Browse Archives

By Category

By Date

My Friend Sancho

My first novel, My Friend Sancho, is now on the stands across India. It is a contemporary love story set in Mumbai, and was longlisted for the Man Asian Literary Prize 2008. To learn more about the book, click here.

To buy it online from the US, click here.

I am currently on a book tour to promote the book. Please check out our schedule of city launches. India Uncut readers are invited to all of them, no pass required, so do drop in and say hello.

If you're interested, do join the Facebook group for My Friend Sancho

Click here for more about my publisher, Hachette India.

And ah, my posts on India Uncut about My Friend Sancho can be found here.

Bastiat Prize 2007 Winner

Category Archives: Politics

A rising tide, and leaky boats

Raju Narisetti writes in Mint:

In the daily hurry-up and wait rituals in front of rickety elevators that take us to our high-rise offices, I ask how such a vast and wise nation can create and accept self-inflicted bottlenecks of thought and action. After all, India can’t cross this river in two or three steps. I also note that a rising tide won’t lift leaky boats. So, I ask, shouldn’t our government focus on fixing the boats instead of constantly trying to control the tide?

Indeed, if it just allowed us to fix our own leaky boats, that would be enough.

Posted by Amit Varma on 12 August, 2007 in India | Politics

In the name of Islam

Ranjit Hoskote, Naresh Fernandes and Jerry Pinto have drafted an eloquent letter protesting the attack on Taslima Nasreen that they have sent out to a few newspapers. I’ve received a copy as well, and it’s reproduced in full below, as I agree entirely with the sentiment they express:

Dear Editor,

We write to condemn, in the strongest terms, the physical assault on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad last week, by political activists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Such violence can have no place in a liberal democracy, which guarantees the holders of all shades of opinion the right to express themselves in a peaceful and reasonable manner. The activists of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) have not only violated the contract of democratic citizenship, but have also done Islam a great injustice. The threat, issued by some representatives of the MIM, to “behead” Ms Nasreen if she should visit Hyderabad again, is particularly odious. The Islamic faith has been far better served by philosophers like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina, and by Sufis like Rumi and Attar, than by the bloodthirsty adventurers who have used its standard to further their personal ambitions.

We also deplore the attitude of the police, which has charged Ms Nasreen with inciting communal disharmony through her writing, as an example of the most misplaced even-handedness on the part of the authorities.

Ranjit Hoskote
Naresh Fernandes
Jerry Pinto
The Pen All-India Centre

Needless to say, if the attack had been made by a bunch of hoodlums unaffiliated to any political party, the cops would no doubt have taken strong action against them. As I wrote in my piece, “Mobs are above the law,” political protest has been sanctified by the law in India. So has protest under the guise of defending one’s religion, as if any religion was so brittle as to need such defense.

It’s ironic that a case has been filed against Taslima, for “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion.” It reminds me of the Baroda incident, where it was the painter under attack by a similar extremist mob who found himself in jail. (My posts on that incident: 1, 2, 3, 4.)

The footage of the attack on Taslima is below the fold:


Posted by Amit Varma on 12 August, 2007 in Freedom | India | Politics

The Republic of Apathy

This essay of mine was published today in the Independence Day special issue of Lounge, the weekend edition of Mint, as “Those Songs of Freedom.”

Just thinking of it sends a chill up my spine. On 12 March 1930, at the Sabarmati Ashram in Gujarat, 79 men went for a walk. For 23 days they marched, covering four districts, 48 villages, 400 kilometres. On the way they picked up thousands of other ordinary people, animated by a cause so much bigger than themselves. Then, on 6 April, by the sea at the coastal village of Dandi, Mahatma Gandhi picked up a handful of salty earth and said, “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” 

The empire shook. The purpose of Gandhi’s march was to protest the oppressive and unfair salt tax, and across the country people joined the battle. They made their own salt. They bought illegal salt. That year, 60,000 Indians were arrested during these protests. The Salt Law was not repealed. And yet, “the first stage in ... the final struggle of freedom,” as Gandhi described it, had made an impact.

More than 77 years have passed. We have been free of the British empire for 60 of them. If we were to get inside a time machine, go back to 1930, pull in some of the men and women who marched to Dandi, and bring them to this present time, how would they react? Would they think that they were finally in the India that they had fought to achieve? 

Or would they set off on another walk?


Posted by Amit Varma on 11 August, 2007 in Economics | Essays and Op-Eds | Freedom | India | Old memes | Taxes | Politics

Are ideologies just a rationalisation…

... for the lust for power? Hans J. Morgenthau once wrote, in Politics Among Nations:

While all politics is necessarily pursuit of power, ideologies render involvement in that contest for power psychologically and morally acceptable to the actors and their audience. (Ideologies) are either ultimate goals of political action… or… pretexts and false fronts behind which the element of power, inherent in all politics, is concealed. They may fulfil one or the other function, or they may fulfil both at the same time. The nation that dispensed with ideologies and frankly stated it wanted power would… find itself at a great and perhaps decisive disadvantage in the struggle for power.

I found this at the start of an excellent piece in today’s Mint by my buddy Nitin Pai, “Why we must export our Islam.” Do read.

PS: The edit pages of Mint have much to read today. The main edit reprises the theme of my column yesterday, and speaks of how “Indian cricket will benefit from market competition.” And S Mitra Kalita writes in her column, “As we revel in India’s freedom next week, it would not be hyperbole to suggest that British imperialism has been replaced by something just as disturbing and powerful…”

I have an essay coming out tomorrow that elaborates on just that theme. Watch this space.

Posted by Amit Varma on 10 August, 2007 in Arts and entertainment | Excerpts | India | Politics

Why Progressives Aren’t Progressive

Don Boudreaux begins his latest column thus:

My son, Thomas, 10, sometimes amuses himself with a game he calls “Opposite.” Whenever he is struck by the fancy to play this game, he announces to my wife and me that all that he says during the next several minutes will be the opposite of what he really means.

“Mommy is ugly” really means “Mommy is beautiful.” “I’m stuffed!” means “I’m hungry.” To indicate that he’d prefer to play rather than do his homework, Thomas declares that, by all means, he wants to do his homework immediately.

Too often when I read newspapers or encounter government in action I feel as though pundits and politicians are playing “Opposite” with me. Except, unlike with my son, these people genuinely hope to dupe me with their verbal stratagems.

An especially galling “Opposite” in the political sphere is the use of the term “Progressive.” Enemies of individual freedom and responsibility, and of the economic dynamism characteristic only of capitalism, routinely call themselves “Progressives.”

Read the full piece, it’s quite excellent.

As you know, there are similar issues with the word ‘liberal.’ Sigh.

