Congress Party And JEE/NEET Exams

Last month, 20+ senior leaders of the Congress Party wrote a detailed letter to Sonia Gandhi demanding a complete revamp of the party – which would end the Nehru dynasty's control of the party. This Monday, the Congress Working Committee held its meeting to discuss the letter. Sonia Gandhi started the meeting by asking the CWC to relieve her of her responsibilities. Immediately, loyalists of the Dynasty denounced the letter and declared their loyalty to the Dynasty. The dissenters were outnumbered and the CWC passed a resolution condemning the letter and praising the Dynasty.

When the letter was written, most of the pro-Congress English media rightly saw it as a possible beginning of the Congress Party's revival – and enthusiastically supported the letter. And when the Congress Working Committee torpedoed the initiative, they were furious and produced a flood of reports and analyses criticising the Dynasty. So this week has been full of negative headlines for the Dynasty. This was unacceptable to Sonia Gandhi – and she had to do something to stop this.

But how? Simple: The JEE/NEET exams are starting on September 1. So she called a meeting of all the Congress Chief Ministers and ordered them to oppose the exams. She also ordered the Congress Party to carry out protests all over the country against the exams. Result: Now everybody has forgotten about the rebellious letter and the CWC meeting farce – so her plan has succeeded brilliantly.

Moral of the story: Modi-Shah may be 'Chanakya' – but they have ruled the country for only 6 years. Remember that Sonia Gandhi ruled the country for 10 years . . .

India's Cities And City-Governments

INDIA'S CITIES AND CITY-GOVERNMENTS

In the 21st century, the most important socio-economic unit of a country is the city. Cities are the centres of wealth-creation and job-creation. So an efficient political system must be based on this fundamental reality. That means a city-based political system - in which city-governments have all the powers necessary to manage their cities efficiently. But currently we have a feudal/medieval political system - in which city-governments are under the control of the state-government. And the inefficiency of this system has been completely exposed by the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.

Every city has its own resources and capabilities on the one hand - and its own problems and challenges on the other hand. So cities must use their resources and capabilities to deal with their problems and challenges. City-governments can do this if:

1. They have full powers

2. They are directly elected by the city's people

3. They are answerable to the city's people.

They cannot do this if:

1. They have limited powers

2. They are indirectly elected by the city's people

3. They are not answerable to the city's people

Which is the case now.

Fully empowered city-governments will manage our cities efficiently, create jobs and remove poverty. As long as we continue with our current 2-level government system (centre + states) we will remain a third world country. To become a superpower, we must change to a 3-level government system (centre + states + cities).

Economic System: Efficiency And Equality

A good economic system has two features: efficiency and equality. How to achieve this?

From Hal Varian's 'Microeconomics' (2010):

The Second Theorem of Welfare Economics asserts that under certain conditions, every Pareto efficient allocation can be achieved as a competitive equilibrium.

What is the meaning of this result? The Second Welfare Theorem implies that the problems of distribution and efficiency can be separated. Whatever Pareto efficient allocation you want can be supported by the market mechanism. The market mechanism is distributionally neutral. Whatever your criteria for a good or a just distribution of welfare, you can use competitive markets to achieve it.

Prices play two roles in the market system: an allocative role and a distributive role. The allocative role of prices is to indicate relative scarcity; the distributive role is to determine how much of different goods different agents can purchase. The Second Welfare Theorem says that these two roles can be separated: we can redistribute endowments of goods to determine how much wealth agents have, and then use prices to indicate relative scarcity.

Policy discussions often become confused on this point. One often hears arguments for intervening in pricing decisions on grounds of distributional equity. However, such intervention is typically misguided. As we have seen above, a convenient way to achieve efficient allocations is for each agent to face the true social costs of his/her actions and to make choices that reflect those costs. Thus in a perfectly competitive market, the marginal decision of whether to consume more or less of some good will depend on the price – which measures how everyone else values this good on the margin. The considerations of efficiency are inherently marginal decisions – each person should face the correct marginal tradeoff in making his/her consumption decisions.

The decision about how much different agents should consume is a totally different issue. In a competitive market, this is determined by the value of the resources that a person has to sell. From the viewpoint of the pure theory, there is no reason why the state can't transfer purchasing power (endowments) among consumers in any way that is seen fit. But the message of the Second Welfare Theorem is important. Prices should be used to reflect scarcity. Lump-sum transfers of wealth should be used to adjust for distributional goals. To a large degree, these two policy decisions can be separated.

People's concern about the distribution of welfare can lead them to advocate various forms of manipulation of prices. It has been argued, for example, that senior citizens should have access to less expensive telephone service, or that small users of electricity should pay lower rates than large users. These are basically attempts to redistribute income through the price system by offering some people lower prices than others. When you think about it, this is a terribly inefficient way to redistribute income. If you want to redistribute income, why don't you simply redistribute income? If you give a person an extra dollar to spend, then he can choose to consume more of any of the goods that he wants to consume – not necessarily just the good being subsidised.

India's Politics And Academics: Chicken/Egg (People/System) Problem

Both Indian politics and Indian academics suffer from the same fundamental problem: the chicken-and-egg problem – or the people-and-system problem. Good people are not there in the field. Why? Because the system is not good. And why is the system not good? Because good people are not there. That is: Good people will enter the field only when the system becomes good – and the system will become good only when good people enter the field.

Of course, this is a fundamental principle of the universe. And as per this principle, there should be no progress in the world at all. But the history of the world is nothing but the story of progress. So how does progress happen – in spite of the chicken-and-egg / people-and-system principle? There are two reasons. The first reason is that the principle is not 100% rigid/watertight. Especially with regard to the egg-to-chicken part – ie, the relationship between the quality of a system and the entry of good people. Some good people (who are fools) enter a field even though the system is not good.

The second reason is that luckily for us, human/social systems are not 'digital' but 'analog'. That is – they are not binary/discrete (bad vs good; 0 vs 1) but continuous (a gradient/spectrum from bad to good; 0 to 10). So a few good people (fools) enter a bad system and make it better – which attracts more good people – who make the system even better – and so on. This is nothing but the upward spiral / virtuous cycle of progress. Of course, the critical factor here is the speed of the process – especially when we are in a dynamic environment / competitive world. We can only hope that both our academics and our politics get on to a self-sustaining path of improvement (good systems + good people) as soon as possible – and move on it as fast as possible. Aum . . .

Job/Work/Career: Strengths Vs Weaknesses

JOB/WORK/CAREER: STRENGTHS VS WEAKNESSES

Conventional career/personality development theory tells us to improve in our areas of weakness. This is nonsense. Because there is no such thing as the perfect/complete worker/all-rounder. Different people have different strengths - and the 21st century is the age of teamwork and specialisation. So your success will be determined by how strong your strengths are. If you work on your weakness, you will improve from poor to average - not more than that. And what will a team do with an average skill? Instead if you work on your strength, you will improve from good to great - and you will be valuable to any team. So forget about your weaknesses - and focus on your strengths. Find out what your strengths are - and develop them. Trying to 'fix'/'repair' your weaknesses is the biggest waste of time in the world.

Capital, Capitalist And Capitalism

Today the word 'capitalism' means "an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned" (as opposed to socialism – in which the means of production are owned by the government). But the original meaning of the word was quite different. The word 'capital' came first – in the 1200s. It meant simply money or wealth. The word 'capitalist' came next – in the 1600s. It meant "an owner of capital/money/wealth" – ie, merchants. Around 1800, the Industrial Revolution began and the word 'capital' acquired today's meaning – not simply money/wealth but the means of production (ie, machines and factories). Consequently, the word 'capitalist' also changed – from "owner of money/wealth" to "owner of machines/factories". Then the word 'capitalism' came in the 1800s – meaning "the economic system consisting of capitalists". This looks like a trivial definition but it is not. Defined this way, capitalism was indeed a revolutionary new economic system. Why?

Since the beginning of civilisation, capital (the means of production) consisted of small simple tools. And these tools were owned by the respective workers. The farmer owned his plough and sickle. The blacksmith owned his anvil and furnace. The carpenter owned his saw and hammer. The potter owned his wheel and the weaver owned his loom. In other words – the workers owned the capital. The Industrial Revolution changed all this – by giving birth to big complex machines (and the buildings that contained them – ie, factories). These were too expensive to be owned by ordinary workers – only rich merchants could afford to own them. So for the first time in history, capital was not owned by workers – but by another group of people: the capitalists. And the new economic system was called 'capitalism'. This was the original meaning of the word 'capitalism'.

India's Systems: Quality Vs Quantity

INDIA'S SYSTEMS: QUALITY VS QUANTITY

Every system has two fundamental aspects: quality and quantity. Which is more important? Both are equally important. That is – a system must ideally maximise both quality and quantity. But given resource constraints, we can increase only one of these two parameters at a time. So to achieve both quality and quantity, a sequential approach is needed. Accordingly, two approaches are available:

	Phase 1	Phase 2
Approach 1	Increase quality Keep quantity low	Increase quantity Maintain quality
Approach 2	Increase quantity Keep quality low	Increase quality Maintain quantity

Which approach is better? The critical part of the process is the second phase. In the first approach, the second phase involves increasing the quantity of a high-quality low-quantity system. In the second approach, the second phase involves increasing the quality of a high-quantity low-quality system. Which of these two processes has a higher probability of success? Once the question is framed this way, it becomes clear that the first approach has a higher probability of success – and is therefore better.

