then quite unpopular in Britain for his militaristic stance had this to say about the Chamberlain mission: "The Prime Minister had to choose between war and dishonor. He has chosen both !"
All of us want peace. What kind of peace and with whom is the question ? And is any peace worth having if we have to sacrifice the basic values we hold dear ?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Get some steel in your spine, Mr. Chidambaram
Home Minister P. Chidambaram says that India may cut off business relations with Pakistan over a period of time if Pakistan does not respond to India's concerns.
Spare us the baloney, Mr. Chidambaram.
1. India MAY cut off business relations with Pakistan "gradually" ??? How gradual does it have to be, sir ?
2. You say India will not send tourists to Pakistan. How many people who are not certifiably insane are actually planning to visit Pakistan for tourism ???
3. For Pakistan, less than 1 % of total foreign trade is with India. Why on earth will Pakistan even care whether we trade or do business with them ?
You say you want to cut off business relations ? Here is the only business relationship India has with Pakistan that can possibly affect them.
The Indus water sharing treaty signed shortly after independence commits India to giving Pakistan a substantial share of the river waters in the Indus basin. If India cuts off the water supply, the entire wheat growing fertile areas of Pakistani Punjab could end up being one giant drought bowl.
Now certainly India has proved its bonafides with regard to the Indus river treaty for almost 6 decades. In return for this, we have got kicked in the teeth repeatedly. Why, for crying out loud, should we continue to honor this treaty when basic canons of behavioral ethics are given the go by from the Pakistani side ?
Time to reconsider, Mr. Chidambaram
Spare us the baloney, Mr. Chidambaram.
1. India MAY cut off business relations with Pakistan "gradually" ??? How gradual does it have to be, sir ?
2. You say India will not send tourists to Pakistan. How many people who are not certifiably insane are actually planning to visit Pakistan for tourism ???
3. For Pakistan, less than 1 % of total foreign trade is with India. Why on earth will Pakistan even care whether we trade or do business with them ?
You say you want to cut off business relations ? Here is the only business relationship India has with Pakistan that can possibly affect them.
The Indus water sharing treaty signed shortly after independence commits India to giving Pakistan a substantial share of the river waters in the Indus basin. If India cuts off the water supply, the entire wheat growing fertile areas of Pakistani Punjab could end up being one giant drought bowl.
Now certainly India has proved its bonafides with regard to the Indus river treaty for almost 6 decades. In return for this, we have got kicked in the teeth repeatedly. Why, for crying out loud, should we continue to honor this treaty when basic canons of behavioral ethics are given the go by from the Pakistani side ?
Time to reconsider, Mr. Chidambaram
How do you take the matches away from a pyromaniac without getting burnt ?
A clear and present danger confronts the entire civilized world as Pakistan pushes the limits of acceptable behavior as far as possible. Marketing itself as the western world’s last hope to keep Islamic fundamentalism at bay, Pakistan has been steadily using the vast quantities of money and armaments flowing its way to quietly fund forces which make no secret of their desire to rain destruction on its neighbor India and US interests in the region and beyond.
Restraining factors:
Two major factors have persuaded India, the US and the civilized world as a whole to stay their hand for the moment instead of taking firm and decisive action that will force behavioral modification on Pakistan
The war being fought on Pakistan’s western frontier with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and the necessity of Pakistan’s cooperation to manage the supply logistics in getting vital equipment and provisions to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan
The ever present sub-text of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon status which is now being used openly (and quite shamelessly) as a lever of blackmail to silence proponents of vigorous action
How valid are these fears ?
Alternative access routes need to be built now to support the Afghan effort. Already there have been news reports detailing US efforts to develop an alternative supply route to Afghanistan landing sea supplies at Baku, Azerbaijan, on the Caspian Sea and then transporting the goods through Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan to the Afghan border. For goods that can be brought in by air, air field access is being negotiated with Kyrgyzstan. These efforts come not a day too soon. Pakistan’s cooperation with the “War on Terror” is likely to come to a screeching halt during 2009 as its military plays up tensions with India and shifts focus to its eastern border with India.
The nuclear weapon question although appearing complex, is not really so for many reasons:
There is persuasive evidence that these weapons are in the control of the highest echelons of the Pakistan army, and whatever the other faults of this organization, the command and control structures in place ensure that the odds of rogue elements in the country getting their hands on these weapons stay miniscule.
The Pakistan army is certainly not willing to risk obliteration of their country by actually using these weapons in any conflict or in a theater of war EXCEPT where their use is the only way left to prevent complete and total destruction of their country. Short of this extreme eventuality, Pakistan will not use these weapons, no matter how much saber rattling goes on about these at the moment.
A critical factor to be considered is to take actions against Pakistan which achieve target objectives without completely alienating the people of Pakistan. The objectives are several:
--Pakistan to hand over wanted extremists for trial to India and to the US for actions against these countries. There are several individuals wanted by India. As for the US, the revelations that the butchers of Daniel Pearl were released by Islamabad recently make it very clear about just what cooperation can be expected from the present Pakistan regime.
--The terror infrastructure in Pakistan (training camps, ISI involvement in motivation, funding and training etc) to be shut down and shut down for good.