Posted by Amit Varma on 09 August, 2007 in Economics | Freedom | Politics

The worldview of the next American president…

... is reflected here.

This is immensely distressing, for I don’t feel comfortable about any of those candidates—I disagree with all of them in at least three or four areas. If I was American, I’d be rather depressed at the choices laid out before me. Being in India, of course, I have plenty to complain about anyway.

(Link via email from Gaurav Sabnis, who also has much to say about P Sainath.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 08 August, 2007 in Politics


Quote of the month:

In political life today, you are considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.

That’s John Stossel starting off a wonderful piece titled “Good News: The World Gets Better.” Read the full piece—indeed, read all his pieces. He’s such a good writer that I hate him. Immense jealousy erupts.

And to get back to the subject of compassion, do read “The Devil’s Compassion.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 07 August, 2007 in Economics | Politics

Whatever happened to ‘liberal’?

Quiz question for my readers (not posted in Workoutable because it’s guessable but not workoutable) coming up. X was recently asked to define a liberal, and gave this answer:

You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom ... that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.

Identify X.

Clue: I only ask this question because of the irony in the quoted statement—I agree with its sentiment, and myself bemoan the changed meaning of ‘liberal,’ but the person saying these words is, well, as much a ‘big-government liberal’ as you can find.

For the answer, read Jonah Goldberg’s excellent piece, “Why ‘liberal’ doesn’t quite fit.”

For my thoughts on the subject, read “A Liberal Complaint.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 07 August, 2007 in Freedom | Politics

Revolution in the USA?

Scott Adams speculates on what could lead to one.

India, anyone? Is there a nightmare scenario in which our people would rise up?

Actually, nah. Most of us are too apathetic, no matter what happens.

(Link via email from Sanjeev.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 02 August, 2007 in Politics

Sex and patriotism

The Daily Mail reports:

Remember the mammoths, say the clean-cut organisers at the youth camp’s mass wedding. “They became extinct because they did not have enough sex. That must not happen to Russia”.

Obediently, couples move to a special section of dormitory tents arranged in a heart-shape and called the Love Oasis, where they can start procreating for the motherland.

With its relentlessly upbeat tone, bizarre ideas and tight control, it sounds like a weird indoctrination session for a phoney religious cult.

But this organisation - known as “Nashi”, meaning “Ours” - is youth movement run by Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin that has become a central part of Russian political life.

There’s an idea there for the RSS, which keeps complaining, rather bizarrely, that Muslims procreate too much. Well, dudes, organise camps, get some Hindu boys and girls together, and encourage them to tango. Time for the moral police to change its strategy!

(Link via email from Gautam Bastian.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 02 August, 2007 in India | Politics

And Justice For All?

While it’s a matter of great satisfaction that the perpetrators on the 1993 blasts have finally been sentenced, it is also a matter of great shame that the wrongdoers of the riots just before that, which killed three times as many people, remain unpunished. Naresh from Time Out points me to an online petition that protests this. I’ve added my signature—what about you?

Posted by Amit Varma on 02 August, 2007 in India | Politics

Mommy-Daddy, go away!

This is the 25th installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

One of my favourite quotes about politics is this one from David Boaz: “Conservatives want to be your daddy, telling you what to do and what not to do. Liberals want to be your mommy, feeding you, tucking you in, and wiping your nose. Libertarians want to treat you as an adult.”

This was said in an American context, and the liberals referred to are the Leftist ‘liberals’ of America, not the classical liberals who believe in individual freedom. It would be tempting to apply this quote to India, and to point to the religious right, with their moral policing and disregard for free speech, as the Daddy among us, and the socialist left, with their belief in big government and fantasies of a welfare state, as the Mommy.

But the truth is more complex and much sadder. Our government, regardless of the political party in charge, has always tried to play the role of both Mommy and Daddy. Like infants, we acquiesce.


Posted by Amit Varma on 02 August, 2007 in Economics | Essays and Op-Eds | Freedom | India | Politics | Thinking it Through

S Ramadoss’s wishlist

PMK biggie S Ramadoss is an ambitious man. Why ask for the moon when galaxies abound? At a recent rally in Vellore, he made the following demands of “the youth of Tamil Nadu”:

1. Give up “cinema culture” and “instead form groups to fight social problems like dowry death.”

2. “Fight for prohibition.”

3. Save the Palar river.

4. Plant more trees.

5. Give up smoking.

6. Give up drinking.

7. Don’t use drugs.

Phew. I’m sure many ‘youths’ in the audience must have gone, “Hey, I’ve never thought about these things before! I’ve been enlightened now! I will plant a tree right away!”

Such joy.

Posted by Amit Varma on 01 August, 2007 in India | News | Politics

Don’t break the mirror

The Information and Broadcasting ministry, Rediff tells us, in planning a content code for Indian television. The report says:

The draft content code ... plans to restrict TV channels from stereotyping women as passive or submissive so as to promote or glorify their subordinate or secondary role in the society.

Reader Praveen Krishnan, who sent me the link, writes, “I suppose we will be seeing Tulsi and Kkusum in leather and bondage gear from now on. Surely that is dominant enough?”

Frankly, seeing Smriti Irani intone grandiosely in Viruddh with a glint in her eye is enough to make a man rush to a corner, get into a foetal position and start bawling. No, but flippancy aside, this is the silliest idea I’ve heard in a long time, though it’s quite what you’d expect from the government mai-baaps who refuse to treat us as adults.

To repeat a cliche, art often just holds up a mirror to society. Breaking the mirror won’t change the ugly mug in front of it. And we need that mirror. No one should mess with it.

Posted by Amit Varma on 30 July, 2007 in Arts and entertainment | Freedom | India | Media | Politics

38 Ways To Win An Argument—Arthur Schopenhauer

For all of you who have ever been involved in an online debate in any way, Arthur Schopenhauer’s “38 Ways To Win An Argument” is indispensable. Most of these techniques will seem familiar to you, right from questioning the motive of a person making the argument instead of the argument itself (No. 35), exaggerating the propositions stated by the other person (No. 1) , misrepresenting the other person’s words (No. 2) and attacking a straw man instead (No. 3). It’s a full handbook of intellectual dishonesty there. Indeed, I generally avoid online debates because they inevitably degenerate to No. 38.

The full text is below the fold. Many thanks to my friend Nitin Pai for reintroducing me to it.


Posted by Amit Varma on 28 July, 2007 in Arts and entertainment | IU Faves | Blogging | Politics

The Regional Parties Bachao Front

Should political parties need licenses to stand for elections? Barbad Katte uses this seemingly absurd proposal to parody the CPI-M’s dangerous idea of throttling competition in organized retail. Why do I say “seemingly absurd?” Well, because the registration system currently in place for political parties is barrier enough for poor SV Raju.