India came under foreign rule around 1000 AD – during the Agricultural Age. It remained under slavery for 1000 years – under the Turks, Mughals and British. During the period of British rule, the Agricultural Age ended and a new age in the history of mankind - the Modern/Industrial Age - started. When India finally became free in 1947, the fundamental challenge before it was to build modern systems that would be both world-class (quality) and big enough for the world's second-biggest country (quantity). And that required choosing between the two approaches described above. Unfortunately, we chose the second approach. That is – we aimed for quantity rather than quality, perhaps hoping to increase the quality later. The result is that today we are stuck with low-quality high-quantity systems whose quality we are now struggling to increase.

Classroom Education Vs Online Education

CLASSROOM EDUCATION VS ONLINE EDUCATION

"The Covid-19 crisis has changed the world forever – especially education. Classroom education is dead, obsolete and Stone Age. Online education will and should replace classroom education." This is now the consensus opinion of almost all experts and ordinary people.

I know people will call me Stone Age. But based on my 18 years experience as a student and 7 years experience as a faculty, I will say this: The classroom + blackboard + chalk is the most effective method for understanding a subject – especially complex concepts. There is no substitute for mentally wrestling with complex concepts with the help of a faculty who has been doing the same for years – along with other students who are currently doing the same.

If online education is better than classroom education because it is more 'efficient', then why stop there? Why not take this idea one step further – to its logical conclusion? Excellent textbooks are available on every subject. So the most 'efficient' option is to simply buy the textbooks, sit at home and read the textbooks. Where is the need for even an online education? To get a degree? It will be more 'efficient' for universities to only conduct exams and award degrees to those who pass the exams.

Since 1947, we have completely neglected quality and focussed only on quantity in our education. This is the #1 reason for India's under-development today. Now this online education will become another excuse to further dilute quality for the sake of quantity in our education. "We have reached X number of students", "We have trained Y number of candidates", "We have produced Z number of graduates", etc. How well have they understood the subjects? Especially complex concepts? Nobody is bothered about this.

India's Debt, Fiscal Deficit And GDP Growth Rate

Let a country's GDP be G and its debt be D. Then its debt-to-GDP ratio is D/G. Let its GDP grow at a rate of g every year (0 < g < 1). Then its GDP next year will be (1 + g) × G. Let its fiscal deficit next year be F. Then its debt next year will be D + F. So its debt-to-GDP ratio next year will be (D + F)/[(1 + g) × G]. If the debt-to-GDP ratio is to remain constant, then:
D/G = (D + F)/[(1 + g) × G]
Let us express both debt and fiscal deficit as a fraction of the GDP. Let D/G be d and F/[(1 + g) × G] be f. Then the constant debt-to-GDP ratio condition becomes:
d = d /(1 + g) + f
This gives us:
1. f = d × g / (1 + g)And:
2. g = f / (d - f)
A country starts off with a certain amount of debt (D) – which is expressed as a fraction of its GDP (D/G = d). It wants to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio (d). How to do this? There are two ways of asking and answering this question:
1. If the country's GDP grows at a certain rate g, then it must keep its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) below some level f. Equation 1 gives us this value of f.
2. If the country maintains its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) at a certain level f, then its GDP must grow above some rate g. Equation 2 gives us this value of g.

India's debt-to-GDP ratio is 70% – which is the highest among major industrialising countries. How to reduce this? We can use the two equations given above. Accordingly we have:

A. Maximum fiscal deficit (based on the GDP growth rate)

GDP Growth Rate	Maximum Fiscal Deficit
5%	3.3%
6%	4.0%
7%	4.6%
8%	5.2%
9%	5.8%
10%	6.4%

Our average GDP growth rate since 2000 has been 7%.

B. Minimum GDP growth rate (based on the fiscal deficit)

Fiscal Deficit	Minimum GDP Growth Rate
3%	4.5%
4%	6.1%
5%	7.7%
6%	9.4%
7%	11.1%
8%	12.9%
9%	14.8%
10%	16.7%

Our average fiscal deficit since 2000 has been 4.5%.

Note: The 2003 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act states that the government must reduce the fiscal deficit to 3% of GDP.

Major/Important Finance Ministers Of India

Major/important finance ministers of India:

#	Finance Minister	Period	Prime Minister
1	Shanmukham Chetty	1947–1948	Jawaharlal Nehru
2	John Mathai	1948–1950	Jawaharlal Nehru
3	Chintaman Deshmukh	1950–1956	Jawaharlal Nehru
4	T T Krishnamachari	1956–1958	Jawaharlal Nehru
5	Morarji Desai	1958–1963	Jawaharlal Nehru
6	T T Krishnamachari	1963–1965	Nehru / L B Shastri
7	Sachindra Chaudhuri	1966–1967	Indira Gandhi
8	Morarji Desai	1967–1969	Indira Gandhi
9	Yashwantrao Chavan	1970–1974	Indira Gandhi
10	C Subramaniam	1974–1977	Indira Gandhi
11	Hirubhai Patel	1977–1979	Indira Gandhi
12	Charan Singh	1979–1980	Morarji Desai
13	R Venkataraman	1980–1982	Indira Gandhi
14	Pranab Mukherjee	1982–1984	Indira Gandhi
15	V P Singh	1984–1987	Rajiv Gandhi
16	Narayan Tiwari	1987–1988	Rajiv Gandhi
17	Shankarrao Chavan	1988–1989	Rajiv Gandhi
18	Madhu Dandavate	1989–1990	V P Singh
19	Yashwant Sinha	1990–1991	Chandra Shekhar
20	Manmohan Singh	1991–1996	P V Narasimha Rao
21	P Chidambaram	1996–1998	Deve Gowda / Gujral
22	Yashwant Sinha	1998–2002	Atal Bihari Vajpayee
23	Jaswant Singh	2002–2004	Atal Bihari Vajpayee
24	P Chidambaram	2004–2008	Manmohan Singh
25	Pranab Mukherjee	2009–2012	Manmohan Singh
26	P Chidambaram	2012–2014	Manmohan Singh
27	Arun Jaitley	2014–2019	Narendra Modi
28	Nirmala Sitaraman	2019–	Narendra Modi

Economy, Economics And Economic Literacy

Humans need some things to live – like food, clothes, houses, etc. They obtain these things by making and exchanging them with one another. And this system of people making and exchanging things is nothing but the economic system (or simply – the economy).

Now this economic system or economy does not behave randomly. If I am holding a ball and I let go of it, what will happen? Simple: the ball will fall down. Why? Again simple: due to the law of gravity. So the ball falls down instead of going up because the law of gravity says it must fall down. That is – its behaviour is dictated by the law of gravity. More generally – the behaviour of the physical world is dictated by a set of physical laws. And these physical laws make up a science – the science called physics. Engineers build many physical systems – like machines. When they do so, they must do it on the basis of the laws of physics – for which they must know the science of physics. And we would like to understand how these machines or physical systems work. In order to do that, we must also know the science of physics.

What is true of physical systems is equally true of the economic system (economy). Just as physical systems do not behave randomly but as per certain physical laws, similarly the economy (economic system) does not behave randomly but as per certain laws of human/social behaviour – ie, economic laws. And just as the physical laws make up a science called physics, similarly the economic laws also make up a science – the science called economics. And just as we must know the science of physics to understand how physical systems work, similarly we must know the science of economics to understand how the economic system (economy) works.

Every human gets the things he/she needs to live from the economic system or economy. So the economic system or economy is directly important to every human. Thus every human must understand how the economic system or economy works. That is – every human must know economics (at least the basics). This being the case, it is shocking that we do not teach even basic economics in our schools. We teach economics only in senior high-school (ie, +2) in the Arts and Commerce streams – so the Science stream students miss out on economics completely. We must correct this by teaching at least basic economics in the 10th standard.

We must teach the most fundamental concepts of both micro-economics and macro-economics. Fundamental micro-economic concepts would include:
1. Supply and demand
2. Social surplus/welfare
3. How free-market maximises social welfare
4. How government-controls reduce social welfare
Fundamental macro-economic concepts would include:
1. Taxes and revenue
2. Government spending
3. Fiscal-deficit and debt
4. Subsidies, loan-waivers and welfare-schemes

Economic literacy is also essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy. One of the most important functions of a government is to manage the country's economy properly. If people don't know even basic economics, how will they evaluate the government's performance – and the opposition's criticism? And how will they make the right choice in the election?

ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ / ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ

Secularismಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ 'ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ' ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ಅನುವಾದ ಸರಿಯೇ? Secularism ಎಂದರೇನು? Secularism ಎಂದರೆ ಹಿಂದು-ಧ್ವೇಷ - ಅಂದರೆ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಹಿಂದು-ಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುವುದು. ಸೆಕ್ಯುಲರವಾದಿಗಳು/ಎಡವಾದಿಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ - ಅಂದರೆ ಅವರು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಜಾತಿಗಳ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅವರ ಹಿಂದು-ಧ್ವೇಷ ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ. ಆದುದರಿಂದ secularismಗೆ 'ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ' ಎಂಬ ಶಬ್ದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ.

India's Muslims: Non-Fundamentalists Vs Anti-Fundamentalists

India's middle-class Muslims are non-fundamentalists. This is a good thing - but it not enough. Lower-class Muslims are so deeply sunk in fundamentalism that it is not enough for middle-class Muslims to be merely non-fundamentalist. They must do more - they must fight against fundamentalism. That is - they must become anti-fundamentalists.

PS: And needless to say - we Hindus will support them 100% in their war against fundamentalism.

