Clinton’s uncontested win PRESIDENT Clinton did not fight the midterm elections, but has still emerged as an unexpected and wholly happy winner. For, he had the biggest stake in the outcome and he now stands to gain the most.

Embarrassment for Congress
TO say that the public criticism of top Congress leaders, including Mrs Sonia Gandhi, by Mr S.S. Ahluwalia on the eve of Assembly elections in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Mizoram has caused political embarrassment to the party is to state the obvious.

RBI’s disappointing stance
by S. Sethuraman
THERE was some expectation that where the Union Budget and fiscal measures undertaken or intended had failed to “kickstart” the economy, the Reserve Bank of India would provide some impulses through monetary and credit policy refinements at the start of the traditional busy season.

Playing with Article 356
by Hari Jaisingh
DO we need Article 356 of the Constitution? This is a simple question but opinion on the subject is both divided and politicised. Politicians have their own angularities depending on which side of the ideological divide they happen to be. A clear division exists among legal luminaries.

Retreat from market philosophy
By M.S.N. Menon
IS the free market philosophy in retreat? The signs are, it is. In less than a decade, it has lost its momentum. Most dramatically, in Latin America (Mexico) and Asia. But that is not the crux of our story. It is about the re-emergence of the Left.

Battle of onions
by D. R. Sharma
GERTRUDE STEIN, the tutor-guardian of many an expatriate American writer in Paris, exhorted them day in and day out to emulate her prose style as manifest in her favourite quote, “A rose is a rose is a rose”. Tired of this imperious advice, Hemingway is reported to have retorted: “An onion is an onion is an onion”.

75 Years Ago

Resolution to withdraw from empire exhibition
POONA: Mr Lalji Narainji has addressed a letter to the members of the Bombay Legislative Council, suggesting refusal of certain grants in view of the fact that the Government has disallowed his motion, urging Bombay’s withdrawal from the Empire Exhibition. The letter reads as follows:

Clinton’s uncontested win

PRESIDENT Clinton did not fight the midterm elections, but has still emerged as an unexpected and wholly happy winner. For, he had the biggest stake in the outcome and he now stands to gain the most. As one newspaper has graphically summed it up, the tiniest gain in the House of Representatives (five seats out of 435) and no gain in the Senate has “stalled the impeachment process in its track”. The Republicans may, and in all probability will, press on with the proceedings, but with less conviction and with lesser public support. The Senate is doubly sure to throw out the impeachment resolution, if ever one were brought forth, and there will be no defection from the 45 Democrats, and without cross-voting the mandatory two-thirds majority cannot be manufactured. Simply put, the Monica Lewinsky scandal has run out of steam, rather the voters have consigned it to the dustbin of history. But the spots on the President’s character remain and that will earn him a reprimand, a legislative rap across his knuckles. It is bad, but much, much gentler than the ignominy of impeachment and an exit swathed in disgrace. The newly elected Houses will be constituted only in January, which means that the present one has to go through the final motions. The House may be the same but the electoral verdict has set a new agenda and called for a new assessment of the anti-Clinton move. It is not often that the electorate delivers a clear and loud message on a single issue. That is the real surprise in this election.

The post-mortem on the elections has just started and it will be months before a detailed and scientific analysis is available. But already there is recrimination in the Republican ranks and hardliners have attracted bitter criticism for overplaying the sex scandal. There is weight in this charge. In 19 select constituencies the party released television commercials attacking the President on this issue and in 14 of them the party candidates lost. Obviously a sort of Monica affairs fatigue has set in and the voters resolutely turned away from the accusers. On the defensive from the start, the Democrats had to talk of issues, and a healthy economy was great help. In the USA inflation is at around 2 per cent and unemployment at less than 4 per cent. It is not that everybody is rich but an overwhelming majority of the people do not feel that they are poor. This feel-good factor gave substance to issues. President Clinton’s record in office too gelled well. But the icing was the Wye River West Asia peace agreement, almost on the eve of voting. There is one area Indians can easily relate themselves to. The Democrats seem to have consolidated their vote bank; a big chunk of the blacks (accounting for 11 per cent of the voters) and hispanics (6 per cent) backed the Clinton party. Where moderate Republicans broke into this vote bank as they did in Texas and Florida, they won convincingly. The moral of the reprieve to the Democrats is that not Monica but the minority vote has the decisive edge.