The greatest satire of protectionism, of course, is Frédéric Bastiat‘s magnificent Candlemaker’s Petition. Here’s the text of that.

Posted by Amit Varma on 25 July, 2007 in Economics | Freedom | India | Politics

On cleavage

Robin Givhan of the Washington Post has written a piece on, of all subjects, Hillary Clinton’s cleavage. An excerpt:

Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.

I’m sure feminist bloggers will have a lot to say about this, and I’ll avoid comment simply so that I don’t get into trouble. All I can say is that I’m a huge fan of cleavage, regardless of the motives behind its display. Cleavage makes the world a better place.

And that reminds me of this.

Now just wait for the New York Times to do a story on Barack Obama’s cleavage. The coverage of these elections…

(Link via email from Gautam John, who got there via Daily Kos.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 21 July, 2007 in Miscellaneous | Personal | Politics

“A milch-cow with 125 million teats”

Check out this delightful paragraph from Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People:

[HL] Mencken excelled himself in attacking the triumphant FDR, whose whiff of fraudulent collectivism filled him with genuine disgust. He was the ‘Fuhrer,’ the ‘Quack,’ surrounded by ‘an astonishing rabble of impudent nobodies,’ ‘a gang of half-educated pedagogues, non-constitutional lawyers, starry-eyed uplifters and other such sorry wizards.’ His New Deal was ‘a political racket,’ a ‘series of stupendous bogus miracles,’ with its ‘constant appeals to class envy and hatred,’ treating government as ‘a milch cow with 125 million teats’ and marked by ‘frequent repudiations of categorical pledges.’ The only consequence was that Mencken himself forfeited his influence with anyone under 30, and was himself denounced in turn as a polecat, a Prussian, a British toady, a howling hyena, a parasite, a mangy mongrel, an affected ass, an unsavory creature, putrid of soul, a public nuisance, a literary stink-pot, a mountebank, a rantipole, a vain hysteric, an outcast, a literary renegade, and a trained elephant who wrote the gibberish of an imbecile.

Sounds like the blogosphere, doesn’t it? Mencken was a remarkable writer, though his entire ouvre is almost impossible to read—According to Johnson, he “produced over 10 million words of journalism” and “wrote over 100,000 letters (between 60 and 125 per working day).” What a blogger he would have made!

And that milch-cow analogy is superb. In India, there are more than a billion teats.

Also see: Amity Shlaes’s essay on the New Deal, “The Real Deal.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 20 July, 2007 in Economics | Freedom | Journalism | Politics

Uncle Sam and India

What attitude will the next US president have towards India? The Council of Foreign Relations helps us get a better grip on that with a summary of each presidential candidate’s stance on India policy.

It’s a worthy effort, but I’d have enjoyed a higher level of detail. Also, policies that affect India are not just those that deal directly with India, like immigration reform or outsourcing. Issues like farm subsidies and their middle-east policy also affect us deeply, and to effectively map out which presidential candidate would be best for India, one needs to go past superficial bromides by candidates on how India is a “natural ally” and has a “large market” and so on. Also, it would be a good idea to look at not just their recent statements but also their past records—voting record at the senate, or as a governor, and so on—to see what they truly believe in.

Still, this is a good idea, and a fair beginning. I hope that page evolves.

Posted by Amit Varma on 20 July, 2007 in India | Politics

The hypocrisy of the Left

Reader Ila Bhat writes in:

When Salil Tripathi says this:

the clueless British Left, which has such a deep bias against the United States and Israel that it ends up making common cause and an intellectually dishonest alliance with Muslim groups that are anti-women, anti-gay, and far from being progressive, articulate extreme positions.

... he could well be talking about Karat and company, no?


Posted by Amit Varma on 20 July, 2007 in India | Politics

Celebrating Pratibha Patil

This is the 23rd installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

If you are an Indian, your heart should swell up with nationalistic pride today – and perhaps even explode. India elects a president as you read this, and it is likely to be Pratibha Patil. There has been much talk in the media about how she is unfit for that post, an opinion I have also expressed. But now I have seen the light. I was wrong.

Competence and intellect are optional attributes for a post that only has ceremonial value. Our president represents India to the world, and should be someone who people can take one look at and say, “Ah, so India is like that!” For various reasons, Pratibha Tai embodies much of India in her slender frame.

Consider, first, her spirituality. We are a spiritual nation, and Pratibha Tai actually converses with spirits. When she was nominated for the presidency, she revealed that she had been told by an enlightened soul that she was destined for bigger things.

“I had a pleasant experience,” she told an audience at Mt. Abu, where she had gone to meet a lady named Hridaymohini aka Dadiji, who runs a “World Spiritual University”. She had chatted with a gentleman named Dada Lekhraj, who died in 1969 but has presumably hung around since. “Dadiji ke shareer mein baba aye,” she told the audience. (“Baba came in Dadiji’s body.”) This, you will notice with pride, also has a touch of the erotic about it, which is quite appropriate in the land of Khajuraho and the Kama Sutra.

There are many advantages of having a president who can speak to spirits. She can chat with Gandhiji (Mahatma, not Sonia) over breakfast, and let us know his views on the world and Lage Raho Munnabhai. If George W Bush comes visiting, she can impress him by chatting with Saddam Hussein and asking him where those WMDs are. (“Dadiji je shareer mein Saddam aye.”) And so on. Lucky Dadiji.


Posted by Amit Varma on 19 July, 2007 in Essays and Op-Eds | India | Politics | Thinking it Through

WTF site of the day

Name my vote!

If there was such a site for India, there wouldn’t two options, but 86. Or suchlike.

(Link via email from Ojas Sabnis.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 17 July, 2007 in Politics | WTF

Libertarians and the Iraq War

Gautam emailed a while earlier to point me to a piece by Randy Barnett in the Wall Street Journal on how libertarians were divided by the Iraq War. It reminded me of an excellent post by Don Boudreaux on Cafe Hayek in which he nailed it:

Libertarians properly don’t trust government to run our pension plans, to deliver health care, to educate our children, or to provide disaster relief. Why be so trusting of government to wage war?

Much to my embarrassment now, I supported the Iraq War when it happened. If every intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMD, I figured that must be credible. Removing the evil regime of the monstrous Saddam Hussein would also be a great benefit. The thought of democracy in the middle east also made me happy. Well, naive, stupid me.

I changed my mind on the war once it became apparent how badly the Americans handled the aftermath, with their inflexibility and arrogance exacerbating their serious strategic errors. Given how government functions, how it is essentially just a collection of people with the wrong incentives spending other people’s money, how could I possibly have expected otherwise?

