E D I T O R I A L   P A G E

EDITORIALS

A warning to Left Front
Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee is sure that the voters of West Bengal are through with the Left Front and are ready for a government led by her party. The Left Front, however, thinks that the stunning defeat in the Panskura Lok Sabha constituency is only a warning signal and hard work will help it retain power after the Assembly election next year. 

Musharraf snubbed
Pakistan Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf may have succeeded in manipulating the judiciary to issue a certificate of legitimacy in favour of his administration. But the global community has still not forgiven him for having overthrown a democratically elected government in October last year. The snub he received in full public view during US President Bill Clinton's whistle stop halt in Pakistan in March should have made him realise the futility of trying to justify to the post-Cold War world the ouster of a duly elected government. 

ANALYSES

Modern wars need a joint chief
by Pritam Bhullar
“Exercise Bramhastra” held in the first week of May at Western Command headquarters was the first joint exercise in which the three service chiefs and senior defence officers interacted on inter-service aspects. The aim of the exercise was to achieve cohesion between the three services for joint operations. This kind of exercise, as given out by the Defence Minister Mr George Fernandes, is likely to become a regular annual feature.

ON THE SPOT

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

“Window”-less world

There is an old tale about a person who was given a priceless necklace by an eccentric relative, with the rider that if ever he decided to sell it, he would have to dispose it of for no more than Rs 1,000, not even one-hundredth of its actual price. The enterprising person put it up for sale, with the provision that anyone buying it for Rs 1,000 also had to purchase a pen (worth some five rupees) for Rs 1 lakh along with it. Software giant Microsoft has been following a similar bundling policy for long. Buy its Windows operating system and you have to, willy-nilly, pick up the complementary products such as the Internet Explorer net browser and the Excel spreadsheet. This is not the only violation of monopoly laws it is accused of. It has allegedly squelched competition through predatory business practices, which rely on threat and coercion. It came down ruthlessly on computer makers who supported competing technologies. US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson handed down stiff penalties on Wednesday. The ruling says that Microsoft should be broken into two separate companies; one will develop the Windows operating system and the other will develop all other software such as MS Office Suite and the Internet Explorer browser. It must sell Windows for the same price to all computer makers and allow them to make changes in the start-up sequence. Microsoft must disclose parts of the Windows source code to software developers. These rulings will mean that the stranglehold of Windows over 95 per cent of the PC market will come to an end and give a fillip to substantially free operating systems such as Linux and freely downloadable office application suites like Star Office. Competition will be restored in the high-tech market and new companies will be able to bring forth better software products. For the buyers in India, it may translate into a neat saving in software startup expenses.

All this presupposes that the bifurcation will actually come into force within the stipulated four months. But that is more than unlikely. Multi-billionaire Bill Gates has fumed that the District Court ruling "shows that the government can take away what you have created if it proves too popular". Microsoft has already declared that it would go in appeal within days. The appeal lies in the conservative US Appeals Court, which has sided with Microsoft in earlier rulings. The US Government seems worried on that count. That is why it plans to ask the Supreme Court to directly review the anti-trust case, claiming that it involves serious market implications. But that appears to be a futile exercise because it will be difficult to prove that the case is of such "national importance". The Supreme Court is only expected to instruct the appeals court to decide the case quickly. That is what it had done in the case involving the issue of whether secret service agents must testify in independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky case. The government may find in the impending long battle that Microsoft is actually Macrohard. 

