As usual, biz has me on the road accumulating airmiles… and the usual upside is some unbroken reading time — most recently with Gurcharan Das‘s India Unbound. 
The book is well written and covers a wide span of Indian history and issues both from Das’s direct (and apparently quite privileged) experience as well as his clearly thorough research. Emotionally laced with optimism for the future and regret for the past, this nonfiction book struck a chord in a way I imagine some find in escapist lit. Call it Bridget Jones for the econ-minded. Amartya Sen’s comments on the book are particularly interesting.
Das tackles the age old, highly politicized question of “Why was India rich, why is it poor, and when will it be rich again?” In the dozens of cases Das presents, one particularly unique example is a famous battle of antiquity and the first large scale military interaction between Desi’s and the West – the Battle of Hydaspes River in 327 BC.
The battle pitted Alexander the Great’s Macedonians against Porus (the Hellenic version of “Rama Puru”), leader of the Kingdom of Paurava in what is now the Pakistani section of ancient Punjab. Beyond the general intrigue and war narrative – feints, maneuver, logistics, and so on – Das finds a nugget of explanatory wisdom to his question – Teamwork.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do – Samuel HuntingtonDepending on your proclivities, Hydaspes may have marked the beginning of Western colonialism in India and thus the beginnings of all that ailed its 20th century history. In Samuel Huntington’s famous aphorism — “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do” — Alexander was perhaps the capstone ancient example. Thus, the Battle of Hydaspes River may have set the imperial template for hundreds more, longer lasting incursions over later millenia.
 |
|
Colin Farrell Encounters an Indian War Elephant… Would India ever be the same? |
Alternatively, the interpretation that both Das and moi come down on, connects “organized violence” to “ideas or values” far more directly. One favorite writer of mine, Victor Davis Hanson, presents this opposing view and has this to say about the cultural significance of the Greek Phalanxes facing Puru –
…the phalanx was more than a singularly deadly infantry unit or a psychological weapon of terror. Its dense columns also reflected the solidarity of free men, who willingly donned heavy armor under the Mediterranean sun, crowded with one another in cumbersome rows, marched in unison — and defined courage as following orders, advancing on command and in rank, and protecting one’s comrade on the left. Aristotle thought the city-state — the very beginning of Western civilization — was identified by the emergence of such a strange way of fighting. Indeed, the polis arose, he wrote, when a new class of farmers — Europe’s first middle class of free property owners — began to fight in unison in these serried ranks, armored columns that other men, whether aristocrats, the poor, or those outside the Greek world, could not or would not emulate.
In this world view, the a priori choice for mankind over the long arc of history isn’t between violence and non-violence per se but rather between organized (law & military) and disorganized (crime, corruption & melee-style battle) violence. Cultural principles in turn determined where on this continuum a society lay — for the Greeks, the principles embodied in their style of organized violence were Equality + Teamwork. The Greek’s way of war, life, and governance were inextricably interlinked.
 |
|
Battle of Hydaspes River: The Symptom or The Cause of India’s Troubles? |
Now, contrary to the Stone’s implicit portrayal, history generally considers Hydaspes River a decisive, brilliant victory (albeit possibly Pyrrhic) for Alexander — one that marked the furthest eastward expansion of his empire and perhaps the highpoint of an already legendary career. Wikipedia has a fine entry on the battle but for pure narrative power, I prefer this, more colorful take or this one for tactical analysis.
Although the initial order of battle may have tipped raw manpower in Alexander’s favor, Puru still had significant advantages in other, crucial areas —
- The defender’s advantage — mano a mano spear, shield & sword warfare of ancient times often prescribed that the attacker have at least a 200%-300% manpower superiority over the defender to be assured success. By most accounts however, even though bolstered by troops from freshly conquered territory, Alexander may have had at best a 50% advantage and was possibly equally matched with Puru’s forces.
- Hometown — Alexander’s forces were 5 years and some 3000-4000 miles from home and their most reliable bases of supply and replenishment. Porus’s army was battling on familiar terrain.
- Terrain — Amplifying his advantages as defender, Porus intelligently choose a swift river crossing to mount his line of defense. The crucial advantages of the Greek way of war was carefully coordinated, massed formations — played correctly, the rushing water would deny the Macedonians both. And hopefully, in those desperate yards as Alexander’s troops and cavalry were focused on the torrent rather than waging battle, Porus’ troops would be showering them with projectiles and greeting their tired, waterlogged masses with an array of sword tips on the opposite shore.
