Great Truths

Courtesy: Anu, my IIM-B Classmate

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. 


– John Adams

2. If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.

– Mark Twain 

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.

– Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

– Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

– George Bernard Shaw
6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to payoff with your money.

– G. Gordon Liddy 

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

– James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

– Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University 

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

– P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. 

– Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)

11. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

– Ronald Reagan(1986) 

12. I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.

– Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free!

– P.J. O’Rourke 

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.

– Voltaire(1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you!

– Pericles (430B.C.) 

16. No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

– Mark Twain(1866)

17. Talk is cheap…except when Congress does it.

–Anonymous 

18. The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

– Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

– Winston Churchill 

20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.

– Mark Twain

21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

– Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903) 

22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class…save Congress.

– Mark Twain

23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.

– Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995) 

24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

– Thomas Jefferson

25. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

–Aesop 

FIVE BEST SENTENCES

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2.What one person receives without working for…another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

Courtesy: Anu, my IIM-B Classmate

Cheers,
Vijay Srinivasan
19th May 2012
Mumbai

Cynosure of Public Hope

In a recently concluded high-profile corruption case involving a prominent politician (Mr Bangaru Laxman, ex-President of a political party) of India, the Court said that in corruption cases the court had to act as an activist institution, which is “cynosure of public hope”.

I thought that was a hugely significant remark by the Court. In India today, the Supreme Court is the only recourse for securing public justice in the absence of a clear and fair government decision-making mechanism.

The Supreme Court, and in this specific case, the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) Court, have performed a very important public service in stipulating that they will indeed be driven by value systems and fair principles of justice while convicting corrupt individuals. In the past, this was a challenge as there was always political interference in allowing corruption cases to proceed. It is important to recognize that things are surely changing for the better in India, and the Courts are playing a huge role in ensuring justice is delivered.

I am not happy to note that in this specific case it took 11 years to deliver justice, all the more sad when it involved national security issues. When the government and the bureaucracy are weak and when politicians are controlling bureaucracy, it is only natural that things get enormously delayed. Unfortunately, the issues in specific corruption cases disappear from peoples’ minds and media, and that is exactly what the politicians and the political parties wish for. Justice delayed is justice denied. The losers are the Indian people in corruption cases.

The Court awarded four years’ rigorous imprisonment to a 72-year old politician in this case combined with a fine, sending a strong message to the politicians that graft will not go unpunished. This required strong investigation by the CBI which did its job well and this shows that when there is non-interference and when the institutions are headed by professionals, it is possible to achieve progress against corruption.

Special CBI judge Kanwaljeet Arora said the 72 year-old politician, who was convicted on Friday under the Prevention of Corruption Act was guilty of “ignoring the security of soldiers” who put their lives in danger while fighting for the nation. The judge said “corruption is worse than prostitution”, and asserted “we have to shun this attitude of ‘sab chalta hai,’ and the attitude that nothing can move without corruption”. [Source: Times of India dated 29th April 2012].

The people of this country have to protest corruption in any form and not be complicit in acts of corruption, and such convictions help convince millions of Indian as to the unambiguous position of the Courts of Law when it comes to corruption scandals. This is a very positive development.

Imagine what is going through the minds of the politicians and businessmen waiting to be convicted in the telecom “2G” scandal !

Let us fight against corruption of any sort.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
29th April 2012
Mumbai

Return to Socialism

Presidential election is going on in France.

The current President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is in danger of losing the election. It is widely expected that the Socialist Party’s nominee, Francois Hollande, will win the election.

I am in no way close to commenting on the wisdom of the electorate. The only comment that a disinterested world citizen could make is that it may not be that wise for any European nation to return to Socialism. That would just be the anti-climax, when the developing nations are discovering the positive virtues of Capitalism (albeit rather late in the day).