A warning to Left Front

Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee is sure that the voters of West Bengal are through with the Left Front and are ready for a government led by her party. The Left Front, however, thinks that the stunning defeat in the Panskura Lok Sabha constituency is only a warning signal and hard work will help it retain power after the Assembly election next year. Either way the byelection verdict in favour of the Trinamool Congress has upset all calculations, besides shaking up the Front. There are several reasons why Panskura is so important. It has been a Left stronghold for over two decades and Geeta Mukherjee, whose death caused the byelection, had been winning it as a CPI nominee seven times. During the past two elections, the margin of victory had come down but Panskura remained loyal to the party. This time the CPI put up the high profile trade union leader and former Rajya Sabha member, Mr Gurudas Dasgupta, and he lost by 41,415 votes. This is close to the figure by which Geeta Mukherjee won the seat, indicating that the swing is about a lakh of votes. That is alarming. Two, both sides threw everything into the battle and senior leaders went campaigning. Ms Banerjee stationed herself for a week and sought vote in her name. For the Front, Mr V.P. Singh was a guest star with Mr Jyoti Basu and Mr A.B. Bardhan doing party work. Three, passions soared and at Keshpur armed clashes took a toll of 12 lives; but then election time is always violence time there. Four, it is a rural constituency and folk theory is that the fledgeling party is strong only in urban areas and the Left is dominant in the countryside. This is proved wrong now. The Front woke to an ugly reality rather late. Its members, particularly from village units, have crossed over to the Trinamool Congress and as is evident now, have taken both the support base and election winning tactics with them. The CPI points out that in two assembly segments, its candidate polled as low as 10 or fewer votes in several booths while his rival, Mr Bikram Sircar, cornered 700 votes or more. This despite a very heavy voter turn-out, 80 per cent. Obviously everything was not fair.

The Left Front has only been bruised but the Congress has been battered. Its nominee could secure only 20,495 votes to come as a distant third. Its celebration over coming second and relegating the Trinamool to the third spot in the panchayat poll last month was clearly premature. Its support in Panskura has shrunk from about 65,000 last year or to a third of it now and is perhaps about to evaporate. One assumption is that the party workers defied the high command and mobilised whatever support they could for Mr Sircar. At the lowest organisational level it appears a grand alliance of sorts had materialised making it a direct fight. If the Congress had secured the same number of votes as last time, the anti-Left votes would have split and the CPI would have nosed out Mr Sircar. This unannounced mahajot may explain why the CPI man got so few votes in certain pockets. The Congress should now expect an exodus of its leaders and members to the breakaway faction. And only a miraculous showing in the Calcutta and Saly Lake City corporation election later this month will keep it afloat. But then Calcutta is Mamata city. The Left Front will play up the rigging and intimidation aspect; there is much evidence of both in Panskura but they were not the determining factors. Creaky party units at the village level and a peoples level polarisation of support base are. Much repair work awaits the Left parties once the initial introspection is over. 

Musharraf snubbed

Pakistan Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf may have succeeded in manipulating the judiciary to issue a certificate of legitimacy in favour of his administration. But the global community has still not forgiven him for having overthrown a democratically elected government in October last year. The snub he received in full public view during US President Bill Clinton's whistle stop halt in Pakistan in March should have made him realise the futility of trying to justify to the post-Cold War world the ouster of a duly elected government. With the Soviet Union, the "biggest threat to world peace", having been turned into history, a pro-democracy wave seems to be sweeping the globe. Even the seemingly smaller nations, in relation to leader of the unipolar world, have now begun to show spunk in rebuking countries where democracy is under threat from self-styled leaders. Pakistan and Fiji have had their membership of the Commonwealth temporarily suspended because of anti-democracy developments in these countries. Now at least three European countries too have decided to express their displeasure over the unhappy turn of events in Pakistan which saw General Musharraf overthrow the elected government of Mr Nawaz Sharif. The three countries — Italy, Sweden and Belgium — have reportedly rejected the appointments of retired Pakistani military officers as envoys. The whisper doing the rounds in diplomatic circles about the rejection of the names of the three envoys, forwarded through normal channels for approval by the host governments, is not going to make General Musharraf happy.

The three countries may not have had any objection to clearing the names of former military officers had they been forwarded by an elected civilian government in Pakistan. But they do seem to mind the imposition of retired military officers as envoys by a military dictator. Of course, General Musharraf is not going to announce elections in a hurry just because of the mounting pressure on him from the global community for restoring democracy in Pakistan. However, if the western world were to look at the problem through his eyes, it would realise that few dictators have lived happily ever after restoring democracy in the countries they ruled by usurping power. And it is not just the western world which is not happy with the developments in Pakistan. Even Saudi Arabia, the most powerful symbol of "Islamic brotherhood" for Pakistan, has refused to endorse the name of retired Lt Gen Asad Durrani for appointment as envoy in Riyadh. Perhaps, the Saudi King smelled a rat in the appointment. After all Lt General Durrani is a former Director of the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan and is known for having organised a few daring spying missions to even friendly countries. Once a spy, always a spy, seems to be the message the Saudi Arabian government wants to convey to General Musharraf by questioning the appointment of a former head of the dreaded ISI as Pakistan's ambassador to the Arab Kingdom.