I’m not an American citizen or taxpayer, so it may seem that I don’t have to bear the costs of the war. (I don’t mean merely the monetary ones.) But I am—as are you, I would imagine—on the same side as them on the War on Terror, and their screw-ups affect us all. There are no islands, as John Donne might have said.

Posted by Amit Varma on 17 July, 2007 in Freedom | Politics

“The western culture of sexual relation”

Somebody please tell me what this quote means:

I think the government wants to import the western culture of sexual relation between student relation to India.

That’s Murli Manohar Joshi, speaking out against sex education in Indian schools in a report by Chetan Chauhan of the Hindustan Times. More from the report:

He [Joshi] said introduction of sex education was what multinationals did to create the desire for sex among teenagers to sell their products. “It is not sex education. It is education to sell condoms,” he alleged.

In a similar vein, Joshi is quoted as saying in another report:

The whole concept of such a syllabus is aimed at creating market for global brands of MNCs and would result in global domination.

At least there is one thing that unites the loonies on the Left and Right of our political spectrum—an irrational and self-serving hatred of MNCs. There’s really not that much difference between Prakash Karat and Murli Manohar Joshi. (I know both of them would feel insulted by this comparison, which adds to my pleasure at making it.)

(Link via elbow-nudge from Rahul.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 16 July, 2007 in India | Politics | WTF

Licensed to toast

This is the 22nd installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

“You may now need licence to own toaster,” read the headline of a news report this Tuesday in the Hindustan Times. The article began: “You do not use the Toast Authority of India’s toasting services, but may soon have to pay a one-time licence fee for the toaster you own and an additional tax on any new toaster you buy in the future. Why? To support the Toast Authority of India and its employees.”

“Wait a minute,” you tell me, “you’re pulling a fast one on us. This is way too absurd to believe. Our gentle, compassionate government would never do something like that.”

Right. Well, I did make some of that up. The headline actually said, “You may now need license to own TV.” And in the para I quoted, replace “TAI’s toasting services” with Doordarshan, “toaster” with “TV” and “TAI” with “Prasar Bharati”, and there you have it.

Now tell me, is that any less absurd?


Posted by Amit Varma on 12 July, 2007 in Economics | Essays and Op-Eds | India | Old memes | Taxes | Politics | Thinking it Through

Dear Mrinal Pande

Dear Mrinal Pande

In your column today you insinuate that all opposition to Pratibha Patil is based on her gender. That is unfair. Some of us are opposing Ms Patil not because we’re worried about the empowerment of women, but because of personal flaws that have nothing to do with her gender. Allow me to ask you two questions.

One, are you comfortable with a president who claims that she can converse with spirits? To me, this would indicate a mental health problem, and I hope you would agree with me that our president needs to be of sound mind.

Two, Ms Patil had once expressed her support for forcible sterilization of people with hereditary diseases. Is it not fair to ask that she at least indicates that she has changed her mind on the subject, even if she doesn’t actually apologize for it? Ms Patil supported Indira Gandhi during and after the Emergency, and surely it is fair to worry that she might still represent those values.

Please note that I am not expressing my support for Bhairon Singh Shekhawat by opposing Ms Patil. I am merely bemoaning the fact that the UPA did not choose a better candidate. I would have been delighted if that candidate was a woman, as long as she had the character and intellect that the office of president deserves.

If you would care to stand for the post, Ms Pande, I would support you wholeheartedly. But not Pratibha Patil.


Amit Varma

*  *  *

Previous posts on Pratibha Patil: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Posted by Amit Varma on 10 July, 2007 in India | Letters | Politics

A strange cocktail of contradictions

Barkha Dutt’s recent columns in the Hindustan Times have been excellent, and in her latest one she writes:

For too long now, any discussion on the state of India’s largest minority has been entangled in extremities. On the one side is the intolerance and prejudice of the Right, and at the other end is the patronising, politically correct blindness of the Left. There is the indisputable fact that ordinary Muslims in India live on the margins of development and economic wellness. Then, there are the ‘secular’ politicians who play self-appointed benefactors with one eye constantly on elections. There is the unforgettable blemish of the administration-aided riots in Gujarat. And finally, there are the fatwa-happy fanatics — the maulvis and preachers who drag their own people down the hellhole of hatred and are never condemned as strongly as they should be.

It’s time to ask ourselves a blunt question: what exactly is this strange cocktail of contradictions breeding?

There are no easy answers to that question, and Dutt doesn’t pretend otherwise. But it’s important to ask—political correctness be damned.

Posted by Amit Varma on 09 July, 2007 in India | Politics

Sangh Parivar goons attack Shivaji Panicker

Hate is being sold wholesale in Gujarat state, it is sadly the state’s biggest export currently.

—Shivaji Panicker, speaking to Mumbai Mirror journalist, Vishwas Kulkarni.

Panicker’s words are hard to disagree with, after what happened to him in Ahmedabad recently, where his car was surrounded by Sangh Parivar activists when he was on his way to attend a function. They threw stones, bricks and “a large, rusted iron drum” at the car, and were only prevented from dragging him out by the intervention of the brave Shabnam Hashmi, an organiser of the function, who stood near the door of the car and blocked their way. (The function, ironically, was the National Student’s Festival for Peace, Communal Harmony and Justice.)

Ms Hashmi’s account of the events is reproduced below the fold—the attitude of the police is particularly shocking. (For some background to this, please read my posts on the Baroda controversy, “Fascism in Baroda,” “Only live in fear,” “The Hindutva Rashtra.”)

These events remind me of Ranjit Hoskote’s words:

[T]he roots of Hindutva do not lie in Hinduism. Rather, they lie in a crude mixture of German romanticism, Victorian puritanism and Nazi methodology.

No doubt many Hindutva followers will take issue with that, and will proclaim that the goons involved in the attack on Panicker are not representative of Hindutva. Fine. Then I suggest that they do one of these two things:

1] Condemn the attacks unequivocally, call for the expulsion of the gundas involved here from any Sangh Parivar organisations that they might belong to, and articulate precisely what Hindutva stands for that these goons went against.

2] Accept these gundas as representative of Hindutva as it stands today, with intolerance at its heart, and a sanction for mob violence.

The first act will be worthy of respect. The second will at least be honest. But they really cannot have it both ways.

What I expect, of course, is rhetoric that makes Panicker out to be the villain of the piece, the ingrate who insulted Hindus and had to be taught a lesson. That is the template strategy in such cases, isn’t it?

