Against Panchayats, For Mayors

Two items I just read in the newspapers sit oddly side by side. 

First: A news report titled "Jammu & Kashmir gets self-rule via panchayat polls." The elections were held in "16 phases" - so it could be the same people voting in each phase. We cannot trust any government propaganda that comes from J&K.

The second is an opinion piece titled "Cities are India's future." Below is a long quote from the article, written by a German businessman:

According to the report on 'India's Urban Awakening' by McKinsey Global Institute, in the next 20 years, India will have 68 cities with a population over one million - up from 42 today. That is nearly twice as many cities as all of Europe. India's urban population will increase from 340 million to 590 million. To put it in global terms, about 10% of humanity will reside in Indian cities. 

There is room for this sort of demographic change. Only 30% of Indians live in cities, in comparison with 74% of Germans and 82% of Americans. 

And the change holds great promise for India. The McKinsey study predicts that Indian cities could generate 70% of net new employment, produce more than 70% of Indian GDP, and quadruple the national per capita income. Best of all, these new, modern cities could create an enormous increase in the number of middle-class households. It is estimated that 91 million urban households will be middle class by 2030, up from 22 million today. 

Without question, successful urban development represents India's best opportunity to maintain its current economic momentum and to achieve a prosperous, dynamic future. 

The author then proceeds to discuss how Germany and India could find "synergistic partnerships" to deal with the "infrastructural demands" that will arise: 

Those demands include creating billions of square metres of roads, over 7,000 kilometres of subways and metros, endless sewage and water systems and so much residential and commercial space that it is equivalent to building two cities the size of Mumbai every year. 

So, what is the future? And what is Liberty? Is panchayati raj "self-rule" - when all the sarpanches are poor people who inevitably become clients of The State because they are dependent on State funding for all their "schemes"? Or are mayors of independent cities and towns real self-rule, because such mayors are inevitably rich members of the urban bourgeoisie? Allow me to elaborate by  recounting what I experienced in Srinagar, Kashmir.

As I walked along the Dal Lake one misty afternoon, I encountered a local inhabitant who, in the course of the conversation, remarked that the new tiles paving the footpath were not as good as the older ones. Who changed them? I inquired. The answer: The Chief Minister of the State. To me, this seemed to be the task of a Mayor.

On another occasion, I heard a plea from a local youth NGO requesting the Finance Minister of the State for some aid in starting a library in the city. Again, I thought that a Mayor of Srinagar would have been the right person to ask.

In my view, cities and towns are the future, yes. But then the "vision of Free India" must change from panchayati raj to mayors; from "self-sufficient village republics" to "self-governing and free trading cities."

J&K will never be "free" with panchayats. On the other hand, a Free Srinagar, a Free Jammu, and a Free Leh will deliver the people real freedom.

Ditto for the rest of the country.

Think about it like this: Would you rather elect an MP or an MLA and send him off to parliaments in Nude Elly or the State Capital, or would you rather elect a Mayor to look after your own city or town and be responsible as well as responsive to local issues, and to the local population?

There - you have the answer. 


Democracy means the diffusion of power - not its centralisation in a PM, a PMO and a Planning Commission.

The Indyeah of the future needs mayors, not sarpanches.


Think of a hundred City Mayors, and ten thousand Town Mayors.


That is the future to aim at.

The Drunken Judge... and other creeps

"The hanging judge was sober, he hadn't had a drink," sang Dylan - but this Supreme Court judge must have been punch drunk, on some cheap hooch, that too, for a sonofabitch who ought to have been hanged, along with all his accomplices, got let off. I am speaking of Dara Singh who, in 1999, more than a decade ago, murdered the Christian missionary Graham Staines and his two little boys in the most grisly manner - by burning them alive. 

The lower court had sentenced him to death, but appeals to higher courts went to judges who were high as well - on hooch.

Dara Singh and his gang are part of the Bajrang Dal - an off-shoot of the BJP. This dastardly crime is "political."

The judgment is political as well - for the news contains the following extract from the verdict:

Dara Singh's intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity.

And what about the two little boys, both under the age of ten. Burnt alive?

Thus, there is a "lesson" in this creepy judgment: Hindoo goon-squads are free to kill Christian missionaries.