Haryana state finances
Illusions and reality
by Surinder Kumar

GOVERNMENT budget is a powerful instrument in the hands of the state to control and regulate public economy. It provides a framework for policy formation and policy implementation embodying priorities of the political party in power. The budget document is a major source of public information on past activities, current decisions and future prospects. In a democratic country, government budget is debated and approved by the legislature, which exercises ultimate control over public revenue and expenditure. The whole process must be transparent and government priorities debated upon to widen and deepen the roots of democratic institutions.

It has been noted that in states like Haryana, there is hardly any serious discussion on the budget in the State Assembly or in the press. There is little effort to demystify the veil of statistics to highlight the real government priorities and to ensure greater accountability.

The state budget of Haryana for the financial year 2000-01 was presented in the Assembly by the Finance Minister, Mr Sampat Singh, on April 14. Though no new tax has been proposed, the Finance Minister has claimed that introduction of uniform sales tax rates in the states and phasing out of sales tax-based incentives to industries will fetch an additional revenue of Rs 75 crore. Efforts will be made for better tax compliance and better tax collection. The government will be downsized by abolishing vacant posts and ban on fresh recruitment to effect economy in revenue expenditure.

It may be noted that budgetary exercise is carried out to make big claims to accomplish wonders in the next financial year and to conceal weaknesses or poor performance during the previous year to evade accountability. This year’s budget is a good example. The outlay for the annual plan (2000-01) has been fixed at Rs 2530 crore projecting an increase of 39.7 per cent over the previous year (1999-2000) actual expenditure (revised estimates) of Rs 1811.16 crore without making any mention of approved budgetary provision of Rs 2300 crore. Here lies the catch. The state government failed to meet investment commitments made at the time of presenting last year’s budget. No reasonable explanation was provided. The phenomenon is not new. An analysis of the budgets of last five years shows that the state government while presenting its annual budget, always exaggerates its claims regarding revenue collections whereby it shows higher allocation of funds on various projects tending to make people believe that the government is quite efficient, progressive and pro-people. Revised estimates of expenditure are reduced as the actual revenue collection always turns out to be lower than budgeted amounts. To postpone impending financial crisis, the government resorts to arbitrary measures to cut expenditure. In the process, priorities get distorted. No questions are asked, no accountability is fixed. For the next year’s budget, budgetary allocations are again exaggerated by making comparison with revised estimates of the expenditure in the previous year, a rosy picture is painted and accountability evaded. The opposition parties generally failed to discharge their democratic responsibility of exposing the weaknesses and/or poor performance of the government in the previous financial year and critical analysis of the priorities in the budget for the next year.

A comparison of the budget estimates for 1999-2000 with revised estimates of 1999-2000 brings out certain startling facts: While presenting last year's budget on February 3, 1999, the government committed that its tax collections during the year will be Rs 3918.08 crore; as per revised estimates, it turned out to be Rs 3637.66 crore, a net reduction of Rs 280.42 crore. The budget estimate for non-tax revenue was Rs 1881.64 crore; however, revised estimate shows that it will be Rs 1182.16 crore, a net loss of Rs 699.48 crore. Though the government has tried to make out a case that 1999-2000 was a bad year, the explanation is not really plausible. The state will achieve agricultural output levels of the previous year and industry and services sectors have clearly picked up. The only disturbing factor was change of government and Assembly elections. Failure to achieve budgeted revenue receipts has clearly been because of lack of adequate effort on the part of the government to mobilise tax and non-tax revenue by improving its efficiency. On top of it, when the new government of Mr O.P. Chautala took over, it incurred an additional non-Plan expenditure of Rs 455.05 crore: payment of Rs 55 crore towards arrears to cane growers, compensation to local bodies in lieu of octroi abolition (Rs 23.84 crore), pay revision of employees of aided educational institutions (Rs 50.58 crore), payment of enhanced pensions and other retirement benefits (Rs 325.63 crore). We are not going into the merits of additional expenditure incurred by the state government. But no provision had been made in the budget for such contingent expenditure. Obviously, a reduction in revenue receipts by Rs 979.48 crore plus additional expenditure of Rs 455.05 crore for which no provision had been made completely dislocated the budgetary allocations approved by the legislature in the budget session. However, no questions were asked for it, inside or outside the Legislative Assembly. It is appreciable that the government has successfully resisted the populist demand of free electricity supply to the agricultural sector.