- War elephants — Alexander’s forces had encountered these beasts only once before at the Battle of Gaugamela some 5 years earlier but in utterly ineffectual numbers (15 vs. 90) and different terrain (open desert vs. dense jungle) versus what Porus had now mustered. Historians like Plutarch and Diodorus vividly conveyed the fear these strange, almost mythological creatures stirred in the Macedonian infantry ranks as they contemplated their charge.
 |
|
Defeated but not dishonored… Porus was believed to have towered at well over 6 feet tall – a giant in those times. Note his far larger stature in this Le Brun painting than even the victorious Alexander. |
..unlike the king of Persia, Puru did not flee nor surrender. Despite losing the battle, he kept fighting and goading his men to keep their honor. Alexander’s forces were impressed by both his size and his courage. It was only when he was hit by a dart on his right shoulder that, wounded and tired, he turned his elephant to safety… Soon, two envoys from Alexander came up to him. Loss of blood had made him intolerably thirsty. He halted his elephant and got down. Alexander’s envoys honored him and gave him water to drink and he commanded them to lead him to their kingAs Puru neared the Macedonian lines, Alexander came galloping out to meet him. He was filled with admiration for his brave and proud adversary and asked Puru how he wished to be treated. “Treat me, Alexander, as you would treat a king,” replied Puru. Alexander was confused and asked him to be more precise. “When I said ‘a king,'” repeated Puru, “everything was said.” [Das, 39-40]
Conventional arguments for “why this outcome?” focus on the superiority of Alexander’s generalship — a factor which no doubt played a significant role and particularly in cases where Alexander found numbers working against him. Alexander clearly targeted his enemy’s logical rather than physical center of mass and lined up his strengths against his enemy’s weaknesses. Das, although “wary of cultural explanations”, puts forth a rather cultural explanation – “it illustrated for me an important weakness in the Indian character — our lack of teamwork“It illustrated for me an important weakness in the Indian character — our lack of teamwork”.” [Das, pg 36]
While militaries throughout history have had their class distinctions – heck, officer commissions were “purchased” by upper class Brits until the 20th century – they ran far more deeply in Puru’s army with far more significant tactical implications –
… beneath the surface, there were important differences between the two armies.. [such as] divisions in Indian society , which resulted in poor coordination in Puru’s army. Puru’s cavalry refused to aid the infantry. On the soggy banks of the [Hydaspes] that morning, Puru’s chariots got stuck and charioteers were unwilling to double up as infantry…
Puru’s upper-caste mounted cavalry did not sufficiently support the lower-caste soldier who was on foot. Jadunath Sarkar, an authority on ancient and medieval military affairs said that although “the Indian defenders of the Punjab were brave, each man fought to death in isolation.” The solders were “unable to make a mass movement in concert with their brethren of other corps.”
…Puru may have lost to the greatest general of his time, but the theme of poor teamwork runs throughout Indian history. Babur’s victories at Panipat and at Khanwa (against the Rajput confederacy, led by Rana Sangha) were partly a result of the same deficiencies. Although the Marathas had more cohesive armies, they too suffered because some subcastes armed themselves against others. [Das, pg 41]
And thus, as the ancient world gave way to a more modern world, and a “strange way of fighting” emerged where courage meant roles, teams, and tactics rather than heroic individual warriors. Along with it, the basis of wealth and governance shifted from artisans, kings and subjects to employees, officials, and citizens. And somewhere along the way, India fell behind… (Per the taxonomy in this article, India remained mired in a type of “limited access” society vs. “open access” warfare of the West).
But, all is not lost. Das’s book is fundamentally optimistic and hopeful and sees the basis for change all over India. On teamwork in particular, he readily draws the connection between competitive necessity and cultural transformation –
I believe that with more competition in the Indian market, we will get better teamwork in the business world. When companies fight for survival, there is less luxury for egotistical behavior; we sink or swim together. Since the 1991 reforms Indian markets have become more competitive, cohesion should gradually increase…. [Das, pg 43]
I readily share Das’s optimism and the seeds not just for Desi progress but actually greatness. The rise of large, efficient Indian corporations like Wipro and Infosys readily indicate that for at least one bleeding edge of society, the teamwork problem is being licked.
No offense, I’m surprised this hasn’t been reviewed before on SM? The book’s been out a while.
You don’t find Das’s arguments to be a little simplistic/essentializing? Maybe b/c he’s a business guy, and his analysis is very business-oriented I tuned out a bit. It’s interesting, but I wasn’t as enthused. 🙂
I devoured this book when I first got it (and my father liked it as well). I think it’s the conversational tone, that to a non-economist person like me, got me interested. It’s a readable book about a topic that is often so drily written about. I like his energy, enthusiasm and if his arguments are ‘simple’, I think, because he is trying to distill his experience.
