Readers of Maajorly Shadymax Arbit Fundaes are obviously too intelligent to be taken in by this Pankaj Mishra editorial, which manages to contradict itself repeatedly and also indulges in some very selective reporting of facts.
To take just one of the contradictions, Mishra first claims that when China adopted free market policies, the result was a 25% inflation rate in the late 1980s, and even says that the Tiananmen Square protests were not for greater democracy and accountability, but against rising prices (So was the Goddess of Democracy actually the Goddess of Low Prices?). But he then goes on to say that China’s adoption of free market policies is undermining European economies through cheap exports. You can’t have it both ways. Why do ‘neoliberal’ policies cause inflation in the 1980s, but 15 years on, with greater adoption cause deflation? And why are rising prices bad in China, and falling prices bad in Italy?
Tim Worstall has a rebuttal up on his blog. It makes some very excellent points about the things not mentioned in the editorial, and leaves Mishra looking pretty silly.
I disagree with Worstall’s opening paragraph, though, where he says Mishra seems to be suggesting that India and China need a healthy dose of socialism. Actually, Mishra’s beef with free market economics is not that it doesn’t work, but that it is a Western idea based on Western values, and thus unsuitable for India and China. If you were to take this to its logical conclusion, socialism is also ruled out as it too has Western origins. Mishra would presumably be satisfied if India and China were operating under pre-imperialistic conditions. Of course, this would mean scuppering democracy, free speech, the university system and bringing back untouchability, sati, absentee landlords, and foot binding, but at least these are homegrown concepts.
Aadisht,
Another tired socialist rant against neoliberalism. And this one is not only stale but also ignorant.
Small quibbles. Free speech may not have been codified in pre-British india, but the very existence of all kinds of ideas, from Charvakas to Ajivikas from time immemorial and the general lack of centralized authority and canonical law made India for all practical purposes a land of free speech. Absentee landlords, AFAIK, is a British era concept. We did have universities, universally famous–Taxila, Nalanda, Vikramashila to name a few–until upto the 12th century at least. It is not clear that Sati is a homegrown concept. It was certainly practised by the Scythians (Sakas) and the prevalance among Rajputs (who have at least some Scythian antecedents) lends credence to the view that it may have come with them. The reference in the Mahabharat (Madri’s Sati) of course takes this to the hoary past, but if I am not mistaken, Madrdeash was located in the frontier lands (modern Afghanistan) and the practise may reflect Central Asian influence. Meanwhile, democracy in the sense of universal franchise was not Indian in origin, but the concept of people’s representation has been there since Vedic times (the vedic rajan was not heriditary but selected). The Arthashastra, although clearly monarchic, does mention how local people’s representatives are selected. The Lichchavis were republican (not democratic).
In any case, as is amply evident, this whole dichotomy of domestic and “foreign” ideas is ridiculous. The idea of orientalism is equally obnoxious and anti-scholarly. It is funny that both the left (said variety) and the right (anti-Macaulay, anti-Aryan Invasion types) blame orientalism. The principles of freedom are universal. Capitalism is universal becasue it is the only system compatible in the long-run with individual freedom.
Pankaj Mishra in his mish-mash of a piece also tackles the perennial bogey of the world running out of resouces, which has been periodicaly raised since Malthus, each time with a new twist. Mishra is not even original. People dont recognize the most basic principles of economics–when a resource becomes scarce i) people economize on it, ii) they find substitutes, iii) they find ways to incraese the efficieny of resource use iv) the prospect for more resource. Any study of catastrophe that does not take these into account will itself end catastrophically, a la the Club of Rome.
Frankly, I dont think we should be wasting our time discussing Mishra, (who is delusional enough to think of himself as a modern day Budhdha).
[…] He misunderstands or misrepresents the nature and demands of jihadi and Naxalite terrorists: for few in India really believe that regular elections will resolve those problems. He misunderstands and misrepresents facts about economic growth and reduction of poverty: and these have been pointed out by several commentators. And most surprisingly of all, in spite of being a journalist in Britain and the United States, he misunderstands or misrepresents the foreign media’s coverage of India: by insinuating (not directly alleging, mind you) that publications like Foreign Affairs, The Economist and TIME take their cue from the Bush administration, and also by ignoring what they actually say in some of those articles. But if Mishra is right, what of the New York Times’ unsympathetic treatment of India and the nuclear deal, why even the publication of Mishra’s own article? Who did it take cues from? […]
[…] He misunderstands or misrepresents the nature and demands of jihadi and Naxalite terrorists: for few in India really believe that regular elections will resolve those problems. He misunderstands and misrepresents facts about economic growth and reduction of poverty: and these have been pointed out by several commentators. And most surprisingly of all, in spite of being a journalist in Britain and the United States, he misunderstands or misrepresents the foreign media’s coverage of India: by insinuating (not directly alleging, mind you) that publications like Foreign Affairs, The Economist and TIME take their cue from the Bush administration, and also by ignoring what they actually say in some of those articles. But if Mishra is right, what of the New York Times’ unsympathetic treatment of India, the nuclear deal and, for that matter, even the publication of Mishra’s own article? Who did it take its cues from? […]