Healthy financial management practice is that the government must generate adequate revenue to meet current expenditure and it may borrow only for investment as it adds to the productive capacity of the state whereby increase in state income will generate sufficient revenue to repay debt and interest charges. If a state borrows to meet expenses to pay for even the wages and salaries of its employees, the state will be heading towards a debt trap. Revenue deficit of Rs 1341.27 crore in the year 2000-01 indicates that the equivalent amount of money will have to be borrowed to meet current running expenditure of the state government during the year. In fact, situation is not unique to this year's budget. Since 1988-89 except for 1993-94 in all other years, there was a revenue deficit. It is a matter of concern that for more than a decade now, the state government has not made required efforts to meet the current expenditure.

The debt burden has been accumulating at a faster pace. In the total government receipts for 2000-01, it has been shown that the contribution of market borrowings will be Rs 1497.30 crore. In fact, what has been concealed in the jungle of statistics is that the gross borrowings will be Rs 3429.72 crore, debt repayment during the year is Rs 1932.47 crore i.e. net borrowings available to meet any new expenditure will be Rs 1497.31 crore. The total interest payment due during the year on the previous loans will be Rs 1542 crore. This would also mean that the total borrowings were not adequate to repay loans and accrued interest on old loans. It has been estimated that the total accumulated public debt as on 31.3.2000 was Rs 12750 crore and every year resorting to more and more borrowings will make the state finances insolvent.

In an economy where tax and non-tax revenue receipts are generally less than the budgetary targets and where more than 34 per cent of the revenue is expected to be mobilised through public borrowings, even a slight disturbance will dislocate budgetary allocations and distort priorities. To put the state economy on the high growth trajectory, better financial management is called for.

The writer is Professor & Head, Department of Economics, Maharshi Dayanand University.

Modern wars need a joint chief
by Pritam Bhullar

“Exercise Bramhastra” held in the first week of May at Western Command headquarters was the first joint exercise in which the three service chiefs and senior defence officers interacted on inter-service aspects. The aim of the exercise was to achieve cohesion between the three services for joint operations. This kind of exercise, as given out by the Defence Minister Mr George Fernandes, is likely to become a regular annual feature.

A modern war not only calls for close coordination between the three services but also needs an integrated command set-up under one head. A good example of this was the Gulf War in which the three services worked in unison towards the success of the operation under one commander.

No doubt, it is essential to hold joint exercises to achieve the desired results in a modern war. But such exercises are of little use, unless there is a joint command to coordinate and integrate the effort of the three services.

In his book: “Problems of Indian defence”, Mr K.M. Panikkar, an expert on defence thinking, says: “The separation of three services under independent commanders is, indeed, an outmoded concept. A division of functions, makes sense only if these functions represent distinguishable strategic mission. Today, this is not possible....”

In the USA, the higher defence set-up has undergone four major changes since World War-II. This is because the system is debated from time to time and any weaknesses noticed in it are removed without any inhibitions. It has unified structures for planning and command in the form of joint chiefs of staff, joint staff and unified commands. In the UK, Japan, Australia and Italy, there is a full time chief of defence staff with an integrated staff from all the three services to provide a strong unified direction in defence matters.

In India, each service functions independently and cooperates with the other two only when the necessity arises in war and that too under a hurriedly created ad hoc set-up which leaves much to be desired.

In the 1965 war, the Army and the Air Force virtually fought independent battles. The Navy had very little part to play in this war. But in the 1971 war, things functioned better because of the long preparatory period and because there was a healthy nexus between the three service chiefs who had the backing of a strong political leadership. Despite all this, the system did reveal certain weaknesses.

When commanders assemble at one place to plan an operation, their staff is not with them. Besides, lack of joint communication, joint training and reconnaissance affect the conduct of operations. Both in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, each service had to carry out its own reconnaissance to gather information for the planning of operations.

In Sri Lanka, the necessity of having representatives from all the three services at each headquarters was greatly felt. And until this requirement was met, the conduct of operations continued to suffer.