Porus was so brave. Was he a Sikh?
Camille, you’re my hero. Well, with the exception of this…
A great read! And the compilation of links make it even better. Thanks
I don’t buy it. Alexander’s victory over this Porus character preceded the Mauryan Empire, which was a near total consolidation of the subcontinent and a cultural flourescence, significant trade links with much of the rest of the world, and the export of Buddhism, which captivated even mighty China. And the Greeks couldn’t take the heat, they near-mutineed and cut out of brownland 😉 making their rout more of an excursion, though they left some Hellenism behind …
Actual real documentary footage of the battle was recently discovered (back then they had discovered video cameras because of vedic science)
Seriously though, all fun went out of war a long time ago, when it became less to do with swords and arrows and spears and horses and more to do with guns and bombs and stuff — it’s like cheating, using guns.
love the quote by huntington. that’s all i have to say because i haven’t read the book.
Reminds me of the computer game civilization.. India’s special unit is the war elephant.. But the key to ancient victory was having access to iron so you can create swordsmen..
I guess Vinod does want to focus on the battle here rather than the book and so I wont digress too much. However, I will express Camille’s sentiments in #1. This is an amazing book and I too am surprised that this has not yet been reviewed here. I am actually also surprised that Vinod who is so pro-free markets took all this while to read this very interesting and relevant book which is so pro-open economic policies and comes down harshly on closed doors and license raj. They seem to have changed the cover from what my copy looks like though and I wonder if he’s added a new chapter(s) to reflect the growth and changes since the 1999(??) one I have.
From what I remember (I read it a while back), the book was something I related to a lot. Starting with the socio-economic history of India in ancient and pre British times, it talked about how in the 70s and 80s the license Raj and quota system was everywhere to be found and thus most middle class Indians kept a paisa to paise accounting. Doing business was hell (watch Guru for a quick idea about this in case you are not familiar) and I saw this in my own family. I remember my parents having tight budgets and days towards the end of the month where we would not spend because we were short of cash. And no fortunately, we were quite middle class and not poor (we had most comforts and amenities, just that we had tight budgets) and I still wonder how poorer families managed (or still manage till trickle down effects make their mark). Then he goes on to talk about how the Govt. bankruptcy in 1991/92 forced India to open our doors and the rest is history. I see my friends all making boat loads of money now, buying cars and designer wear and it is poles apart from the way our parents lived. The book also talks a lot about the growth of biggies like Tata and Birla and Ambani and one feels proud about reading this. Most notably the book cautions (no comes down heavily) on the Indian attitude of describing money making as evil in contrast with pursuit of higher goals like ‘education’ and ‘intellectualism’. I agree with this, attitudes in India still respect less the Baniyas and Marwaris compared to the armchair pandits, the intellectuals just because they are very good at business and money. Thankfully, the new generation realizes that making money is not necessarily ‘evil’. Worth a read, whether you are pro free markets or anti – as long as you want to know about India!
I don’t know about his research, but he paints a rosy picture of India, catering mostly to upper caste/class people. He is well known for his anti-reservation views and that makes him the darling of urban middle class.
In India Alexander the Great is known as Sikandar, there is even a movie by that name.. I remember it watching on TV when I was a kid. Here is a NY Times plot summary Urdu filmmaker Sohrab Modi directs this historical epic about Alexander the Great’s thwarted attempt at invading the Indian subcontinent. The film opens with Alexander — called Sikander (Prithviraj Kapoor) in this film — having just taken over Persia and the Kabul valley, about to attack Jhelum. There he meets stiff resistance from Punjabi King Porus (played by the director Modi). Meanwhile, against the advise of his famed tutor Aristotle (Shakir), Sikander falls for a beautiful Persian woman named Rukhsana (Vanamala). Afraid that her lover might be killed in the ensuing battle, she visits King Porus and makes him promise to not hurt her beloved Sikander. During the battle, Sikander and Porus meet, and, in spite of a bloody battle that caused Porus’ only son Amar (Zahur Raja) to be killed, the two sovereigns strike up an improbable friendship
and a review on imdb
“Puru’s upper-cast mounted cavalry did not sufficiently support the lower-cast soldier who was on foot”.
Spelling mistakes aside, this is unadulterated bullshit. The Indian caste-system did not evolve until 600-1000 AD. And tell me, was there no class-system elswhere but in India at that time?