Below, Ms Shabnam Hashmi’s account of events, reproduced without any changes:


Posted by Amit Varma on 08 July, 2007 in Freedom | India | Politics

Arpita and the Bombay Plan

This is the 21st installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

Much amusement came yesterday when I read of Arpita Mukherjee ranting against singing shows on television. Arpita, in case you haven’t heard of her, is a singer who came to national attention by taking part in singing reality shows like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa and Fame Gurukul. She has an album out now called Yeh Hai Chand, and in the course of a recent interview she said, “Reality shows create unnecessary hype.”

She went on to disparage the voting mechanisms of such shows, and said, “most of the competitors who are not talented win music talent hunt reality shows.” Critics of such shows would no doubt be pleased at Arpita’s outburst – she is a beneficiary of the shows she lambasts, which seems to make her criticism credible. Fans of those shows would rail at her hypocrisy and ingratitude. Actually, her comments are entirely rational and predictable. In fact, she reminds me of JRD Tata and GD Birla.

In 1944, with India on the verge of independence, a group of industrialists that included Tata, Birla and other notables like Purushottamdas Thakurdas, AD Shroff and Kasturbhai Lalbhai came up with a document called “A Brief Memorandum Outlining a Plan of Economic Development for India” – also known, famously, as the Bombay Plan. In this, instead of arguing for free markets, they made a case for massive state involvement in the economy. Fans of big government held it up as a sign of validation – India’s biggest businessmen were putting their faith in central planning instead of free markets. In his wonderful book, India After Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha writes, “One wonders what free-market pundits would make of it now.”

Well, I find Arpita’s and the industrialists’ actions to be analogous, and not remotely befuddling. The shows Arpita criticises enabled her entry into the music business, but now that she has got her break, they are a threat to her. They provide an assembly line of singing talent to the music industry, acting as a filter for talent, and are the biggest source of competition for Arpita. Who likes competition?

Similarly, state controls on the Indian economy shut out competition, and helped entrenched players like Tata and Birla. It is a different matter that the controls and license raj went too far and hurt even the industrialists who had been in their favour, but they did prevent competitive markets, which was in their interests.

It would be presumptuous to conclude that either Arpita or the Bombay Plan authors consciously intended to shut out competition, but their incentives were certainly aligned that way. And while Arpita’s comments will have no impact on the viewership of reality shows, businessmen who fear competition have harmed this country immeasurably.


Posted by Amit Varma on 05 July, 2007 in Arts and entertainment | Economics | Essays and Op-Eds | Freedom | India | Politics | Thinking it Through

Prices as signals

From the price of machetes before and after an election, there is so much we learn about the political culture of Nigeria.

(Link via email from Gautam John.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 04 July, 2007 in Economics | Politics

AB Bardhan defends Pratibha Patil

Or at least he tries. Of all the charges against Pratibha Patil that I’d outlined in my post, “Why Pratibha Patil should not be president”, the one that shocked me post was the statement she made during the emergency on forced sterilization. Karan Thapar quizzed AB Bardhan on that:

Karan Thapar: Speaking in the Maharashtra Assembly as health minister on December 10, 1975, Mrs Pratibha Patil said we are thinking of forcible sterilisation of people with hereditary diseases. First of all, do you approve of forcible sterilization?

AB Bardhan: I don’t, I don’t, but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything she does or says.

Karan Thapar: Let’s explore this a little further. People with hereditary diseases include people with heart disorders, diabetes, should such people be forcibly sterilised?

AB Bardhan: I don’t think there should be forcible sterilisation of at any stage

Karan Thapar: So, you completely disagree with her?

AB Bardhan: I disagreed with this whole policy of Congress at one stage

Karan Thapar: Then how come such a woman who said this in the assembly - it is recorded in the assembly records - is your nominee for President?

Heh. Nominating Pratibha Patil for president exposes the hypocrisy of the Left, which tries to take the moral high ground on so many issues. Where is their sanctimony and self-righteousness now? After they correctly scuttled the candidacy of Shivraj Patil because he believed in Sai Baba, they supported someone who claims to speak to spirits and believes in astrology. It’s all about politics, not principle.

In more news, Patil comes forward with a bizarre explanation of her purdah comment (link via email from Confused), and India Today informs us (subscription link) that Patil “managed the kitchen in Indira Gandhi’s house when her son Sanjay had died.” I’m sure her puran poli must be delicious.

(Previous posts on Pratibha Patil: 1, 2, 3, 4.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 30 June, 2007 in India | Politics

A counterweight to the Marxists

Andy Mukherjee joins the chorus for a political party that supports economic freedom alongside all others. He writes:

Urban middle-class young people are so engrossed in seizing the opportunities presented by the opening up of the economy that they are taking prudent, pro-market policies for granted.

If only they paid more attention to the rise of left-wing politics in Latin America, they would be less sanguine.


Unless there is a counterweight to the Marxists from an equally powerful group that can influence the policies of future coalition governments, there is no hope of quickly freeing the economy from the remaining tentacles of the state.

Without job creation, economic inequality is bound to rise in a country where half the people can’t read or write and even more haven’t been taught the skills needed for participation in the rapidly growing modern economy.

That, in turn, is fertile ground for left-wing extremism, which is already recognized by the government as probably the largest security threat facing the country today.

Would the mere presence of such a party bring about that counterbalance? Our voters being the way they are, even if a classical liberal party did exist, it would probably gain little support in the political arena. The Marxists might have all the wrong ideas, discredited completely by history, but they are couched in the right language, the language of compassion. Support for an interventionist state is far easier to whip up than for free markets, whose mechanisms—spontaneous order, the invisible hand—are so unintuitive.

Still, one lives and blogs in hope.

(My earlier pieces on the subject: “Where’s the Freedom Party?”. “Minoo Masani and the Swatantra Party.” And even earlier: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Also see: “A Liberal Complaint.”)

Posted by Amit Varma on 29 June, 2007 in Freedom | India | Politics

Pratibha Patil on astrology

In my post yesterday, “Why Pratibha Patil should not be president”, I outlined a number of reasons for my opposition to Pratibha Patil. Well, another minor reason emerges—while launching an astrology website last year, the lady had remarked:

Considering the fact that there is so much interest as well as faith in astrology in India, there is need for in-depth study of the possible impact of the recent astronomical findings about the planets. Sometimes we read about 12 planets instead of nine earlier.

Astrology is a serious and deep subject which has a great influence on our society. The growing expectations of the people from this subject requires application of science and technology.

I have no issues with the private beliefs any individual may have, but it does strike me as undesirable for the president of our country to be a superstitious simpleton.

The BJP has asked the UPA to reconsider her candidature, but here’s the irony: If Patil had been a BJP candidate, the UPA and their allies would have been up in arms against her alleged misdeeds—Prakash Karat would have radiated sanctimony—while the BJP would have been supporting her, and the two parties would have accused each other of partisan politics. Frankly, it doesn’t matter which foot the shoe is on: It’s going to trample us no matter what.

