I have reviewed Gabriel Roth's new book, Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship & the Future of Roads, for The New Indian Express on Sundays.
This is a fascinating collection of articles on roads - a subject of vital importance for India and all Indians.
Do check out the review here. All roadies should read the book.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
LIBERALISM VERSUS THE REST
Surely the first question any aspiring 'representative of the people' must ask himself is: What is the role of the State in a free (or democratic) society? To Raj and the Thackeray parivar, to Narendra Modi and the sangh parivar, to Buddhadev Bhattacharya and the communist parivar, just as it always was for the Nehru parivar, it seems perfectly apparent to me that their idea of State is 'an institution that protects us from injustices, except those it commits itself' (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima, circa 1350).
The reason behind this eclipse of reason is not difficult to find. Coercion is their motto not because they are anti-democratic, but precisely because they are democratic. The process we call democracy in India is riddled with coercion. Anyone who runs a political party holds vast powers over all members; a political party is a power hierarchy based on 'hegemonic relationships'. (Business hierarchies are 'contractual'.) When politicians vote within democratic assemblies, each member must respect the orders of his 'party whip'. The very term reeks of coercion. Then there is the Party High Command (or Politburo). Theirs is the 'vote motive'. Or is it 'rent motive'? Compared to these motives, the 'profit motive' is innocent: shubh laabh.
Raj Thackeray is 'political' in the sense that he seeks to represent a majority. He is the leader of a 'recognized' political party and has powers over 'party cadres': they follow his orders. Now, this is true of all political parties. It is because of this very reason that Roberto Michels propounded his Iron Law of Oligarchy way back in 1915: "Hierarchical political parties can never yield a classless, socialist society," he wrote. "Where the instrument is hierarchical, how can classlessness result?"; adding, most accurately, "socialism will fail at the moment of its adherents' triumph."
The politics of Thackerayism, Moditva, Buddhadevism, Lalooism, and Nehruvianism are all 'legitimate': all these recognized, hierarchical political parties swear by 'socialism', as defined not only in the Constitution of India, but in their party constitutions as well. But the reality of hegemonic power relations within each party hierarchy should wake us up to the fact that the way we are headed is not the classlessness of socialism, but something purely diabolical instead. It is politics without principle, based on coercion. It is aimed at taking control of the dysfunctional State – which provides access to further coercion, through legislation, through taxation, and through manipulation of the police and the administration. Never will we attain the ideal of Socialist Equality if we continue with this socialist democracy. It will always be arbitrary coercion. Oligarchies will rule. Chaos will follow.
In vivid contrast, Liberalism begins not with coercion, but with voluntary co-operation in markets: the natural order of natural liberty. Voluntary exchanges in the market order must be free, we believe. We therefore oppose legislation on 'victimless crimes' like gambling, prostitution, and ganja peddling. To us, coercion is an actionable tort, and a very grave matter indeed. We dream of a coercion-free natural order. That is why our ideal State is but a provider of Justice, whose only role in a free society is to act against those who disrupt the market order with their unjust actions. Nothing else.
This is Liberty under Law. It yields Freedom and Property, not Equality. To liberals, socialist ideas of Equality are a dangerous deception. The highest political values of liberalism are Freedom and Justice. Yet, we are barred from political participation while Raj Thackeray is legit. "Fair is foul and foul is fair," as Macbeth's witch put it.
To grasp the enormous amount of coercion that Raj Thackeray has unleashed on a very poor minority, recall that at least 50,000 north Indians have fled the state of Maharashtra since he began flexing his Maratha muscles. Why did so many run for their lives?
Unveiled threats are also coercive. Because these threats were not countered by immediate and stern State action, they were deemed imminent by all concerned, who fled. Specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code outlaw political hate speech of the kind Thackeray delivered; but then, the Indian police is itself rooted in arbitrary coercion, and is the very anti-thesis of the 'rule of law', thanks to 60 years of socialist misgovernment.
So, what would happen if liberals took over? Whom would we throw out? This is relevant given that all these politicians place before the voter their own idea of a 'class enemy'. To Raj Thackeray, north Indians are the enemy. To Modi, it is non-Hindoos. Who then are the enemies of Liberalism?