Varna System And Types Of Work

There are four basic types of work:
1. Working with things
2. Working with money
3. Working with people
4. Working with ideas

Accordingly, ancient Indians designed and built a social system (the Varna system) in which different groups of people specialised in each of the four basic types of work:
1. Working with things - Farmers/Workers (Shudras)
2. Working with money - Merchants/Traders (Vaishyas)
3. Working with people - Rulers/Administrators (Kshatriyas)
4. Working with ideas - Scholars/Priests (Brahmanas)

China's History: Warfare, Violence, Aggression

China was born around 2000 BC - about 1000 years after India. China's history is similar to India's: many kingdoms fighting many wars with one another. But that is where the similarity stops. The nature of the warfare was completely different in each case.

In India, the armies of the two warring kingdoms would meet at the battlefield and start fighting at sunrise. At sunset, they would stop and evaluate the situation. The army which fared better was declared the winner. Then the losing king would acknowledge the winning king as his overlord - and pay him a tribute every year. Thus it was limited warfare.

In China, the war would be a fight to the finish. The winning king would kill the losing king - even if he surrendered. The winning army would kill the entire losing army - even if they surrendered. Then the winning army would march to the capital of the losing kingdom - and kill every man, woman and child in the city. Thus it was total warfare. And this went on for 4000 years.

Therefore China's history is the most violent and blood-drenched history in the world. And 4000 years of bloody warfare have made the Chinese a very violent and aggressive people. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party made the country a completely unified state for the first time in its history. As a result, all those inter-kingdom wars came to a stop. But a national character that has developed over 4000 years cannot change overnight. So where will all that violence and aggression go? Simple: outside. That is - the violence and aggression that went into internal wars for 4000 years is now going into the outside world.

Reference: History Of China - John Keay (2008)

RSS's System/Philosophy

RSS is supposed to be a Hindu and an anti-Western/modern/industrial organisation. But its system is to train people to become good social-workers; which is nothing but an industrial system - a factory. Whereas Hindu philosophy says that each human has a unique Swadharma; and the goal of life is to discover our Swadharma - and fulfill it.

Congress Propaganda: Gandhi/Nehru Vs Bhagat Singh / Subhash Chandra Bose

When the Covid-19 lockdown began, I took up a small project that I had always wanted to do: To compile a list of Bollywood's all-time greatest patriotic songs. To do this, I went through all the old songs. And I found something very interesting:
1. Half the songs were familiar - I had seen them regularly on Chitrahaar (remember that program on Doordarshan?) as a kid in the 1980s and 1990s. But half the songs were new - I had never seen them on Chitrahaar.
2. Very coincidentally - the songs that Chitrahaar regularly showed glorify Gandhi and Nehru. And the songs that Chitrahaar never showed glorify Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose.

There were also state-versions of Chitrahaar - in each state's language. Extending the above analysis to Maharashtra's Marathi version of Chitrahaar, I think it never showed songs that glorify Vinayak Savarkar. My Marathi friends can confirm this.

Nice propaganda by the Congress Party!

Socialism, Capitalism And India's Muslim Middle-Class

When Partition happened in 1947, most of our middle-class Muslims moved to Pakistan. So post-Partition India's Muslim community consisted mainly of lower-class Muslims. Then in 1947, Nehru adopted inefficient government-controlled socialism as our economic system. As a result, our economy grew at a rate of 3% per year. And our population grew at a rate of 2% per year - so our per capita income grew at a rate of 1% per year. But the East Asian and South East Asian countries adopted efficient free-market capitalism as their economic system - and grew at a rate of 10% per year.

Fast economic growth creates a big middle-class. Due to our slow economic growth under socialism, we were not able to create a Muslim middle-class (that we had lost in Partition). Finally in 1991, Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao changed our economic system from socialism to capitalism - and our economy started growing at the rate of 7-8% per year. This fast economic growth created a big Indian middle-class. Specifically: It created a small Muslim middle-class - for the first time since 1947.

So our Muslim middle-class is small and recent (only since 1991). Thus Nehru's socialism delayed the formation of a Muslim middle-class by almost 50 years - and therefore also delayed the modernisation of the Muslim community.

Hindus And The Modernisation Of India's Muslims

Recent events (first the anti-CAA riots and now the Covid-19 outbreak) have glaringly shown how deeply our lower-class Muslims are immersed in fundamentalism. What is the solution for this? There is only one: modernisation. And who must do this? Ideally - anybody/everybody who can. But there is an important limitation here: Hindus cannot do this - because of the nature of the problem (fundamentalism). Any effort by Hindus in this regard will be a non-starter. So it has to be done by middle-class Muslims only.

Therefore Hindus have been doing nothing in this regard since 1947. And the results of this approach are there in front of us today. So this approach is clearly unsustainable. Either middle-class Muslims are not modernising their lower-class counterparts. Or their efforts are not being enough. So Hindus must either kick-start the process (if it is the former) - or accelerate the process (if it is the latter). And how to do this?

The starting point for every change-process is a discussion/conversation. The biggest problem in this matter is that there is no discussion/conversation happening at all. Why? The answer is obvious: Hindus feel that if they criticise Islamic fundamentalism (or Christian fundamentalism - but that is another story) it looks like they are criticising Islam - which is 'hatred' and therefore wrong. So we have chosen a comfortable silence since 1947. And today the results of this silence are there in front of us. Therefore this comfortable silence is no longer an option.

Hinduism says 'Sarva Mata Sama Bhaava'. So we respect all religions - including Islam. But we will not tolerate Islamic fundamentalism - which is an evil ideology. We must be very clear about this difference. That will give us the confidence to criticise Islamic fundamentalism freely and openly - based on facts/logic. At the same time, we must (equally freely and openly) support the middle-class Muslims who are trying to modernise their lower-class counterparts. There is no contradiction between respecting Islam on the one hand and criticising Islamic fundamentalism on the other hand. In fact - the two approaches are two sides of the same coin. Each strengthens the other. And each is incomplete without the other.

We are all one country - India. We will all either prosper together - or we will all go down together. These are our only two options - there is no third option. So let us all work together to make our country better. Bharat Mata ki jai.

Bollywood's Greatest Patriotic Songs

Bollywood's greatest patriotic songs (in rough chronological order):

1. Vande Mataram
Lyrics: Bankim Chandra Chatterjee
Music: Hemant Kumar
Voice: Hemant Kumar
Movie: Anand Math (1952)

2. Kadam Kadam Badhaye Ja
Lyrics: Vanshidhar Shukla
Music: Ram Singh Thakur
Voice: Ramchandra Chitalkar
Movie: Samadhi (1950)

3. Mera Rang De Basanti Chola
Lyrics: Ram Prasad Bismil
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voices: Mahendra Kapoor, Mukesh, Rajendra Mehta
Movie: Shaheed (1965)

4. Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna
Lyrics: Bismil Azimabadi
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voices: Mohammed Rafi, Manna Dey, Rajendra Mehta
Movie: Shaheed (1965)

5. Aao Bacho Tumhe Dikhaye
Lyrics: Kavi Pradeep
Music: Hemant Kumar
Voice: Kavi Pradeep
Movie: Jagriti (1954)

6. Yeh Desh Hai Veer Jawanon Ka
Lyrics: Sahir Ludhianvi
Music: Omkar Nayyar
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Naya Daur (1957)

7. Aye Mere Pyare Watan
Lyrics: Prem Dhawan
Music: Salil Chaudhari
Voice: Manna Dey
Movie: Kabuliwala (1961)

8. Ab Tumhare Hawale Watan Sathiyo
Lyrics: Kaifi Azmi
Music: Madan Mohan
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Haqeeqat (1964)

9. Apni Azadi Ko Hum
Lyrics: Shakil Badayuni
Music: Naushad Ali
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Leader (1964)

10. Aye Watan Aye Watan
Lyrics: Prem Dhawan
Music: Prem Dhawan
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Shaheed (1965)

11. Jahan Daal Daal Par
Lyrics: Rajendra Krishan
Music: Hansraj Behl
Voice: Mohammed Rafi
Movie: Sikandar E Azam (1965)

12. Mere Desh Ki Dharti
Lyrics: Gulshan Bawra
Music: Kalyanji-Anandji
Voice: Mahendra Kapoor
Movie: Upkaar (1967)

13. Hai Preet Jahan Ki Reet Sada
Lyrics: Indivar
Music: Kalyanji-Anandji
Voice: Mahendra Kapoor
Movie: Purab Aur Paschim (1970)

14. Taqat Watan Ki
Lyrics: Gopaldas Neeraj
Music: Sachin Burman
Voices: Manna Dey, Mohammed Rafi

Movie: Prem Pujari (1970)

15. Har Karam Apna Karenge
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi
Music: Laxmikant-Pyarelal
Voices: Kavita Krishnamurti, Mohammed Aziz
Movie: Karma (1986)

Microeconomic Foundations Of Macroeconomics?

# Neo-classical microeconomics looks at economic agents - by assuming them to be rational maximisers.
# Keynes gave birth to macroeconomics which looks at the aggregate economy independently - ie, without bothering about microeconomics.
# Neo-classicists attacked Keynesian macroeconomics - saying it does not have 'solid microeconomic foundations'.
# Neo-Keynesians are responding by building the 'solid microeconomic foundations' for Keynesian macroeconomics.
# But all this is funny when the foundation of microeconomics (rational maximisation) is itself being broken - by behavioural economics.