There are other creepy stories about the creepy BJP as well - like how their Chief Minister in Karnataka is facing prosecution on serious charges of corruption and nepotism. The Governor has sanctioned prosecution - and the creeps have resorted to rioting and arson in protest!

There is another creepy story about how the BJP "youth wing" are planning a march to Srinagar, Kashmir, to hoist the national flag in the centre of town on Republic Day. The locals don't like this flag - and the BJP cadres are all outsiders, wanting to force the flag upon them. The flag, anyway, is the flag of the CONgress. In tiny Switzerland, every canton flies its own flag. There are 26 cantons - and 26 flags. The BJP claims its flag-hoisting is about "patriotism." I think patriotism by force is as creepy as creepy can get.

There is creepy news about the CONgress too today - and this is about the Youth Congress. The story reveals how most of their leaders are criminals, or involved in criminal activities. As the proverb goes, "A fish rots from the head." At the head is the Great Educator.

While creeps abound in the system, so do cronies - none greater than Rahul Bajaj. He is one of India's richest men - and now a Rajya Sabha MP. He is also chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), a club of protectionist manufacturers. Today, he has contributed the lead article in the ToI. Titled "Just Path to Development," the article concludes in favour of continued rule by the creeps:

In the final analysis, India's growth process under a democratic government is a sustainable, humane and just path to development.

Bajaj the billionaire businessman and industry body head doesn't say that the only path to economic development lies in an economic institution - The Market. He believes that this path lies in a political agency - The State - an agency over which he wields considerable influence, an influence that has made him very rich. But I must insist that this State cannot be called "sustainable, humane and just." The Budget is certainly not "economically sustainable"; there is nothing "humane" about Army rule in Manipur and Kashmir, or State Police raj in Chattisgarh; and as for "just," we just spoke of the drunken judge who let the murderer Dara Singh off.

Rahul Bajaj lives in Poona (Pune), where his factories are also located. I have been visiting this city for many decades now, and have witnessed, with deep sorrow, its rapid deterioration with every visit. What was once a quaint little town where retirees built their little bungalows, Poona is now a hell-hole. The leading citizens of this city couldn't care less - and the long-time CONgress MP from Poona is none other than Suresh Kalmadi of CWG mega-corruption fame. Bajaj himself sits in Parliament in Nude Elly - cultivating political influence. It is noteworthy that in his article praising India's centralised democracy, he says not a word about civic freedom, about local self-government in cities and towns. Instead, he devotes an entire paragraph to praising panchayati raj in villages:

Participatory governance is most evident in local self-government at the village level, termed 'panchayat'. Across the country, several hundred thousand panchayats represent local voters, develop plans for social and economic development, manage funds and undertake projects. As per the Constitution of India, they are able to directly work in 29 demarcated areas. A key feature is that the government has mandated one-third of panchayat members to be women, with the result that one million women have been thus empowered. Initially viewed with suspicion, women panchayat members have taken up the development agenda in a committed manner, relevant to their own particular electorates.

Perhaps Bajaj should be asked to quit city living and migrate to a village. And become a panchayat pradhan. Poona - like all the other devastated cities and towns throughout this vast sub-continent - needs a good Mayor, that's for sure.

Do read the entire article by Bajaj, CII boss, and laugh out loud at all the bull it contains. It is nothing but pure bull - from beginning to end.

There is more bull from ultra-rich Indian businessmen in the news today. Fourteen of them have penned an "Open letter to India's leaders" - on which Shekhar Gupta, editor of the Express, has devoted his weekly column. It seems, quite predictably, that the Open Letter lacks guts. Gupta says:

Of course you could fault the signatories of this open letter for being unwilling to wound and petrified (perish the thought, actually) to strike. That is why the letter, signed by some of our most respected and powerful citizens, is so unspecific in what it is complaining about, or the actions they want taken in redress. It is full of platitudes...

This cannot be called Capitalism. But then, we remain a socialist country - and India's super rich like it that way. Another super-rich Poona businessperson is named as signatory to this Open Letter in this news report: Anu Aga of Thermax. Interestingly, she is also involved in CONgress politics in Nude Elly, as a member of the National Advisory Council that advises Sonia Gandhi to spend billions funding a "right to food." She too is not bothered about the deterioration of her own city. Does anyone in Poona, however poor, require food from The State in Nude Elly? Or do they manage just fine? But Aga's mind is on some remote village in the boondocks. Or maybe she too is cultivating political influence like all the others.