Yes, it is important to attend to the needs of the jobless youth of France, and at the same time control the budget deficit. The problems that France faces are not new. It is easy to forget that President Sarkozy made some important changes to unchangeable national policies such as hours of work. It takes guts to tackle the fundamental issues plaguing the economy and be firm in regulating the ungovernable. At a time when Europe is suffering all over, it takes a tough President of the fifth largest economy in the world to not only talk tough but take his nation along with him in the difficult journey of controlling deficit and regulating the economy.

A return to Socialism which imposes huge taxes and spends large amounts of money on job creation by the State may just not work out for France, irrespective of the status of its economy. Well, no one can stop the French citizens from throwing out President Sarkozy and electing a Socialist President with a totally different economic and national agenda. After all, France is a democracy and taught the world the importance of changing rulers in the 18th Century itself.

But, France could set itself on a wrong path towards an irrecoverable economic status if it does not continue its austerity programs, in the light of what is happening in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain. The contagion is spreading, and no country will be spared if austerity is thrown to the wolves. A temporary tightening with compassion is what is required and it is the need of the hour.

I have no fascination for the flamboyant President, but I believe he did a few things right for France and for the European Union. If he loses, the new President would do well to learn from the past five years and pick up the good nuggets which have really worked well for France. It is not important to stick to an ideology just for the sake of it. India is a good example of how ideologies have not worked out in the hustings. Pragmatism and a deep understanding of the key issues, with a solution mindset, are what would position France on the growth path – it should aim for a GDP growth rate of 3 to 4% (from the current anemic 1.8%), rather than starting to shrink. With an economy more than twice the size of India, and exports of almost twice that of India, France plays a very important role in the world economy, and should realize its critical importance to the world when making key economic decisions.

In any case, all the best to the people of France !

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
22nd April 2012
Mumbai

Pricky Cartoon

Politicians getting pricky about criticism is not new.

I just wrote about media freedom, and so it should appear strange that I am almost immediately blogging about the need to criticize politicians ! Both aspects of freedom need to be understood, and there is no need to defend or offend anyone when it comes to freedom per se.

So, when the feisty and popular Chief Minister of the West Bengal State of India ordered the arrest of two individuals (one of them a Professor and the other a 75-year old man) because they forwarded an email containing a cartoon lampooning her, she crossed the frontiers of democracy and individual freedom. Her name is now so popular in the social networking world, her police would have to arrest thousands of internet-savvy Indians around India and the world (I am not one of them, of course, except that I am posting a blog, NOT containing the cartoon in question or saying anything that is offensive against the Chief Minister !).

It is obvious that in today’s highly networked world of intelligent folks, it is critical to maintain an image that is not sullied by what appears to be anti-democratic actions. It is not enough if the vote bank is satisfied, it is possible to bring down elected politicians if they do not conform to the tenets of democratic principles, on which basis they were elected to office in the first place.

Earlier, there were attempts to control the cyber world by the esteemed Minister Kapil Sibal, on the lines of what the Communist China does on a daily basis. He quickly saw the point that he was not getting any kind of support even from within his own government or his own party, for that kind of control (which incidentally does not exist in the broadcast world of TV and news media anyway in India). Given the path of liberal democracy that India has adopted, it is imperative that India maintains the laissez faire attitude towards expression of views contrary to its views, policies, or even ideals. If India tries to impose control on thoughts, or even as simple as forwarding of others’ emails as has happened in this case of West Bengal, the situation would quickly escalate making the politician the laughing stock across the country.

The Chief Minister is a highly intelligent individual, who has managed to displace the Communist Party from power after 35 long years in the State of West Bengal during which that state suffered from lack of industrialization. People migrated in droves from that state to all over the world. Now the people have elected the new party and it should ensure that its success at the polls is not frittered away.

I am sure that the cases against the individuals concerned under the Information Technology Act would be withdrawn and the party in power in that state would reprimand its cadres who beat up the professor. There is no way that the concerned individuals can ever be successfully prosecuted in India. They did not cause any harm to the reputation of the image of the Chief Minister.

Let the cartoon rest in peace !

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
15th April 2012
Mumbai

Changing Neutrality

India has long had a non-interference philosophy similar to that of the ASEAN group of nations.

“Don’t see, Don’t tell” !

When it comes to its neighbours, India has avoided interference into their affairs, be it political or economic or in the very sensitive area of human rights.

In today’s world, that is not a good philosophy.

Humans are the same whether they live in Country X or Country Y. If X and Y are neighbours, it does not mean that X cannot comment adversely on Y, or Y cannot mention anything negative against X, when it comes to matters of human persecution.

India has assiduously avoided even commenting on the affairs of distant nations, Syria for example.

So, when it came to the vote on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council last week on a resolution sponsored by the U.S. against the atrocities committed by Sri Lankan armed forces against the Tamil population in the Northern part of Sri Lanka, it was widely expected that India would vote against the resolution and join the likes of Pakistan, Maldives and China. It was a natural expectation, as India has never liked country-specific resolutions at the UN in the past, and most importantly, Sri Lanka is one of India’s closest neighbours.

And the same party – the Congress – is still the main party ruling at the national level in India, and it is known for not ruffling feathers of neighbours or powerful countries internationally. However, this time India voted for the resolution (its vote went against Sri Lanka).

This is a rather new development. Sri Lanka is sitting at the South East corner of the Indian peninsula, and has been aggressively wooed by China and Pakistan as a counter balance against Indian interests. India has big investments in Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka rightfully expected India to vote against the resolution and support the Sri Lankan government’s position.

But now, India is a world power, or is going to be a world power soon. Not militarily, but as a “soft” power with immense influence in world affairs. And, is slowly realizing that it ought to take a “principled stand” in international affairs.

If it cannot stand up for the cause of human justice anywhere in the world, then it should not aspire for the position of a world power. That is simply the fact. India cannot close its eyes on atrocities committed against any people in any country – be it Syria, be it Myanmar (Burma), Tibet (China) or Sri Lanka. It has a right to demand that people killings should stop. While it might have been OK to eliminate armed guerrillas who killed Sri Lankan soldiers, it is absolutely unconscionable for an elected Democratic Government in Sri Lanka to massacre unarmed and harmless civilians. They could not have been painted with the same brush as the guerrillas.

I believe that India has now truly arrived at the cross roads of international justice – states who are members of the UN cannot and should not be allowed to commit crimes against humanity in their own or other countries. And, any country which turns a blind eye against such atrocities cannot be a responsible world power. If it does so, then we would be taken back to the times of Nazi Germany which was not challenged by responsible world powers for a long time.

The decision on whether to vote for or against cannot be based on geopolitical or economic considerations – it has to be based on the principle of natural justice.

And only responsible countries will ignore geopolitics and other imperatives and vote based on their conscience. The United States has done that for a long time, but it is the world’s biggest military power and no country could challenge its military dominance (so far). India was not, and so it has taken a long while. The decision now is not based on India’s military power but on its power as one of the largest emerging economies of the world, and its aspiration to be a member of the UN Security Council.

Think about how India is changing – it is worth thinking about it !

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
24th March 2012
Mumbai

Takeover by Young Turks

Something very special and unimaginable till recently, happened in India last week.

The most populous state of India (over 200 million inhabitants), the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP), got its youngest Chief Minister (who is all of 38 years old) in history. UP State would rank as the fifth most populous country in the world, were it a separate country.

There appeared to be a tug of war within the party which won the state elections, seems like the most powerful legislators wanted the father of the young man to be elected as the Chief Minister. Old habits die hard. Things continue in perpetuity in a country like India. Old politicians continue in their game for almost forever.

However, this time the father differed from the party politics and its thinking. He convinced the party that the State of UP indeed requires “fresh” blood to drive its agenda and become successful, not just in politics but in industry.

This is new-age thinking by an older generation of politicians. Increasingly it is happening across the political and business spectrum in India. For instance, younger generation is taking over the business mantle in many of the family-run industrial houses. The average age of CEOs is dropping and will continue to drop as youngsters now wish to control their own destiny and seem to be well qualified for the job.