Your analysis is naive.
Not to threadjack, but I find the following comments from Sen rather interesting, especially since I have thought them often (though again like Sen, if I could vote, I would never vote for such a party):
Dont quite remember where i read this about India going on to be a great society while China will end up as a great nation. Maybe it was Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative Indian: http://www.amazon.com/Argumentative-Indian-Writings-History-Identity/dp/0374105839
The reasoning was that Indians in their diversity tend to sound chaotic but it might work out in their favor in today’s networked world lacking hierarchies. It gives rise to the individual and eventually a rich voice for the democracy. On the otherhand we were compared to China which might be focused on a common agenda and rise as a powerful nation.
It might be an over simplification but it appealed to me. Wonder if there are studies to show how Desi community blogs fare against other community specific blogs in terms of vitality, participation and acceptance of diverging views.
Good point Sigh! in #13. I guess we are digressed enough already and so I will like to add. I think of what you pasted, this is most relevant
India does indeed need a fiscally right wing or at least centrist party. The BJP was learning such economics (not that they had a long way to go when they lost) but they made some mistakes and lost. Instead of reflecting and learning the correct lessons, the morons instead turned back to their communal agenda and they lost my vote at that point.
But then I also feel we need a truly secular left wing too. The congress unfortunately has in it’s pseudo secularism destroying India as much. Secularism as is practiced in India is unfortunately of the pandering variety, a denial of religion or even worse (which the Congress does) an exploitation of it under the guise of secularism. What is instead needed is an acceptance of it, to act not in denial of it but despite and in acceptance of it. The so called left is archaic in it’s understanding of ground realities. It instead believes still in closed markets and communist principles. A left that I would like to see would be truly secular, one that still believes in free markets but realizes that unbridled exploitation needs to be checked. A right I would like to see would be secular and all for experimenting to the core with free markets. Together they will create a healthy economy benefiting a wider based economic pyramid. For now, we just deal with reds and saffrons and a lot of psychofancy in between.
a relief you and das came to the same conclusion — India will evolve to better teamwork.
On a sidenote, have you guys heard this 60’s Hindi movie Anpadh’s song
“Sikandar Ne Porus Se Kiyi Thi Ladai, to mai kya karron?” Mahendra Kapoor
Was Shammi Kapoor the one prancing around in this?
I can imagine the cavalry saying , “Screw those SC/ST bastards, they took place at Taxila University. Now I’m going to have to slum it at Bodh Gaya State. Besides, my National Geographic DNA results show I am R haplotype…goodbye samosa hello spanakopita “
Spelling mistakes aside, this is unadulterated bullshit.
Agreed. Also, this line “he meets stiff resistance from Punjabi King Porus.” There was no such thing as Punjab then.
Btw, Vinod..another issue was that traditionally, conquerers of India have always found a fifth column or an individual traitor to help them succeed. Alexander found one in the King Ambi of Taxila. From Ambi to Mir Jaffer, it has been a never ending story. 🙁 However, the damage Alexander did to India is quite minimal – he formed lasting alliances there. The damage to Persia was far more hideous. Imho, it left Persia far more vulnerable to the Arab invasions which, of course, have resulted in the changing of the entire landscape of that region in cultural & economic terms. I always wonder – if Persia had been a strong empire at the time of the Arab conquest, would history have been radically different? [Every time one reads Khayyam, Hafez or Saadi, one sighs.]
Vinod – Cato had organized a lecture by Das and Swaminathan Aiyer. You can watch the video and read the transcripts here.
I had the good fortune of having a 1-1 discussion with Das before he gave a lecture at Haas, Berkeley. Very interesting stuff. I also recommend his second book; The Elephant Paradigm.
Don’t think so, I think it was some random kid. This used to be a favorite on Chitrahaar in Doordarshan days of yore for Nov 14th (Children’s day in India)
there are multiple dimensions to bring up here. the ‘phalanx revolution’ wasn’t final. the roman imperial forces shifted from infantry toward a greater emphasis on mobile calvary units during late antiquity, and the byzantine empire made the full transition. the defeat of the saxons (massed formation foot) by the normans in 1066 (led by calvary) was part of a general trend away from the footmen-of-peers which VDH promotes (one could say that in the classical world the revolution began when maurius recruited men without property qualifications and so professionalized the legions). the period between 500-1500 was one where infantry was in relative eclipse vis-a-vis mobile cavalry (though some of the efficiency and rationality that VDH promotes did not disappear, e.g., look at the way genghis khan organized his army starting with basic units of 10 on up). the shift away had to do with the power of projectile weapons, which could obviously break calvary shocks. the defeat of the oirat mongols in the 18th century by the manchus with artillery is the nail in the coffin of the mobile calvary. the remilitarization of states like prussia via conscription harks back to the free citizen soldiers of greece or the propertied farmers of the roman republic. some in some ways you see a cycle.
