Inequality is bad for
economy, democracy and society. Much of the inequality in the US arises
out of rent-seeking -monopoly, exploitive practices by banks and
corporate exploitation of public resources. In the Indian context, you
will call it corruption but we call it corruption American-style, where
you give away natural resources below market prices. India is doing it
now but America has a long history of doing this.
There is a clear
association between inequality and instability. People at the top don't
spend too much, they save a lot but people at the bottom spend
everything. So you redistribute income from the bottom to the top and
demand goes down. That makes an economy weak. That is what happened in
the US. We would have had a weaker economy, but the Feds stepped in by
creating a bubble that created more demand to offset the demand that was
going down. Of course, creating a bubble was creating instability.
The advocates of FDI
have probably put too much emphasis on it. India is in a different
position than a small, developing country. You have a large pool of
entrepreneurs. They are globally savvy, have access to global technology
and they have a lot of wealth. So, if there were large returns to
large-scale supermarkets, the domestic industry would have supplied it.
Not having access to FDI is not an impediment in India. Wal-Mart
is able to procure many goods at lower prices than others because of
the huge buying power they have and will use that power to bring Chinese
goods to India to displace Indian production. So the worry is not so
much about the displacement of the small retail store but displacement
further down the supply chain.
Joseph Stiglitz in The Times of India Here
Kingfisher Airlines is deep in the red. Should the
government organize its rescue? When millions of small businesses are
allowed to go bust when banks cut off credit to thousands of smaller
defaulters, rescuing Kingfisher will smack of crony capitalism.
The airline has defenders too. Kingfisher has justly earned a reputation
for excellent service standards. Quality is always worth preserving. We
need to save Kingfisher without saving Mallya.
Its main competitor in quality, Jet Airlines, has frequently made good profits, while Kingfisher never has.
Kingfisher has already been rescued. Banks converted unpaid loans to
Kingfisher into equity at a very favourable premium of 62% to the ruling
market price, a tribute to Mallya’s political clout rather than
company’s future prospects . Even after that the company has sunk deeper
into the red. Even after being restructured and slashed, its debts
exceed Rs 7,000 crore. Government concessions to the industry may save
other airlines, but not Kingfisher.
A failed management must be changed. That’s normal in a market economy.
If Mallya really wants yet another chance, he must be told to bring in
at least Rs 3,000 crore of fresh equity. If he cannot entice the
investing public—which is probable--he must sell his other assets. Apart
from liquor company UB Holdings, he owns stakes in the cricket team
Royal Challengers, Bangalore; the Kolkata football teams Mohun Bagan and
East Bengal; and the Formula 1 team Force India. In many other
countries his bankers would force him to sell these.
If Mallya will not sacrifice his other assets for Kingfisher , then he
cannot ask others to sacrifice their financial interests for him. His
creditors should acquire the company and auction it.
Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar in The Times of India. Here and
Here
I was a MP not very long ago. I loved those six years. Everyone called me sir, not because of my age but because I was a MP. And even though I never travelled anywhere by train during those years, I revelled in the fact that I could have gone anywhere I liked, on any train, first class with a bogey reserved for my family. Whenever I flew, there were always people around to pick up my baggage, not because I was travelling business class but because I was a MP. And yes, whenever I wrote to any Government officer to help someone in need, it was done. No, not because I was a journalist but because I was a MP.
The job had many perquisites, apart from the tax free wage of Rs 4,000. Then the wages were suddenly quadrupled to Rs 16,000, with office expenses of Rs 20,000 and a constituency allowance of Rs 20,000 thrown in. I could borrow interest free money to buy a car, get my petrol paid, make as many free phone calls as I wanted. My home came free. So did the furniture, the electricity, the water, the gardeners, the plants. There were also allowances to wash curtains and sofa covers and a rather funny allowance of Rs 1,000 per day to attend Parliament, which I always thought was a MP's job in the first place! And, O yes, we also got Rs 1 crore a year (now enhanced to Rs 2 crore) to spend on our constituencies. More enterprising MPs enjoyed many more perquisites best left to your imagination. While I was embarrassed being vastly overpaid for the job I was doing, they kept demanding more.
Today, out of 543 MPs in Lok Sabha, 315 are crorepatis. That's 60%. 43 out of the 54 newly elected Rajya Sabha MPs are also millionaires. Their average declared assets are over Rs 25 crore each. That's an awfully wealthy lot of people in whose hands we have vested out destiny. The assets of your average Lok Sabha MP have grown from Rs 1.86 crore in the last house to Rs 5.33 crore. That's 200% more. And, as we all know, not all our MPs are known to always declare all their assets. Much of these exist in a colour not recognised by our tax laws. That's fine, I guess. Being a MP gives you certain immunities, not all of them meant to be discussed in a public forum.
