A heads-up: Radio Open Source is doing a special show on class relations in India tonight at 7pm Eastern Time. It’s partly inspired by the recent Pankaj Mishra Op-Ed we discussed a little last week, which challenged the myth of the booming “new India.”
This isn’t more “negative” talk about India’s poverty or backwardness. I talked to the show’s producer (Robin) a bit on the phone last week, and what I got from her is that they don’t really want to do either a “negative” or “positive” spin on India. They also don’t want to throw around a lot of general economic statistics (GDP, economic growth indicators, etc.), since those things don’t tell you very much about how and whether people’s lives have been affected by the changes that have been occurring since the early 1990s. Rather, they simply want to explore the changes socially, culturally, and historically, and understand it as realistically and completely as possible. And to do that, they want illustrative anecdotes and first hand testimony from a range of sources and perspectives.
It’s a very noble and unusual approach for a radio show to take, and I’ll be listening in to see how it goes. ROS is unique in that they often take comments posted on the blog and cite them in the on-air discussion. So if you have something to say on this topic, I suggest you go to their site and leave some comments; they might quote you on the air.
Incidentally, if you miss the show, they generally put up podcasts a few days after the show airs.
this is a great show that people should support, they really try to be “grassroots” (ie, not a gimmick). as the producers joked, i basically produced this show 🙂
Thank you so much for the heads up!!..
As much as I am very excited by the show and think this is an important discussion topic, I am more than a little dismayed by this:
I realize that anecdotes and first hand testimony is much more engaging, interesting and livelier than the quoting of economic and social indicators. Unfortunately, the (relevant) economic and social indicators are the real measure of what is going on, absent personal bias. Too often, the anecdotal evidence that appears in the print and news media is driven by either elitist, glorify the poor, hate the Middle Class bias (see Pankaj Mishra, William Dalrymple, Pavan Verma) or fawning, pro-business mumbo-jumbo bias (see Tom Friedman). In either case, it is well short of intellectual rigor and analytical validity.
In general, this reflects a worrisome broader societal issue (the possible spawn of Derrida and Spivak) where non-science intellectuals tend to favor experience over data.
Notwithstanding the above, I find Atanu and Suketu Mehta to be especially talented and trenchant commenters who are thankfully devoid of either form of bias noted above. Pankaj Mishra on the other hand…
Hari, I agree that anecdotes need to be supported by evidence (and that includes economic statistics). But a lot of the recent discussions have done economic statistics and failed to get beyond that. I think statistics can be made to favor either the free market enthusiasts or the left, depending on which ones are used and how. Are there points of consensus that can be reached?
I think they’ve done a good job in getting one commentor who leans left (Mishra), one who leans to the right economically (Dey), and one who is probably best defined as a realist (Mehta). At the time I put up this post, only Mehta’s name was listed as confirmed.
I just read Atanu Dey’s essay “Who Actually Paid For My Education?” and I was pretty impressed by some of the arguments for reforming the Indian educational system away from the socialist (pseudo-egalitarian?) model.
You wrote: “which challenged the myth of the booming “new India.”” and then “This isnÂ’t more “negative” talk about IndiaÂ’s poverty or backwardness.”
Delicious irony.
Incidentally, Gautam Adhikari’s piece was a nice rebuttal of Mishra’s misguided efforts.
Amardeep, Soemtimes today, I will leave comment on their site. Thanks!!
Also, “They also donÂ’t want to throw around a lot of general economic statistics (GDP, economic growth indicators, etc.), since those things donÂ’t tell you very much about how and whether peopleÂ’s lives have been affected by the changes that have been occurring since the early 1990s. Rather, they simply want to explore the changes socially, culturally, and historically, and understand it as realistically and completely as possible”
Aha! A truly scientific argument. Replace data with anecdotes.
Amardeep – You are a very intelligent person. I didn’t expect you to make/encourage these gaffes.
Quizman, Where is the irony? The cover stories in Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and Time were all positive spin (“booming”; “new India”; “rise of India” etc).