as for india, it seems that vis-a-vis muslims the lack of good indigenous horse breeding grounds as well as new military technology was critical to muslim dominance. vijayanagara held its own in south india in part with european materiel support. the muslims themselves had to make recourse to this source in their own battles, the safavids relied on europeans to help bridge the technology gap with the ottomans (who obviously had ‘first dibs’ by dint of geography).
anyway, yeah, broad social forces are important. but so is other stuff.
(and as a poster above notes, caste/jati wasn’t as elaborate in the 4th century BCE as it is today, or even 1,000 years later)
also, re: muslims. the more ‘nomadic’ the peoples (or less civilized) the better soldiers they often are. the muslim warriors who repeatedly conquered india were turks (not generally settled persians, for example). the turks themselves in central asia were beaten blood several times by mongols, who were even more ‘barbarian’ than they.
No, it was Meghnad Desai who said “China will again become a viable great power; India may become a great democracy”
razib,
nice post.
he turks themselves in central asia were beaten blood several times by mongols
To clarify, I take it that you meant “turk” as in the historic meaning of the term (current “istan” republics of the erstwhile Soviet Union) and not Turkey.
look at the way genghis khan organized his army starting with basic units of 10 on up
Didn’t the Romans do it first? I thought the word ‘decimate’ comes from that practice.
Origin of the word ‘decimate‘.
To clarify, I take it that you meant “turk” as in the historic meaning of the term (current “istan” republics of the erstwhile Soviet Union) and not Turkey.
yes. the “istan” ethnicities are to some extent a creation of soviet ethnologists you know 😉 apparently ‘turkish’ is intelligible across dialects from instanbul to xinjiang (see sons of the conquerors by hugh pope).
Didn’t the Romans do it first?
well, ’10’ is a natural number to converge upon. the roman legions have various type of organization, though i believe the local ‘mess’ unit (who ate together and shared the mule) was about 10. my only point is to offer that the mongols didn’t have an amorphous ‘horde,’ but were structured in a rational manner so as to distribute information from the top down and engender local flexibility (structured flexibility is one reason that the roman legion system replaced the undifferentiated phalanx).
the turks themselves in central asia were beaten blood several times by mongols, who were even more ‘barbarian’ than they.
The western historians have brainwashed all of us to a great extent that any force (or a bunch of warlords who invade from east to west) like Chengiz Khan or Attilla the hun are termed barbarians but “warlord” Alexander who invades from west to east, becomes a great warrior and the person who brought “civilization” to the east.
🙂
.The western historians have brainwashed all of us to a great extent that any force (or a bunch of warlords who invade from east to west) like Chengiz Khan or Attilla the hun are termed barbarians but “warlord” Alexander who invades from west to east, becomes a great warrior and the person who brought “civilization” to the east.
uh, it isn’t western historians, it is the chinese who set up a division between nomad and settler in an explicit fashion which suggests that the former are barbarians. the mongols were taunted as “rat-eaters” by turkic peoples like the keirats before their rise, in part because they were marginal, and in part because they fed off small game in the taiga when pushed off the steppes. you can use another metric, but you can see a classic ‘succession’ that occurs when nomads become sedentary: they invariably fall to the next round of “barbarians.” e.g., the khitai in northern china to the jurched. the khalkha mongols had to appeal to the manchus for help against the less civilized oirats. the uzbeks who drove the timurids south in their turn were scourged by the plague kazakh hordes who were attacked and cut with ease by the dzunghar confederacy. until the rise of gunpowder and mass industrialized warfare this succession was pretty straightforward.
as for alexander, two points
1) compared to genghis khan he was civilized. he had aristotle as his tutor. in contrast, genghis khan had to be convinced not to turn north china into pastureland by his local (a khitai, one of the nomad peoples who had become sinicized) advisor. the mongol empire was eventually a force for cultural exchange and civilizational efflorscence, but not in its initiation.