The enemies of liberalism are all those who coerce the rule-following citizenry. Today, apart from some recognized political parties, who must be defeated by State action, the biggest profiteers from arbitrary coercion are the police and the taxation bureaus. A liberal government's first task will be to bring these coercive bureaus to heel. The police must protect petty traders, not loot their surpluses. Taxation must be linked to services provided. Today, taxation is arbitrary and excessive – like those on civil aviation, which transfer business to the unsafe railways. Tolls on stretches of our 'notional highways' are double-taxation, as we already pay dedicated road taxes on automotive fuels. Since we pay the taxes, proper highways must be built as 'freeways'. Similarly, the excise department must be stripped of all licensing powers, so the business of alcohol retailing can be free. Further, the customs department must either be abolished (like octroi), or a small 'revenue tariff' should be levied on select, bulk imports. A minimalist State requiring minimal taxation: that is the liberal ideal.
Where masses are poor, taxation must be lighter still. If liberals come into positions of authority and responsibility, it is not the Muslim or the Bihari who should fear for his life – but the police, the excise, the customs, the income tax: these coercive bureaus will feel the heat. And that's a promise.
To conclude: There is hope for liberalism as compared with all other political ideologies only because we do not require coercion for the fulfillment of our political ideals. Since all other political creeds require coercion, they are foredoomed to failure because there is an limit beyond which none will submit to authority. For this crucial reason, based on an appreciation of the limits to coercion as well as a principled understanding of the legitimate use of coercive powers, liberalism is destined to prevail over all competing political visions. It is only a matter of Time.
The reason behind this eclipse of reason is not difficult to find. Coercion is their motto not because they are anti-democratic, but precisely because they are democratic. The process we call democracy in India is riddled with coercion. Anyone who runs a political party holds vast powers over all members; a political party is a power hierarchy based on 'hegemonic relationships'. (Business hierarchies are 'contractual'.) When politicians vote within democratic assemblies, each member must respect the orders of his 'party whip'. The very term reeks of coercion. Then there is the Party High Command (or Politburo). Theirs is the 'vote motive'. Or is it 'rent motive'? Compared to these motives, the 'profit motive' is innocent: shubh laabh.
Raj Thackeray is 'political' in the sense that he seeks to represent a majority. He is the leader of a 'recognized' political party and has powers over 'party cadres': they follow his orders. Now, this is true of all political parties. It is because of this very reason that Roberto Michels propounded his Iron Law of Oligarchy way back in 1915: "Hierarchical political parties can never yield a classless, socialist society," he wrote. "Where the instrument is hierarchical, how can classlessness result?"; adding, most accurately, "socialism will fail at the moment of its adherents' triumph."
The politics of Thackerayism, Moditva, Buddhadevism, Lalooism, and Nehruvianism are all 'legitimate': all these recognized, hierarchical political parties swear by 'socialism', as defined not only in the Constitution of India, but in their party constitutions as well. But the reality of hegemonic power relations within each party hierarchy should wake us up to the fact that the way we are headed is not the classlessness of socialism, but something purely diabolical instead. It is politics without principle, based on coercion. It is aimed at taking control of the dysfunctional State – which provides access to further coercion, through legislation, through taxation, and through manipulation of the police and the administration. Never will we attain the ideal of Socialist Equality if we continue with this socialist democracy. It will always be arbitrary coercion. Oligarchies will rule. Chaos will follow.
In vivid contrast, Liberalism begins not with coercion, but with voluntary co-operation in markets: the natural order of natural liberty. Voluntary exchanges in the market order must be free, we believe. We therefore oppose legislation on 'victimless crimes' like gambling, prostitution, and ganja peddling. To us, coercion is an actionable tort, and a very grave matter indeed. We dream of a coercion-free natural order. That is why our ideal State is but a provider of Justice, whose only role in a free society is to act against those who disrupt the market order with their unjust actions. Nothing else.
This is Liberty under Law. It yields Freedom and Property, not Equality. To liberals, socialist ideas of Equality are a dangerous deception. The highest political values of liberalism are Freedom and Justice. Yet, we are barred from political participation while Raj Thackeray is legit. "Fair is foul and foul is fair," as Macbeth's witch put it.
To grasp the enormous amount of coercion that Raj Thackeray has unleashed on a very poor minority, recall that at least 50,000 north Indians have fled the state of Maharashtra since he began flexing his Maratha muscles. Why did so many run for their lives?
Unveiled threats are also coercive. Because these threats were not countered by immediate and stern State action, they were deemed imminent by all concerned, who fled. Specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code outlaw political hate speech of the kind Thackeray delivered; but then, the Indian police is itself rooted in arbitrary coercion, and is the very anti-thesis of the 'rule of law', thanks to 60 years of socialist misgovernment.
