More from Miniya Chatterji

The following excerpt from Miniya Chatterji's 'Indian Instincts' was published in 'The Print'. Was it for the purpose of holding up the author to ridicule and contempt?

Surely not.

Yet what other outcome could there have been?

Judge for yourself.

Would Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the man who led the writing of the Indian Constitution, be considered anti-national today?

No. All parties are casting lots for his mantle. Everybody knows this.

Ambedkar had an antagonistic relationship with Mahatma Gandhi and many other leaders of the freedom movement in the 1930s and 1940s. He had also rejected the Hindu religion. In 1939, Ambedkar said, ‘Whenever there is any conflict of interest between the country and the untouchables, so far as I am concerned, the untouchables’ interests will take precedence over the interests of the country,’ a statement that, among several others, clarified his allegiance to his cause over his country. All of these actions would be considered anti-national today!

If so, why did Modi spend a lot of money to buy a house in London where Ambedkar stayed and turn it into a shrine to the Dalit leader? Ambedkar's words and actions are better known today- thanks to the internet than ever before. If his actions were considered 'anti-national', he would not be so universally revered.

This raises the question, what did Ambedkar want? The answer is one thing and one thing alone. Equality for Dalits. But, since Dalits are a sizable group found all over India, any improvement in their condition and life chances is an improvement for the whole of India. If their condition stagnates, the country stagnates. It becomes weaker. It can have no 'demographic dividend'. Rather it will have a mill-stone around its neck.

No doubt, many Hindus consider Untouchability to be a crime against Religion and Spirituality. That is a separate matter.

Would the same tag also be placed on Rabindranath Tagore, the brilliant poet and Nobel laureate?

No. Don't be silly. He was a patriot and wrote the national anthem. He was a very effective Ambassador for India in Asian countries like Iran, China & Japan.

After all, Tagore had rather radical views on nationalism. He believed that intense love for the nation, which manifests in the conviction of national superiority and the glorification of cultural heritage, is used to justify narrow-minded national interest. Writing in 1917, Tagore said, ‘When this organization of politics and commerce, whose other name is the Nation, becomes all powerful at the cost of the harmony of higher social life, then it is an evil day for humanity.’

If anything becomes 'all powerful' it will be an evil day for humanity. So what? Tagore, like many others, condemned the chauvinistic Nationalism typified by the Kaiser's Germany during the Great War. However, he was no lackey of Imperialism. He returned his Knighthood in protest at the Jallianwallah Bagh atrocity.

And going by the reasoning rationale, would Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, also be considered anti-national? He went against the wishes of the ruler, his father, and abandoned his responsibility to govern Shakya.

Actually, Buddha's father was not a King. The Shakya were a tribal confederacy. Ambedkar has explained the sensible manner in which Lord Buddha conciliated the Shaka Sangha and reconciled them to his Religious mission.

He must have been distinctly anti-establishment as well to have gone ahead and created a new religion!

Very true. There was an Establishment and there was a Nation back then. Lord Buddha went to Starbucks and then texted his Daddy. He published a hard hitting attack upon the Shakya elite on his blog.

But all these debates and arguments were quickly set aside.

There was never any debate or argument over anything so stupid.

The events of the last two years of right-wing political leadership in India have been such that in the name of nationalism we are now often told what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot watch, what we can and cannot speak about, what we must sing and how.

In some Indian States bare possession of beef is a criminal offense. But this has been true for many years and is supported by a Directive Principle in the Constitution which Dr. Ambedkar worked on. Apart from this, people can eat what they like. Similarly, there have always been censorship of films and television programs as well as certain public interest restrictions on free expression. There is not now, nor has there ever been any stipulation or restriction on 'what we may sing and how'.

Miniya may believe that 'Nationalism' is responsible for repression. However, no elected Indian leader has been anything but 'Nationalist'. Miniya may believe that Indira Gandhi or Manmohan Singh had a deep aversion to Indian Nationalism and that what delighted them most was seeing same-sex couple copulating on the public thoroughfare, but such was not actually the case.