Embarrassment for Congress

TO say that the public criticism of top Congress leaders, including Mrs Sonia Gandhi, by Mr S.S. Ahluwalia on the eve of Assembly elections in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Mizoram has caused political embarrassment to the party is to state the obvious. The expression of regret and the promise of action against the perpetrators of the 1984 holocaust in Delhi was dismissed as a political gimmick even by those who may vote for the Congress. If the party was serious about punishing those responsible for the anti-Sikh riots, it could have done so when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister and Delhi too was under the control of the Congress. Even when Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister he did little to win back the trust of the Sikhs. Whatever political mileage the Congress hoped to extract from the promise of action against those who led the anti-Sikh riots has been effectively neutralised by the diatribe of Mr Ahluwalia. He is unhappy with the decision of the party to include Mr H.K.L. Bhagat, Mr Jagdish Tytler, Mr Sajjan Kumar and Mr Dharam Dass Shastri in the campaign panel for the elections in Delhi. Their names figure prominently in the list of the suspects in the 1984 case. Mr Bhagat is among the Congressmen who spent time in jail as accused. However, if Mr Ahluwalia’s heart really bleeds for the Sikhs of India, it has begun to bleed a little too late. He must explain the circumstances which compelled him to remain a dutiful “soldier” of the Congress after the 1984 riots and continued to rub shoulders with the likes of Mr Bhagat. He has no political base in Bihar and neither is he a spokesman of the Sikh community — a role he probably hopes to assume in the event of his being thrown out of the Congress for “indulging in anti-party activities”.

The Bharatiya Janata Party is not too happy with the pressure the Akali Dal is putting on it for seat sharing in Delhi. The BJP may find some role for the new “champion” of the Sikh cause in the event of Mr Ahluwalia being thrown out of the Congress. As far as the role assigned to “Bhagat and company” in the Delhi election campaign for the Congress is concerned, there seems to be some method in the political madness. During a Press conference Delhi Congress President Sheila Dixit said that no chargesheeted Congressman would be given the party ticket to contest the Assembly elections. What she did not say was that the promise of action by the Congress against the leaders of the 1984 riots and Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s greetings on the occasion of Gurpurb is not likely to change the anti-Congress attitude of the Sikhs in Delhi. It makes political sense to write off the 10 per cent Sikh votes and concentrate on the remaining 18 per cent Punjabi votes in Delhi. The Congress leadership presumes that Mr Bhagat, Mr Tytler, Mr Dharam Dass Shastri and Mr Sajjan Kumar still have “election winning” influence over the non-Sikh Punjabi voters in Delhi. It is not that the Congress is afraid of showing the door to tainted politicians. It threw out Mr Buta Singh from the party and he won a Lok Sabha seat from Rajasthan on his own steam and even became a Minister in the BJP-led coalition at the Centre. He was sacrificed at the altar of “value-based politics” because one Buta Singh did not pose any threat to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. The Congress threw out Mr Sukh Ram because of his alleged involvement in the multi-crore telecom scam and he threw out the Congress from power in Himachal Pradesh by extending support to the BJP. Against this backdrop, the decision of the Congress to snub Mr Ahluwalia and involve the seemingly tainted Bhagats in the election campaign in Delhi makes political sense. But this is bad politics, to say the least.

Playing with Article 356
Question of exercising restraint
by Hari Jaisingh

DO we need Article 356 of the Constitution? This is a simple question but opinion on the subject is both divided and politicised. Politicians have their own angularities depending on which side of the ideological divide they happen to be. A clear division exists among legal luminaries. However, the Supreme Court in the famous S.R. Bommai case has thrown up certain norms and guidelines on the subject which continue to be relevant.