India's School-Education System & Basic Literacy Skills

My students are bombarding me with demands for the 'notes' for my subjects. Last year's lectures have been recorded and the videos are available to them. They also have the textbook - its PDF is available free on the Internet. Still they are insisting on 'notes'.

For understanding a subject, the most effective method is listening to a lecture. The second most effective method is reading a good textbook. The least effective method is reading 'notes'. Still my students are insisting on 'notes'.

How do we understand a subject through the first two (effective) methods? The process consists of these steps:
1. Reading/Listening
2. Understanding
3. Thinking logically
Now these also happen to be basic literacy skills - which are the foundation for all other skills. Once students have these fundamental skills, they can develop other higher level skills.

So if the students are insisting on 'notes', that means they do not have these basic literacy skills. This is a damning indictment of India's school-education system. It means that we are basically producing a nation of educated illiterates. How will we survive in the 21st century - which is the Knowledge Century?

Minimum WhatsApp Group Distance (MWGD)

Consider any of your WhatsApp groups. Consider any other member of that group - let us call him/her as X. Now you are connected to X through one WhatsApp group. That is - the Minimum WhatsApp Group Distance (MWGD) between you and X = 1.

Now consider any other of X's WhatsApp groups (which you are not a member of). And consider any other member of that group (with whom you don't share any WhatsApp group) - let us call him/her as Y. So you are connected to Y through two WhatsApp groups. That is - the MWGD between you and Y = 2.

Now almost all the 40 crore Indians on WhatsApp are connected to one another like this. The only thing that varies is the MWGD. The lesser the MWGD between two persons, we can say they are 'closer' to each other. The greater the MWGD between two persons, we can say they are 'farther' from each other.

Question: What may be the MWGD between the two Indians who are 'farthest' from each other?

Money, Survival, Work and Happiness

# Without money we cannot survive. So money is needed for survival.
# Most people think: "I need Rs X to survive and another Rs Y to be happy. So I need Rs Z = X + Y to survive and be happy."
# But happiness comes from work – ie, from doing the work that we like doing. So the thinking stated above is wrong.
# In the 21st century, 99% of jobs/careers pay us at least Rs X – the money we need to survive.
# So don't run after the extra Rs Y that you think will make you happy – because it will not.
# Instead just find out what you like doing – and make it your job/career.

India's Economic Slowdown: Cyclical or Structural?

As soon as the economic slowdown started, some economists said it is both cyclical and structural - and some said it is completely structural. On what basis did they say this? We can say that a slowdown is structural if:
A. The growth rate goes below the growth rate during past cyclical slowdowns (which is 4.5% for India)
B. The slowdown lasts longer than the duration of past cyclical slowdowns (which is a year for India)
C. Both A and B happen

Yet AS SOON AS the growth rate hit 4.5% for ONE QUARTER, some 'eminent' economists immediately declared that the slowdown is structural. Only in an economically illiterate country like India can economists get away with such statements/verdicts - which are at best unscientific and at worst dishonest.

Slowdown in India's Economy

All of us would like the economy to grow continuously at a high rate. But this never happens. An economy's growth rate has a wave-like behaviour - alternately increasing and decreasing. This is a fundamental feature of a capitalist economy. And the length/duration of the cycle is roughly a decade. So every decade, the growth rate goes down.

India converted its economy from socialism to capitalism in 1991. Since then, we have also been experiencing this pattern. In 2000, our economy slowed down. So our next slowdown was due around 2010. But the UPA government tried to avoid the slowdown - by artificially boosting the economy with excess spending. But you cannot avoid a slowdown that is due. At best, you can only delay it - and that too only by a few years. And that is exactly what happened - the slowdown eventually hit us in 2013.

So going by the 10-year cycle, our next slowdown was due around 2020. And that is exactly what is happening now. Economic cycle is one of the most fundamental concepts in economics. But our media and liberal economists seem to be blissfully ignorant of it.

Hindus, Hinduism and Islamic/Christian Fundamentalism

Every human automatically/sub-consciously thinks: "All humans think like me". This is an assumption – and it is a fundamental nature of humans. But it is also a very FALSE assumption.

We Hindus believe that all religions are true – and therefore respect all religions. This is a good thing – but unfortunately we also go one step further. We think: "ALL people believe that all religions are true. Therefore ALL people respect all religions." This is the BIGGEST MISTAKE that we Hindus make – because it is a FALSE assumption.

Islamic/Christian fundamentalism says:
1. Only Islam/Christianity is true – all other religions are false.
2. 'Good' is nothing but spreading the truth and 'evil' is nothing but tolerating falsehood.
3. So 'good' means spreading Islam/Christianity and 'evil' means tolerating other religions.

Therefore Islamic/Christian fundamentalists believe:
1. Hinduism is false/evil.
2. So it is every Muslim/Christian's sacred duty to wipe out Hinduism and replace it with Islam/Christianity.
Thus for the last 1000 years, Islamic/Christian fundamentalism have been waging war on Hindus and Hinduism.

So if we Hindus want to survive, the first thing we must do is to stop thinking: "All humans think like me/us".

Anti-CAA Riots/Protests and Anti-Hinduism

Islamic fundamentalism (Turks + Mughals) and Christian fundamentalism (British) assaulted Hinduism and Hindus for 1000 years - and tried their best to destroy us. Due to Hinduism's great inner strength, we somehow survived - and finally became free in 1947. American philosopher George Santayana said: "The punishment for people who forget their history is to experience that history again". When I was an RSS pracharak, my bosses used to tell me this. I agreed with it - but only theoretically. I thought: "After all, we are 80% of this country - so we are safe". But after seeing the hatred and violence of the anti-CAA riots/protests by anti-Hindu liberals and Islamic fundamentalists (supported by Christian fundamentalists) Santayana's statement is no longer theoretical. CAA is just an excuse - the real target of the hatred and violence is Hinduism and Hindus. For the first time in my life, I feel we can no longer take our survival/existence for granted . . .

Caste Politics

1. What is politics? It is not 'social service' - it is the pursuit of power.
2. What kind of system is society? Liberals say it is a system made up of individuals. They are wrong. Society is a system made up of groups.
3. Now putting #1 and #2 together: Politics is the contest for power - not among individuals, but among groups.
4. Which is the most basic type of group in Indian society (as of now)? It is caste.
5. Now putting #3 and #4 together: Politics is the contest for power among different castes.

So nationalists who question/criticise caste politics are basically making the same mistake as liberals - not understanding the fundamental nature of society and politics.

Work Is Worship

WORK IS WORSHIP

# Our degrees and the colleges we went to are our inputs. The work we do is our output. A system is not judged by its inputs - it is judged by its output. So the world will not ask us: "What are your degrees?" or "Which colleges did you go to?". It will ask us: "What work are you doing?".
# All work is important. No work is unimportant. So exactly what work we are doing is not important. What is important is giving 100% to that work. Everybody cannot be CEO of Google or CEO of Apple. And it is not needed also. Whichever work we do, we must give that work our 100%. A factory-worker who gives his 100% is superior to a CEO who gives his 99%.

2019 Man Of The Year: Amit Shah

# For ending the coalition era of Indian politics
# For starting a new era – the era of BJP dominance
# For turning BJP into a full-fledged national party
# For integrating Jammu & Kashmir completely with India
# For giving refuge to the persecuted Hindus of South Asia

Amit Shah is 2019's Man Of The Year . . .

Citizenship Amendment Bill (C.A.B)

# There are 200 countries in the world.
# There are 120 Christian countries in the world.
# There are 50 Muslim countries in the world.
# There are 2 Hindu countries in the world: India and Nepal.
# Nepal is small and is under the shadow of China.
# So effectively there is ONLY ONE Hindu country in the world: India.
# So India MUST give shelter to every persecuted Hindu from any country in the world.
# Inside India (for Indian citizens) all religions ARE equal. But at our borders (for non-Indian refugees) all religions are NOT equal. India being the ONLY major Hindu country in the world MUST give preference to persecuted Hindus from other countries.
# Liberals always say that we must give special rights to minorities. In the world, Hindus are the minority. So Citizenship Amendment Bill (C.A.B) is nothing but a special right to this real global minority.

State Vs National Politics/Elections

In the April/May national election, the BJP stormed back to power with an even bigger majority than before – by winning an astounding 303 seats. The BJP became supreme. In particular – Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP Chief Amit Shah (later Home Minister) became supreme. This supremacy became even stronger on August 5 – when the central government effectively revoked Article 370 and brought Jammu & Kashmir completely under the Constitution. It even went one step further and ended Jammu & Kashmir's statehood – by dividing it into two Union Territories. The Prime Minister and Home Minister were supreme and unchallenged – both as administrators and as political leaders.

Then in October, two states - Haryana and Maharashtra - had their elections. BJP/NDA was the red-hot favourite to win both the state elections. Then came the first shocker. In Haryana, BJP became the biggest party – but failed to get a majority. This was mainly due to the opposition of the biggest caste in the state – the Jats. Eventually (and ironically) BJP was forced to ally with the Jat party JJP in order to form the government. Then came the second shocker. In Maharashtra, BJP's NDA partner Shiv Sena demanded the Chief Minister's post – in spite of it winning lesser seats. When BJP refused, Shiv Sena broke the alliance and joined hands with arch-rivals NCP and Congress to form the government (thus effectively defecting to the UPA).

BJP still has 303 seats at the centre – and the Prime Minister and Home Minister still have complete control over the central government. But their aura of invincibility has been shattered. This is especially so due to the fiasco in Maharashtra – which is India's second biggest state and biggest economy. There BJP lost the state – in spite of it winning the election. The question is: Why did these setbacks happen? And more importantly: What is the solution to them?