Couples who merely hold hands are harassed and attacked, because expressing love is not ‘Indian’.

There may indeed be a public order offence which they are committing. That is a question for the municipality or other regulatory body.

Are all notions of rights to be immobilized in the face of nationalism?

No. Don't be silly. A Nation may chose, as India has done, to be a Democracy under the Rule of Law- in which case justiciable rights and entitlements exist. However, these rights are defeasible in the public interest by a due process of law.

Are we yet another nation state in the developing world that initially promised high ideals of emancipation and freedom to its citizens, and is later unable to do so?

Emancipation means freedom. The Rule of Law specifies a bundle of Hohfeldian Rights as constituting freedom. These may be extended or changed in the public interest.

Or is ‘nationalism’, and even ‘anti-nationalism’, so abstract that its meaning can be manipulated to intimidate and beat down voices of dissent and criticism?

In other words, are you talking sense or nonsense? The answer is nonsense.

India is a diverse country, and its people have different views about the idea of India and their relationship with it. Instead of silencing those who hold a different view, why can we not respect these differences? And why can the reason for that not be the Constitution or our laws, but basic respect towards humanity and human diversity?

Why can't Miniya accept that Narendra Modi has a different idea of India which he is trying to implement because the voters have asked him to do it? Why is Miniya pretending that anyone is 'silencing' her?

The reason good people who have 'basic respect towards humanity and human diversity' nevertheless may decide to have a written Constitution is because Laws serve a signalling and coordinating function. They reduce ambiguity and uncertainty and permit good faith relationships to flourish.

Miniya is saying- 'Why do we need laws? If everyone were nice, there would be no need for them'? Has her very expensive education been completely wasted?

We have given enough importance to politics in regard to nationalism. Perhaps it is because we do not make enough of a distinction between ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’.

Miniya may be too stupid to understand that a nation- i.e a group of people speaking the same language and inhabiting the same territory- can exist without 'nationalism'. However, if that group wishes to improve public good provision- thus creating justiciable rights of an incentive compatible kind- it will gravitate towards a nationalistic polity.

As we know, nation states are a nineteenth-century European creation,

Nonsense! The first modern nation-state was the United States of America. The French followed the American example as did other nationalities within Europe- like the Hungarians, the Poles, the Czechs etc. However, the Nineteenth Century in Europe was characterised by Empires and Monarchies. It was not till the after the Great War that Nation States- Republics on the American model- became the rule rather than the exception.

and following in Europe’s footsteps, India became one only seventy years ago. But nationalism is an emotion,

No. Patriotism is an emotion. Nationalism is a political ideology. India was following the footsteps of non-European entities like Turkey, Iraq, etc. It's constitution was more similar to that of the Republic of Eire.

it is a sense of relationship with the community that we agree to be governed with. Nationalism predates nation states. Our ancestors could have felt nationalistic towards their tribe or kingdom, just as we do towards our country.

No. Our ancestors felt patriotism for their natal territorial unit. It was only after it became obvious that superior public good provision would arise on a broader basis that Nationalism took off.

For various reasons, we agree to be part of a common governance structure, and so an entity that has political boundaries—tribe, kingdom, country—is created.

Miniya is peddling a 'Social Contract' theory. However, the Economic theory of 'incomplete contracts' has moved on a great deal over the last three decades. Agreement is not required or expected in the type of incomplete adhesion contract most of us are confronted with in our day to day life.

Therein lies the link between politics and nationalism.

Not so. Nationalism is seldom a Contractarian theory.

But in a liberal set-up in any era, the way we feel towards a specific entity must not be defined by the political class.

In a liberal set-up nothing is defined by any class. An independent Judiciary acts as check upon the Executive branch. The Legislature is similarly circumscribed in its freedom of action.

It is how we feel towards the entity that must define the agenda of the political class that governs us.