Some commentors to Abhi’s “Jingoism in the blogosphere” post linked to above argued that Mishra’s is simply a negative/leftist counterspin to the positive spin offered by the free market cheerleaders. I don’t know if I agree entirely, but I acknowledge that there is a tradition of econo-pessimism out there on the left.
Perhaps I needed a better transition to explain how I got from point A to point B. At any rate, all I was trying to say is that the producers seem to want to get past ideologically determined positions of “left” and “right” in order to broaden the general understanding.
See my comment #4.
I think there are social and economic indicators that favor the free market enthusiasts (i.e., the statistics that reinforce India’s Middle Class has grown to 300 million people and that there is a strong uplift going on in the next 300 million) and those that favor the left (700 million people are still in some level of poverty and for the bottom tier, it may be getting worse). To me, that’s reflective of the fact that: (i) no one is “right” and (ii) the reality of India is that it is a glass half full (or empty, depending on where one’s politics lean).
So I think, when presented with a full set of statistics, you can reach a consensus. What I think is challenging (as well it should be) is to interpret those statistics into policy and recommendations.
I just fear, as is so often the case in intellectual and political debate, that the right is arguing based off one half of the available statistical information and the left is arguing over the other half (global warming is a classic case in point), that no one ever gets to the point of agreeing on a sophisticated data set and trying to reach a sophisticated interpretation.
In this case, I just worry that three intelligent people are going to argue from their lens without ever agreeing on the raw data set (which is fairly nuanced),
The difference was that the cover stories in Foreign Affairs and the Economist (never read the Time story) were relatively nuanced to the extent that they highlight India’s ongoing deficiencies.
Pankaj Mishra and much of the ecopessimistic left do not appear to be particularly nuanced in their approach.
Oh this should be fun. Having read a little of his work, Mishra’s “anecdotes” tend to be about little men with little dreams living in mofussil towns who turn to either 1) Hindutva or 2) organized crime, to regain their bearings in India’s anarchy. He is indignant in the Naipaulian mode but without Naipaul’s grandeur or style. And he has this curious obsession with American literary critic Edmund Wilson?! Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully some decent comments will get through.
Do we have always have to use the “c” word when we talk about India?
Statistics can be made to favor the right or the left?
Well, spinning the statistics, maybe……Data should never be something that is unimportant. Anecdotes, if they help clarify or bring up an interesting question which can then be further studied, are useful. Anecdotes, in and of themselves, are simply single data points, aren’t they?
This means discussing the statistics, or data, is especially important.
Hari, someone has to be right, no quotation marks. If you ask the question, is there less poverty in India today than ten years ago, surely someone is more correct than someone else? By all means, let’s discuss the statistics.
Question: how many of you who happen to read this site and comment and trained as journalists take math or science or statistics courses? Is this a requirement for journalism schools? This is not meant to be provocative, simply a question.
Actually, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous this is. How on earth do you get past the ideologically if you don’t look at statistics? Sorry,this is not noble or unusual for a radio, or other news, program. This is what all news programs do. If they were to discuss data in depth, now that would be unusual.
MD,
One can be right about a specific fact (i.e.,) – poverty has been reduced in India over the past ten years – A significant portion of Indians live below the poverty line
It is much more difficult to be “right” regarding ideologically based perspectives (i.e.,) – the free market is a bad thing for society – governments should not intervene in economies
Hari
No, it’s just harder to prove that policies arising from one set of ideologies is related to the facts on hand. Say, poverty is decreased in India in the last 10 years. So, why? Going down that road is much more difficult, but it can be studied, and should. Consequences of policies arising from ideologies can absolutely be studied and quantified; it’s just very difficult.
MD, Oh! lovely data. You are my thou guiding light.
I support the general sense of your comments here and call for data.
However,
Often data means jack. Most important is how any data was collected, how fragile the data (error bars, sensistivity, etc.) is, and more important is it really telling what one seems to imply.
Continue your India discussion, I was just a brief interlude.
Amardeep asked “Quizman, Where is the irony? The cover stories in Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and Time were all positive spin (“booming”; “new India”; “rise of India” etc).”