(Astrology link via email from Nitin Pai. Previous posts on Pratibha Patil: “Why Pratibha Patil should not be president.” “Wretched.” “The Politics of Division.”

Some earlier posts on superstitious nonsense: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 28 June, 2007 in India | Politics

A Liberal Complaint

This is the 20th installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

Erudita, the Goddess of Words, was snoozing up in heaven when she was woken up by a sudden noise. Deep down in the Vocabulosphere, there was turmoil. “I should go and investigate,” she thought.

She zoomed down. There, bang in the middle of the political spectrum, the word Liberal was pacing to and fro. Left to right. Right to left. Left to right.

“What’s the matter, Liberal?” She asked. “You seem agitated. Is everything okay?”

“Everything okay, everything okay?” mocked Liberal. “Everything is not okay. I want to quit.”

“Quit?” said Erudita. “You can’t quit. As long as humans need you, you have a job to do. Just do it quietly, and all shall be well.”

“Humans,” said Liberal, “are the problem here. A century ago I was happy and peaceful, sure of my identity. I knew what I meant. But in the last few decades, I have been brutalized. My original meaning has been wrung out of me, and now I stand for different things to different people. I have become a label, and a cuss word, and a badge to people who don’t even know what I stand for. Aaargh!”

“Whoa, hold on there,” said Erudita. “I thought you were one of the most important words in modern history, for everything that you embodied. What’s gone wrong? Start at the beginning.”


Posted by Amit Varma on 28 June, 2007 in Economics | Essays and Op-Eds | Freedom | India | Politics | Thinking it Through

Why Pratibha Patil should not be president

I had mentioned my misgivings about Pratibha Patil in a post yesterday (“Wretched”), and today, while I was too busy in the morning to blog, as many as eight readers wrote in to point me to this bizarre news about the lady:

Close on the heels of the veil controversy, United Progressive Alliance-Left presidential nominee Pratibha Patil has kicked up another row having claimed that she had a ‘divine premonition’ of greater responsibility coming her way after speaking to a late spiritual guru.

“I had a pleasant experience,” Patil told a gathering in Mt Abu in February recounting her meeting with the head of Brahma Kumaris World Spritual University, Hridaymohini, also popularly known as ‘dadiji.’

Dadiji ke shareer mein baba aye (Baba came in Dadiji’s body),” she said. Her reference was to Dada Lekhraj who founded Brahma Kumari sect. Lekhraj died in 1969.

Patil claimed the late Baba spoke to her indicating that she should be prepared to shoulder greater responsibility.

Haysoos! So now we will have a president who can speak to spirits. But there is more reason to worry about Patil than just the likelihood that she is delusional. Here’s a list:

1] She supported Indira Gandhi during and after the emergency, and once made a statement as health minister:

We are also thinking of forcible sterilization for people with anuvaunshik ajar (hereditary diseases).

2] She ran a bank that had its license revoked in 2003 for “alleged financial irregularities.” Among the reasons: Waivers of loans to her relatives.

3] A sugar factory started by her allegedly defaulted on a loan of Rs 17.70 crore. It’s only fair to ask: Where did the money go?

4] Her knowledge of history is severely flawed, almost simplistically so. (She did provide us with the ironic image of a woman with her head covered asking for the abolition of the purdah. Heh!)

5] There are allegations against her that she protected her brother from a murder charge.

There’s more on the subject from Nitin Pai and Yossarin. Nitin also urges us to put up a banner on our websites asking for answers to all these allegations: I’m carrying it below, and if you want to as well, you can pick it up from here.


Given the gravity of these charges, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least an explanation before she becomes president. And an apology for her role during the emergency. No?

Update: On the subject of Patil’s nomination, do read my piece “The Politics of Division.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 27 June, 2007 in India | News | Politics

Global warming (or will it rain this weekend?)

Emily Yoffe writes in the Washington Post:

Since I hate the heat, even I was alarmed by the recent headline: “NASA Warns of 110-Degrees for Atlanta, Chicago, DC in Summer.” But I regained my cool when I realized the forecast was for close to the end of the century. Thanks to all the heat-mongering, it’s supposed to be a sign I’m in denial because I refuse to trust a weather prediction for August 2080, when no one can offer me one for August 2008 (or 2007 for that matter).

There is so much hubris in the certainty about the models of the future that I’m oddly reassured. We’ve seen how hubristic predictions about complicated, unpredictable events have a way of bringing the predictors low.

Speaking of hubris, I was born in December 1973 in what I am told was the coldest day in North India in many years. And that was about the time when Global Cooling was the rage everywhere. The same certainty, the same hubris.

Of course, I’m not saying that global warming is not happening: there’s no doubt that it is. But some of the forecasts and doomsday scenarios seem baseless and wildly exaggerated. Ronald Bailey writes on the subject in his review of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth here, in which he points out that while Gore is right on the broad issue of the existence of global warming, he overstates the specifics somewhat.

For some of the recent history of climate-change skepticism, I recommend you check out The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. (Here’s a review of it by Denis Dutton.) Also, read Swaminathan Aiyar’s “Global Warming or Global Cooling?” and “The Theology of Global Warming” by James Schlesinger.

Of course, what one believes may also depend on one’s existing worldview, which makes most arguments on it pointless, as they become discussions of faith as much as science. This may apply as much to skeptics as to alarmists. Cantankerous complications cascade.

Meanwhile, will it rain this weekend? Who knows?

Posted by Amit Varma on 26 June, 2007 in Miscellaneous | Politics


I love our politicians. Such things they say. Here’s Bal Thackeray, announcing his support for Pratibha Patil:

It is Maharashtra’s fortune that a Marathi woman is for the first time becoming the President. Those opposing it should be termed as wretched.

Quite. Ms Patil, by the way, supported Indira Gandhi after the Emergency. A bank she set up had its license revoked by the RBI in 2003 for “alleged financial irregularities”, for reasons the Indian Express documents here—among them are waivers of loans to her relatives.

But oh, we mustn’t bring that up, she’s Marathi and all of Maharshtra must be proud of her. Otherwise we’re wretched.

Also read: “The Politics of Division.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 26 June, 2007 in India | News | Politics

Salman Rushdie in short skirts

“When did the poisonous habit of blaming the victims of crime for their suffering spread to Britain?” asks Johann Hari. Citing Salman Rushdie’s case as an illustration of this, he writes:

[A]cross the political spectrum, people have reacted by blaming Rushdie for being the victim of wannabe-murderers. “He cost us £10m!” sneers the right-wing press in unison. You might as well say the Soham victims Holly and Jessica “cost us” millions because we had to investigate the crime against them; it makes as much sense.