First, the nine judges constituting the Supreme Court Bench agree that the exercise of power by the executive under Article 356 is subject to a judicial review.

Second, the majority judgement has laid down that till the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356 (3), the Legislative Assembly of any state should not be dissolved.

Third, it has been clearly stated that secularism is a constitutional goal. It is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Fourth, the verdict makes it clear that the power under Article 356 "is to be used not for political gain but with circumspection, in exceptional circumstances only". This means that "merely because a different political party is elected to power at the Centre, even with a thumping majority, that is no ground for exercise of power under Article 356 (1)."

Fifth, the majority view supports the federal character of the Constitution while acknowledging its bias for the Centre.

Historically speaking, the problem with Article 356 has arisen mainly because it has been used indiscriminately for political purposes. Blame in this regard must lie with the Congress as a ruling party at the Centre. The frequent misuse of the Article has often caused hostility among most Opposition parties. Notwithstanding the blunders of the past, the primary objective of Article 356 is to protect the integrity of the country. This ought to be the guiding principle of any party that occupies the centrestage of power in New Delhi.

However,because of its misuse for political purposes the Article has become a bone of contention in Centre-state relations. It is a pity that this provision has been used far too often to dismiss duly elected state governments. In the process, Raj Bhavans have been politicised. The Congress is, of course, not the only villain of the piece. We find that when it comes to power, the BJP-controlled Raj Bhavans, especially those manned by party persons, behave in the same fashion.

Article 356 is surely not about good governance (where is good governance at the Centre, to begin with?). This was clearly stated by B.R. Ambedkar when he remarked : "Whether there is good government or not in the province is not for the Centre to determine. I am quite clear on this point. So, only when the governance of the state is not in consonance with the Constitution, then alone can the Article be invoked," he said.

Going by our experience during the past 51 years, it has to be acknowledged that the danger of disruptive tendency is always there in the polity. As it is, there is tremendous turbulence in the country. The threat from terrorist violence in several border states is very real and frightening. Politically, the old consensus seems to have disappeared. This has weakened the polity to the advantage of internal and external saboteurs. That is one major point in favour of retaining Article 356.

It is also a fact that given the nature of politics in our country, there will always be conflicting pulls and pressures on the polity. So unless political parties observe certain norms and rules, the concept of federalism, as enshrined in the Constitution, will be very difficult to sustain. In terms of operative politics, this has become all the more threatening in view of the fact that there are as many as 46 political parties represented in Parliament.

Federalism cannot be sustained unless the Centre as well as the states observe rules. Unfortunately, there is always the danger of negative tendencies in a federal system, creating areas of tension and conflicts. So, amidst various pulls and counterpulls operating within the Indian system, it is but natural that the states are opposed to Article 356. This feeling has grown because the states run by non-Congress parties in the past had come under Central rule under Article 356 on one ground or the other. That is the reason why regional parties like the Akali Dal, the Telugu Desam and the National Conference have been fiercely opposed to this Article. Indeed, the Article has been used too often — as many as 110 times — mostly by the Congress. What is more, it has been used mostly for wrong reasons. Indira Gandhi used it as many as 48 times.

In today's confused political spectrum, several Opposition parties have opposed the invocation of Article 356 in Bihar. Even while opposing the proposition, most of them have refused to give a clean chit to the Bihar administration. Nor have they said that there had been no violation of the Constitution.

CPM leader Harkishen Singh Surjeet says: "Our support to the RJD is limited to Article 356 at present". One can understand this since unlike other parties the CPM is opposed to Article 356 in principle and not whether the law and order has broken down.

The issue, therefore, is not whether there has been a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. It is whether Article 356 should be retained in the Constitution or not. Many parties feel that it should be scrapped.