So, what would happen if liberals took over? Whom would we throw out? This is relevant given that all these politicians place before the voter their own idea of a 'class enemy'. To Raj Thackeray, north Indians are the enemy. To Modi, it is non-Hindoos. Who then are the enemies of Liberalism?
The enemies of liberalism are all those who coerce the rule-following citizenry. Today, apart from some recognized political parties, who must be defeated by State action, the biggest profiteers from arbitrary coercion are the police and the taxation bureaus. A liberal government's first task will be to bring these coercive bureaus to heel. The police must protect petty traders, not loot their surpluses. Taxation must be linked to services provided. Today, taxation is arbitrary and excessive – like those on civil aviation, which transfer business to the unsafe railways. Tolls on stretches of our 'notional highways' are double-taxation, as we already pay dedicated road taxes on automotive fuels. Since we pay the taxes, proper highways must be built as 'freeways'. Similarly, the excise department must be stripped of all licensing powers, so the business of alcohol retailing can be free. Further, the customs department must either be abolished (like octroi), or a small 'revenue tariff' should be levied on select, bulk imports. A minimalist State requiring minimal taxation: that is the liberal ideal.
Where masses are poor, taxation must be lighter still. If liberals come into positions of authority and responsibility, it is not the Muslim or the Bihari who should fear for his life – but the police, the excise, the customs, the income tax: these coercive bureaus will feel the heat. And that's a promise.
To conclude: There is hope for liberalism as compared with all other political ideologies only because we do not require coercion for the fulfillment of our political ideals. Since all other political creeds require coercion, they are foredoomed to failure because there is an limit beyond which none will submit to authority. For this crucial reason, based on an appreciation of the limits to coercion as well as a principled understanding of the legitimate use of coercive powers, liberalism is destined to prevail over all competing political visions. It is only a matter of Time.
TEACHING TO DESPISE FREEDOM
Since our enemies, the socialists, emphasize the role of their State in 'education', I have always taken the position that the content of their textbooks must be exposed as dangerous for young minds.
I am therefore happy to note that the great philosopher Anthony de Jasay has penned a column for The Library of Economics & Liberty that says Economic textbooks in Europe teach the young to despise liberty.
If this is the condition in Europe, how much worse must it be in India.
Do take a look at one of my prize-winning articles of 2002, called "Teacher! Don't Teach Nonsense", on the website of The Centre for Civil Society, New Delhi.
Do browse through this website for many more interesting articles.
If you go through the books published by CCS, you will find my Free Your Mind: A Beginner's Guide to Political Economy, which can be downloaded for free. This book has been translated into Hindi and Gujarati already, and is soon to be published in Chinese!
I have a second edition of this ready, so if any publisher is interested, do write to me.
I am therefore happy to note that the great philosopher Anthony de Jasay has penned a column for The Library of Economics & Liberty that says Economic textbooks in Europe teach the young to despise liberty.
If this is the condition in Europe, how much worse must it be in India.
Do take a look at one of my prize-winning articles of 2002, called "Teacher! Don't Teach Nonsense", on the website of The Centre for Civil Society, New Delhi.
Do browse through this website for many more interesting articles.
If you go through the books published by CCS, you will find my Free Your Mind: A Beginner's Guide to Political Economy, which can be downloaded for free. This book has been translated into Hindi and Gujarati already, and is soon to be published in Chinese!
I have a second edition of this ready, so if any publisher is interested, do write to me.
Friday, March 21, 2008
SOCIALISM AND THE SUPREME COURT
Deepak Lal has contributed his might to the classical liberal side. In an excellent article in the Business Standard, he discusses the predatory and anti-freedom bias of socialism. Further, he also question the judgement of India's supreme court, which recently rejected a PIL challenging the Representation of Peoples Act, by which all political parties in India must swear by socialism.
I too have written on this matter, which can be accessed here.
I too have written on this matter, which can be accessed here.
VANISHING POINT
Or How Public Money Disappears Over Rural India
Sixty thousand crore rupees is being spent by our government to waive the loan outstandings of our rural brethren, small and marginal farmers. Just how huge a sum of money this amounts to is apparent if you consider this: if you spent eight lakh rupees each day, every day since the birth of Jesus Christ, the total sum spent would add up to 60,000 crore rupees in a few years from now. This is very big bucks.