Ah, the critics say, but he brought it on himself. He wrote things he knew were “provocative”. George Galloway, completing his journey to the theocratic far right, has sneered that his novel is “indeed positively Satanic”, and said “he turned 1.8 billion people in the world against him when he talked about their prophet in a way that can only be described as blasphemous.”

This is exactly analogous to saying a woman wearing a short skirt is responsible for being dragged into an alley and raped. It is also flecked with a form of soft racism, since Galloway assumes all Muslims are excitable children who can only react to querying of the Koran with attempted butchery.

Dead right. “Don’t offend people and make them angry.” “Don’t wear short skirts and arouse potential rapists.” Same difference.

And this tendency is common in India as well. Pioneer editor and Hindutva fascism apologist Chandan Mitra took exactly this approach during a talk show on the Baroda issue, asking why Chandra Mohan had to make paintings with a religious theme. In another talk show on another subject, another apologist asked why MF Hussain didn’t paint his mother nude. But then, in a country where giving offence is a crime, why should we be surprised that Chandra Mohan and Hussain were being treated as the culprits?

My posts on the Baroda affair: “Fascism in Baroda.” “Only live in fear.” “The Hindutva Rashtra.” Also read: “Don’t insult pasta” and “Fighting against censorship.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 25 June, 2007 in Freedom | India | Politics

How voters fail democracy

My review below of The Myth of the Rational Voter, by Bryan Caplan, appears in today’s Mint.

Oh, how we bemoan politicians in India. We call them corrupt, undereducated, sometimes criminal, occasionally senile, and we complain about how they do nothing for the country. And then, again and again, we vote in the very people we rant about. Is this a failure of democracy? If so, what causes it?

The traditional answer economists would give you, from public choice theory, is “rational ignorance”. The costs of casting an informed vote outweigh the potential benefits. Our vote, let’s face it, would count only in the immensely unlikely event of a tie. To gather and evaluate all the information required in terms of the policies that a government should follow are too time-consuming for us. Thus, it is rational to remain relatively ignorant. And because of this rational ignorance, bad governments come to power, and are in the sway of special interests, for whom the benefits outweigh the costs of influence.

This is not just an elegant theory, but also politically correct. Voters aren’t stupid, it tells us, merely rational. Well, along comes Bryan Caplan, who teaches at the George Mason University in Virginia and is a popular economics blogger, to tell us that democracy fails not because voters are rationally ignorant, but because they are irrational. In the introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter, he writes: “In the naïve public-interest view, democracy works because it does what voters want. In the view of most democracy sceptics, it fails because it does not do what voters want. In my view, democracy fails because it does what voters want.”

Caplan’s book is written in an American context, and is yet profoundly relevant to India, and will evoke jolts of recognition from readers here. For a significant part of the book, he outlines the different biases that people tend to have, in the face of all evidence. There is the anti-market bias, people’s inability to “understand the ‘invisible hand’ of the market”. There’s the anti-foreign bias, a distrust of foreigners and an underestimation of the benefits of trading with them. There’s the make-work bias, which causes people to “equate prosperity not with production, but with employment”. And there’s the pessimistic bias, which makes people “overly prone to think that economic conditions are bad and getting worse”.


Posted by Amit Varma on 23 June, 2007 in Essays and Op-Eds | Politics

Instructions for Pratibha Patil

WTF headline of the day: “Hang Modi: Afzal’s diktat to Pratibha.”

Uh, wait, actually it’s “Hang Afzal: Modi’s diktat to Pratibha.”

Same difference. Both Modi and Afzal have no business giving diktats to Patil. Though it is understandable that one of them should have delusions of grandeur. FSM save us all!

(Link via email from reader Nina.)

Posted by Amit Varma on 22 June, 2007 in India | Politics | WTF

Irshad Manji is offended

In an excellent article, Irshad Manji explains why she is offended by the Muslim world’s reaction to Salman Rushdie’s knighthood. She sums it up by saying:

Above all, I’m offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God’s self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent.

In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?

Of course, it’s not only in Islam, or even religion, that we see battles between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates. But that’s the biggest battleground of our times.

Posted by Amit Varma on 22 June, 2007 in Freedom | Miscellaneous | Politics

Pictures that define our times

Gautam points me, via email, to this collection: Images that changed the world. There are some stunning photographs there, many of which you would have seen earlier. They’re worth revisiting, if only to be reminded of the turmoil of the last 100 years. What event will the next such photograph capture?

My favourite among all of them is one that stands for so much more than just the time and place it was taken. Here you go:


Posted by Amit Varma on 21 June, 2007 in Freedom | Journalism | Politics

The politics of division

This is the 19th installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

Politics in India sometimes seems like a card game. A few days ago, when Pratibha Patil’s candidature for president of India was announced, the newspapers were full of how the UPA was playing the “gender card.” Her record in politics was not at the heart of her nomination – Patil is a woman, and because of that alone, politicians were expected to support her.

Vir Sanghvi wrote last Sunday of how Prakash Karat vetoed every name the Congress threw at him till he was outwitted by the choice of Patil. “If Karat had objected to Mrs Patil,” wrote Sanghvi, “he would have seemed anti-woman and so, he finally gave in.” A news report told us of how the Congress “attacked the BJP for not supporting Patil for the post of the President of India and accused the saffron party of being ‘blatantly’ against the cause of women.” (It can be presumed that had the UPA’s candidate been male, the BJP would have been “against the cause of men.”)

While the BJP did not succumb to this dubious logic, they were certainly worried. Their assumed ally, the Shiv Sena, had reacted to Patil’s candidature by applauding the fact that she was from Maharashtra. The Maharashtra card! (At the time of writing, the Sena is yet to make a final choice – they haven’t yet put all their cards on the table.)

Cards, cards, cards. Ten years ago KR Narayanan won support across the political spectrum because of the “Dalit card”. Five years ago APJ Abdul Kalam benefited from the “Muslim card”. Both men have their fans, and I even know one person who likes Kalam’s poetry, but the political support they got derived from their Dalitness and Muslimness respectively. Parties that could not afford to be seen as anti-Dalit or anti-Muslim found it hard to oppose them.

The office of president is largely ceremonial in India, and it doesn’t bother me if we choose our figurehead according to caste or religion or gender. But the very fact that these factors count underlines the grip of identity politics in this country. The primary factor in Indian elections is not governance but identity, not what you do but who you are.


Posted by Amit Varma on 21 June, 2007 in Essays and Op-Eds | India | Politics | Thinking it Through

Why should Pratibha Patil’s gender matter?