2) the greeks did not pretend they brought civilization to india. in fact, men like pythogaros and plotinus give a nodd to indian philosophy, in reality or in legend. and of course there were the attempts to reach out to the ‘gymnosophists’ on the part of the greeks. yes, the greeks did view non-greeks (this included other europeans) as barbarians, but they saw value to be picked up from other complex societies.
chetchow # 17, ardy # 20 ,
It was Mohan choti – not some random kid.See IMDB entry here
And now, having demonstrated my encyclopaedic knowledge of obscure Hindi movies, I will retire
Lest we forget, fellow laypeople, the ‘history’ we refer to is a Western academic tradition–not an Indian one. It is indeed influenced by trends in Western thought. This is what has given most ‘post-colonial’ academics their opening (or ‘angle’) in area studies. However calling the yeoman’s labor performed by intellectuals (who would be lumped into the ‘orientalist camp)’brainwashing’ as Ponniyan is doing is inaccurate. Having control over the production of knowledge regarding any area is power indeed but it is nothing compared to the reader’s ability to cross-reference, deconstruct and examine each argument on it’s own merits and sources.
Has anyone done that with respect to this book?
Seems like a very interesting book. Will try to read it. Thanks Vinod.
Pooniyin, that’s a great point. I’d never considered it like that. Barbarian is in the eye of the beholder 🙂
Barbarian is in the eye of the beholder
so is mlecha.
And now, having demonstrated my encyclopaedic knowledge of obscure Hindi movies, I will retire
Awesome. Now can you tell me which movie this song is from ” maire bhains ko danda kyon maara”
34
“pagla kahin ka?”
Has anyone done that with respect to this book?
Well if Das is arguing that the beginning of western domination, the “imperialist template” hearkens back to Alexander, I think that’s a very simplistic view. As Razib suggests, the Greeks didn’t view their presence in India –as the British later did — as a civilizing mission. The idea of men of wisdom from the East owes at least part of its provenance to Alexander’s forays to India – the stock figure of the gymnosophist, the naked sages and philosphers, come from accounts during this period. Also, what then became of the Greeks? Alexander’s empire was not long lived, the Hellenistic kingdoms that followed eventually ceded overlordhip to the Etruscan- and tribal-derived barbarians, the Romans, by around 150 B.C. while India witnessed consolidation, heightened trade and cultural expansion in roughly the same time-space….not such a simple tale. Also the impact of Hellenism was rather benign – the introduction of new art forms, theater, etc., very different from later European colonialism.
don’t forget the indo-greek cultural synthesis! part of the emphasis placed on it is due to its novelty, but it is interesting nonetheless how long a hellenic sensibility persisted in recognizable form on the other side of the parthian confederation.
Haha, thanks for revelling in my ADD with me. No worries about the exception; we just won’t get busy 🙂
razib,
I had blogged about Indo-greek cultural synthesis that took place in the 20th century thanks to Raj Kapoor. 🙂
I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody
Wasn’t it Aristotle who thought women and slaves do not have the right to enjoy basic freedoms?
THIS IS SPART-TA!!!
Das’s book has a broad sweep … and Sen harps on the optimism rightly. Teamwork is indeed crucial. The Indian economy needs psychologists, who do research on teams (especially when the country’s future rests on its entrepreneurs). For example, we do not know how Indian can use their diversity to profit (e.g., gujjus, ABCDS, FOBs, tamils, punjabis in a team) – there’s ample evidence that entrepreneurship nowadays is about teams, not individuals.
Unfortunately, the economists’ continuous onslaught on the North and South Block in New Delhi (read: throwing pearls of wisdom to the governments) has taken away the gaze from people (what is the HRD Ministry doing?), and from their responsibilities. The focus is too much on structure, and much less on action. I do not know of any single decent psychology journal in India. Probably the right word is ‘organizing’ … spontaneous organizations (e.g., weddings) are fine… but there’s no research on organizations at all. What does it means to be organizing … and what are the mechanisms etc etc. Obviously economists do not know these things (after Simon got the Nobel, nobody in mainstream economics followed up on that work… and obviously – goes without saying – no one in India … they are happy with their absurd utility functions).
Also, I do not buy Sen’s very careful hagiography (Sen does that balancing act quite well … a word here and a word there … with the ready verbiage on the Hindutva brigade, and carefully dodging the terrorist acts of the minorities) on Nehru because he started 4 IITs … well (I think i have said this before here) – the land grant universities in the US started in 1862… a good hundred years before our independence … and all that Pandit Nehtru could learn from the success of that initiative was to start 4 IITs in free India … it is a matter of degree … how much you expect from the so-called leaders… Das talks abt J R D Tata’s comments on managerial freedom … quite apt.