The answer is a fundamental truth about Indian politics: national politics and state politics are two completely different ball-games. Therefore – the strategy and tactics that help you to win one game will not help you to win the other game. Specifically – the BJP's victory in the national election was mainly due to 3 factors:
1. The central government's pro-poor welfare schemes
2. The RBI successfully controlling inflation
3. The Prime Minister's popularity

Now none of these factors matter in state elections – which are fought, won and lost exclusively on state issues. The Indian political-administrative system is a two-level system: centre and states. The government at each of the two levels has its own functions to perform. The average Indian voter may still be a poor and illiterate farm-worker in a village. But still, he/she knows the difference between the central government and the state government – and therefore the difference between the national election and the state election.

If that is the case, then what are the important factors in state politics – especially the ones that BJP may be neglecting due to its total command over national politics? We can think of 3 critical factors:

1. Strong State Leaders
A major reason for BJP winning 303 seats at the centre is that Indians want to have a strong leader (Prime Minister). Now why on earth should this basic principle be different at the state level? Do Indians want a strong Prime Minister but a weak Chief Minister? Just as Indians want a strong leader for the country, similarly they also want a strong leader for their state (Chief Minister). And from a national party's point of view, it will be strong only if it has strong leaders at both the levels – centre and states. Central leaders must not see strong state-leaders as a threat – but instead as a strength. One of the key reasons why Congress Party declined is because the insecure Indira Gandhi ruthlessly cut down strong state-leaders and replaced them with weak puppets whose only qualification was their loyalty to her.

2. Managing Caste Equations
A primary reason for BJP sweeping the national election is that a majority of Hindus voted for it – irrespective of their caste. This is a triumph of the Hindutva project – whose aim is to unite all Hindus. In a national election, the unit is the whole country – so Hindutva can succeed fully. But in a state election, the unit is just the state – so state-level caste equations will come into the picture. Caste is the social system of an agricultural society – which India is and will be for the forseeable future. As we modernise (industrialise + urbanise) caste will become obsolete – and Hindutva will succeed fully in state elections also. But till that time, it will be important for a political party to manage each state's caste equations intelligently.

3. Managing Alliances/Coalitions
Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have 100% control over the BJP. But the other NDA parties are a completely different matter. So they cannot treat leaders of other NDA parties the way they treat other BJP leaders. Again – the basic point about the centre and the state being two different systems is relevant here. That is, there is a national NDA – and there is an NDA in each state. The state-NDA must not be seen merely as an automatic subset of the national-NDA. The state-NDA is an independent entity with its own dynamic – and hence must be treated accordingly. Using the national-NDA's management techniques to manage the state-NDA will lead to sub-optimal outcomes. In this regard, we can remember how Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (one of post-1947 India's greatest leaders) treated the leaders of even the smallest NDA parties.

Thus if the BJP focusses on these 3 factors in state politics, it will enjoy the same success in state politics that it currently enjoys in national politics.

Satyameva Jayate: Life, Career, Success & Truth

'Satyameva Jayate' means 'Only truth wins'. We always interpret this as 'Truth always wins over falsehood'. That is – we think the statement is about truth vs falsehood: so truth wins and falsehood loses.

There is another way of looking at this statement. All of us want to succeed in our lives and our careers. Whenever we are not satisfied with our lives or careers, we read books/articles and watch videos on 'How to succeed'. That is – we look for tips/tactics/techniques on how to succeed. This is a narrow view. The real answer is contained in this timeless line from the Mundaka Upanishad: Satyameva Jayate – only truth wins. So if I am not winning/succeeding, that means only one thing: I am not walking the path of truth; I am not living a life of truth; I am not doing truthful work. That is – the line is not just about truth vs falsehood. It is also about truth vs ME! So I must constantly ask myself: Am I walking the path of truth? Am I living a life of truth? Am I doing truthful work? If I am not, then no amount of tips/tactics/techniques (from books/videos/articles) will help me to become successful.

Hinduism: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism

The most fundamental law of the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the entropy/disorder of a system always goes on increasing. And its corollary is: The only way to reverse this increase in disorder is to supply energy to the system. This law is about physical systems – but it also applies to society. That is – as time passes, a society/culture tends to decay. This is true for all societies/civilisations. India is the world's greatest civilisation not because it is immune to this law (it is not) – but because it makes use of the law's corollary. That is – whenever Indian/Hindu civilisation has shown signs of decay, it has produced great men who injected fresh energy into it and reversed the decay.

The first instance of this happened about 1000 years after the Vedas were composed – ie, around 500 BC. Hinduism had decayed – it had lost touch with Dharma and become filled with empty rituals and ceremonies. Then two great philosophers were born – Gautama Buddha and Vardhamana Mahavira. They founded two new religions – Buddhism and Jainism. By doing so, they restored Hinduism to its foundation of Dharma and thus rejuvenated it.

The second instance happened about 1300 years later – around 800 AD. Buddhism had become widespread but it had decayed – and was weakening Hinduism. Then another great philosopher was born – Shankara. He re-constructed Hinduism on its foundation of Vedas-Upanishads and thus revived it.

400 years later – around 1200 AD, the Turks from Central Asia conquered North India. They started massacring Hindus and demolishing temples – and continued to do so for 300 years. Once again, Hinduism was in crisis. If ever Hinduism needed a reformer and saviour – it was now. In 1469 AD, yet another great philosopher was born – Guru Nanak. He founded a new religion Sikhism and infused new life into Hinduism.

Around 1500 AD, another Central Asian people – the Mughals – conquered North India. They continued the Turks' project of massacring Hindus and demolishing temples. Since Sikhism was revitalising Hinduism, it became a special target. In 1606, Jahangir tortured and executed the 5th Guru Arjun Dev. In 1675, Aurangzeb tortured and executed the 9th Guru Tegh Bahadur. Finally in 1699, the 10th Guru Govind Singh built the Sikh community into an army, fought against the Mughals – and saved Hinduism from being wiped out.

Today on the sacred occasion of Guru Nanak's 550th jayanti, let us remember the sacrifices of the Sikh Gurus and their followers for the sake of protecting Hinduism . . .

The Rama Temple at Ayodhya

The Rama temple at Ayodhya was demolished in 1528 – almost 500 years ago. So from the viewpoint of modern law and evidence, the case for the temple today may not have been 100% solid. But still the Supreme Court unanimously gave the disputed land completely to the temple. Why? The answer is obvious. It is due to the post-2014 and post-2019 political situation in the country. That is – it is due to a Hindu nationalist party winning a majority in two consecutive national elections (with the second majority being bigger than the first).

In theory, a court must give its verdict purely on the basis of law and evidence. But in reality, a court should give its verdict by also considering the larger social context in the country – especially in sensitive cases. This was not an easy verdict to give. The five judges faced the toughest test of their long and illustrious careers – and they passed it with flying colours. Let us thank them. And let us thank the thousands of ordinary men and women who fought this long war. May Lord Rama bless us with wisdom and strength. Jai Shri Ram.

Shudras, Caste Politics and Economic Reforms

Ancient Indian society had 6 groups: priests/Brahmanas (5%), warriors/Kshatriyas (5%), merchants/Vaishyas (5%), farmers/Shudras (50%), workers/Dalits (15%) and tribals/Adivasis (7%). So Shudras (lower castes) are the majority. In 1979, Prime Minister Morarji Desai of the Janata Party government set up a Commission under a man called Bindheshwari Mandal to look into the welfare of Shudras. The Commission submitted its report in 1983. It recommended 27% reservation for backward Shudra castes (Other Backward Classes or OBCs) in government jobs. In 1990, Prime Minister V P Singh of the National Front government implemented the Mandal Commission's report.

Shudras are mainly farmers and are made up of many castes. Some castes are big ('forward castes') and others are small ('backward castes'). The Mandal Commission gave reservation to backward castes but not to forward castes. Each state/region has its own forward castes: Uttar Pradesh (Yadavs), Bihar (Yadavs), Haryana (Jats), Gujarat (Patels), Maharashtra (Marathas), Karnataka (Lingayats + Vokkaligas), Andhra Pradesh (Reddys + Naidus), etc.

In 1991, we started changing our economy from inefficient government-controlled socialism to efficient free-market capitalism. The process is still incomplete. We freed our industry from government control. But our agriculture and inputs to industry (land and labour) are still under government control. So today, even after 3 decades of economic reforms, only 25% of our people work in industry. But 45% of our people still work in agriculture – which produces only 15% of our economic output. So on the one hand, industry has not grown to employ farmers as factory-workers and take them out of agriculture. And on the other hand, our inefficient agriculture has kept our large number of farmers poor. The worst-affected people by this double whammy are the farmer-castes who do not have reservation – ie, the forward Shudra castes.

Due to these developments, the forward Shudra castes started demanding reservations in both education and government jobs. In 2016, Jats (30% of Haryana) launched an agitation to demand for reservation. In 2018, Marathas (35% of Maharashtra) did the same. In both cases, the state government succumbed and granted reservation to the agitating forward caste. And in both states, the case went to the High Court. The Bombay High Court upheld Maharashtra's Maratha reservation but the Punjab-Haryana High Court shot down Haryana's Jat reservation. So Marathas were happy with the ruling BJP in Maharashtra but Jats were furious with the ruling BJP in Haryana. As a result, BJP won the election in Maharashtra but lost the election in Haryana.