But what is the money going to be spent on? Writing off bad debts is not the same as productive investment. Rather, it is a condoning of malinvestments. There is no reason why any section of the population should be indemnified thus. If this is a political gimmick to buy votes, then surely I can win elections in any Indian city promising to write off car and motorcycle loans. What makes it more ethical to write off the loans of poor farmers but not the loans of poor traveling salesmen?
Indeed, ethics and justice demand that the government put its weight behind all debt contracts: All must pay their debts, without exception. That is what 'the rule of law' means. This would be the natural course of events if money and banking had been retained in private hands. However, with both money and banking in the hands of the State, there inevitably ensues the blatant misuse of power for personal, political ends. And, what is worse, it is somehow deemed 'legitimate' in our intellectually corrupt country that those who command the State can nakedly attempt 'to purchase the public affection through gratuitous alienations of the public revenue'.
Yet, this is but a vain delusion. You can certainly buy individuals, but you cannot buy the votes of large masses of people in this way. The 60,000 crore rupees will soon vanish over the parched soil of rural India and not a single Indian will experience even the slightest improvement in his condition. Another government will come and another government will go. They will all perform other such vanishing tricks with 'rural development' in mind. But I bet my bottom dollar that the plight of the peasant will only worsen – especially because of the consequent inflation.
Let us not forget our recent history. Every "big idea" of the Manmohan Singh government is a very old Congress idea. They started 'employment generation programmes' more than 30 years ago. Are peasants better off today because of all this spending? 'Loan melas' were another Congress idea: the result of political control over money, banking and credit. Was a single such loan productive? – in the sense that it generated employment, profit and paid back the principal with interest? Certainly not. Of course, with all this spending, client individuals and groups were cultivated and maintained, as they still are today – but nothing was achieved in the larger interest. And certainly not any improvement in the human condition in either rural or urban India.
In the ultimate analysis, 'rural development' is the greatest hoax ever. No development has occurred anywhere in rural India because of this. Yet, in the same period, every city and town throughout India has been systematically destroyed. Further, during the same period, vast hordes of the rural poor have migrated to cities and towns. Most farmers today want their children to escape farming and set up shop in a city. Yet, a government that so easily throws 60,000 crores away on the rural poor cannot find even 10 percent of that amount to spend on 'urban development'.
Throughout history, great kings have been 'builders of great cities'. Our latter-day rulers are destroyers of great cities – not that they are builders of great villages either.
What should be done? First and foremost, get the Law and Economics theories right, so that the rule of law prevails, and all debt contracts are honoured. Privatize the banks as well as the money so that political tinkering with money, banking and credit can never be attempted by any government in India again. Then, institute free trade with sound money: end both protectionism as well as inflationism. With complete economic freedom added to this, all the right conditions would exist for all the people, especially the poor, to work hard towards improving their own condition.
Next, the voice of the people must be heard. Vox Populi, Vox Dei said the Romans. What are the people crying out for? Are all the people all over the country crying out for loan waivers? Are they crying out for daily wage employment guaranteed by the State? Certainly not. They are all crying out for bijli, paani, sadak – so much so that the acronym BIPASA has been coined to reflect these political demands. Now, bijli must be privatized. Paani too. What the government must step in to provide are roads. By which I mean good, motorable roads. Every village must be meaningfully connected to every single city and town in its neighbourhood. With free trade in used cars, this revolution in transportation will fuel an aggressive urbanization: the winds of urban commerce will fan over rural India. It can never be the other way around – as surely Manmohan Singh and his caucus of central planners should have realized by now.
Today, all the public money is being uselessly spent on things that the people did not demand, but politicians (and the 'spending bureaucracy') did. And it is a lot of money. Miles and miles of good roads could have been built with this money. That is the 'opportunity cost' of bad Economics. False ideas are draining away our national wealth. And these false theorists control 'education'. Give me hope, Joanna!
Sixty thousand crore rupees is being spent by our government to waive the loan outstandings of our rural brethren, small and marginal farmers. Just how huge a sum of money this amounts to is apparent if you consider this: if you spent eight lakh rupees each day, every day since the birth of Jesus Christ, the total sum spent would add up to 60,000 crore rupees in a few years from now. This is very big bucks.
But what is the money going to be spent on? Writing off bad debts is not the same as productive investment. Rather, it is a condoning of malinvestments. There is no reason why any section of the population should be indemnified thus. If this is a political gimmick to buy votes, then surely I can win elections in any Indian city promising to write off car and motorcycle loans. What makes it more ethical to write off the loans of poor farmers but not the loans of poor traveling salesmen?
Indeed, ethics and justice demand that the government put its weight behind all debt contracts: All must pay their debts, without exception. That is what 'the rule of law' means. This would be the natural course of events if money and banking had been retained in private hands. However, with both money and banking in the hands of the State, there inevitably ensues the blatant misuse of power for personal, political ends. And, what is worse, it is somehow deemed 'legitimate' in our intellectually corrupt country that those who command the State can nakedly attempt 'to purchase the public affection through gratuitous alienations of the public revenue'.
Yet, this is but a vain delusion. You can certainly buy individuals, but you cannot buy the votes of large masses of people in this way. The 60,000 crore rupees will soon vanish over the parched soil of rural India and not a single Indian will experience even the slightest improvement in his condition. Another government will come and another government will go. They will all perform other such vanishing tricks with 'rural development' in mind. But I bet my bottom dollar that the plight of the peasant will only worsen – especially because of the consequent inflation.
Let us not forget our recent history. Every "big idea" of the Manmohan Singh government is a very old Congress idea. They started 'employment generation programmes' more than 30 years ago. Are peasants better off today because of all this spending? 'Loan melas' were another Congress idea: the result of political control over money, banking and credit. Was a single such loan productive? – in the sense that it generated employment, profit and paid back the principal with interest? Certainly not. Of course, with all this spending, client individuals and groups were cultivated and maintained, as they still are today – but nothing was achieved in the larger interest. And certainly not any improvement in the human condition in either rural or urban India.
In the ultimate analysis, 'rural development' is the greatest hoax ever. No development has occurred anywhere in rural India because of this. Yet, in the same period, every city and town throughout India has been systematically destroyed. Further, during the same period, vast hordes of the rural poor have migrated to cities and towns. Most farmers today want their children to escape farming and set up shop in a city. Yet, a government that so easily throws 60,000 crores away on the rural poor cannot find even 10 percent of that amount to spend on 'urban development'.
Throughout history, great kings have been 'builders of great cities'. Our latter-day rulers are destroyers of great cities – not that they are builders of great villages either.
What should be done? First and foremost, get the Law and Economics theories right, so that the rule of law prevails, and all debt contracts are honoured. Privatize the banks as well as the money so that political tinkering with money, banking and credit can never be attempted by any government in India again. Then, institute free trade with sound money: end both protectionism as well as inflationism. With complete economic freedom added to this, all the right conditions would exist for all the people, especially the poor, to work hard towards improving their own condition.
Next, the voice of the people must be heard. Vox Populi, Vox Dei said the Romans. What are the people crying out for? Are all the people all over the country crying out for loan waivers? Are they crying out for daily wage employment guaranteed by the State? Certainly not. They are all crying out for bijli, paani, sadak – so much so that the acronym BIPASA has been coined to reflect these political demands. Now, bijli must be privatized. Paani too. What the government must step in to provide are roads. By which I mean good, motorable roads. Every village must be meaningfully connected to every single city and town in its neighbourhood. With free trade in used cars, this revolution in transportation will fuel an aggressive urbanization: the winds of urban commerce will fan over rural India. It can never be the other way around – as surely Manmohan Singh and his caucus of central planners should have realized by now.
Today, all the public money is being uselessly spent on things that the people did not demand, but politicians (and the 'spending bureaucracy') did. And it is a lot of money. Miles and miles of good roads could have been built with this money. That is the 'opportunity cost' of bad Economics. False ideas are draining away our national wealth. And these false theorists control 'education'. Give me hope, Joanna!
THE ANTIDOTE BLOG IS NOTICED
This blog, and the article on the Times of India's phoney liberalism, was noted by Amit Varma, Frederic Bastiat award-winning journalist, on his excellent and extremely popular blog http://www.indiauncut.com/.
This is a good beginning for this blog.
However, Amit seems to have missed the fact that I write a regular column called 'Antidote' for The New Indian Express on Sundays - and have been doing so for over 2 years.
This is the link to the archive of all the articles.
Among them is a hilarious take on the ganja scene in Goa. Enjoy the read.
This is a good beginning for this blog.
However, Amit seems to have missed the fact that I write a regular column called 'Antidote' for The New Indian Express on Sundays - and have been doing so for over 2 years.
This is the link to the archive of all the articles.
Among them is a hilarious take on the ganja scene in Goa. Enjoy the read.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
PHONEY LIBERALISM IN THE TIMES OF INDIA
WRONG, MR. EDITOR
Some months ago, the editor of the Times of India, Gautam Adhikari, published a signed article entitled "Where We Stand" claiming that this leading Indian newspaper is wedded to 'classical liberalism'.
However, the lead editorial of March 15, titled "Clean up Goa", lets the side down. It is illiberal, intolerant and unsympathetic; it is blind to reality; and its prescription is astoundingly impractical. Allow me to elaborate on each point.
The editorial begins by saying that, because of the easy availability of drugs, and because 'liquor flows uninterruptedly', Goa has become 'an attractive hangout for socially dysfunctional people'. Actually, people who successfully 'score' illegal drugs are not at all socially dysfunctional; rather, they are 'black market savvy'; they are 'street smart'. Living in Goa, as I have been for over two years now, it becomes apparent that the really dysfunctional people here are the local alcoholics (and there are scores of them). Still, I wonder if Goa would be a better place if it was like New Delhi, where the government monopolistically sells warm beer in staggeringly hot weather, where drinking in bars in unaffordable even for newspaper editors, and where all queue up outside government shops to buy alcohol.
This first portion of the editorial smacks of intolerance. A true classical liberal would appreciate the fact that 'it takes all kinds to make a world' – and make room in his theories for all these types. Robert Nozick, the liberal philosopher, made the telling point that a truly free society is not one Utopia conceived of by the theorist; rather, it is a 'society of utopianism', wherein each can look for his own utopia.
The next part of the editorial lacks any sympathy for a bereaved mother. This second paragraph should never have been published, being completely irrelevant to the main issue. At a moment of stark state failure, and tragedy, it attempts to implicate a mother who was, in the deepest sense, 'liberal' with her wilful teenage daughter.
Thereafter, the editorial is blind to reality. It asks the totally stupid question: "How is it that the drug trade in Goa is flourishing, that too, in full public view and under the nose of the state police who's duties include cracking down on such activities?" The drug trade is flourishing all over the world, including New Delhi. I myself scored marijuana in London a stone's throw from the headquarters of Scotland Yard. The duties of the Goa police also include ensuring road safety. Every Goan, local as well as tourist, would be safer if this duty was performed. The drug trade should be legalized – but this is probably 'too liberal' an idea for the editor. He wants state action in checking the 'resident status and visa validity' of all foreigners here, a recipe for tyranny. A true liberal would favour a free, long-term 'visa-on-arrival' so that tourism, the largest industry in the world, is encouraged. Goa gets a full forty percent of India's tourism. Of the five million foreigners who risk their necks visiting India every year, two million come to Goa. But fifty million visit China and eighty million go to tiny France. If the editor has his way, tourism in Goa will slump.
The editorial then proceeds to display complete lack of 'knowledge' on drugs saying that 'locally available intoxicants like bhang and charas are a tradition' in Goa. The real hippy tradition here is of ganja. Bhang is not used in Goa, either by locals or tourists. Charas is not a local substance and is imported from the north. Because of illegality, quality charas is hard to find. Only brand names can ensure quality, which requires legalization. I met a group of German tourists who smuggled Moroccan hash into Goa for their holidays, knowing well that good charas is unavailable here. A Dutch tourist I met complained that Goa offered 'bush grass and horseshit hash'. In Holland, all this (and more) is legal, quality is excellent, and the cops are socially functional.
This illiberal, unsympathetic and ignorant editorial then descends to rank idiocy, calling upon Goan civil society to undertake an 'anti-drug crusade' led by the local musician Remo Fernandes. What the state police, armed with draconian legislation and guns, cannot accomplish, cannot be miraculously performed by an ageing performer. Actually, if you talk to drug dealers, you realise that they do not want legalization, which would ultimately institute a market regime of 'normal profits'. Branded ganja and charas would then be sold at probably the same price as Darjeeling tea. Drug dealers abhor this idea because today their profits are astronomical. They share these huge profits with those in authority, corrupting institutions. This also makes them much more powerful than any civil society group. If Remo took up cudgels against them armed with just his guitar, he would not get far.