The new Chief Minister of UP State is an engineer by profession and has a MBA to boot. He conducted the electioneering across his vast state in some new ways, influencing the campaign in a significant manner and defeating the strong incumbent party. It shows that the electorate are not averse to old parties adopting new thinking and new ways to connect with them. They listen to the campaign messages carefully and evaluate the commitments of the various parties before making an informed decision about who they wish to vote for.

Great, that is exactly what India needs in bigger measure as we progress as a nation.

Of course, we have to wait and see how the new young Chief Minister is able to transform his state and develop it with his new way of thinking and operating. He might yet get pulled down by party politics and politicking. But, he might also be smart given his pedigree and background in higher education. He uses the latest tech gadgets and is dependent on analytical data so one can surely expect some significant changes.

It is always important to recognize fresh talent who wish to contribute to the country, even if that talent belongs to an established party. The people only hope that things will improve under the new dispensation, and they will ensure that non-performing parties will be dismissed in due course. You get five years and nothing more.

All the very best to the young Chief Minister,

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
18th March 2012
Mumbai

Democracy in Action

Whenever I see an election happening in India, I always think that it is not going to be an easy exercise, and it must probably be the toughest elections anywhere in the world.

It is. Coming to think of it and experience it, I can most surely state that the next best elections in the U.S. pale in comparison to the Indian elections. India just concluded the conduct of state assembly elections in 5 states across the country – the elections covered the most populous state, UP (Uttar Pradesh) and also one of the smallest states, Goa. The manner in which the elections were conducted by the Election Commission of India in an impeccable and impartial way counted to the position of India as the most democratic nation in the world (yes, there is such a thing as “scale of democracy” – not all democratic countries are truly democratic in spirit and execution).

Compared to the recently concluded Russian Presidential Election, the Indian elections score highly in the sense that there were no reported incidents of vote rigging, or disproportionate spending by candidates, or buying of votes. Any flouting of the code of conduct by any politician – whether he or she belonged to the ruling party or the opposition party – elicited strict actions by the Election Commission. There was no need for election monitors from the European Union like what Russia deserved.

The elections in India produced surprises, despite the conduct of one of the largest such exercises in what is the most populous state of UP, which would rank as the fifth most populous country in the world, were it an independent nation with a population of over 200M. The result of that election was rather surprising – it overthrew the incumbent. In Goa, the incumbent party was thrown out as well.

What is very surprising that even in the illiterate parts of UP, the electorate returned intelligent verdicts, conveying the power of the ballot in the hands of any voter. This goes to prove that the performance of an elected party is being closely watched by the electorate, irrespective of the sops being offered as inducements by the party or parties.

Democracy in action ! That is what India has proved repeatedly, and it is an envy of most countries around the world. India allows peaceful protests and electioneering, but elections are subject to the strict administration by the Election Commission, which is a neutral constitutional body, not reporting to the government. The strong institutionalization of democracy in India is a beacon of freedom for the entire world and its track record (despite the institutionalized corruption) is something the world looks up to for implementation.

Of course, India needs to implement a whole lot of improvements while executing democracy, not the least of which are elimination of corruption and nepotism which are the bane of the people of India.

Nevertheless, let us all be proud of the accomplishments of Indian democracy in action over the past several decades, and which is getting stronger as the years progress…….even the U.S. witnesses the strength of Indian democracy and finds it is not easy to challenge its credentials when it comes to the independent thinking of the elected politicians and their parties.

Kudos to India and its Democracy !!

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
11th March 2012
Mumbai

The Iran Conundrum

The international “noise” to punish the Iranian regime and bring it down to its knees is reaching its peak at this moment, led by the United States.

For followers of international political intrigue and nuclear happenings around the world, the Iranian drama is nothing new. The same thing happened with India as well – the only major difference was that India was not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and so, could not be “officially” punished. Well, there is one other major difference – India was a major democracy and not a theocracy or an inscrutable government led by a dictator.