Most people out of IITs/ IIMs have the ability to solve problems/ write algorithms ‘very fast’ .. but the conceptual skills are indeed poor. Obviously the whole purpose of these training schools is to make the students ‘fit in’. Das mentions in another article about architecture .. what about that? Is there any initiative on that front? The structures are eyesores… with no identity, just occupying space. India urgently needs institutes of design, and schools of architecture.
Hopefully the proposed Nalanda University will be a success.
The “unadulterated bullshit” is coming from you. If the caste system had not evolved until “600-1000 AD” why did Buddha denounce it a thousand to 1500 years earlier, around a couple centuries before Alexander invaded northwest India?
“Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahmin. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes an brahmin.” (Buddha)
Your opinion is baseless. The Arabs conquered Persia almost 9 centuries after Alexander, and you are still blaming him for making the persians vulnerable? The mighty Romans, successors of the Greeks, never managed to replicate Alexander’s feat and conquer Persia; despite many attempts. Which should have taught you that the Persians had recovered quite handily after their defeat by the Greeks.
Plotinus was born more than a century after Alexander died.
He is right for the most part but is strikingly wrong when he writes that “It is actually amazing that a country, which has not been very well governed, has ended up still doing extraordinarily well.”
That is utterly, obscenely delusional. A nation that has the worst record on earth fulfilling the most fundamental needs of its citizens: food and drinking water, is not a country that is “doing extraordinarily well”; it is nothing but a failed state. Whats amazing is that Amartya Sen himself is on record recognizing this massive failure, along with the failure in literacy, and yet a few months later he writes that India is doing “extraordinarily well”!
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2004/stories/20030228001307900.htm
“Economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, who addressed the gathering, said that contrary to what many people believe, India has not done well in tackling the pervasive presence of persistent hunger. “Not only are there persistent recurrences of severe hunger and starvation in particular regions, but there is also a gigantic prevalence of endemic hunger across much of India. Indeed, India does much worse in this respect than even sub-Saharan Africa. Calculations of general undernourishment – what is sometimes called protein-energy malnutrition – is nearly twice as high in India as in sub-Saharan Africa. It is astonishing that despite the intermittent occurrence of famine in Africa, it too manages to ensure a much higher level of regular nourishment than does India. About half of all Indian children are, it appears, chronically undernourished, and more than half of all adult women suffer from anaemia. In maternal undernourishment and the incidence of birth of underweight babies, India’s record is among the worst in the world.”
http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/news/politics/hunger-isquiet-violence-amartya-sen/176023
“on the subject of hunger, Sen has written that “India has fared worse than every other country in the world.“
“Q: You write in your book that “About half of all Indian children are chronically under-nourished and more than half of all the adult women are anaemic than Africa. Africa still manages to ensure a higher level of nourishment than India.” So where did India go wrong?
A: I think it goes wrong in two respects. One, even though Africa has famines, higher mortality rates and much more chaos, but the issue of eating enough is quite a big issue in Africa. The African rebelliious spirit is stronger. The other reason is, women are much more important in Sub-Sahara Africa, they have a much bigger voice. We know, within India, whenever women have had a bigger voice, the hunger problem has dramatically reduced. The fact that gender inequality is far less in Africa is not unrelated to the fact that regular hunger is also far less in Africa than in India.”
Amartya Sen is absolutely correct however when he criticizes Gurcharan Das for describing the corrupt and failed Nehruvian nexus of brahmin babus and bania industrialists during the License Raj as “socialism”:
He is also right, of course, in pointing out that massive illiteracy in India is a major handicap:
He is also right in criticizing the narrow-minded hindu fundamentalist agenda of the BJP:
But while recognizing the mailicious intent of Macaualay in creating an educational system designed to create servants for the British Empire, he passes no judgment on India’s continued reliance on his legacy. Why were Hindi and English the only options considered? Wouldn’t it have been better to translate science etc into all the major indian languages? Anyone can see that all the developed nations of the world teach their children in their mother tongues. Desis on the other hand cannot even imagine doing science, technology etc in any language other than english!
A recent article on the disappointing ground reality in supposedly “shining” India:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1624905,00.html
“By the time we got to our hotel there was no power to run the air-conditioning. We pressed on until we reached another lodge. This time there was power, but no cell-phone signal. A series of hiccups like this would have been par for the course in India a decade or so ago. But then came the outsourcing and high-tech booms and marketing campaigns like “Incredible India,” and suddenly India’s image had gone from pauper to looming global player.