The absence of a coordinated joint set-up was also felt in the Kargil operation last year, though it was a localised operation called a “war like situation”. Our air action, which was delayed for a number of days because of the difference of opinion between the Amy and Air Force, was put through only when this point was resolved at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). Similarly, the decision to move the eastern fleet of our Navy into the Arabian Sea, to send a clear signal to Pakistan on what the escalation of the Kargil conflict had in store for it, was delayed until the Naval Chief had stressed on this point in the CCS.

Our Chiefs of Staff Committee is chaired by a service chief (who is senior-most of the three), but it has no statutory authority. It can only make recommendations which have to be processed in the normal bureaucratic manner at the Ministry of Defence where advice from the professional angle is missing.

In an archaic system like ours, where all the three services train and fight independently without an overall commander to coordinate their functioning, there are bound to be difficulties in formulating a common aim for a joint operation. This is what Mr V. Shankar, a former Defence Secretary, had to say about this system: “In the absence of one single head at the top of the defence forces organisation today, the ultimate burden of coordination, superior direction and working out policies of evolving weapons concepts suitable to the defence policy and strategy and of settling inter-service rivalries or competing demands, largely falls on the Defence Secretary and the Defence Minister. The system that is operative in our country places an onerous burden on the civil and political set-up.... To expect that the annually changing Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee would be able to fill the gap is, to my mind, to ask for the impossible”.

Prior to Independence, the British Commander-in-Chief in India functioned both as Defence Minister and theatre commander. He was vested with full authority to deal with all the defence matters, including the conduct of operations.

The present system was adopted after Independence to cut the wings of the armed forces, lest they become strong. The wily politician also made sure that the defence hierarchy was firmly kept under the thumb of the bureaucrat and was not associated with any decision-making. No wonder then, our soldiers continue to be without weapon locating radars (WLR), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), infra-red cameras and ground sensors, to name only a few, in the Kargil sector even after one year that we were caught napping there. Ironically, Kargil is already forgotten and, as is our wont, we will not talk about it till such time as we face another Kargil.

No matter what happens to us in a future war, there is no likelihood of appointing a joint head to coordinate and direct operations because of the phobia in the minds of our politicians that a strong Army will not augur well for them, thanks to Pakistan which by enacting an army coup after every few years, revives our political pandits’ fear psychosis. No assurance to them that the Indian Army being multi-ethnic, multireligious and multi-lingual was far from going in for a coup cuts any ice.

After Lord Mountbatten came to India as Viceroy, he tried to convince Pandit Jawaharlal Nahru that India should adopt the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) system but Nehru showed his reluctance to this proposal. As recorded by Mountbatten: “The last time Nehru stayed with me here at Broadlands before the Chinese invasion, I urged him to appoint General Thimayya to be the CDS right-away as I could see trouble brewing up. He liked Thimayya immensely and was no longer opposed to the idea of CDS provided it could be got through the Minister of Defence, at that time our mutual friend Krishna Menon. He said Krishna was so bitterly opposed to Thimayya, and, indeed, all the really intelligent independent senior officers such as Muchu Chaudhary, that he was sure he could never get Krishna to agree”.

In sum, India is following a system of command which is totally outdated and is neither in the interest of the country nor in the interest of the operational efficiency of the armed forces. There is therefore, a dire necessity to go in for a system like the CDS because a modern wars cannot be fought without having an integrated command setup under one head.

On the spot
Tavleen Singh
Where do America’s poor hide?

ON a rainy morning in Washington, in an elegant house surrounded by carefully mowed lawns and lovely trees. I read about poverty in America. The Economists in a detailed article on the subject says that at an absolute minimum around one in 10 Americans is poor”. Child poverty is higher because of single parent families so one in five American children live in poverty. Things, inevitably, are worse for blacks and one in four black American families is believed to be poor with 40 per cent black children living in poverty.

The figures surprise me because nowhere in my travels here have I seen evidence of what we in India call poverty. In the richest country in the world you cannot expect to see children begging in rags or the sort of shanties we see in Mumbai or Calcutta but I, at least, expected to see some evidence of poverty that went beyond the occasional beggar on a New York street corner. So, where do America’s poor hide? Washington D.C. is believed to have a population that is 70 per cent black (African American, to be politically correct) but you see mainly white people in fashionable Georgetown and virtually no blacks at all in this leafy suburb.