Broadly speaking, we are not clear as to what constitutes the breakdown of the constitutional machinery. Article 356 is by no means clear on this point. Only an indepth debate, both academic and public, can bring about greater clarity and precision in the whole matter.

The magnitude of the deterioration in constitutional observance cannot be quantified. It is a subjective assessment. In the case of Bihar, the BJP and the Samata are interested parties which, apparently, may not be able to make an objective assessment of the situation. As for the Governor, it is a fact that he is an RSS man. And after becoming Governor, he has obviously not snapped his old links. As far as Bihar is concerned, the entire matter has got politicised. Hence the President's dilemma. Can President's rule make matters better in Bihar? I don't think so. But people are for President's rule and election. Sample surveys are clear on this. Public order has reached its nadir of distress and despair in Bihar, says L.M. Singhvi, the famous jurist. It is a pity that the President was moved by other considerations.

The Bihar situation is abominable. It has been anarchical for decades. Home Minister Advani is right in saying that Bihar is the worst state. Even Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has repeatedly said that "a mafia raj prevails in Bihar". And he is right. It has been impossible to even conduct elections in that state. It is a lawless situation. The mafia is in total control everywhere.

The CBI says that about 2000 officials and others are involved in the fodder scam alone! Such is the dimension of the anarchy. There is no administrative machinery worth the name. And without it, one cannot make any improvement there. What is left of the machinery is so corrupt that nothing good can be expected from it.

It may be recalled that the Sarkaria Commission had suggested certain improvements in the provisions of the Article. After examining the reckless misuse of Article 356, Justice Sarkaria defined "constitutional breakdown" under the following heads:

i) Political crisis or deadlock occurring after an election.

ii) Internal subversion.

iii) Physical breakdown.

iv) Non-compliance with the constitutional directions of the Union executive.

There is also a status report on President's rule prepared in 1996. There was also discussion on the subject in the Inter-State Council. All these facts should be brought out in a white paper with a view to amending the Article to which the BJP is already committed.

However, the moot point is whether a mere scrapping of the Article will make things different. Herman Finer once observed: "If the power-holders exercise self-restraint, the written constitution is unnecessary, and if they do not, then no written constitution will check them."

The problem in India has been that politicians cannot exercise restraint. They indulge in excesses and in the process they have played havoc with the system. That is why a good intention behind Article 356 (say, regarding the integrity of the country) looks distorted. It is the past misuse of the Article which makes it look monstrous.

Looking at the country's political spectrum, there is no guarantee that Article 356 in its present form will not be misused. The only reason for some restraint that we see in the BJP is mainly because of the clear and firm position taken on the subject by some of the regional parties on whose support the Vajpayee-led coalition depends.

In any case, the whole matter needs to be examined afresh with a sense of realism. After all, the norms stipulated by the apex court and some statutory changes on the lines suggested by the Sarkaria Commission should ensure sufficient guarantee against the misuse of the Article. Its abrogation may not be desirable if we constantly keep in mind the basic question of India's integrity.

RBI’s disappointing stance
by S. Sethuraman

THERE was some expectation that where the Union Budget and fiscal measures undertaken or intended had failed to “kickstart” the economy, the Reserve Bank of India would provide some impulses through monetary and credit policy refinements at the start of the traditional busy season.

Not that the RBI could do anything significant with interest rates at a time when the fiscal deficit looks certain to go out of line, inflation has moved up to the 8 to 9 per cent range, and there is excessive liquidity in the system. Nevertheless, the RBI could have signalled a policy orientation supportive of economic recovery in the latter half of the year (October-March).

The RBI Governor, anticipating the sense of disappointment for the productive sectors his mid-year review would create, had described his policy statement in advance as a “non-event”. Dr Bimal Jalan, in his first year of stewardship of the central bank, has had to take some tough measures to stabilise the exchange rate during spells of volatility, with as much concern for external stability as for the price level, and in the process both the growth of the economy and exports had become secondary. Again, there was belated response in regard to the reduction of the interest rate for export credit at 9 per cent which will be effective only upto the end of March, 1999.