Nonsense! How people feel should not 'define' the agenda of the political class. It is their job to make good decisions and then garner broad support for those decisions. That is what is happening in Modi's India. The people want good governance. They don't know the precise details as to how that can be achieved. The Executive must make tough decisions and run certain risks. If it gets things wrong, it has to backtrack. The Judiciary can play a helpful role in this process as can the Legislature. However, as the old saw has it 'hard cases make bad law'. Thus to tackle atrocities against Dalits or dowry deaths or other such manifest injustices, bad laws may be passed. It may be necessary to reform those laws to prevent them from being misused. People like Miniya ought to study such matters in a dispassionate manner and suggest how governance can be improved. They should not write lazy rubbish of a hysterical sort.

Consider this excerpt from her book published in the Pioneer

 Fair distribution of profits can only happen when economic development is not just driven by the whims of individuals, but instead is balanced with institutional checks and balances.

Is this true? Not according to economic theory or, indeed, common sense. What matters is market power. If a monopoly or monopsony exists it is likely that rents will be extracted and allocative inefficiency will result. The solution is to have a judicially enforceable Competition Policy. In open markets, this is not necessary. Individuals don't have 'whims', they are actuated by rational self-interest.
Institutions, by contrast, are vulnerable to 'Agency Capture'- i.e. far from acting as a 'check or balance', they become a source of rent extraction. That is what happened in India.

On one hand, India offers one of the most tiresome conditions in the world for business — if done ethically.

Why? Because high compliance costs are a barrier to entry and create rents for politically connected players.

Yet on the other hand, the loose set of ever-changing rules and massive market opportunity makes it easy to play on the loopholes and profit immensely.

Easy for whom? Those with connections.

This is the brittle structure many Indian corporates are built on today. They have looked out for loopholes in the law, at times may or may not have taken advantage of the weak regulatory oversight, and capitalised on the enormous Indian demographic dividend. It is a risky game they play, but the rules are so weak that the game becomes easy. But when crisis occurs, then the weak organisational coherence, both internally and in the external regulatory environment, does not hold up, leading to institutional accidents. As a result there is a heightened risk of the collapse of the various parts that had held the corporation together.

Miniya is telling us an old story. We all know this already. The truth is we need a massive shake-out in the Corporate sector- more particularly in those sectors where Nationalised Banks have recklessly financed expansion- so as to release resources for more productive purposes.

Rents are a way to hedge risk. Increase risk where it should be increased and rents will disappear by themselves.

It is by no means am I maligning corporations, or saying that being astute in raking in profits is a bad thing. Instead, my point is that for profits to be conducive for economic development, the manner in which profit is earned and distributed needs to be fair.

Miniya's point is stupid. Nobody can define 'fairness' because we don't know what shadow prices we should be using. Why? The future fitness landscape is unknown and characterised by Knightian uncertainty. Back in the fifties and sixties, mathematical economists spent a lot of time on 'turnpike theorems'. Morishima even came up with a 'rational distribution' theorem. But these were useless. We don't know the future so can't say what the optimal price vector for signalling should be.

Saying 'profits should be earned fairly' is worthless pi-jaw. Profit is a reward for risk. We don't know what the actual risk is. The interest rate should be the real return on a riskless asset. We don't know which assets are riskless.

Fair distribution of profits can only happen when economic development is not just driven by the whims of individuals but instead is balanced with institutional checks and balances.

Miniya is repeating herself word for word.  Her English is poor- probably because of her long residence in Paris- but it sounds very sweet to her own ears.

Why? Because without the appropriate checks and balances, first, the gains will be concentrated in few groups, while the losses will be diffused among many,

If there are no Institutional, as opposed to purely Juristic, 'checks and balances' then there will be lower barriers to entry. Thus gains will not be concentrated, they will be dissipated, because of entry of new players. Losses will not be diffused but concentrated on complacent, 'satisficing', existing behemoths. There is a saying 'the best of monopoly profits is a quiet life'. When new entrants use more up to date technology or have flatter hierarchies or otherwise eliminate 'X inefficiency', the losses are taken by the few whereas benefits are diffused to the many.

as a result of which, the number of people becoming poorer in the society will only increase;