Among the signatories to the Open Letter is a former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Bimal Jalan, who was a Rajya Sabha MP as well. The report concludes with these remarks attributed to him:

Take inflation. We have been told for several months that it will come down but hasn’t. Then we were told that the government is not responsible for inflation. So, it is difficult to find out which is the cause and which is the effect.

Bimal Jalan has served two full terms as Governor of RBI. He received his "education" at Oxford and Cambridge - and has authored half-a-dozen books on the problems and prospects facing the Indian economy. He has not heard of the "quantity theory of money"! Or he is bullshitting. Interestingly, Wikipedia mentions that the 1000 rupee note was introduced during his term - and that is a sign of inflation. The RBI caused it. It is for this very reason that coins below 1 rupee have been recently withdrawn. There will soon be a 10,000 rupee note, I bet, and a 100 rupee coin too - while RBI governors will mouth "platitudes" like the one above.

The creepy thing about the inflation being perpetrated is that it creeps along slowly and steadily - 8 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent - and is not noticed. It is "creeping inflation." Creeps are perpetrating this. As Ludwig von Mises pointed out:

The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God, that inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy.

That is, inflationISM is going on - deliberately. It is sneaky, immoral, cruel and anti-democratic. I have an earlier post on this that I recommend.

The news report on the Open Letter that Bimal Jalan, Anu Aga, and others have signed, addressed to "India's Leaders," is titled "India Inc. for Tough Governance." But the signatories are all weak! They want cha(m)cha manmohan s gandhi to take "tough decisions"! Like what? Hang a bunch of murderers, maybe? Give the hangman some "work," eh, chacha? We can't have hangmen hanging around, can we?

Get real, dudes. Forget about Nude Elly. Fix your own cities and towns. And fight for freedom - not "tough governance," whatever that means.

"If I were a rich man," sang the street-sweeper Alfred Dolittle - and a happy song it was, too. I'm glad I am not rich. Better to be poor and kicking ass than one of these super-rich ass-kissers.

We Need A Big Bang

The other day, I wrote about a Mint editorial titled "A crisis of legitimacy" - which said that Chacha Manmohan S Gandhi has flopped real bad. Now, another major league editor has echoed this view: Shekhar Gupta of The Indian Express, in a column titled "The meteoric fall of UPA-2."

Gupta writes:

In the Westminster system, whatever his personality, the prime minister is where the cabinet’s centre of gravity resides. If you look at UPA 2, it has not seemed to be the case at least in the last six months.

He concludes with what he thinks will emerge from the ongoing AICC meet:

... usual swagger, verbose platitudes and loud declarations of loyalty and sycophancy.

At the AICC meet, the CONgress has given Sonia Gandhi another term as President - and she has loudly supported Chacha.

Yet, politics is about political ideas and ideals - not personalities. As far as Sonia's and Chacha's politics go, we know all about that - welfare. Add to that "central planning," central banking, PSUs, a hatred for Private Property, a hatred for free markets, and a hatred for Liberty. And yes: a great desire to "educate" the young - forcibly!

It is this "idea" that has failed. This is "knowledge failure."

So what do we do?

I found one column arguing for "radical overhaul":

A big bang cleansing of institutions, bureaucracy, corporations and political milieu is required. This is unlikely to happen of its own accord. The collective energy of the people rising up to demand this radical overhaul may well have to be the trigger. Such “revolution” is only likely after major, disruptive change.

I am all for the "big bang" - but this certainly need not be "major, disruptive change."



If Property becomes constitutionally inviolable - and Liberty prevails - there comes about "order," not "disruption." Legislations, edicts, decrees - these are disruptive. In the critical area of money, it is inflationism that is "disruptive." Many have said socialism is "anti-social."



There is a "natural order" in city markets. When Srinagar, Kashmir, returns to "normalcy," the pictures you see are of streets packed with people, cars and two-wheelers - all of them out to do their shopping.



So, it is essential that we change the focus of our thinking of a "social order" - from that of a monolithic sub-continent being magically and benevolently ruled from Nude Elly, and discover the pre-existing social order all around us. We must think of city and town markets, aggressive urbanisation - and Mayors.