THREE POSSIBLE SETS OF ACTIONS come to mind, each one of them grounded in a historical example
1. THE NAVAL BLOCKADE OPTION: Kennedy’s successful use of this tactic to get the Soviet missiles removed from Cuba immediately positions this tactic as an extremely effective one.
Let us be clear:
-- Pakistan’s navy is not its strongest point
-- It is overly dependent on the resources of Karachi port and the geographical disadvantages apparent to any person who browses the atlas will make it clear that the navy of say, India, with cooperation from the US military can completely and totally shut down Pakistan’s shipping.
2. THE MUNICH OPTION: Tightly targeted “kill” teams comprising teams from India, Israel and the US to enter Pakistan covertly with a “kill list” of key terrorism players. This option has the advantages of covert action deniability and with the availability of adequate intelligence stands a good chance for success.
3. THE HELMS-BURTON OPTION: Pakistan’s economy stands on the precipice of a very slippery and steep slope. Given the huge external dependence of Pakistan, it is entirely possible to implement a targeted economic pogrom against Islamabad that will consist of the following:
-- Ask leading countries and corporations around the world to in essence choose between New Delhi and Islamabad. India should make it clear that repercussions will follow to any country or corporation that chooses to buy from and sell to Islamabad.
-- The repercussions will take the form of reduced access to the much larger Indian market and in a country like India where Government being well disposed to a company is still vital to its business prospects, the effects can be pretty dramatic.
Good options all. Now how about some action ?
Restraining factors:
Two major factors have persuaded India, the US and the civilized world as a whole to stay their hand for the moment instead of taking firm and decisive action that will force behavioral modification on Pakistan
The war being fought on Pakistan’s western frontier with a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and the necessity of Pakistan’s cooperation to manage the supply logistics in getting vital equipment and provisions to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan
The ever present sub-text of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon status which is now being used openly (and quite shamelessly) as a lever of blackmail to silence proponents of vigorous action
How valid are these fears ?
Alternative access routes need to be built now to support the Afghan effort. Already there have been news reports detailing US efforts to develop an alternative supply route to Afghanistan landing sea supplies at Baku, Azerbaijan, on the Caspian Sea and then transporting the goods through Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan to the Afghan border. For goods that can be brought in by air, air field access is being negotiated with Kyrgyzstan. These efforts come not a day too soon. Pakistan’s cooperation with the “War on Terror” is likely to come to a screeching halt during 2009 as its military plays up tensions with India and shifts focus to its eastern border with India.
The nuclear weapon question although appearing complex, is not really so for many reasons:
There is persuasive evidence that these weapons are in the control of the highest echelons of the Pakistan army, and whatever the other faults of this organization, the command and control structures in place ensure that the odds of rogue elements in the country getting their hands on these weapons stay miniscule.
The Pakistan army is certainly not willing to risk obliteration of their country by actually using these weapons in any conflict or in a theater of war EXCEPT where their use is the only way left to prevent complete and total destruction of their country. Short of this extreme eventuality, Pakistan will not use these weapons, no matter how much saber rattling goes on about these at the moment.
A critical factor to be considered is to take actions against Pakistan which achieve target objectives without completely alienating the people of Pakistan. The objectives are several:
--Pakistan to hand over wanted extremists for trial to India and to the US for actions against these countries. There are several individuals wanted by India. As for the US, the revelations that the butchers of Daniel Pearl were released by Islamabad recently make it very clear about just what cooperation can be expected from the present Pakistan regime.
--The terror infrastructure in Pakistan (training camps, ISI involvement in motivation, funding and training etc) to be shut down and shut down for good.
THREE POSSIBLE SETS OF ACTIONS come to mind, each one of them grounded in a historical example
1. THE NAVAL BLOCKADE OPTION: Kennedy’s successful use of this tactic to get the Soviet missiles removed from Cuba immediately positions this tactic as an extremely effective one.
Let us be clear:
-- Pakistan’s navy is not its strongest point
-- It is overly dependent on the resources of Karachi port and the geographical disadvantages apparent to any person who browses the atlas will make it clear that the navy of say, India, with cooperation from the US military can completely and totally shut down Pakistan’s shipping.
2. THE MUNICH OPTION: Tightly targeted “kill” teams comprising teams from India, Israel and the US to enter Pakistan covertly with a “kill list” of key terrorism players. This option has the advantages of covert action deniability and with the availability of adequate intelligence stands a good chance for success.
3. THE HELMS-BURTON OPTION: Pakistan’s economy stands on the precipice of a very slippery and steep slope. Given the huge external dependence of Pakistan, it is entirely possible to implement a targeted economic pogrom against Islamabad that will consist of the following:
-- Ask leading countries and corporations around the world to in essence choose between New Delhi and Islamabad. India should make it clear that repercussions will follow to any country or corporation that chooses to buy from and sell to Islamabad.
-- The repercussions will take the form of reduced access to the much larger Indian market and in a country like India where Government being well disposed to a company is still vital to its business prospects, the effects can be pretty dramatic.
Good options all. Now how about some action ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)