# 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.
25 February 2020
29 January 2020
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.
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.
25 January 2020
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.
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.
17 January 2020
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".
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".
04 January 2020
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 . . .
31 December 2019
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.
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.
14 December 2019
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%.
# 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%.
11 December 2019
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 . . .
# 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 . . .
05 December 2019
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.
# 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.
28 November 2019
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.
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.
18 November 2019
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.
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.
12 November 2019
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 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 . . .
10 November 2019
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.
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.
24 October 2019
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.
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.
19 October 2019
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.
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.
17 October 2019
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)
1. Society is more important than individuals and government (Conservatism)
2. Individuals and government are more important than society (Liberalism)
10 October 2019
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.
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.
28 September 2019
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%.
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%.
26 September 2019
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.
# 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.
22 September 2019
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