Well, you wrote the word ‘myth’ in your sentence, as if you agreed with Mishra’s assertions. In other words, it seemed to me that you had made up your mind before the debate even began. Then why solicit opinions?
absolutely, Kush. An interesting topic for me, but maybe too dry for others?, would be to take a well-known study that is widely cited in the general public/press and pull it apart. A radio-journal club? The right sort of person could make it downright interesting, but maybe that just reflects my bias.
MD, I would argue that the complexity in policy decision making arises not from the fact that the consequences of such decisions are hard to quantify or even statistically predict. The biggest debate in political economy is deciding what the objective function should be? In essence should the social indifference curves be Utilitarian or Max-Min>
Well, there’s that aspect, isn’t there? Still, we can’t throw up our hands or else how are we going to make any decisions at all? Maybe people would have a better idea of what the objective function should be if they have a better idea of the outcomes of certain decisions? Because, there will be outcomes, right?
Aye MD didi, there’s the rub. Who decides what it should be? Is a difficult problem. They have trouble deciding which direction to lean on. However, you are right, it is not enough to throw one’s hands up. Even in the presence of these factors decisions can be made which are relatively agreeable to both parties. But the real problem lies with the implementation of policies.
The GoI is perfectly content to ignore rational recommendations when it comes to policy. Wait… that should read “all governments are perfectly…” Except “philosopher kings”, natch.
Hari:
Sometimes the jounalistic mandate for “balance” ends up in absurdity. The only way the fact that 700mm people continue the live in poverty helps the left is if we accept some dangerously unrealistic version of economics.
I agree that irrational exuberence in the market should always be kept in check, and sloganeeering aimed at convincing people that india is on the cusp of being the next great superpower is not helpful, to say the least. By the same token, using the fact that 700mm remain in poverty to question (or roll back) market reforms that have resulted in a middle class growing to 300mm is equally hysterical–because it betrays a belief that it is possible for a nation with such deeply ingrained poverty as India to grow to the point where virtually everyone is out of poverty in 15 years or so. This is dangerous irrational exuberence too. The truth is some people will be displaced and not everyone will benefit. I know of no historical precedence to lead us to believe otherwise.
Nonetheless, the fact that the size of India’s middle class has quadrupled over the last 2 decades while population growh has slowed is remarkable by any measure. Those who complain that the press has not highligted India’s poverty miss the point that poverty is about the only thing many people have known about India for much of her history. India’s growth is a man-bites-dog story; India’s poverty a dog-bites-man. That India is poor is the premise upon which we are starting this conversation.
Lastly, I think the frustration with Pankaj Mishra is that he offers no alternative. In a nation where there are entrenched powers opposing the very market reforms that have lifted so many out of povety, this is very suspicious. Many industries remain tightly regualted, the license raj still exists, Nehru’s quasi-socialism is still poplular among the elites, and the more radical left (maoists and communists) are trying to use growing resentment to turn the clock back further. Mishra even sounds impressed w/ the disaterous economic record of Nehru and his daughter. This is very scary in a country where the economic reforms have just begun.
Nitin Pai has a marvelous post on Mishra at http://indianeconomy.org/2006/07/08/puncture-mishra/.
Blogging at its finest…
My take on Pankaj Mishra’s thesis on the talk show is here on my blog.
I am very glad to see Pankaj Mishra’s gibberish talk on the indian economy and to a lesser extent indian politics (more wiggle room there) being challenged in a common-sensical way. Most indians have had to put up with an incredible amount of nonsense on economics from elite JNU-type people (most of whom quickly achieve secure govt jobs) and it is regrettable that Mishra has emerged as a spokesperson for this view.
In the light of this radio show, I am announcing a friendly blogpost contest and offering a free copy of Stephen Miller’s new book “Conversation: A History of a Declining Art” to three “winning” blogposts. I have put up the details of this blog-post contest on my blog. Come on over, read up and participate if it’s sounds interesting to you…
Regards, Crazyfinger