In other words, where central knowledge has failed, only local knowledge can work. The core of "politics" ought to be restricted to that polis. Competing urban governments put government itself on The Market; a "vote with the feet" is a more effective way to achieve good local government than the ballot - an insight that came from Charles Tiebout.



Thus, the "idea" that I am suggesting - of city and town markets, free exchange based on Private Property - is not in any way disruptive of society. On the contrary, it is "socialism" which is disruptive - with its nationalisation, land acquisition, and endless legislation. All these are the ways of "interventionism" - an activity that can be rightfully called "irrational," or even "criminally insane."



(If you click on the label "interventionism" on the right-hand bar, you will find many posts in support of my opinion.]



So the Great Big Bang must first of all be in our own minds - the conception of another idea.



If we achieve this and find the "collective energy of the people rising up to demand this radical overhaul" - then they will know "what exactly to demand." One possibility of such a big bang being peaceful is a Magna Carta style "Charter of Liberties" signed by the highest functionary representative of State Sovereignty on public demand. A previous post on constitutional "limits" on The State in today's circumstances addresses the question "what exactly do we demand" in detail.



Before you ponder over these important issues, it might help to first read Murray Rothbard's essay "Do you hate The State?" Comparing his "big bang" position on what needs to be done about The State to the middle-of-the-road "gradualist" position of other "libertarians," Rothbard concluded thus:

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

The opposite of radical is "conservative" - the one who wants to "conserve" and preserve the existing political system. We need to think "radical." Radical change.



Another good read: This LRC column titled "Who has integrity?"

Secession - A "Crime" Or A "Right"?

Arundhati Roy is in the news these days because of a speech she made supporting the Kashmiri people in their battle against the central State. Apparently, the Delhi Police were about to register a case against her for the "crime of sedition." Most commentators have appealed to the "right to free speech" in order to defend Roy. In this post, I seek to go further, and uphold the right of any people to secede from any State that they do not wish to be part of.

Let us begin with the basic theory of "political organisation" - which in modern times is the Hobbesian "nation-state," run on the principles of "liberal democracy." The most important aspect of this State is that the people are governed not by force, but by consent. In the case of Kashmir, or Manipur, or the areas now under the sway of Naxals and Maoists, it is obvious that "consent" has been entirely lost, and all that is being applied is "force." This is quite like the despots of yore, of whom Mises writes, in Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (pdf here):

As long as nations were ruled by monarchical despots, the idea of adjusting the boundaries of the state to coincide with the boundaries between nationalities could not find acceptance. If a potentate desired to incorporate a province into his realm, he cared little whether the inhabitants—the subjects—agreed to a change of rulers or not. The only consideration that was regarded as relevant was whether the available military forces were sufficient to conquer and hold the territory in question. One justified one's conduct publicly by the more or less artificial construction of a legal claim. The nationality of the inhabitants of the area concerned was not taken into account at all.

Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and the Socialist Indian State - all believe in this theory. These ideas were finally destroyed by the great classical liberal political philosophers of the 18th and early 19th centuries. As Ludwig von Mises explained the liberal ideal:

The goal of the domestic policy of liberalism is the same as that of its foreign policy: peace. It aims at peaceful cooperation just as much between nations as within each nation. The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.

This is the "international division of labour" the liberals of yore thought would be accomplished through peaceful and free international trade.

Therefore, since the essential liberal ideas are those of peace and trade between and among peoples, of Property and Liberty, with only "negative duties" for the State, it made no sense to expand territory while endangering the vital peace. After all, Property is all Private. And the idea is not that The State creates wealth, but people do - so the fatal idea of "territory" did not appeal to them at all. They did not want a State that sought "acres and revenues." The classical liberals did not believe in territory as a "collective property." Thus we see Adam Smith strongly supporting the American demand for secession. He also opposed the colonisation of India.

Following this great tradition, Mises stood for the right to secede as an essential aspect of the "right to self-determination." He wrote thus, in 1927:

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.

Remember: the goal is peace and peaceful co-operation and trade. Territory is immaterial.

Mises then added a qualification:

To call this right of self-determination the "right of self-determination of nations" is to misunderstand it. It is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong.