The key difference with Iran is the unclear picture of what’s going on within the confines of Iranian government – who is actually running Iran today ? Is it the elected government, or is it a group of religious leaders who are “outside” the government machinery ?

The “Western” powers are often at a loss when dealing with ambiguity – they want clear-cut functionaries in the opposite side with whom they can deal with. Often, they expect that the other side should be similar to theirs and follow their definition of a working government. When they find that it is somewhat “undefinable” and the responses are often confusing, then they tend to get aggressive as they do not understand the noises emanating from the other side. This has happened repeatedly in the post-second world war history. Recent examples include Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Iran is a real puzzle, no doubt about that. It is important to maintain a consistent stand about the official government’s position in front of the global institutions such as the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency), the UNSC (the UN Security Council) and other multilateral bodies. It is critical to communicate an unambiguous legal position which others understand. It is very important not to fudge around, as has been happening very often with Iran.

The U.S. has the unenviable task of having to exert control on Israel, which has been threatening to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities. While I appreciate the position of Israel with respect to the threat it faces from Iran, it is high time that Israel respects the international stand on Iran and wait for a resolution rather than damning any possibility of a rapprochement. Similarly, the other powers such as the U.K., France, Germany and Russia need to exercise caution. A repetition of the mistakes made in Iraq should be avoided, simply because of the unnecessarily huge loss of innocent lives who had nothing to do with the nuclear stand-off.

I again fail to understand the role of the United Nations and its Secretary General. Why is the UN not doing something substantive to resolve such critical international disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved ? Why is the matter of resolution always left to the UNSC ? Why should UNSC vetoes determine the fate of millions of people around the world ?

I pity the difficult position of India under the circumstances. India imports lot of crude oil from Iran, and Iran is strategically important for India to access the land-locked Central Asian countries, and critically, Afghanistan. Such a strategic partner in providing for the economic and political interests of India cannot be ignored. If we take the case of the United States itself, we can realize that successive U.S. Presidents have maneuvered strategic positions in the Middle East with a firm eye on the crude oil requirements of the U.S. So, what is wrong if India, as one of the most hungry energy customers of the world, work with Iran ? Can just the nuclear ambition of a country bring it down all the way in the eyes of this world ?

The issue boils down to reliability and trustworthiness of the government. India could manage its international standing notwithstanding the sanctions imposed by President Clinton in 1998, soon after it conducted its second and conclusive nuclear test. But Iran does not have that luxury.

So, in a nutshell, Iran has to come to the negotiating table, there is no option. And, it has to prove that it is sincere. But India need not completely stop buying oil from Iran or stop trading with it. That extreme step is not warranted. India should make its own decisions and ignore the strictures of stupid newspaper mandarins such as those from the Wall Street Journal, which published a scathing editorial – read for yourself how vindictive it can be, with scant regard for democratic processes, and that is how relations could be affected between two important, otherwise friendly countries.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
4th February 2012
Mumbai

Drain on Taxpayers

Indian Taxpayers do not get accountability from the government on all actions which the government takes to deploy the tax receipts fruitfully for the development of the country.

Yes, yes, I understand that the Finance Minister presents his annual budget this month (every February) to the Parliament, and the budget has to be balanced. And the fact is that the Finance Ministry mandarins and accountants are now working very hard indeed to prepare the budget, and they have to follow accounting rules, of course.

But, does the government explains the rationale of its expenditures in great detail, except hundreds of pages of the usual speech through which the citizens are expected to wade through and obtain an intellectual enlightenment as to how their funds are getting used by the government ministries. Not really. One has to depend on consultants to explain the mumbo jumbo in easy terms.

The point is that there are two major areas which continue to drain government tax receipts (both income taxes and corporate taxes are what I am referring to here – there are other incomes of course) into unprofitable public sector investments and subsidies. If the government of the day continues with this heritage philosophy of funding the unfundable, then it also has the responsibility of specifically explaining its actions to the citizens.