If you think it pays to be in the ruling party, you are dead right: 7 out of 10 MPs from the Congress are crorepatis. The BJP have 5. MPs from some of the smaller parties like SAD, TRS and JD (Secular) are all crorepatis while the NCP, DMK, RLD, BSP, Shiv Sena, National Conference and Samajwadi Party have more crorepatis than the 60% average. Only the CPM and the Trinamool, the two Bengal based parties, don't field crorepatis. The CPM has 1crorepati out of 16 MPs; the Trinamool has 7 out of 19. This shows in the state-wise average. West Bengal and Kerala have few crorepati MPs while Punjab and Delhi have only crorepati MPs and Haryana narrowly misses out on this distinction with one MP, poor guy, who's not a crorepati.
Do MPs become richer in office? Sure they do. Statistics show that the average assets of 304 MPs who contested in 2004 and then re-contested last year grew 300%. And, yes, we're only talking about declared assets here. But then, we can't complain. We are the ones who vote for the rich. Over 33% of those with assets above Rs 5 crore won the last elections while 99.5% of those with assets below Rs 10 lakhs lost! Apart from West Bengal and the North East, every other state voted for crorepati MPs. Haryana grabbed first place with its average MP worth Rs 18 crore. Andhra is not far behind at 16.
But no, this is not enough for our MPs. It's not enough that they are rich, infinitely richer than those who they represent, and every term makes them even richer. It's not enough that they openly perpetuate their families in power. It's not enough that all their vulgar indulgences and more are paid for by you and me through back breaking taxes. It's not enough that the number of days they actually work in Parliament are barely 60 in a year. The rest of the time goes in squabbling and ranting. Now they want a 500% pay hike and perquisites quadrupled. The Government, to buy peace, has already agreed to a 300% raise but that's not good enough for our MPs. They want more, much more.
And no, I'm not even mentioning that 150 MPs elected last year have criminal cases against them, with 73 serious, very serious cases ranging from rape to murder. Do you really think these people deserve to earn 104 times what the average Indian earns?
Pritish Nandy in Times of India. Here
MPs in general are rich, endowed by flourishing business interests or hereditary handovers. The Association for Democratic Reforms, an NGO that works towards strengthening democracy and governance, says there are 315 crorepatis — persons whose net worth exceeds Rs 1 crore — in the 543-member Lok Sabha. Further, the average asset holding of the members of the Lower House is Rs 5.33 crore. Mind you, this is just the calculation based on disclosed assets, which are often not exhaustive —or even, the colour of the majority of assets — that MPs own. Whatever the party or state, barring some exceptions, the prevalence of wealth among MPs is universal.
Crorepati MPs
Of the 543 MPs in Lok Sabha 2009, 315 — or 58% — are crorepatis. This is nearly double the crorepatis in the 2004 batch. Further, the average declared assets of an MP in Lok Sabha 2009 is 186% higher than the 2004 average.
A report in Economic Times. Here
Two years ago I wrote about the Chinese campaign to dethrone the dollar. Shortly before the G20 London summit, China's central bank governor announced that the dollar should be replaced by SDRs. This was a shrewd approach. About half of China's foreign exchange reserves of $2 trillion are reportedly held as dollar denominated assets, as indeed are large chunks of the reserves of many central banks. This large exposure implies that any major depreciation of the dollar would severely erode the value of these assets. At the same time, large diversification of these reserves away from the dollar is not an option. Such a move itself would trigger a sharp depreciation of the dollar. But the exchange rate of SDR is a weighted average of a basket of convertible currencies, and a swap of dollars for SDRs at a pre-determined exchange rate would allow China, and other countries, to significantly reduce their dollar exposure without any erosion of the value of their reserves. Of course, it would also end the reign of the dollar.
At the time, most analysts dismissed the Chinese initiative as impractical and unworkable. However, China has taken several strategic steps to carry forward its agenda through alternative routes. It has established currency swap arrangements with several developing countries, which protects their trade with China against the risk of their currencies depreciating. The initial value of these arrangements was quite modest, less than $100 billion. However, during the past two years, the volume of these arrangements would have grown significantly and could eventually cover the entire trade of these countries with China.
How should India prepare for such an outcome? India should embed itself in the currency arrangement being forged for the BRICS countries, and strive to join the embryonic Asian Monetary Fund to take full advantage of opportunities arising from these initiatives. At the same time it must remain mindful that North America and the EU will remain important trading partners in the foreseeable future.
Sudipto Mundle in The Times of India. More Here.
The abrupt emergence of Anna Hazare as the symbol of a largely middle-class outburst against the insincerity of the war on corruption has been puzzling. In many ways, this 71-year-old self-professed Gandhian from rural Maharashtra is a total antithesis of what modern India apparently stands for.
There are many features of the alternative Jan Lokpal Bill proposed by Anna and his supporters that are either outrageous or quirky. The belief that a Lokpal appointed by a committee of the great and good should have overriding powers over an elected government is at best utopian and, at worst, anti-democratic. And the proposal of who should constitute the electoral college of the virtuous is, to say the least, eccentric. Why should all those of Indian origin honoured by the Nobel committee in Sweden and Norway and the last two Magsaysay Prize winners — chosen by a committee in the Philippines—be ex-officio members of a desi star chamber. Why not the recipients of the Padma Vibhushan and Bharat Ratna? Or for that matter, why not everyone honoured by the local Rotary Club?