Unfortunately, the 20th century did not see these liberal ideas victorious. This was when the planet and its peoples were divided into "nation-states," each nation behind its own tariff walls, and each operating a "national economy." This is the only reason why this century was a century of great wars engulfing the whole world. Total wars. These wars continue because of these very same stupid ideas. The only cure: Libertarianism, the direct descendant of classical liberalism.

With modern "liberal democracy" - which is essentially Hobbesian - there has come about a new kind if illiberal doctrine regarding the "right to secede." According to this doctrine, the liberal democratic nation-state is "perfectly just" because it provides each citizen with "human rights" and further dispenses to him "social justice." This adds Rousseau's "Social Contract" to Hobbes. The theory of justice is the one propounded by John Rawls.

Thus, the right to secede has been eliminated - even in America! And Abraham Lincoln is the man responsible.

This is really not "liberal democracy"; rather, it is just democracy shorn of the liberal ideals of old; it is the ritual of voting - without Liberty, without Property, and the added plunder of protectionism. It is basically "socialist," sometimes even "fascistic." It is Legislation; it is bureaucracy. It is the "politicization of economic life." It is nothing but "statism." And as for the "political parties" - I have only just written a post on these gangs of thugs.

But this was never the social theory of the classical liberals, according to which, rather than a monolithic Hobbesian central State monopolising "security," each Individual was pre-possessed of Property as well as the right to defend himself and his property. All that the classical liberals desired is a system of laws by which Life and Property could be better protected. They did not accept the "myth of national defence" and they did not desire any "social justice," nor any "redistribution." Property and Liberty were the only great ideas, then.

(You can read an excellent journal article on the Right to Secession, explaining all these ideas, here.)

In modern India, we have got the whole thing completely wrong - because of wrong ideas. There is no point in upholding "territorial integrity" when vital peace, trade and co-operation are missing. Arundhati Roy has done the right thing by supporting the struggle of the Kashmiri people. This surely cannot be a "crime."

My ideal is a world of independent, self-governing and free-trading cities and towns. Peace, Trade, Property, Liberty, Civilisation. Thus, there is no need for a Kashmiri "nation state." Rather, Srinagar, Jammu and Leh should have independent local governments running the cities, ditto for all the towns. I believe that this approach, entirely consistent with the principles of classical liberalism, is the only solution to the crisis of political organisation that faces the people of India today.

Why Roads Matter Most

Yesterday's post concluded saying:

Liberty! Property! Contract! That is all it takes to make a country grow.

Today, let me add just one thing to that list - and that is ROADS.

Roads matter greatly for economic growth. Growth occurs when every individual enterprise grows - and since each individual enterprise is engaged in "production" and "exchange," it follows that their produce must be physically transported from the place of production to the big centres of exchange - the markets. In India, perishable commodities like fish, fruit and vegetables are wasted in megatonnes because of poor roads. And all the other trades suffer as well.

Our horrible roads provide evidence of the fact that "pseudo-economists" dictate government spending policies here. Real economists have always emphasized the importance of roads. In the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith makes the comment that the new roads being built then were the "greatest improvement," for they enabled every remote village gain proximity to the mighty city. Carl Menger, in his lectures on Political Economy to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria (1876), stresses the importance of roads in the very first lecture. He begins, like Adam Smith, with the "division of labour" - and then goes on to say that the better the roads, the greater the division of labour. Thus, if good roads exist between your remote patch of land and the mighty city, you might become a specialized orchard-owner. Without these roads, you will be stuck in "self-sufficiency," growing your own food and probably spinning your own yarn as well.

Then there is history. Sher Shah Suri was an Afghan warrior who took North India from Humayun, and he possessed no "economic advisors" - but it is he who built the Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar to Bengal, that is still the life-line of North India. There is the story of Akbar taking 5000 workmen personally to the Khyber Pass so as to built a road smooth enough to take wheeled vehicles. In Srinagar, Kashmir, I was told of the existence of an Old Moghul Road leading down to the plains - and that it now lies disused and abandoned. We also know that "all roads led to Rome" in very ancient times.