Dr Jalan has moved away from the traditional approach to the credit policy appropriate to the “slack” and “busy” seasons corresponding to the first and latter half of the fiscal year. In April, he indicated that there would only be a mid-year review without changes in credit policy measures.

Adhering to this line, the statement (October 30) on a mid-term review of monetary and credit policy for 1998-99 makes no chances in the bank rate (now at 9 per cent) or the cash reserve ratio — CRR (11 per cent) — with the proviso that regulatory measures would be liable to change “at short notice” in the light of emerging developments, domestic or external. This can only mean that the RBI’s stance of monetary and credit policy will no longer be fitted into two neat half-yearly patterns.

Dr Jalan also decided that the mid-year policy would contain no “structural measures”. However, in order not to make his review altogether barren, he is giving effect to part of the recommendations of the Narasimham Committee on Financial Sector Reforms (II) in regard to capital adequacy, income recognition and provisioning norms for banks and other financial institutions. This is designed to ensure full disclosure and transparency in banking operations in line with the best international practices.

Financial sector reforms have gained great urgency in all countries, more especially the East Asian countries rocked by economic turmoil triggered by capital outflows, which have been attributed in the main to their fragile banking systems. Although Indian banks have a relatively better record in regard to doubtful debts and little exposure to real estate, with a large part of assets in government and approved securities, future risks are sought to be insured against by strengthening the domestic financial sector.

What is more to the point at present is the grim picture of the economy which the RBI mid-year review takes due note of, contrary to what the Finance Ministry claims to prevail. In its annual report in September, the RBI had projected a GDP growth of 6.5 per cent in 1998-99 and this has now been revised down to around 6 per cent, as compared to 5.1 per cent in 1997-98.

Floods have dimmed the prospects of record harvests this year, and the RBI assumes only 3 per cent growth in agriculture as a “reasonable estimate”. Industrial growth would be no better than last year’s 6.5 per cent. While the RBI regards the outlook for industrial growth “uncertain” and the external environment as “highly unfavourable”, it has expressed greater concern over the current inflation rate, far above the tolerable 5 to 6 per cent, as well as the 20 per cent rise in money supply — “too high” in relation to the expected growth of the economy, largely due to government borrowings.

Despite the plethora of policy statements emanating from the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister in October, what is looked for is not merely confidence-building declarations but also speedy implementation of the decisions which would generate demand and facilitate the fruition of investments, public and private, in infrastructure.

The credibility of the Vajpayee government will continue to be on test until results begin to flow even though it is the midst of challenges such as the soaring prices of essential food articles, the problems it has inherited from the previous government and difficulties it has created for itself by an abrupt exercise of the nuclear option. — IPA.

Battle of onions
by D. R. Sharma

GERTRUDE STEIN, the tutor-guardian of many an expatriate American writer in Paris, exhorted them day in and day out to emulate her prose style as manifest in her favourite quote, “A rose is a rose is a rose”. Tired of this imperious advice, Hemingway is reported to have retorted: “An onion is an onion is an onion”. He couldn’t have visualised that 70 to 80 years later his comment would sound prophetic in the context of our current onion crisis.

While I wish luck to every political party, I feel that this crisis might make things hot for some, especially those who wake up late. Onions have never interested the poll-analysts, but after the upcoming assembly elections the onion-factor alone would intrigue the psephologists.

Coming to think of it, onion is an innocent vegetable dear both to those who eat meat and those who loathe it. Universally popular, it sustains haves as well as have-nots. While onion in vinegar looks good on the table, its fist-crushed version suits the palate of even a stone-crusher.

Our home-help is an onion buff. On the kitchen slab he loves to see a heap of sliced onions before asking us whether to cook kidney or red beans. And when we come down for breakfast, he immediately picks up the knife to cut onions and tomatoes for our omelette. After the outrageous price-hike of this smelly commodity when we say that we don’t want any onions or tomatoes in the omelette, the poor fellow pities us for having grown old too soon.