Aclinical dissection of what Anna actually represents and the forces backing him will not, however, divert focus from the growing groundswell against corruption. There is a political space for a credible, even angry, movement against the rot in India’s political system. Circumstances have allowed a venerable, gutsy and untainted outsider to fill the void. It’s the sentiment behind his anointment that is relevant, not the fine print of a law to make India virtuous.
Swapan Dasgupta in Times of India. More Here.
Imam Al Sudais's India visit to lecture at the Deoband seminary is sending some sections of the Muslim community into overdrive. I received a card from the India Islamic Cultural Centre (IICC) in Delhi to attend an address by 'His Holiness', Imam-e-Haram, Dr Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, presently imam of the mosque in Mecca. The accompanying letter details the imam's achievements including his educational degrees in sharia law. In 2005, he received 'The Islamic Personality of the Year' award and stood nominated for the Dubai International Quran Award, which he accepted.
The 'His Holiness' came as a jolt, for no such prefixes have ever been added to Prophet Muhammad's name or that of his companions, who rank the highest in Muslim piety.
As one devoted to Islam, i believe using the Quran to name an award belittles the sanctity of God's word and borders on blasphemy. Legitimising such an award by its acceptance seems a worse action. The early history of Islam contains no examples of spiritual or religious leaders accepting state or private awards. On the contrary, sharia and prophetic traditions frown upon those who seek or allow public adulation, for all righteous deeds are for God alone.
The Deoband leadership has requested that Al Sudais not be frisked during his visit to Parliament. Due respect must be accorded to the visiting imam, because he leads the prayers at the Kaabah. This reverence flows from 'where' the prayers are led and not because of 'who' the imam is. To quote Arshad Madani of the Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, "Sheikh Al Sudais is the highest religious leader of the Muslims". This is misleading because Al Sudais merely represents the highest-ranking sacred space.
Sadia Dehlvi in Times of India. More Here and Here.
Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) said: "Allah has 99 names and whoever patterns himself on them shall enter paradise." These names are referred to as Asma ul Husna — the most beautiful names. Says the Quran: "Allah has the most excellent names. So call on Him by His names and shun those who distort them. They shall soon be requited for their deeds". (7:180) The metaphysics of the Quran can be found in the 99 names that contain His essence. Some of these include: the Compassionate, the Beneficent,the All-merciful,the Sovereign, the Provider, the Restorer and the Just.
Islamic philosophers have broadly categorised these names into two groups, Jalal or majesty and Jamal or beauty. Majesty, the revelation of which ignites and consumes the worlds, is the rigorous, severe aspect of the Divine. Beauty, on the other hand, is the synthesis of mercy, generosity, compassion and all other beneficent qualities. These two work together to form the tapestry of the world, mysteriously connected with human beings.
Jalal and Jamal
Muslims use different formulae of repeating the names for spiritual solace. The names are repeated using a Ya before them like Ya Rahman or O, Merciful and Ya Rahim or O, Compassionate One'. Mercy represents God's fundamental attribute and is most commonly invoked.
An entire mystical theology has developed around these names ascribed to the Lord. It is these divine attributes that the Sufis attempt to realise within themselves. Sufi scholars explain that if you acquire traces of attributes such as severity and wrath without tempering them with justice, compassion and generosity, you might end up being harsh and arrogant. Only a perfect harmony of divine attributes can lead to the full blossoming of human nature.
Beyond gender
The Quran never refers to God as 'father'; It decries nature and idol worship, for it categorically states: "Naught in the universe is like Him". (42:11) Muslim theologians, therefore, aver that God has no gender, not even metaphorically. They attribute the use of a male pronoun for Allah in the Quran to the complexities of Arabic grammar, where pronouns are not gender-specific.
In the 13th century, two theological terms were developed to express the contrast between the perception of God's nearness and mercy and that of his distance and wrath. The term tanzih declares incomparability and tashbih, similarity. Both affirm that the world is nothing but a manifestation of the Divine.
Caring and merciful
Tashbih, literally means to declare something similar to something else. The gentle and merciful names of God are symbolic of His unity with Creation; of His concern for all life. They describe a God we can understand and love; who like a caring mother looks after the needs of those He has brought into this world.
The literal meaning of tanzih is to declare something pure and free of something else. This perspective affirms God's Oneness. It establishes that He alone is Real, and all created things unreal. The names associated with tanzih are King, Avenger, Praiseworthy, Slayer, and Independent. The King is majestic, awe-inspiring, inaccessible and all-powerful.
Prophet Muhammad reported that upon God's throne is inscribed: "My Mercy takes precedence over My wrath". Invoking Allah's Mercy is the central theme of Islamic thought. Divine Mercy is the bestowal of the good, the beautiful and the true.
Sadia Dehlvi in The Times of India More Here
