Abhijit Banerjee's inconsistent criteria

Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee is one of the three economists honoured with the Nobel this year for adopting Randomised Controlled Trials in attempts to alleviate poverty. These trials emanated in the pharma industry and adopting them in economic studies is a trail blazer in its own way. Just like any adoption of a new methodology in any field, this transplant of a pharma idea in the economic field has attracted a lot of scepticism. But the Nobel committee thought it fit to award the prestigious prize to the pioneers in this area namely Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer.

It is an opportune time for Banerjee and Duflo to market their recently published book "Good Economics for Hard Times." Any trial aims to isolate the variables which result in a particular consequence. For example, one may try to find out which variable results in faster reduction in poverty: adoption of Universal Basic Income or incentives for investment.

These trials will yield useful results only if strict criteria are made applicable to understand the cause and effect relationship. If Banerjee's recent utterances are any indication, Banerjee does not seem to apply consistent criteria. He keeps saying that high rates of income tax do not negatively impact economic growth. He arrived at this conclusion because the American economy grew at a fast pace during Dwight Eisenhower's presidency when the marginal tax rate was vertiginous at 95% (Is it not possible that other variables counterbalanced the impact of tax rates? There was no controlled study done.)

Applying the same logic, when Banerjee was asked if the NYAY proposal was an electoral failure because the Congress party which included this in its electoral campaign was comprehensively defeated, his response was disappointingly different. With an apparent self-interest (Banerjee was one of the architects of NYAY),  Banerjee claimed that there were other variables which caused the defeat of Congress at the hustings.

N.Ram on P.Chidambaram

N.Ram of The Hindu confidently claims there is 'no evidence against Chidambaram.' He may well be right. However, his conclusion that 'monstrous injustice' has been done to P.C. is monumentally wrong. While talking about Chidambaram, Ram becomes as clever as the former. He only says there is no evidence of wrong-doing; he does not say that P.C. did not indulge in wrong-doing.

Why am I saying this? There is a report in The Economic Times today ( The Hindu does not believe in publishing such relevant news) regarding the invoices sent by Chess Management Services Private Ltd to INX Media for payment after FIPB absolved INX Media. Some of these invoices were drawn by Advantage Strategic Consultants Private Ltd. These original invoices were returned to CMSPL later, on their advice. These invoices would prove the connection between these two companies and PC's son and such evidence would expose the scam. Therefore, the scamsters were cleverly ensuring that any palpable evidence would be out of the reach of any future investigator. Thus the modus-operandi was "Commit the crime, make money, but destroy the evidence." So, Ram is absolutely right in saying there is no evidence! There cannot be, when the criminals are thoughtfully clever!

Ram also claims that the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court came to wrong decisions. These courts were privy to confidential information provided by investigating authorities. We may not know what this information is; but Ram would know because he has access to all confidential and secret notes (remember Rafale Notes?). Would The Hindu reveal what this confidential information is? Without this information, Ram could not have concluded that the two courts erred in their judgments.

Lord Ram is known for protecting anyone ,even if most sinful, once the person offers Saranagathi to Him. Narasimhan Ram probably feels that it is his duty to protect his friend. Let him be faithful to his friend. But let him not accuse the honourable courts of perpetrating injustice. Ram's grievance that PC is wronged for political reasons does not entitle him to demonise the judiciary. He has advised that a review petition or a curative petition has to be moved immediately, as if Kapil Sibal and Manu Singhvi are ignorant !

Transfer of the senior-most HC judge

The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani is under orders of transfer to the Meghalaya High Court. The former has 75 judges and the latter 3 judges. Therefore there is no doubt that this is a punitive transfer. She is the senior-most High Court judge now and in the normal course would have been elevated to the Supreme Court in the near future.

According to NDTV, she is transferred on the basis of feedback from the Madras High Court. This is as enigmatic as anything can be. The transfer recommendation has been made by the Supreme Court collegium. Foreclosing one's opportunity to become a judge of the apex court is not a trifling matter. The collegium must have thought twice before making this portentous recommendation. The proposal is mysterious because Tahilramani has generally been considered non-controversial.

Tahilramani is likely to resign as she feels victimised. It is incumbent on the collegium to clear the air surrounding this mystery. It has made its recommendation "in the interest of better administration of justice." It has also rejected her plea for reconsideration. So, it strongly feels that Tahilramani's continued presence in the Madras High Court is not desirable.

Did the collegium come under governmental pressure? If it acted under pressure, the quintet forming the collegium at present do not deserve to be judges. Thus it is in their own interest that the collegium owes a clarification to the nation which is anxious that judiciary must not wilt under any kind of pressure.