Of late I’ve witnessed many a snaffu on the part of those who control the price-line. I remember I rushed to the nearby petrol station after the last budget speech and felt stupid the next day when I realised the utter futility of my desperate drive. Earlier when some friends and relatives told us about their anti-onion dietary orientation, we thought their taste buds were yet to develop. And now we realise that those taste buds were simply divine. Envious of their pristine purity, we look upon our earlier paste of onion, ginger and garlic as an explosive with Satanic ingredients.

Having referred to the executive goof-ups behind the current situation, I don’t think we should keep hammering the government. If rain damages the crop, why censure the leadership? And why should the government ban the export of this garnishing agent? In fact, I would be happy if we export every single onion to the mutton-munching nations so that they know the difference between our piquant product and its bland American counterpart. Instead of cursing the present leadership and its composite culture, we should thank it for resurrecting our “satvik” heritage — and for telling us that life without onions can be equally fulfilling.

Retreat from market philosophy
By M.S.N. Menon

IS the free market philosophy in retreat? The signs are, it is. In less than a decade, it has lost its momentum. Most dramatically, in Latin America (Mexico) and Asia.

But that is not the crux of our story. It is about the re-emergence of the Left.

In Europe, the major powers — Germany, France and Italy — have all moved to the Left. (Germans have just voted for social democracy). In Britain, there is a Labour Government. In Scandinavia, there are welfare states. In Eastern Europe and Russia, the honeymoon with free market is over. China has a Communist regime and a controlled economy. Australia and New Zealand are for welfare states. As for the developing countries, none can be an ardent advocate of free market. Who is then for the market? Only one country: America, with the World Bank and IMF in the lead. What guides them is Wall Street.

But do the Americans support the market philosophy? Perhaps not. They are too illiterate to know its implications. But they can be sensitive to unemployment and high taxes.

In America, only 12 per cent of the workers are unionised! Which is why it is the citadel of capitalism. In Europe, the labour is more well organised. This explains how European unions were able to stem the advance of market philosophy and secure a “social charter” guaranteeing minimum rights — such as right to organise themselves, equitable wages, social security, improved working conditions and free movement of labour within the European Union. What is more, they are able to win elections and form governments.

Now that Communism is no more a threat to free market, economists are ready to examine the Marxist legacy. Two things stand out: the ethical foundation of Marxism and the inspiration that Marx drew from Adam Smith.

Adam Smith had said: “No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the far greater of the members (the toiling masses) are poor and miserable”. Again: “Those who through their labour feed, clothe and lodge societies should themselves have a claim on these”. His intentions are clear. What transpired was the opposite.

Marx thus inherited the social concern of Adam Smith, while the capitalists opted for his doctrine of laisse-faire. This division has continued to persist, with Marxism and capitalism advancing or falling back according to the exigencies of circumstances.

Having purged economics of ethics, the capitalists advanced the theories of competition and “trickle-down” to make up for their lack of concern for the poor. These never worked. Poverty continued to persist.

It was said that poverty could be eradicated only through development. This posits limitless economic growth — something not possible in real life. In any case, Gunnar Myrdal and others argued that without social development, economic development would be retarded. This is what Prof Amartya Sen has also emphasised.

Wall Street paid no attention to such arguments. In fact, whenever there was a downturn of the economy, the social gains were rolled back.

Faith in wage policy also suffered a setback with the internationalisation of the economies. Faced with growing labour costs, capitalists began to relocate their factories in low wage regions. With this, the search for a level playing field began. This was what led to globalisation.

Thus social democrats are on the defensive today. To that extent, people have suffered. Which explains why the people have voted them back to power.

