The war drums are still beating.
Of course, the war with Pakistan never stops – see Siachen, where we have been fighting continuously for over 25 years. I was there in 1984 – and war was very much there.
Note that war is a convenient game for our The State. The enemy changes. There is a huge diversion. And we are close to “elections” – our much-celebrated “democracy.”
They’ll pull every trick in the book to make us feel that they are our legitimate “leaders.” With war, the politicians will be on TV morning, noon and night. Cricket, Bollywood etc. will all be eclipsed. They will literally “steal the show.”
I despise war. I am a free trader. I champion unilateral free trade. War is barbaric. But then, our leaders don’t believe in the morality of markets. So they are condemned to remain barbarians.
Here is Donovan’s “Universal Soldier.” My song.
If war does break out, I will be reminded of a game I used to play as a kid with my cousin Bhombol. The game was called “India – Pakistan.” Sometimes he’d be India, sometimes I’d be Pakistan – and we would fight. And fight hard. Till exhausted. War with Pakistan is an old game that has yielded nothing for 60 years.
What about the “War on Poverty”?
Here is an interview with Professor Abhijit Banerjee. He is Ford Foundation professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He co-founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab in 2003.
Whereas Adam Smith studied the “wealth of nations,” this man studies poverty. He begins by saying that the poor were unaffected by the boom so will be unaffected in a downturn. He does not believe inflation affects the poor. He is a firm believer in government action to “help the poor” – but if you read between the lines, he is admitting that the system has failed the poor.
Only one thing can truly help the poor: Self-help. Liberty Under Law is all they need.
The rukawats have all gotta hit the road – and the rukawats are all part of our The State. The same State that is going to war – to “protect” us. Like they protect Bajaj, Tata, Birla and Ambani – and the CII. Which is why Kamal Nutt is a “one man roadblock” to free international trade. They don’t want trade. They want War.
But how about the War on Poverty?
Let’s fight the better war – under the Flag of Liberty.
And as far as personal security is concerned, here is a report on a new urban combat technique that is being widely learnt in Mumbai. The real battles against terrorists are on city streets – not distant battle-fields. Learn self-defence. And get a gun too.
Another story says that the VIPs of India, numbering a little over 13,000, are guarded by 46,000 policemen. This will probably double after a war. Or even during the war.
And wee the peeple will remain insecure.
Hi Sauvik,
ReplyDeleteYou said you are against war. My question is - free trade, liberty all that is fine. But what do you do when a neighboring country does not respect our nation's right to liberty and freedom? When you have a nation that sponsors terrorists to bomb major cities in your country, dont you think a nation/its government has the duty/responsibility to make sure the other country is taught a lesson. I mean, is that not necessary for the safety of its citizens in the first place, which is the responsibility of any Govt worth anything?
As an aside, I have been following your blog for a long time and I agree with all your posts. I only comment when I have something to disagree with. So, thanks for all those wonderful articles.
Padmanabhan
The MIT Poverty Action lab people dont have an ideology or theory for that matter. They do silly experiment to see if private school students do better than government schools. And the answer everywhere is yes, so they do more. Then they try some voucher experiements.
ReplyDeleteThe whole developing world is a bunch of rats for them to experiement on. And who funds all this, The World Bank!
On Padmanabhan's comment:
ReplyDeleteIt is not that our The State does not sponsor terror - recall Bhindranwale or the LTTE.
I also doubt whether war will "teach Pakistan a lesson." On the contrary, war will derail all the moves made over decades to "normalize" Indo-Pak relations. And the terror groups will gain supporters. There, India will be demonized. Our public insecurities will mount. In Pakistan the Army will get stronger.
If it is at all true that the Pakistani establishment is sponsoring terrorist strikes in India - and Antulay's dissent must be kept in mind - then I would suggest diplomacy. I would suggest a sustained campaign in the media.
We must occupy the moral high ground. I sincerely doubt whether a 7-day adventure for our military personnel called War will help us achieve that.
war is never among the people...they find ways to co exist..even in most difficult of situations....the wars are fought by the govts. who are said to be representatives of the people.....how they represtent and for what cause, we are all aware of.
ReplyDeleteWar is to society what trade is to an economy. It is society's way of trimming the waist by removing the weak.
ReplyDeleteActually, Arby K, war is a game of governments - all The States. War is NOT a game of society. There is, after all, nothing "social" in war.
ReplyDeleteSociety is not government. Government is an organization within society to perform certain specified functions - but it invariably exceeds its bonafide borders.
In society, where we trade, the weak are not weeded out. Blind musicians like Jose Feliciano and Stevie Wonder are superstars.
War is a game of evil rulers that weeds out the big, bold strong men - who "die for the country": the universal soldier.
It's my opinion that the weak will have to be weeded out if there is a resource crunch. Whether there will be a resource crunch or not is debatable. Human population has increased exponentially over the last century and amount of resource used has been equally phenomenal. I have a pessimistic view when it comes to this. So, I'll leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I view society and economy differently. Society, to me, includes the emotional side of humanity, like the need to be better etc. I do not know how effectively the logic of trade can match with the emotion of performance.
I do not want to get in an debate on economics, because I have no clue about economics. I had earlier made a case earlier in ur blog, which never got answered.
ReplyDeleteIf I understood the wager correctly, ppl will reduce usage when price increases and hence the resource does not run out. But if at the time of recession, when demand normalizes and prices go down, demand is artificially increased by encouraging economic activity (like what China has done and something that can happen in the case of war) so that status quo is maintained, will the theory hold?
By using the earlier logic, economic activity will reduce when prices become too high, but if reduction in economic activity results in poverty or a general feeling of economic weakness, will the people allow it to happen? This is where, I feel, emotions take over and society takes over the economy.