Except the reality hasn’t. Sure, there are pockets of prosperity like Bangalore and Hyderabad, roads and airports and railway lines are under construction, foreign investment is up and Indian companies are moving out into the world. But the truth is that much of the new India is still like the old. One pointer: religious conflicts, which still hold modernizing India hostage. Just last week, Sikhs and a sect that includes Sikhs, low-caste Hindus, Christians and Muslims clashed for days, while a bomb in a Hyderabad mosque and subsequent rioting killed 13 people.
The lack of progress wouldn’t be so noticeable if India’s marketing gurus hadn’t raised expectations so high. Last year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, India’s government and industries backed a publicity campaign dubbed “India Everywhere,” which overwhelmed conference attendees with facts and figures about the wonderful new India. But since I arrived in India almost seven months ago from Africa, I have heard countless foreign businessmen and women in New Delhi and Mumbai (formerly Bombay) complaining about the gap between the image India projects and the reality.”
“Indians themselves have the most to complain about. Take health. In 2000, 47% of Indian children under 3 were malnourished, according to government figures. Today, the malnourishment rate in kids is 46%—only a single percentage point better.”
“Fixing problems is difficult in a democracy, argue Indian officials. True, compared to Beijing, which can decide to build a road today and start on it tomorrow, Indian authorities have to consult and win over the people. Many politicians use democracy, however, not to ensure that development is better than China’s but as an excuse for inefficiency, incompetence and corruption. Indians who go to China for the first time return awed by its incredible transformation, and are strangely quiet when you ask if they believe India could soon be its equal.
I came to India looking forward to a place with a sense of momentum and hope. I knew India was still poor and frustrating as well as fascinating and exciting and full of great stories. I have found all those things, but I have also realized that parts of Africa have better services and infrastructure than India, and just as good prospects for development. It’s just that Africa hasn’t yet come up with a catchy slogan to sell itself. I hope it doesn’t. Better to be surprised than disappointed.”
Meanwhile China which, unlike India, has been smart enough to take care of the fundamentals: food, water, healthcare, education, infrastructure etc is miles ahead of India and pulling away rapidly:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IE30Dj01.html
“The emergence of China as a global superpower occurred much faster than anyone imagined. China is the new giant on the block, with enormous resources at its disposal. An exporting powerhouse, China displaced the United States last year as the largest exporter to the European Union.”
“International reserves recently passed the $1.3 trillion mark. China’s current-account surplus is expected to reach $400 billion this year – representing 12.8% of gross domestic product (GDP). The heady expansion of the Chinese economy is putting it in a leadership position, allowing it to move to center stage in the global arena.”
“At the same time, the United States is withering away under the weight of its enormous debt load and various asset bubbles. The US economy grew an anemic 1.3% year on year during the first quarter of 2007.”
“The economic slowdown in the US is accompanied by serious concerns about the health of the financial sector. With more than $700 trillion in derivative contracts floating in the marketplace, and much of it tied to the mortgage market, an accident is definitely on the way.”
“The changes in the global economic order are also realigning the planet’s geopolitical structure. China is starting to set the tempo in the international arena. It has the indisputable lead in Africa, committing $20 billion over the course of the next three years to develop infrastructure and trade.”
“The growing irrelevance of the multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization, is providing a greater opportunity for China to exert a more prominent role without appearing to be a usurper of power. Fortunately, the changes are for the better, at least for most emerging-market countries. China’s insatiable appetite for commodities is breathing new life across the developing world.
Last of all, China is providing a bonanza of cheap manufactured goods to developing nations – fueling an unprecedented consumer frenzy. The Chinese behemoth is rapidly displacing the US as the world’s main source of capital, manufacturing and commodity demand, leading to a decoupling of the waning North American giant from the rest of the marketplace.”
Did he take the advice?. If so why call him a barbarian. I was surprised to learn that Mongols were very tolerant ‘religion” wise.
Generally, I take “history” with a pinch of salt, as in almost all cases it is written by the victors. For me “Warlords” Alexander, Attilla, chengiz Khan, all look the same. They mobilised powerful armies to invade and subjugate peoples over a vast landmass. I won’t call one person a “great” and another a “barbarian”.
Ah, that idyllic utopian free paradise that is China.
And the deleterious consequences of a predominantly English based education are reverberating and rocking India to this day.
But, I must be naive and misguided to even bother to respond. Bring on the boldface!
You’re being sarcastic but you’re actually speaking the truth…
I always thought that english education in india was supposed to be an advantage india has over china (large eglish peaking educated population).