This has never happened in any country where competition is encouraged. China and even India have seen hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty precisely because institutional barriers to entry have been relaxed or abolished.

second, it produces nouveaux riches who are often imperfectly adjusted to the existing order and who will keep wanting more power and social status commensurate with their new economic position,

That's a good thing. When 'Green Revolution' farmers started asserting themselves the country benefited. The elite may not have liked these upstarts but then the elite was failing its own children- most of whom had to emigrate.

which then widens the socio-economic gap between rich and poor;

Such gaps are a good thing. There was a time when the elite satirised the peasant by saying 'if the crop is good, the Jat starts planning his next murder- because he will have enough money for lawyer's fees.' Nowadays, we know the peasant will sell his land to get his daughter into Medical School or some other such course which will give her a good income. Why? It is because the peasant can see the 'socio-economic gap' in his own village between those who made smart investments and those who clung to the old ways.

third, eventually increased literacy, education, and exposure to mass media, will allow people to recognise the widening wealth gap, and make society frustrated and lose hope.

When Indians saw movies showing American affluence the did not become frustrated and lose hope. They begged or borrowed money and got qualifications which enabled them to get a Green Card. Later, many returned to India because they saw a way to get even richer.

People became frustrated and lost hope when the Government told them to skip a meal to solve the food crisis. The miserabilism of the elite destroyed its own foundations.

At the crux of it, just as democracy is as ineffective as a dictatorship if it does not represent consensus, legitimacy, and justice, similarly all we are left with is a disastrous form of crony capitalism, if the people — both at corporates and government — implementing the checks and balances are not ethically mindful.

Sheer nonsense. Consider the great Development Economist, Sukhamoy Chakroborty. Indira made him head of the Planning Commission. Her Minister for Industries was a Bengali Philosopher. Both men were 'ethically mindful'. They were also crawling sycophants. India suffered greatly because of their moral imbecility. Crony Capitalism abounded in Left Front Bengal. Was it because it did not have 'checks and balances'? It had too much of them. There were plenty of 'ethically mindful' people involved. Comrade Buddha was personally completely clean. Still, we all know what type of violence the regime unleashed so as to grab land for crony capitalists.

It does not matter whether you represent 'consensus, legitimacy and justice' if you create barriers to entry in their name because the outcome will be divisive politics, an illegitimate administration, and massive manifest injustice.

Indeed in corporations, just as is the case in politics, it is not just the form of governance, but the degree of governance that is important.

Nonsense. Hiring a 'sustainablity' officer or appointing an internal Moral Auditor is just eye-wash. 'Processes' don't matter. Only outcomes do. Sustainable outcomes are based on lower per unit cost and higher value added. Hiring Miniya to talk nonsense on your behalf won't fool anybody. Nor will strutting around at Davos. If Business, is your business, just get on with it. Don't talk shite.

Ultimately governments and corporations are made of people, who can neglect or pay lip service to ethics, compliances, and regulations in a mechanical way without even applying their mind.

That is why there must be a regular shake-out of not-fit-for-purpose programs and personnel. Every Agency should have a Sunset clause. India still has a Salt commission and various Bhoodan Commissions and so forth. Get rid of them. Let them go the way of the Planning Commission.

The dwindling capacity of each of us to think, evaluate, and choose, affects our values, ethics, emotions, and volition.

Miniya's capacity has certainly dwindled. She couldn't possibly have written such drivel while a post-Doc at Columbia.

If our education — at home, school, and society — forbids us to think for ourselves, then we end up being fake replicas of one another, trying to mimic but failing, as it is impossible to be entirely like another person.

If we can't think for ourselves how are we supposed to choose a target for Tardean mimesis? Cows are very badly educated. When is the last time you saw a cow trying to mimic Shah Rukh Khan?

So we become second-handers, allowing ourselves to be run by the others, in our eternal quest to be like the other.