One would imagine that while putting up the name of Pratibha Patil as their presidential candidate, the UPA would cite her career record as the reason for the nomination. Instead, all we get to hear about is her gender. Because she is a woman, the rhetoric goes, everyone should support her. Mumbai Mirror reported yesterday:

The NDA has made up its mind to keep its nominee in the presidential fray after its top leader Atal Behari Vajpayee said the alliance would not agree to the candidature of UPA nominee Pratibha Patil. But the Congress is unhappy. It attacked the BJP for not supporting Patil for the post of the President of India and accused the saffron party of being “blatantly” against the cause of women.

“It is very unfortunate that at this crucial moment in India’s history, the Opposition BJP does not have the political grace, social commitment or the moral fibre to support the candidature of Patil,” party spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan said.

She said any political party which has even a minimum commitment to the cause of women would have come forward to support UPA in this “historic” initiative.

And no doubt in the past when the BJP refused to support the Congress’s choice for president, and that choice happened to be a man, they did so because they were “‘blatantly’ against the cause of men.” Figures.

Meanwhile, Mumbai Mirror also reports the following exchange between Sonia Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee:

Sonia: Main paheli baar aapse kuch maang rahi hoon.

Vajpayee: Humne to aap ko desh de diya hai. Aur kya de sakte hain?

Heh. And while Karan Thapar unwisely confesses that he is responsible for Pratibha Patil’s nomination, Vir Sanghvi points out:

[L]et’s not get carried away by all this politically correct pro-woman hypocrisy. At least six names were considered by the UPA and the Left (Pranab, Arjun Singh, Karan Singh, Shivraj Patil, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Motilal Vora and more). Not one was a woman.

The only reason Pratibha Patil’s name came up was because the Congress had wearied of Prakash Karat’s veto. No matter what name the party came up with, Karat refused to move beyond Pranab or Arjun Singh. When even dull but deserving Shivraj Patil was turned down, the Congress had the bright idea of coming up with a woman compromise candidate. If Karat had objected to Mrs Patil, he would have seemed anti-woman and so, he finally gave in.

This is where I point out that Mahima Chaudhary is a woman. This is also where I point out that had a Mango been nominated, no one would have dared oppose it, for that would have seemed both anti-national and anti-fruit. What other healthy food is there, then? Spinach?

Posted by Amit Varma on 17 June, 2007 in India | Politics

Why Jug Suraiya supports Shivraj Patil


Also, doubts have been expressed about how Pratibha Patil will carry our a president’s onerous duties if she continues to wear a saree. DNA quotes a protocol officer as saying:

[I]f she wants to jump onto a tank or climb into a fighter, or spend a day out at sea with the Navy, as the past Presidents have been doing, then she may have to think of adding salwar kameezs or trousers to her wardrobe.

At this point, let me just say that I sincerely hope that Ms. Patil does not want to “jump onto a tank or climb into a fighter, or spend a day out at sea with the Navy.” Those aren’t essential tasks for a figurehead, and there is no need for her to be macho.

And much as I like salwars, I can’t think of any essential presidential duty that Ms. Patil cannot perform in a saree. Hell, even Abdul Kalam should wear them. No?

Posted by Amit Varma on 16 June, 2007 in India | News | Politics

Don’t let it be

[A] big danger of our world today is obsession . . . an even bigger danger is indifference.

—Vaclac Havel, quoted in “Bohemian Rhapsody” by Bret Stephens.

Posted by Amit Varma on 16 June, 2007 in Freedom | Miscellaneous | Politics


SV Raju writes in Mint about his efforts to revive the Swatantra Party, in response to this piece by Jerry Rao:

[I] tried to register the old Swatantra Party (there was no registration required in the old days) but my application for registration was rejected.

An amendment to the Representation of the People Act made when Rajiv Gandhi was prime minister stipulated that the constitution or the rules and regulations of political parties should contain a provision swearing loyalty to democracy, secularism and socialism. The Election Commission sent me a form for registration which I completed and returned, accepting democracy and secularism but rejecting socialism, as the Swatantra Party was opposed to it in principle. The registration was turned down.

A friend and I filed a writ petition in the Bombay high court in December 1996. The writ was admitted. It has still to come up for hearing. This is the hurdle. Under current law, no party that refuses to accept socialism can get registered as a political party. So much for our democracy!

Indeed. And so much for any freedom party.

Posted by Amit Varma on 14 June, 2007 in Freedom | India | Politics

The comfort of a worldview

This is the 18th installment of my weekly column for Mint, Thinking it Through.

The other day I was at a party with some highly intelligent people with strong views on the world. We talked about politics, economics, movies, and, as you’d expect from Indian men, cricket. Among the subjects that stirred up heated arguments were global warming, farmer suicides and the existence of God.

You might think that of all these worthy subjects, debating the existence of God is pointless. It is a matter of faith, and lies beyond reason. I agree. But I’d point out that for all practical purposes, the other subjects we argued about aren’t too different.

Everyone present there had strong views on global warming, but none of them completely understood the science behind it, or could explain the difference between a climate model and a ramp model. All of them vociferously offered conflicting solutions for our agricultural crisis, but their belief was rooted in intentions, without a historical perspective of what had actually gone wrong, and how markets and prices work. As the hours slipped by and the pegs piled up, we conducted opinionated drawing-room discussions on complex subjects whose intricacies none of us had mastered.

Now, this is not a condemnation. The world is terribly complicated, and it isn’t rational for each of us to try and master every subject around us. If that was a prerequisite to having opinions, we wouldn’t have any, and would wander around baffled by everything. It is natural and sensible for us to seek cognitive shortcuts to understanding the world. Such shortcuts often result in neat little packages known as worldviews.


Posted by Amit Varma on 14 June, 2007 in Economics | Essays and Op-Eds | India | Politics | Thinking it Through

Ten Commandments for Manmohan Singh

Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar is bang on target here. I love the way it ends.

Posted by Amit Varma on 13 June, 2007 in India | Politics

Poverty and planning

Historically, poverty has never been ended by central planners. It is only ended by searchers, both economic and political, who explore solutions by trial and error… A Planner thinks he already knows the answers: he thinks of poverty as a technical engineering problem that his answers will solve. A Searcher admits he doesn’t know the answers in advance: he believes that poverty is a complicated tangle of political, social, historical, institutional and technological factors.

—William Easterly, quoted in Niranjan Rajadhyaksha’s column in Mint today, “Antidotes to Poverty.”

Also worth reading: Nitin Pai’s “The Great Leap Backward.”

Posted by Amit Varma on 13 June, 2007 in Economics | Politics

Page 13 of 15 pages « First  <  11 12 13 14 15 >