Jim O'Neill on India and coronavirus

Jim O'Neill, the economist who coined the acronym 'BRIC', has gratuitously commented that he is thankful that coronavirus started in China and not India. In his view, India could not have managed the situation as well as China. His counterfactual wisdom is unwarranted on many counts.

Prevention of an ill is better than its cure. China failed miserably in preventing this zoonotic malaise. Yet, neither WHO nor any other global organisation has been truthful or bold enough to chastise China. O.Neill who is critical of India's medical preparedness has no observation on Russia (another of the BRIC economies). Is this because any criticism of Russia will result in this British economist becoming persona non grata in Russia?

It is not without reason that India is known for medical tourism. Medical prowess of its doctors is well known. Further, India being a thriving democracy, news of any viral attack would have spread like wild fire and its government would/could not have hidden it so long as the Chinese government did. Its voluble opposition would have informed WHO the very first day. (This would have been one of the few good things done by the vituperative opposition!)

What does O'Neill think of the preparedness of his own country, U K ? Its health minister has also unfortunately contracted the virus. On a lighter note, Indian ministers are known for taking better care of themselves!

Why Indians disfavour democracy?

India is the largest democracy in the world in terms of population. Elections to representative Houses are held periodically and the collective will of the people is reflected in the constitution of parliament and assemblies.

It is therefore surprising that Pew Research has found an underlying support for autocracy in the country. According to recent surveys, 55% would prefer an autocratic leader. 27% strongly support this preference. Even more surprisingly, 53 % would not mind military rule.

These findings expose popular disgust with the quality and integrity of elected representatives. There are exceptions though. 85% retain trust in central leadership. Apparently, Modi continues to sustain an ethical image that contrasts sharply from the image of an average politician.

Perception about India

Charles Munger is a friend and associate of Warren Buffett. His words are listened to with great respect just like those of the latter. Recently, he made a scathing attack on Indian model of development while addressing the annual meeting of  Daily Journal Corp. The relevant excerpt is given below. (as noted by Adam Blum)

On Li Kuan Yew and comparison to India : “That’s a very intelligent question and not saying others weren’t – Yew was the best nation builder who ever lived. He took a Malarial swamp with no resources surrounded by a bunch of Muslims who hated him and literally spat out Singapore because they didn’t want the place. There were no assets and tons of corruption. And Yew created modern Singapore. No one has had success like it so fast. He gets a lot of credit for creating modern China. They saw that and said ‘the hell with this. We don’t care if the cat is black or white, we just care that it catches mice.’ Deng Xiaoping copied Yew. I have two busts of someone else in my house - Yew and Ben Franklin. Now, I would rather work with the Chinese than the Indians. The caste system, the overcrowding, there in India. It’s hard to get anything done, and they have taken the worst aspects of democracy that Yew avoided. India is a fabulous people, but the system of poverty and corruption and the crazy democratic thing where anyone who screams can stop all progress – it mires them. The steel giant Posco takes lousy iron and coal and uses it as an input - a province in India had a bunch of lousy iron and coal and agreed to supply Posco, and the contract was canceled because people protested and were screaming in the streets. India is grossly defective, because they took the worst aspects of our culture, allowing a bunch of idiots to scream and stop everything. And they copied it - Malaysia and China and Singapore would’ve done the Posco deal. India forged its own chains and put them on themselves.”

For comprehensive notes, please use the link http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/02/charlie-munger-speaks-2017-daily-journal-annual-meeting-long-notes-full-video/?all=1

Britain emulates India

In its coverage on Brexit referendum, The Economist has noted that Tories and Kippers have urged their supporters to take their pens into the polling booth on June 23rd to prevent the intelligence services from doctoring their votes. Do they suspect that something like what is alleged to have happened in the Rajya Sabha poll in Haryana may be repeated in Britain?

On the quality of debate in Britain, the magazine fears "the currency of facts will be debased, that of stunts inflated, that of conviction sidelined. It will be de rigueur to question an opponent's motives before his arguments, to sneer at experts, prefer volume to accuracy and disparage concession, compromise and moderation."

British politicians are learning fast from their Indian counterparts.

New ideas for a new India

Sastra University and The Hindu have embarked on an overly ambitious plan to discover the clues to building an ideal India. In this effort they have been organising a series of discussions among argumentative Indians. The latest panel discussion took place in Chennai on April 9.

Moderated by Justice Prabha Sridevan, the speakers were Sitaram Yechuri, Swapan Dasgupta, N.Ram and S.Gurumurthy. Sitaram Yechuri observed that the Indian Constitution is a welcome departure from the Westphalian binary approach of majority and minority. His regret was that though we have institutionalised one man - one vote system and one vote - one value metric, one man - one value continues to be only a distant prospect. Political equality must result in economic equality if we are to achieve an ideal India. A nice thought. In her introductory remarks, Prabha Sridevan had earlier referred to two kinds of equality: the graveyard variety where everyone is pulled down and the vineyard variety where all are levelled up (a quote from Justice Albie Sachs of South Africa). Yechuri preferred not to take the bait.

Swapan Dasgupta was at his rhetorical best. He took serious exception to Yechury's singular dependence on Constitution to define what is an ideal India. India did not begin in 1950 when we gave ourselves the Constitution. Should we ignore our hoary past simply because of its Hindu content? Is not culture a contributor to what a nation is? He quoted Edmund Burke who said Society is 'a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born’. The essence of India is its diversity. Dasgupta sarcastically referred to the attempts to 'secularise' even Bharatnatyam !

N.Ram wanted adherence to principles of our Constitution. He stressed that secularism is a basic structure of our Constitution and therefore not negotiable. He regretted the rise of Hindutva and controversially equated it with terrorism. This view was sharply contested by Gurumurthy. Ram referred to Mahatma Gandhi as the tallest Hindu of the twentieth century and he was felled by a fanatical Hindu.

Gurumurthy opined that if India is not Hindu, it cannot be secular. He quoted various judgments of the Supreme Court to show that Hinduism / Hindutva is not what is defined by Yechury and Ram.

Indo-Pak relations

India and Pakistan are distant neighbours. They view each other with a lot of suspicion and perhaps hatred too. This approach is costing them both heavily. Yet, the historical baggage is such that no solution appears to be in sight, however long-sighted one is!

The summit meetings between the two prime ministers do not really break ice. The atmospherics of such meetings has become predictably boring and of a set pattern. Joint statements will be issued with a slight advantage for one side after one meeting and one can be sure that the next joint statement will marginally favour the other side. It does not matter who is in power in either country.

Once the leaders get back home, they will give a different spin to the statements and the significance of joint statement will be totally lost. In case the relationship between the two nations is normalised and moves away from bellicosity, the GDPs of both nations will head northwards.