Even in America, the search for a human economic system has a long history. The “New Deal” of Roosevelt, “New Frontier” of Kennedy, “Great Society” of Johnson, a “Kinder America” of Bush — all these are in a way expressions of dissatisfaction with the market philosophy. At least, they acknowledge that the market is inadequate. In this sense, the Reagan years were an aberration. In fact, when Reagan dismantled the security net provided by earlier regimes, Malcolm Frazer, the former Labour Prime Minister of Australia, said: “In the rush and unthinking worship of deregulation, many of the prudential rules have been abandoned”. The result was the “Black Monday”, when the New York stock market crashed. With that, the market mechanism was discredited. Wrote the Washington Post, by no means sympathetic to socialism; “You have heard an intolerable amount of bosh in the past seven years (Reagan years) about the deep and infallible wisdom of the market. In fact, markets are perfectly capable of nervous breakdowns. You have just witnessed a historic example of it. They need regulation, and in times of trouble, strong guidance”.

Peter Drucker, the celebrated observer of corporate America and management guru, who has to his credit 40 books on business, wrote on the New York stock crash: “The last two years were just too disgusting a spectacle. Pigs gorging themselves at the trough are always a disgusting spectacle and you know it won’t last long”. This is what “free market” does. Too many pigs and swiddlers gorge up what belongs to small investors.

In a remarkable book “False Dawn — The Delusion of Global Capitalism” Prof John Gray of Oxford University analyses the powerful propaganda in favour of the US model. He says, free market is not “natural”. It is a “creation”. One common feature of the free market is the politics of insecurity and high social costs. A fully democratic order and a free market cannot coexist, he says.

And yet Wall Street survives to fight another day. Men are found to proclaim the “end of history”. Soon, the pigs were gorging in the Mexican trough and then in the Asian trough. George Soros turned out to be the biggest pig, gorging billions in the Asian trough.

Drucker says the main attack on the market economy has never been on economic grounds, but on the ethical principle, just as the main argument for socialism and government intervention has never been economic, but ethical. Indeed, even convinced Marxists never claimed the superiority of socialism on economic grounds but on social and ethical considerations. The inequality, ruthlessness, crassness and materialism of the market economy have always outraged social thinkers.

Today, with the debacle of socialism and the market philosophy, it is time to think afresh about the kind of economic life we want. Whatever it be, we must put ethics back into economics. And, as I said on another occasion, we must find the men inspired by ethics to be at the helm of governance.

Men are the same whatever they do. There is hardly any difference between the corporate chieftain and the political leader. Both surround themselves with favourites and flatterers. “For every corporate Marcus Aurelius, there are ten Neros”, says Anthony Sampson in his book “The Company Man: The Rise and Fall of Corporate Life”.

That is why neither the free market nor the corporate chiefs can be trusted to do what is just. And the market is only a mechanism. At best it provides information. It is time that these facts sank into our consciousness before Wall Street, in the name of “good governance”, gains control of politics, too.

75 YEARS AGO
Kenya and Bombay Council

Resolution to withdraw from empire exhibition

POONA: Mr Lalji Narainji has addressed a letter to the members of the Bombay Legislative Council, suggesting refusal of certain grants in view of the fact that the Government has disallowed his motion, urging Bombay’s withdrawal from the Empire Exhibition. The letter reads as follows:

“I appeal to you to assert yourself by fearless use of powers acquired by you as representatives of your various constituencies, and vindicate the outraged self-respect by the Kenya decision, which even the representatives of His Majesty the King Emperor, viz His Excellency the Viceroy, declare as acceptable only under protest and which Sir Malcolm Hailey, the Home Member of the Government of India, believes is such that the feeling of resentment in the country is justified.

“You all remember my motion of adjournment of the House was not allowed under Rule 22 by His Excellency. I, therefore, sent a notice of the resolution on August 1 to enable the House to express their indignation in one of the ways suggested by Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastri which is perfectly dignified and constitutional. Such a resolution requires the sanction of the Government, which, if they mean practical sympathy, would have been granted.”

Up till now thirty members of the Bombay Legislative Council have signified their assent to this circular.