What does all this mean for India's politics? India's politics has always been known to be based on caste – which is the fundamental unit in the social system of an agricultural society. But BJP won this year's national election by beating the equations of caste politics. The most spectacular example of this was Uttar Pradesh – where it crushed the alliance of the two biggest castes (Yadavs + Dalits). This led many people to say that caste politics has ended and we have entered the era of post-caste politics. The elections of Haryana and Maharashtra have disproved this hypothesis. Caste may no longer be a factor in national politics – but it is still a factor in state politics.

And what does this mean for India's economy? It means that as long as our agriculture and inputs to industry are controlled by the government:
1. Industry will not grow
2. Agriculture will be inefficient
3. Farmers will be many and poor
4. Farmer-castes will be angry
5. They will demand reservations
6. And they will get it – because of their numbers
The only way to get out of this vicious cycle is to free our agriculture and inputs to industry (land and labour) from government control.

India's Economic Reforms and the States

India's government is a federal system – ie, a two-level system: centre + states. Since 1991, our media and economists have been talking about economic reforms (transformation from government-controlled socialism to free-market capitalism) and demanding economic reforms – which is a good thing. The problem is they demand these reforms from only one of the two levels: the centre – which is only 50% of the equation. They have completely forgotten the other level and the other 50% of the equation – the states.

An economic system needs 3 inputs to make products and services – land, labour and capital. Our economy is inefficient because our markets for all these 3 inputs are inefficient. So to make our economy efficient, we must reform our markets in land, labour and capital. Successive central governments have been reforming our capital market by reforming our financial system since 1991. The problem is the other two markets have not been touched – land and labour. Why?

Our Constitution has divided powers between the central government and state governments by assigning some areas to the centre (central subjects), some areas to the states (state subjects) and some areas to both (concurrent subjects). Land is a state subject and labour is a concurrent subject. So it is the state governments who must carry out reforms in our land market and labour market – ie, land reforms and labour reforms. So our media and economists must take a break from their obsession with the central government. They must start demanding economic reforms from the state governments – especially land reforms and labour reforms.

Conservatism Vs Liberalism: Society, Individuals, Government

A country has 3 basic entities: society, individuals and government. What are their relative importance? There are two fundamentally different views:
1. Society is more important than individuals and government (Conservatism)
2. Individuals and government are more important than society (Liberalism)

Society, Government, Economy

Society is a system of people living together. For it to exist, the people must follow certain rules: don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill, etc. So society created a system to make these rules and enforce them. That system is called 'government'. So the purpose of the government is to make and enforce rules.

To live, people need many things – like food, clothes, houses, etc. People obtain these things by making and exchanging them with others. They do this as individuals, families or groups. These make up the economic system or the economy. So the economic system is made up of individuals, families and groups/companies. And its purpose is to produce goods and services, and sell them.

Thus in society, many different functions need to be performed. And society has developed a system to carry out each of those functions. For society to be efficient, each system must perform only its function – it must not perform any other function. If a system performs a function other than its own, then society will become inefficient.

So the government's job is making and enforcing rules – not making and selling products and services. That is the job of the economic system (individuals, families and companies). If the government tries to do the job of individuals, families and companies, it will lead to an inefficient society.

India - $ 5 Trillion GDP in 2024

GDP is always stated in current prices. When the Prime Minister declared a goal of $ 5 trillion GDP in 2024, it means $ 5 trillion in 2024 prices - not in 2019 prices. So a part of this growth/increase will be price increase. That is - the growth rate needed to go from $ 3 trillion to $ 5 trillion in 5 years will include inflation (the rate of price increase). In this case, the (nominal) growth rate needed is 11% (because 3 × 1.11^5 = 5). The GDP growth rate announced every quarter and every year is the real growth rate - which is the nominal growth rate minus inflation. Our inflation is currently 3%. If we continue with this inflation, we have to grow at a real rate of 11 - 3 = 8%. If we allow inflation to increase to 5%, we have to grow at a real rate of 11 - 5 = 6%. So the target of $ 5 trillion is easily achievable.

CORRECTION:
My friend Amitesh Singh has pointed out a fundamental error in the above analysis. If India's inflation is x% and America's inflation is y%, then the Rupee will go down against the Dollar by (x - y)%. And the GDP target (5 trillion) is in Dollars. This means two things:
1. We won't get any benefit from a higher inflation in reaching the GDP target.
2. The only 'discount' we get in the required growth rate of 11% is America's inflation rate (currently 2%). So we have to grow at 11 - 2 = 9%.

India: Capitalism and Economic Freedom

# Freedom has two parts: political freedom and economic freedom.
# Since the beginning of history, every civilisation had a free economic system.
# In 1848, Karl Marx designed a government-controlled economic system – and called it 'socialism'.
# And he called the free economic system as 'capitalism'.
# In 1917, Lenin implemented socialism in Russia.
# In 1947, Nehru implemented socialism in India.
# So in 1947, we got our political freedom – but lost our economic freedom.

Money, Happiness, Selfishness

People say going after money is 'selfishness'. Is this language correct? Are we our bank accounts? Going after money is moneyishness – not 'selfishness'. When we go after money, we go away from ourselves. So going after money is the opposite of selfishness. It is anti-selfishness – or at best, false selfishness.

We are not our bank accounts. Then what are we? What is our essence? Our essence is our strength/potential. To achieve happiness, we must discover our strength/potential and do the work that uses our strength/potential. In other words – we must reject false selfishness (going after money) and embrace true selfishness (doing work that uses our strength/potential).

The problem in the world is not selfishness. The problem in the world is false selfishness. And the solution is true selfishness.

Impact Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) On Jobs

Q: What will be the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on jobs?
A: AI will change the economy from A to I – ie, from an A-shaped system to an I-shaped system.

Since the Industrial Revolution (c1800), the structure of the economy has been like this:

That is, the economy had:
1. A few high-skilled jobs (scientists + researchers)
2. Some medium-skilled jobs (engineers + managers)
3. Many low-skilled jobs (workers + operators)
Thus the economy was roughly A-shaped.

Now AI is simplifying most tasks/functions so that they can be done even with low skills. So it is converting the medium-skilled jobs into low-skilled jobs – effectively pushing jobs from the middle to the bottom. And it is creating high-skilled jobs at the top – scientists/researchers to design and build these AI systems.

So the economy will become like this:

That is, the economy will have:
1. Many high-skilled jobs (scientists + researchers)
2. A few medium-skilled jobs (engineers + managers)
3. Many low-skilled jobs (workers + operators)
Thus the economy will become roughly I-shaped.

[Idea source: R Jagannathan, Swarajya magazine]

Economic Reforms, Welfare Schemes & Inflation: How To Win Elections In India

HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS IN INDIA

1991–1996: P V Narasimha Rao carried out economic reforms – and lost the election.
1998–2004: Atal Bihari Vajpayee carried out economic reforms – and lost the election.
Lesson #1: Economic reforms don't win the election.

2004–2009: Sonia Gandhi did not carry out any economic reforms. Instead she carried out welfare schemes – and won the election.
Lesson #2: Welfare schemes win the election.

2009–2014: Sonia Gandhi increased her welfare schemes. But this increased the fiscal deficit – which increased inflation. She lost the election.
Lesson #3: High inflation loses the election.

2014–2019: Narendra Modi learnt all the 3 lessons. So he
1. Carried out some economic reforms
2. Carried out many welfare schemes
3. Controlled inflation – by controlling the fiscal deficit
He won the election.

Work Hard, Work Smart, Work Right

The old mantra for success was Work Hard (ie, maximise effort). Then the new mantra for success became Work Smart (ie, maximise efficiency). Which is correct? Of course, both working hard and working smart are important. But in this whole Hard Work vs Smart Work debate, we forgot the fundamental truth. Which is that every human has his/her own true potential – and so real success is finding out that true potential and using it. Hence the key to real success is to do the right work – ie, the work that uses our true potential. Thus the real mantra for success is not just Work Hard or Work Smart – but 'Work Right'!

Free-Market Capitalism Vs Government-Controlled Socialism

In 2005, Tamil movie director Shankar Shanmugam made a movie called Anniyan ('Stranger'). The hero was a vigilante who goes around killing corrupt government officials. He launches his anti-corruption campaign in an auditorium by giving a slides-presentation on a big screen (!). In it, he first shows old black and white photos of Singapore and Hong Kong from 1945 – they were just small and poor fishing villages. Then he shows pictures of the two places today – big, rich and modern cities. Then he asks: "These two countries have made so much progress since 1945. We became free in 1947. Why are we still a poor country?". He answers: "It is because of our corruption. So from tomorrow, I will start killing anybody who takes a bribe."

It is a powerful scene. But it is only half-correct: it asks the right question – but gives the wrong answer. People are fundamentally the same in every country. Indians are not much different from the people of Singapore and Hong Kong – with roughly the same mix of good and bad. So it is not that we are significantly less moral than Singaporeans and Hong Kongers. But if that is the case, then what is the answer to the vigilante's question?

Human nature is the same everywhere. But different societies have different destinies because of different systems. Systems are destiny. And economic destiny is decided by the economic system. In 1945, Singapore and Hong Kong adopted free-market capitalism. But in 1947, India adopted government-controlled socialism. The results are there for everybody to see . . .

India, Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism (FMC)

What is capitalism? The dictionary says it is an economic system in which 'the means of production are privately owned'. 'Means of production' means farms, factories and companies. 'Privately owned' means not owned by the government but by individuals, families and groups. So capitalism is an economic system in which individuals, families and groups (not the government) own farms, factories and companies. Now how else should an economic system be? And how else has it been – since the beginning of civilisation? It is nothing but the natural economic system.

If capitalism is the natural economic system, why have a term for it? That too a term ending with 'ism' – as if it is an ideology? The word 'capitalism' was coined by Karl Marx – for two reasons:
1. To defame/slander the natural economic system
2. To distinguish it from his economic system 'socialism' – in which the government owns farms, factories and companies.

India became free in 1947. Nehru was a socialist. So he chose socialism as our economic system. With socialism, our economy grew at an average rate of 3% and our population grew at 2%. So our average income grew at 1% per year. Meanwhile, the East Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) and the South East Asian countries (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore) did not make this mistake. They adopted capitalism and grew at 10%. The result: By 1990, the East Asian countries became high-income countries and the South East Asian countries became middle-income countries. And we? We were still a low-income country – though in 1947, these countries were poorer than India.

Finally in 1991, the Soviet Union (the world's biggest socialist economy) collapsed – and proved that socialism is an inefficient economic system (China had wisely converted to capitalism in 1978 itself). The same year we had an economic crisis and we converted to capitalism under Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao. Since then, our economy has grown at an average rate of 7% and our population has grown at 1% – so our average income has grown at 6% per year. As a result, we have drastically reduced our poverty and are on track to eliminate it. We have also become the world's 5th biggest economy and are on track to becoming, yes, a superpower. All this is due to the free-market capitalism (FMC) we embraced in 1991.

So now we have a choice:
A. Continue with free-market capitalism and become a First World country.
OR
B. Go back to government-controlled socialism and remain a Third World country.

Which Is The Best Job For Me?

Which is the best job for me? How to find the best job for me?

There are fundamentally 4 types of activities:
1. Working with Things
2. Working with People
3. Working with Information
4. Working with Ideas

Based on this, we can classify jobs also into 4 types. No job is a 'pure' job – ie, involving only one type of activity. Every job is a 'mixed' job: involving all the 4 types of activities – but in differing quantities. And in every job, one of the 4 types of activities will predominate. Thus there are fundamentally 4 types of jobs.

Different people enjoy doing different types of activities. Some enjoy working with things, some enjoy working with people, etc. So there are fundamentally 4 types of people:
1. Thing-workers
2. People-workers
3. Information-workers
4. Idea-workers

So the key to happiness is to:
1) Find out which type of activity we enjoy doing
2) Do a job in which that type of activity predominates.

Right-Wing Intellectuals & Intellectualism

A majority of intellectuals happen to be Leftists. And the Right refers to this majority as 'intellectuals' – not as 'Leftist intellectuals'. This seems to be a reasonable and acceptable approximation. But it is actually a dangerous mistake. Why? Because every time we refer to Leftist intellectuals as just 'intellectuals', we are saying that intellectualism and the Left are one and the same. We are surrendering the intellectual space to the Left. We are running away from the intellectual battle-field. Many right-wingers are fine with this. They say: "Leftists are thinkers; we are workers. They are arm-chair/ivory-tower people; we are real/practical people. They can keep their thought/thinking. We will do social work and build a strong society. We will do political work, win elections and rule the country. Thus we will build a strong India".

This kind of thinking is ignorance at its worst. What is a nation? What makes a great nation? What is a society? What makes a strong society? These are fundamental questions. And to know their answers, all we have to do is look at the 5000-year-old history of India. When we do that, we see that for 4000 years India was the greatest civilisation in the world. India's empires were the richest and most powerful empires in the world. How were these political and economic achievements possible? They were possible because they were built on the foundation of thought/thinking: philosophy, mathematics and science. Our kings, emperors, warriors, soldiers, traders, merchants, artisans, craftsmen, farmers and farm-workers built our rich and powerful empires – no doubt. But our philosophers, mathematicians and scientists laid the foundation for it.

What does all this mean for us today in the 21st century? The right-wing/nationalist project is to make India a superpower – technologically, economically and militarily. And to achieve this, it is not enough to simply 'build a strong society, win elections and rule the country'. Because a country can become strong technologically, economically and militarily only if it has a solid foundation of thought/thinking. So to make India a superpower, we must begin with the domain of thought/thinking. We must stop surrendering this domain to the Left. We must take it back and make it our own. And for that, the first step is to stop referring to Leftist intellectuals as just 'intellectuals' – and call them by their correct name: 'Leftist intellectuals' (or better still, just 'Leftists'). Then we must take the second step: developing right-wing/nationalist intellectuals.

Demonetisation, Modi and the 2019 Election

In November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in one stroke scrapped all ₹500 and ₹1000 notes. These accounted for 85% of India's cash. And India's economy is 80% informal/unorganised – which is heavily cash-based. The new notes took a long time to arrive – and people stood in long queues in banks and ATMs for many weeks. More importantly, demonetisation (DeMo) devastated the cash-intensive informal sector. Many small-scale enterprises shut down – and threw their unskilled workers into unemployment and poverty. The impact showed both in the form of a lower growth rate and also a higher unemployment. Of course, there were going to be long-term benefits: more formalisation, more digitalisation, more tax-payments, etc. But these are of interest only to economists. In a democracy, a political party has to face elections every 5 years. In this case, there were only 2.5 years to go for the next national election. So DeMo looked like a politically suicidal move.

Over the next 2.5 years, the Indian economy grappled with two major problems: unemployment and agrarian distress. Unemployment reached a 45-year high and it had definitely been made worse (if not created) by DeMo. Agrarian distress was also at least partially due to DeMo – because agriculture is also a cash-intensive sector. The 2019 national election approached and political scientists said the BJP would pay for its sins. Specifically, the Prime Minister would pay for his sin: DeMo. So the BJP which had won a majority on its own in 2014 would now fall to around 200 seats. Even the NDA would not win a majority – it would get around 250 seats. So the BJP/NDA would need one, two or most probably all three of the 'neutral' state parties (TRS, YCP, BJD) to form the government. Narendra Modi would become Prime Minister once again – but this time he would be much weaker. This was the consensus opinion of almost all political scientists.

Then the election happened. And the BJP won 303 seats – with the NDA winning totally 358 seats. Even by itself, this was an earthquake. And coming in the wake of a politically suicidal move like DeMo, it was a double-earthquake. So how did Narendra Modi manage to pull it off? He did it mainly through many pro-poor welfare schemes – but that is less important. What is more important is the basic fact that he pulled it off at all. Let this sink in: Narendra Modi carried out a politically suicidal move like DeMo and then went on to win 300+ seats. So what does this mean? It means only one thing: Narendra Modi is politically invincible. He is electorally bullet-proof. He can do anything (I repeat: ANYTHING) – and still win the next election. Conventional political wisdom can go to hell . . .

Narendra Modi's Welfare Capitalism

India's economic models:

Period	Prime Minister	Economic Model
1991–1996	P V Narasimha Rao	Capitalism
1998–2004	A B Vajpayee	Capitalism
2004–2014	Manmohan Singh	Socialism
2014–2019	Narendra Modi	Welfare Capitalism

Welfare Capitalism = 50% free-market capitalism + 50% pro-poor welfare schemes

2019 National Election and Modi-Shah's BJP

In 2014, BJP won 282 seats and reduced Congress to 44 seats. It was only the second time that a party other than Congress had won a majority. And it was the first time in 30 years that any party had won a majority. How did this happen? Economists gave 4 reasons:
1. 12% inflation
2. Low job-creation
3. Massive corruption scams
4. Modi's 12-year track record as Gujarat CM – and promising the same for India.

This looked like a logical explanation. Then the 2019 election should have been a return to the 'normal' state of elections in the coalition era (1989 onwards). That is – BJP should have got around 200 seats and Congress should have got around 100 seats. Instead, BJP got 303 seats and Congress got 52 seats. What does this mean?

It means the above explanation for the 2014 election was wrong. BJP's majority (and Congress's decimation) was not just due to the above 4 factors – which were temporary in nature. Instead it was also due to something far more fundamental and long-term in nature. And this was the transformation of BJP from a semi-national party into a real national party (what Congress was till 1989) – under the leadership of the Modi-Shah duo. The process started in 2014 (with Shah focussing on Uttar Pradesh) and continued in 2014-19 (with Shah focussing on the whole country). That is – during 2014-19, Amit Shah extended his 2014 Uttar Pradesh model to the whole country.

There is another story here, of course. In 1998-99, BJP first formed the government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 1991, P V Narasimha Rao had started India's journey towards a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy. During 1999-2004, Vajpayee continued this journey by carrying out FMC reforms. Now FMC reforms lift poor people out of poverty – but the process takes longer than 5 years. And poor/illiterate people are the majority in India. As a result, BJP/NDA lost the 2004 election (much to the shock of economists).

Cut to 2014. Narendra Modi had run Gujarat for 12 years as an FMC reformer. So economists expected him to continue the same as Prime Minister. But Modi had learnt from 2004 that India is not Gujarat and so a purely FMC approach would not win the 2019 election. So he pursued a two-track approach. On the one hand, he carried out economic reforms – Goods & Services Tax (GST), Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), etc. These reforms strengthened the Indian economy – and will lift poor people out of poverty (after some time). On the other hand, he also carried out pro-poor welfare schemes – giving houses, toilets, gas-cylinders, etc to the poor. These schemes made poor people happy – by immediately improving their quality of life.