Let us look at investments and equity infusion into unprofitable public sector companies. Take the example of the national airline, Air India (now called just as “Indian”). This airline is plagued by many issues for the past decade or so – it has a poor safety record, it invested heavily into new planes which it never could afford, it is run badly, has had the privilege of being managed by a series of bad managers at the top, it has the privilege of continual governmental interference, it gives away many free tickets to the undeserving, its pilots are undisciplined, it has poor quality of service on board, and on and on………it is an endless list of complaints. Should it be run by the government at all ? Should it get funded for bad performance ? Given that the funds are coming from tax payers.

The government of India just approved a funding of nearly USD 1.5B for rescuing Air India, which could not even pay salaries to its employees, and could not service its debt. It could not pay for jet fuel even. This is terrible performance which is getting an infusion of taxpayer funds.

Does Air India deserve this funding ? Absolutely not. I cannot make a prescription of what the government should do. I can only say what they should not be doing, and that is exactly what they are doing.

Now let us look at subsidies. Subsidies might be a political necessity, and no government in the history of independent India could escape from continuing to provide sometimes unjustifiable subsidies to various segments of the society. I am not against subsidies per se, but I believe it is important to tie the subsidies to a timeline for termination eventually. People have to accept that government subsidizes certain things for the benefit of the poorer sections of the society or to help farmers, but everything should have an eventual expiry date.

One can argue that elected governments have the power to do what they wish to do in their own interest. The only solution is to defeat the party which runs the government in the next elections, this is the only possibility in a democracy. So, the taxpayers have to decipher government’s actions and motives via the budget speech, rather than just look at the pure numbers. If the government cannot sustain its policies, then taxpayers have to take cognizance of the same.

Think about it !

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
11th February 2012
Mumbai

Data-Driven Conviction

When a country’s leader uses available economic data and interprets them for deriving actionable conclusions, which can then be used as recommendations to the law makers, that is what I would call as “data-driven” analytical leadership. When the leader then combines the data with a strong belief that actions taken based on that data would lead to positive economic growth, that is what I would call “data-driven conviction”.

In India, we do not have any political leader who uses data in campaigning for a better quality of legislation. There are only emotional leaders, who use passionate appeals for driving their cause. There are leaders who incite people, and get away with it as mostly their speech would escape any illegality. There are then leaders who blabber nonsense and just ask for votes or support. There is hardly any leader from any political party who appeals on a rational basis, using data available from public sources, and uses logic trying to convince people that the course of actions arising out of the data analysis is the best way to go. All this only shows that there are hardly any leaders with the courage of their convictions. And, unless they have that, only fools will be fooled and the mature voter cannot be taken in by exhortations.

Given the analysis that President Obama presented during his recent State of the Union address, I am inclined to think that such a presentation is required in the Indian context as well. We have a Prime Minister who is eminently qualified as an economist and is credited with introducing economic reforms into what was then a moribund economy in 1991. Can he explain the rationale for some of the economic actions (or lack of the same) to the Indian people and present an analysis of the inflationary trends in the economy ? Or, is that asking for too much ? Does his party worry too much that he would expose the weaknesses in the Indian economy and the lack of actions by the Government ?

Whatever be the situation, it behooves the leader of the Government to explain the same to all the lay men in the population in very simple terms. When there is such a communication, people are going to see that as genuine effort on the part of the Government to explain things on the ground. Such an attempt itself would help reduce the anxiety and fear of the people, and improve the morale of the population. They would come to see the leader as someone who they can relate to, and derive a positive conclusion that all would soon be well.

This is surely lacking in India, and I believe that every political leader who is aspiring for a place in the Government – whether Central (Federal) or State – should train himself or herself with a course on data analysis and interpretation.

However, at the end of the day, it is the conviction of the leader which would carry the day for him/her.

Let us hope the transformation would happen in India soon.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
28th January 2012
Mumbai