Re: Loveable Nation INDIA

[ashish_hanwadikar@yahoo.com]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IPI_Marker

Hi,
> While agreeing with my contention that government rather than people
> have to
> be blamed for the present ills of the country, Ashish Hanwadikar
> disagreed
> with me broadly on four points.
In a democracy where constitution starts with "We the people" and people

elect Govt. representatives it is hard to argue that Govt.
is the root of the evil. Ultimately in a democracy people are
responsible
for everything. One reason why Govt. can get away with
all sorts of Socialist non-sense is because people are focusing too much
on
short-term subsidies and benefits and not on the long-term impacts of
such
policies. When people sale their votes in return for free-electricity,
Govt.
jobs and reservation, promise of free-housing then no wonder India is in

present mess.

> His first contention was that a Gandhi reborn cannot clear the present

> mess.
> The present approach to tackle terrorism and avoid deaths of a large
> number
> of terrorists, law-enforcing personnel and civilians is to use
> destructive
> methods rather than study the reasons for terrorism and create
> conditions
> conducive for terrorists to stop their activities. I call anybody who
> can
> successfully use this alternate approach to reduce the bad effects of
> terrorism as "Gandhi".

Irrespective of any study of root causes of terrorism it is very clear
to me
that any Govt. has a constitutional obligation to prevent
terrrorism. Yes, an alternative approach where we try to study the root
causes of terrorism and try to eliminate it is welcome. However, if you
take
a look at what you said in the previous email and I am quoting here:

> There is an urgent need for a Gandhi to be born to bring
> order to the present mess and see that benefits provided by the
> government percolate to all sections of the population.

In reply to that I questioned the logic of Govt. providing any benefits
at
all. Only way Govt. can produce wealth is by taking over productive
capacity
in the country by force (Nationalizing Industries and Service sector).
Otherwise only way to give something to the people is by the way of
re-distributing wealth by collecting taxes and providing subsidies.
Since
both Natinalization and taxes are based on use of physical force I don't

understand how Gandhi will react to it considering his penchant for
non-violence.

> His second contention was that Government is bankrupt and cannot
provide
> any
> benefits to people. Government has most land of the country in its
> possession and gets enormous amounts as taxes. The expenditure by the
> Government presently is such that more benefits are going to the
"haves"
>
> rather than to the "have-nots". What I suggested was that the
> Governmental
> expenditure should be directed for reducing this gap between the rich
> and
> the poor, rather than use in works where private sector can do better.

>

I agree with your objective 100%. What I am questioning is the
practicality
of the outcome. Just imagine the situation. Poor people are uneducated,
and
do not have the long-term vision (who can have long-term vision when he
cannot feed himself). Rich and powerful are looting the poor people
under
the guise of Socialism. To transform this situation somebody (like
Gandhi)
may have to awaken these people. After awakening these people they have
two
choices:
1) Fight for Govt. benefits which they deserve but never got.
2) Work on their own and build the wealth themselves.

I believe choice 2) is much more beneficial to them. Because if they
decide
to go for choice 1) they will  not only have to fight against rich and
powerful but amongst themselves (political fight). Any politician can
make
these people fight against each other in order to get scarce resources
(food, clothing etc.). Since, Govt. cannot produce wealth efficiently,
the
wealth that can be re-distributed will be scarce. The ensuing fight
between
the newly awakened people means that politicians will be able to capture

maximum out of that scarce wealth for themselves. The politicians can
ignite
the fight by various means: religion, caste, poor vs. rich, regional,
language, ethinicity, historical etc. With so much historical background
of
fierce fighting it is easy to do that. A Person like Gandhi through his
truthfulness and concern for poor people might be able to awaken poor
people
of India. What he cannot do is to convince them to stop fighting for
their
narrow ends. He was able to organize poor people of India against
British
Govt. However, when it came to division of India into India and Pakistan
he
completely failed to avoid that. The religious enmity was just too much
for
him to handle.
It is my experience (however small) that it is very difficult for
somebody
to convince people with immediate need to focus on their long term
future.

The choice 2) is better in the longer run. This is because if you have
to
fight anyway for wealth why not create the wealth itself. Why waste
energy
in trying to get as much as from Govt.? Just imagine a situation in
which
you are a very poor person. You spent your whole life trying to provide
for
your family. Now your kids are grown up and want to decide what to do in

their life. Will you advise them to fight politically to try to get as
much
as possible from Govt. (subsidies, grants, reservations, licenses etc.)
or
will you advise them to spent that energy in education so that they can
make
up their own life? Think about it carefully.
Not only should people select choice 2) but they should also convince
others
to go for choice 2). That way when the Govt. gets a reduced role in the
Society the frictional loss of wealth is eliminated. If you have to
awaken
the people please do so keeping in mind choice 2). Gandhi and other
leaders
of Independence struggle already finished the choice 1). They awakened
the
people so that they fought for political freedom. Now since we have got
it
now we should focus on choice 2) which is the economic independence.
That is
freedom from Govt. as far as economy is concerned (And it includes
repeal of
Minimum wage acts, worker protection, Social Security etc.). All this
Socialist bullshit which comes in the way of economic progress should be

done with. No point in fighting for Govt. sponsored social security
benefits
when you can use that energy to earn more and save for your own future.
That
was the reason I sent the link to the article by Milton Friedman about
Hong
Kong. Eventhough Hong Kong did not have political freedom like India
till
now, per capita income of Hong Kong was very close to that of United
States
and obviously much more than that of India.
What we need is more economic freedom and not more political freedom and

rights.