There is onus on the part of the government also to explain what has happened. It cannot wash its hands off on the plea that it only acted on the collegium recommendation. The Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad needs to remember that he had often claimed that the government is not just a post office conveying the collegium's recommendation to the President and that it duly applies its mind. Did it occur to the Law Minister that there is something sinister about the collegium proposal? Or is he the author of the proposal? Both the collegium and the government will do well to come clean on this apparently mischievous move. If the honourable judge had invited this action through her below-par performance, she must not be allowed to play the victim card. Whichever way you look at this sordid development, there is a crying need for clarification.

'Crazy' Mohan

Mohan Rangachari is no more. Though we knew him as a simple person, he combined in himself abilities which are generally considered contradictory.

Jubilant when he cracked jokes, he was also pensive as he wrote poems. He was intellectually a philosopher; but he was also capable of positioning himself as an ordinary person amusingly commenting on quotidian happenings. He was both a comedian and a humorist. His comedy was without rancour. His humour was without arrogance. Self-righteousness was unknown to him.

He was known to and liked by people of all ages. Despite his well-earned fame, he was totally bereft of ego. Mylapore - Mandaveli was a joyful place because of his effervescent conversations. He was never shy of greeting people, known and unknown. M-M has fallen into sepulchral silence due to his untimely demise. The void created by the departure of an egoless person like 'Crazy' Mohan is impossible to fill. 

Rahul Gandhi's shocker

Opposition parties have a key role to play in any democracy. It is often said that China can develop faster than India because there is no democracy in China and therefore government takes quicker decisions there. Though this argument is plausibly logical, this overlooks the fact that the government in a democracy gets the benefit of opposing views which are often useful. Democracy is a political arrangement that facilitates sustainable economic progress.

Unlike in an autocracy, there are checks and balances in a democracy. An effective opposition provides an effective check against egregious behaviour by the ruling party. The leader of the main opposition has therefore to be politically aware and functionally contributive. As a prospective leader of the government, he or she must set a suitable example to his/her party people. He must earn the confidence of the people and offer constructive criticism of actions and plans of the government.

As president of the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi has failed his party and the country on every count. He was not elected as the party's president democratically. His reading of the political situation is abysmally poor and hence his party's poor show in the 2019 elections. He could not win the parliamentary poll even in his family fiefdom of Amethi. He exhorts his party MPs to 'shout a little more' and thereby create difficulties for the government. In short, Rahul Gandhi exhibits abundant amateurishness and scant seriousness.

The greatest service Rahul Gandhi can now render to his party and the country is to keep his word on resigning from presidentship of the party. Sycophants, mother and sister may try to dissuade him for their own benefit. Congress has put up with him too long and has already paid a heavy price. Should the pain continue?

Congress' egress as a political force

"It is not necessary that the president (of INC) should be from Gandhi family" declared Rahul Gandhi in the Congress Working Committee that was discussing the poll results. Rahul was resisting the attempts (genuine or dubious?) of other members of the CWC to persuade him to continue to lead the party. P.Chidambaram took the histrionic cake by breaking down in tears when Rahul expressed his determination to resign from leadership. PC warned Rahul Gandhi that his resignation would lead to Congressmen in Tamil Nadu immolating themselves. What a blend of sycophancy and deception!

PC and his ilk require a non-thinking leader like Rahul Gandhi to save them from many criminal cases. Rahul Gandhi has faulted the leaders like PC, Kamal Nath and Ashok Gehlot for pushing the candidature of their children. Why did he allow this in the first place? Kamal Nath has ensured the victory of his son. Gehlot could not save his son from defeat. Karti Chidambaram won piggybacking on DMK. KC would now claim that the people's court has exonerated him from charges levelled by the CBI  and the ED.

Rahul Gandhi has blamed these leaders for the poor performance of the party. These leaders would blame the Congress workers who in turn would blame the voters for not supporting the Congress. 

Lessons from the elections

The long-stretched general elections have at last come to an end. The exit polls whose reliability has always been in doubt have also made their entry. Actual results which will be available on the 23rd may or may not be what most exit polls have predicted.

Do the 2019 elections hold any lessons for us? We take pride in being a democracy and rightly so. Sustainability of a democracy depends more on effectiveness of the opposition than on governance standards of the ruling dispensation. Any government not monitored by capable opposition tends to become autocratic and undemocratic. A disjointed opposition is an invitation to dilution of governance.

The exit polls, at least most of them, point towards absence of any national party barring the BJP. This is an unwelcome development. In the parliamentary elections, the influence of the Congress party is confined to the states of Kerala and the Punjab. It piggybacks on DMK in TamilNadu and is reduced to irrelevance in most states. Communists have been virtually banished from W.Bengal and are losing ground in Kerala. Other parties like the SP, BSP, DMK and Trinamool Congress are complete non-entities beyond a state or two. Weakness and dysfunctionality of the opposition are therefore guaranteed.

If Indian parliamentary polity is becoming unipolar, it will be a huge disappointment. The blame would rest with the Grand Old Party.