Masani, Raju, Roy vs Sabhlok, Chakraverti, Shah

["Dr.SubrotoRoy" <sroy@vgsom.iitkgp.ernet.in>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just read Mr. Raju's kind remarks about my comment on
Chakraverti/Sabhlok..  Our email had been bouncing here so I do not know
if my comment got published.   For the record, this is the dialogue so
far.  What I said was:
"Subject: A Chakraverti/Sabhlok vision for India?
>Dr Sanjeev Sabhlok writes:
>"For India, good economic policy will be seen to have worked when we
>>generate a national vision for the creation of large, beautiful and
clean
>>cities. Sauvik Chakraverti talks of 400 Singapores in India. I can not
find a more powerful vision statement for India. We should not merely
look at
>>per capita incomes nor allow our fears of heavy migration into urban
areas
>>to swamp our thought processes. Planned and rapid urbanisation will be
the
>>true test of our understanding of economics."

>It seems to me there may be the makings of a contradiction here,
assuming
>Mr. Chakraverti has been quoted correctly, and assuming both
Chakraverti
and Sabhlok wish to be seen as subscring to classical liberal
principles.
>These principles, as we know,  respect the dignity, autonomy, and
>reasonableness of individuals.  In India, most of our citizens happen
to
>reside in rural India or have strong rural roots, and there has to be a
>liberal presumption that they are choosing to do so.    Liberal
thinking
>would respect these choices, and focus on what common goods come to be
>necessary from common resources at local, provincial and national
levels.
>Grand vision-making of clean streets or "400 Singapores" is somewhat
>antithetical, it seems to me, to the slow, pondering, modest ways of
>classical liberal thinking -- e.g. if you want clean streets and pretty
>cities, the liberal would say look at rent-control laws,
property-rights
and the property-tax base, as well as the competence of civic
administration
and politics;  our semi-communist and/or semi-fascist elites and
governments in
>India would instead start building dozens of fly-overs using
international
>loans, consultants and contractors."

To this,  Mr. Raju has added:
>From S.V.Raju, Editor, Freedom First (The Liberal Quarterly) and
President, Indian Liberal Group
To: Participants on the Indiapolicy network
=20
It was such a relief to read Dr.Subroto Roy's corrective to Sanjeev
Sabhlok's lauding Sauvik Chakraverti's economic policy prescriptions.I
agree entirely with what Dr.Roy has said.
Earlier  in one of Mr.Chakraverti's articles in The Times of India he
equated a liberal society with a "vibrant night life". No one can take
exception to a dream. We all dream. Just as Chakraverti dreams of a
vibrant night life in cities as an ideal of a liberal society, I dream
of a society where our villages are well connected by roads, where every
farmer plouging the land has the most modern implements; of a panchayat
which dispenses justice without being influenced by caste and
hierarchical considerations; where every hut has an electric connection
and piped water so that our women do not have to trudge many kilometers
to fetch potable water; of decently built school houses with teachers
actually present instead of being  present only on payrolls; of such
school children decently clad and decently nourished; where primary
health centres do indeed cater to the primary health needs of the
community well equipped with medicines and staffed,  if not by a doctor,
by at least  para medical personnel; where instant communication with
the outside world and information on a variety of matters from land
records, to weather conditions are available to any farmer at the click
of a mouse; . And this is not a small dream. It involves 627,000
villages( 1991 census -as against 576,000 in 1971). And the Liberal also
dreams of all this in an environment of freedom - of a free economy in a
free society. This dream was what was behind the Swatantra Party's
slogan of  'Farm, Family and Freedom' and the title of their Statement
of Policy adopted in March 1960  "To Prosperity through Freedom" itself =
an adaptation of Ludwig Erhard's "To Prosperity through Competition". =
And this is what the Indian Liberal Group(ILG) believes and has set =
about promoting. The ILG founded by Minoo Masani in 1964 felt silent =
when failing eyesight reduced Mr.Masani's  ability to aggressively =
propagate the liberal point of view. He was not promoting the views of a =
Julian Simon or a Hayek a Lipmann ( whose book The Public Philosophy was =
compulsory reading to all those who were  close to Masani). He read them =
all going back to Bacon, Bentham and Mill, Dadabhai Naoroji,  Gokhale =
and Ranade not to speak of Gandhi. And he adapted many of their thinking =
to our conditions. Not treating them as 'holy gospel' The ILG  needed to =
be revived not only to promote the Liberal philosophy but to provide a =
delivery system to ensure that the ILG acted as a strong pressure group. =
We wanted the ILG to be more than a talk shop or seen around only in =
coffee clubs. We wanted to disprove the belief that the Liberal is very =
good at seminars but is conspicuous by his absence when action was =
called for.=20
As at the time of writing the Indian Liberal Group has over 120 Active =
Members, and by the end of this year, will have functioning Groups in =
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra and Tamil Nadu - the culmination =
of an effort that began in August 1998. =20
Recently Sauvik Chakraverti wrote two articles in the centre page of The =
Times of India. His articles caused some consternation among some of our =
 members and supporters who wanted to know whether his views represented =
the Liberal position.And if that was they would have to reconsider their =
association with the Indian Liberal Group. I reassured them it was not =
so and  promised to send a rejoinder to The Times of India  knowing full =
well that it would not be published.(That's another story and I won't =
take your time here)  And therefore, to no one's surprise it was not. I =
take the liberty of attaching that article for your perusal.
If any of you who are interested in receiving a copy of the ILG's "Basic =
Principles - Guidelines for Action" please let me have your postal =
mailing address and I shall mail you a copy along with a folder on the =
ILG. If you are overseas then please remit one dollar or its equivalent =
in rupees to cover mailing costs.If within the country then Rs.6 in =
postage stamps.Incidentally there is no bar on Indians overseas  from =
becoming members. Our mailing address (which incidentally is that of the =
Swatantra Party Office in Mumbai)Indian Liberal Group, 1st floor, =
Sassoon Building, 143, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai 400 001
email: freedom@vsnl.com; faxphone: 91 22 284 3416."

Dr Sabhlok replied to me as follows:
Prof. Roy wrote:

>>Grand vision-making of clean streets or "400 Singapores" is somewhat
>>antithetical, it seems to me, to the slow, pondering, modest ways of
>>classical liberal thinking -- e.g. if you want clean streets and =
pretty
>>cities, the liberal would say look at rent-control laws, =
property-rights
>and
>>the property-tax base, as well as the competence of civic =
administration
>and
>>politics; =20

The vision is meant to inspire thought; not cities for the sake of =
cities.=20

But I agree on the latter. Issues of rent-control laws, property-rights,
etc., are not on our agenda. That is precisely what I am saying. This
deeper thinking is the job of the urban planner/ economist. We are =
missing
this thought process almost universally in India.

>>our semi-communist and/or semi-fascist elites and governments in
>>India would instead start building dozens of fly-overs using =
international
>>loans, consultants and contractors.

While being neutral on the above (since the detail is the job of urban
planners/economists), how do you suggest we go about things?=20

Second, what is wrong with a fly-over "in principle" that you bring into
the debate? I would think it is a matter of cost-benefit; efficiency; =
and
therefore unique to each situation."

I am afraid I seem to have lost Dr Shah's ccomment defending Mr. =
Chakraverti, and some kind member of IPI may please add it to this =
record.=20

Subroto Roy.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------