> His third contention was that poverty is not the root cause of
> terrorism.
> For breeding terrorist activities, there should be some rich people to

> provide finance and many poor people to receive that money for
indulging
> in
> terrorist acts. Apart from ideology, a suicide bomber resorts to
> terrorist
> activities with the hope that his kith and kin can have a better
living.
>

I do not agree with you at all. The goal of terrorism is not economic
progress at all. Are you trying to tell me that those Saudi Arabian
citizens
who plotted and killed 7000 people in NY under the leardership of Osama
Bin
Laden were motivated by economic goals? Is it so hard to recognize that
economics has nothing to do with what happened in NY? And how can you
achieve economic progress by terrorizing others? Can you explain me.
Most of
the wealth that is getting created in the post-Industrial Western
societies
is based on human capital and not based on Physical capital. Get this
straight, even after destroying so much physical infrastructure in NY
terrorist will not be able to inflict any long term economic harm on US.
And
what economic gains did Osama Bin Laden and his followers achieved after

Sept. 11?
To me the motivation of terrorism is either religious or political
struggle
or plain jealousy. The Muslim fundamentalist are simply jealous of the
progress made by Western societies even though few Centuries back the
Middle
 Eastern societies were culturally and economically much more advanced.
Nobody can rectify this situation. The Christainity was almost same as
Islam
in its approach before Protestant Revolution happened. After the
Protestant
revolution happened Christain Western societies went towards more
political
and economic freedom while Islamic societies languished in the same old
Medieval philosphies. There is nothing we can do about it. A Revolution
is
clearly due here.


> His fourth contention was that our present level of production of
milk,
> wheat and rice is quite high. It is no doubt correct that with the
> introduction of high-yielding strains and improved breeding
techniques,
> there has been a remarkable increase in the production of these
> commodities
> in recent years. But if the per capita production of milk and per
capita
>
> consumption of milk products are taken into account, there is nothing
> much
> to boast. Apart from the introduction of high-yielding strains, the
high
>
> production of rice and wheat is because of our high primary population

> and
> high proportion of land under cultivation. India's per-acre production

> of
> food grains is still one of the lowest in the world. The observation,
> that
> despite food grains overflowing in the Government godowns, many people

> face
> shortages of food supply only speaks of our inefficient public
> distribution
> system.

Exactly, the problem is the public distribution system and not the
production. Even noble prize winning economist Amartya Sen has said that

famine only occurs where there is no free press. That is, famine do not
happen because of  scarcity but because of lack of freedom. Same thing
is
happening in India. The scarcity of basic goods and needs is not because
of
lack of production but because of lack of free trade. The Govt. simply
restricts the trade of Agricultural commodities across different
jurisdictions. I don't understand why we should worry about production
when
prices of agricultural commodities are failing all over the world.
India's
per-acre production of good grains is one of the lowest in the world.
This
is because we do not allow free import of high technology. If we allow
free
import of agricultural commodities, the low prices of imported food
grains
will either force Farmers to increase the yield or sale their lands for
more
efficient uses like Buildings etc. That is whole idea of free trade. It
forces people to allocate resources where they yield maximum benefits.

Let me know if you are still not convinced. I can call you and we can
discuss this over phone. It is my open invitation to everyone. Anybody
who
wishes to discuss and debate with me regarding free trade can either
call me
(408-288-9597) or simply send me his phone number and specify date and
time
for the debate.  Or we can chat on Yahoo Messenger. Let me know.
Regards,
Ashish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prof. R. Jagadiswara Rao" <ric@nettlinx.com>
To: <debate@indiapolicy.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Loveable Nation INDIA


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IPI_Marker
>
> While agreeing with my contention that government rather than people
> have to
> be blamed for the present ills of the country, Ashish Hanwadikar
> disagreed
> with me broadly on four points.
>
> His first contention was that a Gandhi reborn cannot clear the present

> mess.
> The present approach to tackle terrorism and avoid deaths of a large
> number
> of terrorists, law-enforcing personnel and civilians is to use
> destructive
> methods rather than study the reasons for terrorism and create
> conditions
> conducive for terrorists to stop their activities. I call anybody who
> can
> successfully use this alternate approach to reduce the bad effects of
> terrorism as "Gandhi".
>
> His second contention was that Government is bankrupt and cannot
provide
> any
> benefits to people. Government has most land of the country in its
> possession and gets enormous amounts as taxes. The expenditure by the
> Government presently is such that more benefits are going to the
"haves"
>
> rather than to the "have-nots". What I suggested was that the
> Governmental
> expenditure should be directed for reducing this gap between the rich
> and
> the poor, rather than use in works where private sector can do better.

>
> His third contention was that poverty is not the root cause of
> terrorism.
> For breeding terrorist activities, there should be some rich people to

> provide finance and many poor people to receive that money for
indulging
> in
> terrorist acts. Apart from ideology, a suicide bomber resorts to
> terrorist
> activities with the hope that his kith and kin can have a better
living.
>
> His fourth contention was that our present level of production of
milk,
> wheat and rice is quite high. It is no doubt correct that with the
> introduction of high-yielding strains and improved breeding
techniques,
> there has been a remarkable increase in the production of these
> commodities
> in recent years. But if the per capita production of milk and per
capita
>
> consumption of milk products are taken into account, there is nothing
> much
> to boast. Apart from the introduction of high-yielding strains, the
high
>
> production of rice and wheat is because of our high primary population

> and
> high proportion of land under cultivation. India's per-acre production

> of
> food grains is still one of the lowest in the world. The observation,
> that
> despite food grains overflowing in the Government godowns, many people

> face
> shortages of food supply only speaks of our inefficient public
> distribution
> system.
>
> R. Jagadiswara Rao


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------