A nationalist party must make the country strong. But it must also win elections. It can make the country strong only if it is in power – not if it is sitting in the opposition. So Modi's two-track approach aimed to achieve both these objectives.

But this governance approach alone would not win the election – even with its pro-poor welfare schemes. Because having a good product is not enough; you also need a good distribution network – to take your product to your customers. Good business = good product + good distribution. Similarly, good politics = good governance + good organisation*. So a complimentary organisational approach was also needed. And Amit Shah did this by aggressively expanding BJP's organisation machinery. He took BJP into the East. He made BJP reach out to poor people – who had benefited from Modi's welfare schemes. He made BJP reach out to lower castes, Dalits and Adivasis. Thus he expanded BJP both vertically (socially + economically) and horizontally (geographically):

BJP's Base	Before Modi-Shah	Under Modi-Shah
1. Geographic	North + West	North + West + East
2. Economic	Middle Class	Middle Class + Poor
3. Social	Upper Castes + Lower Castes	Upper Castes + Lower Castes + Dalits + Adivasis

Therefore the 2014 election gave us a glimpse of BJP's long-term strategy under the Modi-Shah duo. And the 2019 election has shown us its culmination.

*The complete equations are:
1. Good business = good product + good distribution + good marketing
2. Good politics = good governance + good organisation + good campaigning

Life, Change And The Self

LIFE, CHANGE AND THE SELF

Everybody always talks about how the world is always changing. True. But the equation of your life has two major variables: the world and YOU. And people don't talk much about how you also keep changing. Change in this variable is simply assumed to be a continuous increase in knowledge level - which is due to accumulation of knowledge, which in turn is due to experience. As if man is a vessel that just keeps getting filled. But it's not only that. The 'vessel' itself keeps changing. That is - not just what we know but also what we think, what we want, what we like, etc (basically who we are) keep changing continuously.

So dealing with a 'fast-changing world' is the easy part. It is dealing with a continuously changing YOU that is much more challenging - and therefore much more exciting . . .

Surf Excel's Holi Ad

Surf Excel made an ad for Holi, and media praised it for 'promoting Hindu-Muslim harmony'. Some people questioned the ad - and media called them 'trolls'.

The ad shows an apartment colony on Holi. The children of the colony are bombarding people with colours. Then a girl comes and tells them to throw colours at her. She keeps doing this till all their colours are finished. Then she calls somebody out. He is a boy wearing a skullcap and white kurta-pyjama. She goes with him to a mosque and he goes inside to pray.

On the face of it, it seems to be a nice ad that promotes positive feelings/relations among people of different religions. Now let us look at it a little more closely:
1. If it weren't for the girl, the children would have ruined not just the Muslim boy's white clothes but (more importantly) his trip to the mosque and his prayer. The apartment colony is India and the children are Hindus. So:
a) Minorities (Muslims/Christians) have different circumstances and therefore special needs.
b) Hindus are ignorant of this and hence trample on Muslims/Christians' special circumstances/needs.
2. Children suffer from ignorance - so Hindu children ill-treat Muslims/Christians due to ignorance. But adults don't suffer from ignorance - so Hindu adults ill-treat Muslims/Christians not due to ignorance but due to bias/prejudice.
3. The girl is a liberal who protects the Muslim boy and opens the eyes of the Hindu children. Similarly, liberals protect Muslims/Christians from Hindus and educate Hindus about their bias/prejudice.

Thought/Thinking: Left Vs Right

Indian Leftism is nothing but hatred - ie, hatred of Hinduism and Hindus. But they call this hatred as 'thought'/'thinking' and themselves as 'thinkers'. Unfortunately the Indian Right has swallowed this falsehood - and therefore sees thought/thinking as an enemy. But the real enemy is hatred. Thought/thinking has been the foundation of India and Hinduism for 5000 years. It is also the most powerful weapon in the war against hatred.

Hatred Of Hinduism And Hindus (HHH)

# The British created a virus called Hatred of Hinduism (HoH).
# Our liberals mutated it into Hatred of Hinduism and Hindus (HHH).
# They labelled this hatred as 'secularism' - and (more importantly) any questioning of this hatred as itself 'hatred' (of non-Hindus).
# So Hindus are reluctant to question HHH - because they don't want to be accused of 'hatred'.
# This is the most brilliant pre-emptive strike in the history of ideological warfare.

See Hatred Of Hinduism

Law Of Mistakes

LAW OF MISTAKES

The number of mistakes you will make is proportional to:
1. The distance between where you are and where you want to be
And
2. How much of that distance you cover.

Thinkers And Workers

There are fundamentally two types of activities:
1. Working with people and things - ie, 'Working'
2. Working with ideas and information - ie, 'Thinking'
1% of humans are thinkers and 99% of humans are workers. The job of thinkers is to supply ideas. The job of workers is to implement those ideas.

This is the most fundamental division of labour in society. A society/country prospers when it gets this division of labour right. And it decays when it gets this division of labour wrong.

How Is Your Life?

HOW IS YOUR LIFE?

1. "I am where I should be."
Status = Great
2. "I am going where I should be."
Status = Good
3. "I'm in the wrong place, but I have a way out."
Status = Average
4. "I'm in the wrong place, and I have no way out."
Status = Perfect. Because you are experiencing life in all its glory, beauty, intensity and madness . . . ! ;-)

Society/System: Sheep & Wolves - 2

99% of people live in the system called society. They are the sheep. 1% of people run the system called society. They are the wolves.

For the system to run properly, the sheep must follow some rules: don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill. In order to run the system properly, the wolves must lie, cheat, steal and kill.

For the wolves, there is only one rule: don't get caught. Every now and then, a foolish wolf gets caught. Then the other wolves throw him to the sheep. The sheep stamp the foolish wolf and kill him. Then both the sheep and the wolves go about living their lives and performing their functions. And the system keeps running . . .

See Society/System: Sheep & Wolves

Reservation for Upper Castes

RESERVATION FOR UPPER CASTES

When we became free in 1947, we had a legacy of a 1000-year-old unequal social system - which had excluded two groups: Dalits (15%) and Adivasis (7.5%). So to give them a level playing field, they were given reservation in education and government jobs in 1950. Dr B R Ambedkar said this system would be there for 10 years - and then abolished.

But in 1960, this system was extended by 10 more years saying it had not yet achieved its objective. Why did it not achieve its objective? What were the things that had to be done to make it achieve its objective? Nobody asked. This trend continued every 10 years thereafter.

In 1990-93, a new dimension was added. Another 27% reservation was given to the 'poor' among the Shudras (40%) - who were the bottom of the 4-layer social system. Now the total reservation came up to 50%. Supreme Court said reservation must not go above this level - to strike a balance between merit and social justice. But some states violated this rule.

Now we are in 2019. We have had 58 years of reservation for Dalits & Adivasis and 25 years of reservation for 'poor' Shudras. What is the situation today? What is the economic condition of the people of these groups? Is it satisfactory? If not, why - even after 58/25 years of reservation? What are the things we should really do to uplift them? These are fundamental questions. But we are not even asking them.

In 1947-50, we gave 15% and 7.5% reservation to SCs and STs because that was their population. But in 1990-93, we gave only 27% reservation to OBCs - though they are 40% of the country. Why? Answer: To stay within the Laxman Rekha of 50%. OBCs demanded 40% reservation - but they were kept at bay by using the Laxman Rekha.

Now we have erased that Laxman Rekha. So all hell will break loose. First, there is no moral ground left to say no to 40% reservation for OBCs. Next, SCs and STs are today 17% and 9% of the country. So they will also demand their quota to be increased. And so on and so forth.

We have opened the gates of hell . . .

PS: SC/ST reservation is going to the children of IAS/IPS officers, doctors and engineers - who don't need it. It is not going to the children of farmers and factory workers - who need it. So SC/ST creamy layer must be excluded from reservation (like OBC creamy layer).

India's 2019 National Election and Narendra Modi

INDIA'S 2019 NATIONAL ELECTION AND NARENDRA MODI

Since 1991, economists have been saying that India needs big-bang reforms to eliminate poverty and become a superpower. But big-bang reforms are impossible in a democracy. So the next-best option is incremental reforms - which grow the economy at a respectable 7-8%. And that is what both P V Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee did.

When NDA came to power in 2014 (after the disastrous UPA period), everybody thought it would be Incremental Reform Govt - 3 (IRG-3) - after Rao's IRG-1 and Vajpayee's IRG-2. But the new Prime Minister was different. He was not interested in incremental reforms. He wanted to carry out the big-bang reforms that economists say India needs. So he carried out not one but two big-bang reforms: demonetisation and GST. When a weak man starts exercising, he will become strong - but only after some time. In the meantime, he will feel only aches and pains. And this is exactly what is happening with the Indian economy.

Humans see only short-term pain and not long-term gain. That is why people in every country vote against govts that carry out radical reforms. Everybody is saying 2019 will be a test for Modi/BJP/NDA. They are wrong. 2019 will be a test for us - Indians. Can we see not just the short-term pain but also the long-term gain of fundamental reforms? May we all have the wisdom to make the right choice next year . . .

2018 People Of The Year

# For their heroic struggle to preserve the traditions of the Sabarimala temple
# For their courageous fight against the violence of the Communist government
# For their brave campaign against the dictatorship of the Supreme Court
# For their inspiring battle against the anti-Hinduism of the Republic of India
The devotees of the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala - especially the women - are 2018's People Of The Year . . .
Swamiye sharanam Ayyappa . . . !