Ancient cites were inevitably crowded, with narrow lanes. People lived cheek-by-jowl because transport was primitive. You walked, or rode a horse, or, more likely, an ass. All old cities are like that, including the older parts of London. With modern transportation, we now have "suburbs" - and people live in space and comfort. If Indians want their overcrowded cities to become modern cities, and if they want to build new cities and towns, they will have to lay great stress on road-building. I am also a great fan of tramways. In London the Underground was built around 1905 - railways came before the car - and it is this that enabled Londoners to spread out. In India, the State is building underground railways in a few cities - but not building roads that car owners could use to spread out. They are also not allowing private entrepreneurs to build tramways that could serve all the smaller cities and towns. Calcutta's tramway was also built around 1905 - by a private company. In 1905, I am confident, there were no cars in Calcutta.

How do we build an excellent roads system in Indyeah? Well, I wrote a post on that some weeks ago.

To conclude: The "pseudo-economists" who dictate government spending policies in India, who have never invested in roads for 60 years, are utterly ignorant of both Economics as well as History. Their vision of India is Gandhian - "self-sufficient village economies." This means no division of labour, no specialization, no trade, no markets, no cities, and no civilization. It means permanent poverty for all villagers. It means ghastly overcrowding for all city-dwellers. This, in a huge country with super-abundant land. The "rural-urban divide" throughout India is because of these ignoramuses.

I hope my readers now see the colossal error we are making by entrusting this The State with "education." Once again, we must pin down the political philosopher who is really to blame - and it turns out to be the very same madman Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was Rousseau who popularized the idea of mass education by The State. I remain firmly on the side of Frederic Bastiat, who despised Rousseau, and who wrote these telling lines:

If you want to have theories, systems, methods, principles, textbooks and teachers forced on you by the government, that is up to you; but do not expect me to sign, in your name, such a shameful abdication of your rights.

You don't need this "miseducation."

India Must Get Out Of Kashmir

In my opinion, marital rape is very much rape. If my woman was unwilling, I would sleep in another room. At worst, I would find another woman.

So, when it comes to political secession, I am a firm believer in the Principle. And it is a Principle. If some part of a nation wants to break away, they must be allowed to do so - peacefully.

[If you want to know more about the Principle of Secession in Political Theory, with concrete examples from history, read this article from the Journal of Libertarian Studies by Andrei Kreptul.]

In my view, there is no "political rule" in Kashmir right now. Over 100 young boys, between the ages of 9 and 17, have been killed by the State Police in the past 100 days. Many more have been injured. Even more are in jail. This is not "political rule." This is Maoism - "power flows through the barrel of a gun." I do not support such a government.

And what is Nude Elly planning to do in response? As this news report says, a 35-member team of MPs led by the Central State Police Minister are going to visit Srinagar for 2 days. The "heavyweights" on the team are Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley of the BJP - and the BJP is a party strongly opposed to the natural rights of Kashmiris. The BJP is strongly opposed to any dilution of the obnoxious Armed Forces Special Powers Act. So what will this team of MPs achieve? Nothing. It is just a show of India's phoney "democracy" at work. Note that there are no Kashmiri political parties in Parliament - other than the dynastic National Conference personally owned by the Abdullahs.

I visited Srinagar in 2002, as a guest of the youth organization HIMAYAT, and lectured far and wide. I was horrified by the experience. India is "occupying" Srinagar, not "ruling" it. My travelogue on Srinagar can be found in this collection online.

From the noises I am receiving, it seems that huge protests will meet the team of MPs when they arrive in Srinagar - unless the Indian Army steps in and starts shooting. In either case, there will be no "people-to-people" contact.

As a firm believer in urban local self-government, I think Srinagar has a bright future as a Free City. It is a beautiful place, blessed by nature. It used to attract tourists in the summer as well as in the winter. Exotic cash crops grow there - from saffron to hashish. If Lichtenstein, Monaco, Singapore, Macao and Borneo can be free cities, why not Srinagar? That is the direction this City must take - neither India nor Pakistan. Just Freedom for the City.

Many Indians may balk at this idea - especially because our Civics textbooks harp endlessly on the notion of the "unity and integrity of India." For them, I have an anecdote from my visit to Srinagar in 2002. The then Finance Minister of Kashmir inaugurated one of my lectures. Later, I asked him how much of his budget was met by local taxation. The answer: 10 percent. The remainder, he said, comes from Nude Elly - which means, from us. This is apart from what we spend on the Army presence there. This is ridiculous.

India must get out of Kashmir - and the right time to do it is NOW!