My hosts are Indian and have lived here many years. They explain that poverty in America is not immediately visible because poor people dress in reasonably decent clothes, have a roof over their heads usually and may even drive around in a car. But, they are poor because they cannot afford the American way of life. “Its easy”, said my host, “for you to compare the trains here with the trains in India but you forget that it costs a minimum of $ 90 to travel between Washington and New York which is hardly a three hour journey. Are Indian railway fares anywhere near that expensive”.

I concede that they are not, but point out that they could be cheaper still if we would use our railway stations for commercial purposes as cleverly as they are used here. At railway stations here there are shops, restaurants, cafes and all manner of other facilities. If we had one Railway Minister who realised the potential to make money in this way out of our railway stations the railways would probably be able to reduce fares even further and pay for themselves instead of always begging for more money.

To return, though, to the subject of poverty and wealth, on my second day in Washington I spent considerable time wandering through the aisles and spaces of a  local supermarket. Here, it is considered average but it is so vast a place that it would easily fit inside it most average Indian bazaars. After being dazzled by the limitless choices in every department — including the pet foods — I spent some time examining prices. It would shock most Indians to know that an average middle class housewife would probably spend more money buying basic groceries in Delhi’s Khan Market than she would here. The poor in India do not, of course, shop in fancy markets but despite the huge food subsidies of the past 50 years and the controlled prices it is quite astonishing to see that basic food in America is nearly as affordable in this land of capitalism. Milk, cheese, bread, eggs for these prices are almost comparable. My host explained that they had managed to keep consumer goods affordable by encouraging as much competition as possible. Perhaps, we should do the same, I said only to remember that we are still in the clutches of our old socialist ideology that thinks of competition as an evil practice and consumer goods as the tools of the Satanic West.

An interview I did with Chandra Shekhar, that staunchest and most diehard of our socialist leaders, comes to mind. He visited New York and saw not the greatest modern city in the world but only a place of terrible poverty.

Eloquently, during that interview, he described how he had seen black people with begging bowls standing at every corner in New York and how it had made him wonder how India would eliminate poverty if the world’s richest country had been unable to. The contest of this remark was ideological. Chandra Shekhar made it while objecting strongly to Dr Manmohan Singh’s attempts to reform our stagnant economy. He saw it as a move towards rightist economics hence the criticism.

Writing from the point of vantage of Washington it seems to me that it is our ideological trap, almost more than anything else, that has kept us poor. We were so proud of our socialism that it seemed almost a crime to aspire to a better standard of living. Anyone who went further and exhibited a desire to actually make money was considered scum and when our peculiar version of socialism got combined with Gandhism our economic ideas got so confused that they brought us to a virtual standstill for many, many years. So, while even Marxist countries like China realised that change was called for we continued to wallow in our ideology, our poverty and our subsidies. The result is that nearly half our population lives in conditions that no human being should have to live in — anyone who doubts this should take a quick trip to your local jhuggi-jhonpri colony. And, the irony is that despite the ideological brainwashing of the past 50 years they are ready to throw socialism in the dustbin if they can exchange it for a halfway decent house to live in, a television set, a telephone and yes, if possible, even a car. The irony also is that despite the anti-Americanism we have trained in there isn’t an Indian who comes to this country who is not dazzled by its economic successes. There are also few Indians who come here and do not make it in some way or other even if it means only driving a taxi around New York.

Even more ironic is the fact that the average Indian in India wants nothing more than to live like Americans do — even if it means living only like poor Americans do. And, this is where our problems begin and where we need to think seriously about how we can achieve a higher standard of living without wasting the earth’s resources as America has done to achieve the American dream. We should not destroy our environment, I find myself thinking, but then I look outside at the forest behind the house I am staying in and remind myself that I am 15 minutes from the centre of Washington. I also remember sadly that there isn’t a city in India where we have anything that compares and that, in fact, not many rural parts left either where you would see so many trees. So, even without development we have destroyed our environment. America may still have poverty but it also has huge prosperity to compensate. We have poverty and only our ideology as solace. Who do you think is better off?

Spiritual Nuggets

Grant me this boon O God, from Thy greatness,

May I never refrain from righteous acts;

— Matthew Arnold, Essays on Criticism, 2nd series