This may be true of Bengali academics. On the surface they appear to be imitating a Western model. But, only on the surface. We soon realise they are just talking worthless Bengali crap of the laziest sort.
A Gujerati or Marwari or Sindhi who decides to imitate the most successful entrepreneur in a certain field is not a 'second hander'. He won't stop till he is the best at what he does.
Bengalis aren't different. Bose is considered to be very good at making music systems. There are many very smart Bengalis who are at the top of STEM type fields. It is only worthless self-publicists who give the region a bad name.

But we will be constantly told that we are still not good enough, making us work harder to resemble the prototype. This is the dysfunctional utopia that corporations thrive on.

She means 'dystopia'. Is Jindal really so crap? I thought it was simply clever at bribing politicians and officials. Did the Jindals stand over Miniya with a whip in their hands to force her to write this worthless book?

By the time we join as executives in an organisation, our faculty of reasoning is so rusted that we cannot assess how we truly feel about what we do.

Miniya said Indian education had completely excised the faculty of reasoning. So how could it get rusted? The answer must be that  this reasoning faculty regenerated itself while studying abroad. However, on return to India, it immediately got rusted.

So if you want to be able to reason, you should leave India and never, ever, return. The place is a shit-hole. Look at how badly Miniya is now writing English! It must be the case that working in India has rusted her reasoning power. Otherwise how can some one who has been a Post Doc scholar in the US write such terrible English.

That, which was supposed to be a rather basic activity of earning a currency to barter for the goods we ourselves cannot produce, now governs our life.

There is a Bengali expression 'We don't want work. We want employment.' Miniya may think that employers should just pay your salary while leaving you free to think beautiful thoughts. However, the truth is, your thoughts will be foolish. By contrast, if you start thinking about how to do your job better and how to have a better life, then your reasoning skills start to improve. You stop talking and writing shite and may amount to something in the world.

We ferociously chase career choices that the majority around us desire, each one in the crowd quite not knowing why they want it so bad.

Perhaps in adolescence we have this sort of crowd mentality. But most people find work rewarding in itself and exert themselves to be the best they can be at what they do. This has spin off benefits in other areas of their lives.

We are ready to make great sacrifices — choosing where to live, what to do with the major chunk of each day of our lives — according to the dictate of corporations.

Boo hoo! Poor Miniya! Did those evil Jindals make you do some work in return for a fat salary? How beastly of them!

Similar to religion, a corporate ‘job’ has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language — placing them outside this earth and thus out of our reach.

I know plenty of people in Corporate jobs. The best amongst them would happily quit to found their own business if circumstances were propitious. Miniya is describing the 'box wallah' mindset of a vanished Bengal.

Because it is supposedly our moral duty to offer our obeisance to God and the boss, with a heightened reverence that can be attributed only to the divine and the employer. We blindly follow what the others do, and cannot apply our minds to appreciate gender, cultural, and other diversity around us. We are unable to decipher the direction of our moral compass inside of us, when confronted with matters of ethical dilemma. We simply reproduce the mannerisms of others around us, or merely and thoughtlessly do what gets us quicker to our goal, so that we can all fit in to becoming one homogenous blotch of nothingness. It is this highest level of our emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of corporations.

Hysterical rubbish. The Jindals may have hired Miniya for a purely cosmetic purpose. However, any executive in a mission critical field who spends his time paying obeisance to his boss rather than figuring out how to lower costs or boost value will be shunted out, provided entry into the relevant industry is unrestricted.

In general, there is no commercial field where genuine action-guiding dilemma's exist. If in doubt, consult a lawyer. Otherwise quit.

Why does Miniya think we should 'apply our minds to appreciate gender, cultural and other diversity'? Either that diversity represents a separating equilibrium- in which case an arbitrage opportunity exists which it is our fiduciary duty to identify and act upon- or it is immaterial. Appreciating it is pointless.

Miniya's book is a good example of a big Corporation marketing worthless shite based upon the author's credentials. It displays 'emotions' and advances 'arguments' so as to 'fit into one homogeneous blotch of nothingness.' Either that or it is a subtle work of satire based on our preconceptions regarding the unfathomable stupidity of hysterical Bengali buddhijivis.