question is why are they still poor?Especially given the success of Indian immigrants in other societies?South Korea was a lot poorer after the Korean war than Ghana when it gained its independence at about the same time. That was after India gained independence, and Korea couldn't have been in better shape at that point than India (my impression).> -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of > sateesh narahari > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 12:44 PM > To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org > Subject: Re: The Curse of India's Socialism > > All good arguments, except till you realize that > majority of indians were poor even before > independence. > > Sateesh > > > --- "R. A. Hettinga" wrote: > > > http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB1029790639190441115,00.html > > > > > > The Wall Street Journal > > > > August 20, 2002 > > COMMENTARY > > > > The Curse of India's Socialism > > > > By CHRISTOPHER LINGLE > > > > In a classic case of deflecting blame for their own > > shortcomings, > > politicians in India have identified the size of the > > population as the > > country's biggest problem. This position was stated > > in a unanimous > > parliamentary resolution passed on the 50th > > anniversary of independence. > > Half a decade later, it is a belief that still > > resonates with many. Yet it > > is hard to imagine a more cynical view. If left free > > from the extensive > > interference of various levels of government, the > > energy and creativity of > > the Indian people could soon allow them to be among > > the richest on earth. > > > > Indians are not poor because there are too many of > > them; they are poor > > because there are too many regulations and too much > > government intervention > > -- even today, a decade after reforms were begun. > > India's greatest problems > > arise from a political culture guided by socialist > > instincts on the one > > hand and an imbedded legal obligation on the other > > hand. > > > > While India's political culture reflects the beliefs > > of its founding > > fathers, there is the additional matter of the > > modified preamble to its > > constitution that specifies: "India is a sovereign, > > secular, socialist > > republic." It was Indira Gandhi who had the words > > "socialist" and "secular" > > added in the late 1970s. At the same time, she also > > amended the relevant > > section in the Representation of Peoples Act to > > require that all recognized > > and registered parties swear by this preamble. Since > > all parties must stand > > for socialism, no party espouses classical > > liberalism (yet there are > > numerous communist parties). > > > > While one can appreciate the difficulty of > > abandoning ideas with such > > honored lineage, the fact that socialism has been > > widely discredited and > > abandoned in most places should prompt Indians to > > reconsider this > > commitment. Despite evidence of its failure as an > > economic system, many of > > the socialists who carry on do so by trying to > > proclaim that their dogma > > reinforces certain civic virtues. A presumed merit > > of socialism is that it > > aims to nurture a greater sense of collective > > identity by suppressing the > > narrow self-interest of individuals. However, this > > aspect of socialism lies > > at the heart of its failure both as a political tool > > as well as the basis > > for economic policy. > > > > Let's start with the economic failures of socialism. > > Most of the grand > > experiments have been ignominiously abandoned or > > recast in tortured terms > > such as the "Third Way" that defer to the importance > > of markets and > > individual incentives. Unfortunately, it took a > > great deal of human > > suffering before socialists abandoned their goal of > > trying to create an > > economic system on the basis of collective goals. > > > > Socialist ideologues are impervious to evidence that > > their system inspires > > even more human misery in the civic realm. This is > > because socialism > > provides the political mechanism for and legitimacy > > by which people > > identify as members of groups. While it may suit the > > socialist agenda to > > create them-and-us scenarios relating to workers and > > capitalists or > > peasants and urban dwellers, this logic is readily > > converted to other types > > of divisions. > > > > In the case of India, competition for power has > > increasingly become > > identified with religiosity or ethnicity, as is > > evident by the rise of the > > Bharatiya Janata Party, supported by radical > > Hindutva supporters. As > > elsewhere, political parties based on religion are > > by their very nature > > exclusionary. These narrow concepts of identity work > > against nation > > building since such a politics forces arrangements > > that cannot accommodate > > notions of universal values. > > > > Socialism also sets the stage for populist promises > > of taking from one > > group to support another. This variety of political > > posturing by the > > Congress Party was used to build a coalition of > > disaffected minorities. In > > turn, the BJP built its power base on a promise to > > restore power to Hindus. > > And so it is that India's heritage of socialist > > ideology provided the > > beginnings of a political culture that evolved into > > sectarian populism that > > has wrought cycles of communal violence. Populism > > with its solicitations of > > political patronage, whether based upon nationalism > > or some other ploy, is > > also open to the sort of rampant corruption so > > evident in India. > > > > At issue in India is nothing less than the role of > > the state. Should it be > > used as a mechanism to protect the freedom and > > rights of individuals? Or > > should the state be a vehicle for groups to gain > > power? It should be clear > > the latter approach would lead to the destruction of > > India's democracy > > while the former will allow it to survive. > > > > It is undeniable that India's public policy guided > > by socialism has > > promoted divisions that contributed to social > > instability and economic > > destruction. This dangerous game has only served the > > narrow interests of > > those who seek to capture or preserve power. That > > India is a "socialist" > > state, specified in a preamble to the constitution, > > makes this binding > > commitment evident in the nature of interventionist > > policies that have > > wrought slower economic growth causing great harm to > > the poor and unskilled > > who have lost access to economic opportunities. > > Socialism also introduced > > forces that are destroying India's hard-earned > > democracy. A paradigm shift > > in the nature of Indian politics is needed so the > > state ceases serving as a > > mechanism for groups to gain power and instead > > becomes an instrument to > > secure rights and freedoms for individuals. > > > > Mr. Lingle is professor of economics at Universidad > > Francisco Marroquin in > > Guatemala, and global strategist for > > eConoLytics.com. > > > > > > > > -- > > ----------------- > > R. A. Hettinga > > The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation > > > > 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA > > "... however it may deserve respect for its > > usefulness and antiquity, > > [predicting the end of the world] has not been found > > agreeable to > > experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of > > the Roman Empire' > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs > http://www.hotjobs.com > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/forkhttp://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork