As the youthful, ebullient and exciting India turns 60, there is a cheerful optimism everywhere. Be it on stock market (we can discount the recent bloodbath), in the movies (rhetoric Chak de India), on the streets, on the playground (a series win in England after 21 years). It is everywhere.
But yes we may be on the way to becoming an economic superpower (thanks to the best seller called the BRIC report) but are we anywhere near to being a social superpower. A friend with whom I was discussing this said that he was happy that we are better than China in this at least. But can we really derive any succor in that?
One of the lines that has always haunted me in the past is
“In India we don’t cast our votes, we vote our caste”
Reservation is all over the place. Riots are not a thing of the past. But not just that, I think all of this is a result of the huge and ever widening economic divide between the people.
Two questions plastered by DNA newspaper all over the Mumbai city are
1) Stock market crosses 15,000. Will 40 million Indian cross the poverty line?
2) What has India done for you? What have you done for India?
Well enough of the crying hoarse stuff from me. I know you can counter me by saying that I am probably a leftist and am against the success of our financial bodies and that these problems might be a price we are paying for development. But all I can say is that I am a humanist. Warren Buffet said-“if you belong to the top 1% of the lucky people in the world, you owe it to humanity to think after the rest 99% of the world”.
Ohhhk…
Well now about “India and Adams Smith- Problem”
As I was thinking about India, Indians and our push from developing to developed country’s league, I couldn’t stop thinking about the “Adam Smith problem” and how that fact that it is probably more relevant for India than ever before.
In his book, “An enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” which he wrote on account of the Industrial revolution he said that there were three main concepts which formed the foundation of the laissez faire (or the theory of free trade) and thus were essential for forming the wealth of a nation. These were:
1) Division of labor
2) Pursuit of Self interest
3) Freedom of trade
Of these three, pursuit of Self interest had always remained a bone of contention. Smith maintained that self interest alone can lead to socially beneficial results. But in his other equally famous books he argues sympathy is required to achieve socially beneficial results. More specifically, Smith in his book “The theory of Moral sentiments”, divided moral systems into:
Categories of the nature of morality. These included Propriety, Prudence, and Benevolence.
Categories of the motive of morality. These included Self-love, Reason, and Sentiment.
On the very face of this, it looks and sounds contadictary
On one side you have self interest and on the other you cite reciprocal altrusim.
So that’s the case with our youthful India as well. In our aim to be a econimic superpower, should our growth be inclusive or exclusive. Can we be selfish and make a complete mockery of our poor brethren and adopt a simple behavior of denial and go on with our daily routine of contributing to the GDP or should be take a proactive role and try to make the growth more “real”.
I personally believe that Mr. Adam Smith was not as big a fool as we may think him to be. I believe that he probably interpreted Self interest as a community behavior. Also I think there are more differences between “Self interest” and “Selfishness” than just the difference in their spellings. J
So although you and I might differ on the ways to get there, but I think the best part is that our destinaton is one and the same thing!!!
And though I don’t want to sound like a complete whaco, but being the complete movie freak that I am, I can only say
“Waqt hamara hai!!”
Ps: this was a crazy movie starring Akshay Kumar and Suniel Shetty!!!!!
But yes we may be on the way to becoming an economic superpower (thanks to the best seller called the BRIC report) but are we anywhere near to being a social superpower. A friend with whom I was discussing this said that he was happy that we are better than China in this at least. But can we really derive any succor in that?
One of the lines that has always haunted me in the past is
“In India we don’t cast our votes, we vote our caste”
Reservation is all over the place. Riots are not a thing of the past. But not just that, I think all of this is a result of the huge and ever widening economic divide between the people.
Two questions plastered by DNA newspaper all over the Mumbai city are
1) Stock market crosses 15,000. Will 40 million Indian cross the poverty line?
2) What has India done for you? What have you done for India?
Well enough of the crying hoarse stuff from me. I know you can counter me by saying that I am probably a leftist and am against the success of our financial bodies and that these problems might be a price we are paying for development. But all I can say is that I am a humanist. Warren Buffet said-“if you belong to the top 1% of the lucky people in the world, you owe it to humanity to think after the rest 99% of the world”.
Ohhhk…
Well now about “India and Adams Smith- Problem”
As I was thinking about India, Indians and our push from developing to developed country’s league, I couldn’t stop thinking about the “Adam Smith problem” and how that fact that it is probably more relevant for India than ever before.
In his book, “An enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” which he wrote on account of the Industrial revolution he said that there were three main concepts which formed the foundation of the laissez faire (or the theory of free trade) and thus were essential for forming the wealth of a nation. These were:
1) Division of labor
2) Pursuit of Self interest
3) Freedom of trade
Of these three, pursuit of Self interest had always remained a bone of contention. Smith maintained that self interest alone can lead to socially beneficial results. But in his other equally famous books he argues sympathy is required to achieve socially beneficial results. More specifically, Smith in his book “The theory of Moral sentiments”, divided moral systems into:
Categories of the nature of morality. These included Propriety, Prudence, and Benevolence.
Categories of the motive of morality. These included Self-love, Reason, and Sentiment.
On the very face of this, it looks and sounds contadictary
On one side you have self interest and on the other you cite reciprocal altrusim.
So that’s the case with our youthful India as well. In our aim to be a econimic superpower, should our growth be inclusive or exclusive. Can we be selfish and make a complete mockery of our poor brethren and adopt a simple behavior of denial and go on with our daily routine of contributing to the GDP or should be take a proactive role and try to make the growth more “real”.
I personally believe that Mr. Adam Smith was not as big a fool as we may think him to be. I believe that he probably interpreted Self interest as a community behavior. Also I think there are more differences between “Self interest” and “Selfishness” than just the difference in their spellings. J
So although you and I might differ on the ways to get there, but I think the best part is that our destinaton is one and the same thing!!!
And though I don’t want to sound like a complete whaco, but being the complete movie freak that I am, I can only say
“Waqt hamara hai!!”
Ps: this was a crazy movie starring Akshay Kumar and Suniel Shetty!!!!!
1 comment:
Hmmmm....nice thoughts....
Post a Comment