The editor has revealed his Utopia as a drug-free world. He wants this accomplished by state as well as civil society. But the sorry fact is that his vision has no place for the twin liberal values of Freedom and Justice. The editor of the Times of India, thus, is not a liberal at all.
Some months ago, the editor of the Times of India, Gautam Adhikari, published a signed article entitled "Where We Stand" claiming that this leading Indian newspaper is wedded to 'classical liberalism'.
However, the lead editorial of March 15, titled "Clean up Goa", lets the side down. It is illiberal, intolerant and unsympathetic; it is blind to reality; and its prescription is astoundingly impractical. Allow me to elaborate on each point.
The editorial begins by saying that, because of the easy availability of drugs, and because 'liquor flows uninterruptedly', Goa has become 'an attractive hangout for socially dysfunctional people'. Actually, people who successfully 'score' illegal drugs are not at all socially dysfunctional; rather, they are 'black market savvy'; they are 'street smart'. Living in Goa, as I have been for over two years now, it becomes apparent that the really dysfunctional people here are the local alcoholics (and there are scores of them). Still, I wonder if Goa would be a better place if it was like New Delhi, where the government monopolistically sells warm beer in staggeringly hot weather, where drinking in bars in unaffordable even for newspaper editors, and where all queue up outside government shops to buy alcohol.
This first portion of the editorial smacks of intolerance. A true classical liberal would appreciate the fact that 'it takes all kinds to make a world' – and make room in his theories for all these types. Robert Nozick, the liberal philosopher, made the telling point that a truly free society is not one Utopia conceived of by the theorist; rather, it is a 'society of utopianism', wherein each can look for his own utopia.
The next part of the editorial lacks any sympathy for a bereaved mother. This second paragraph should never have been published, being completely irrelevant to the main issue. At a moment of stark state failure, and tragedy, it attempts to implicate a mother who was, in the deepest sense, 'liberal' with her wilful teenage daughter.
Thereafter, the editorial is blind to reality. It asks the totally stupid question: "How is it that the drug trade in Goa is flourishing, that too, in full public view and under the nose of the state police who's duties include cracking down on such activities?" The drug trade is flourishing all over the world, including New Delhi. I myself scored marijuana in London a stone's throw from the headquarters of Scotland Yard. The duties of the Goa police also include ensuring road safety. Every Goan, local as well as tourist, would be safer if this duty was performed. The drug trade should be legalized – but this is probably 'too liberal' an idea for the editor. He wants state action in checking the 'resident status and visa validity' of all foreigners here, a recipe for tyranny. A true liberal would favour a free, long-term 'visa-on-arrival' so that tourism, the largest industry in the world, is encouraged. Goa gets a full forty percent of India's tourism. Of the five million foreigners who risk their necks visiting India every year, two million come to Goa. But fifty million visit China and eighty million go to tiny France. If the editor has his way, tourism in Goa will slump.
The editorial then proceeds to display complete lack of 'knowledge' on drugs saying that 'locally available intoxicants like bhang and charas are a tradition' in Goa. The real hippy tradition here is of ganja. Bhang is not used in Goa, either by locals or tourists. Charas is not a local substance and is imported from the north. Because of illegality, quality charas is hard to find. Only brand names can ensure quality, which requires legalization. I met a group of German tourists who smuggled Moroccan hash into Goa for their holidays, knowing well that good charas is unavailable here. A Dutch tourist I met complained that Goa offered 'bush grass and horseshit hash'. In Holland, all this (and more) is legal, quality is excellent, and the cops are socially functional.
This illiberal, unsympathetic and ignorant editorial then descends to rank idiocy, calling upon Goan civil society to undertake an 'anti-drug crusade' led by the local musician Remo Fernandes. What the state police, armed with draconian legislation and guns, cannot accomplish, cannot be miraculously performed by an ageing performer. Actually, if you talk to drug dealers, you realise that they do not want legalization, which would ultimately institute a market regime of 'normal profits'. Branded ganja and charas would then be sold at probably the same price as Darjeeling tea. Drug dealers abhor this idea because today their profits are astronomical. They share these huge profits with those in authority, corrupting institutions. This also makes them much more powerful than any civil society group. If Remo took up cudgels against them armed with just his guitar, he would not get far.
The editor has revealed his Utopia as a drug-free world. He wants this accomplished by state as well as civil society. But the sorry fact is that his vision has no place for the twin liberal values of Freedom and Justice. The editor of the Times of India, thus, is not a liberal at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)