A question of SC answers
IT is now final: the authority to appoint and transfer judges of the Supreme Court and high courts rests collectively with the Chief Justice of India and four of his seniormost brother judges.

CVC in right form
WITH the reversal of the Union Government's controversial decision on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), a major contentious issue of law and investigative practice has come to an end.

REDISCOVERING INDIA
by Hari Jaisingh
AS the country moves into the next millennium, a number of danger signals stare us in the face. Not that these are new pointers to the pitfalls ahead. They have been very much part of our democratic malfunctioning, of which we had a glimpse at last week's Education Ministers’ conference at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.

‘Overdiscipline’ as Army’s problem
by P.K. Vasudeva
DISCIPLINE is a branch of instruction. In the Army, it is the system of maintenance of order. It causes obedience, devotion to duty, respect for the command, loyalty to seniors and orderliness in the services and society both.

. Welfare economics not the final answer by M.S.N. Menon EVERYONE is marching today to the tune of “welfare economics”. Prof Amartya Sen has made it popular. But I prefer to stand aside. I have something different to say.Man is the measure of all things, the Sophists said. But he is also the cause of his rise and fall. That is why Plato put the laws above man. The lake resort by O.P. Bhagat WITH our host we drove out of Udaipur in the evening. He was taking us — my four friends and I — to his lake island resort.By the time we reached the Jaisamand lake, dusk was creeping in. We got into one of the several motorboats waiting there and made for the bank opposite.

75 Years Ago

Unemployment in England
LONDON: Reviewing the question of unemployment in the House of Commons, Sir Montague Barlow said that there was a difficult winter ahead. The occupation of the Ruhr, which at first seemed to assist in improving matters, subsequently had the contrary effect.

A question of SC answers

IT is now final: the authority to appoint and transfer judges of the Supreme Court and high courts rests collectively with the Chief Justice of India and four of his seniormost brother judges. And the government has no role to play other than to issue the warrant of appointment. Thus has ended the decades old tug of war between the executive and the judiciary, the high point of which was the blunt threat by the Indira Gandhi government in the early seventies to pack the court with committed judges. By its response to the nine-point reference by the President, the court has upheld its 1993 judgement but softened it by making it obligatory for the CJI to actively consult four seniormost colleagues and build a consensus on each case of appointment and transfer. The court has thus retained its right to make mandatory recommendations, but the right will not be exercised solely by the CJI in his individual capacity but by him as the leader of a collegium. The only drag on this is if two of the judges take a contradictory stand, the proposal falls through. On the face of it, this consensus clause looks like providing a speedbreaker on a future CJI railroading his nominations through. But this is a legal illusion; a powerful CJI can always get round this problem if he sets his heart on a particular appointment and if those in the collegium are loathe to enter into a public controversy, as judges normally do.

In a manner of speaking, the executive had worked hard to earn this well-merited exclusion. Even as late as the mid-eighties, the then Law Minister P. Shivshankar asserted that it was the birthright of the government, meaning the ruling party, to transfer judges very much like it shifts section officers from one desk to another. That action was bound to produce a reaction of equal force but in the opposite direction. And when the first opportunity came its way, thanks to a public interest litigation by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, the Supreme Court hit back, vesting all powers of appointment and transfer in its hands but to be exercised by the CJI. Since then the crest-fallen bureaucracy has been finding one flaw or the other in the way the list of prospective judges takes shape. At the fag end of Chief Justice Punchhi’s tenure, the government refused to issue appointment letters, precipitating a crisis and prompting the presidential reference. The latest opinion of the apex court has ended that sad chapter and has cleared the way for filling seven vacancies in the highest court and more than 150 in various high courts. But it is debatable if it has forever ended the possibility of friction in the years to come. The selection and transfer of judges is too serious a business to be left to the judiciary and the consequent in-breeding. It has to share the power, maybe with a collegium of elders or a proposed judicial commission. The peace in the interregnum is good enough time to start the hunt for a durable solution.

CVC in right form

WITH the reversal of the Union Government's controversial decision on the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), a major contentious issue of law and investigative practice has come to an end. The CVC ordinance of August 25 had pitted one Supreme Court view against another. And what ought to have been seen as a reformative step had begun to be visualised as a clever bureaucratic legalese. The Union Minister for Urban Affairs, Mr Ram Jethmalani, who was one of the four Ministers selected to finalise the contents of the original amendments, observed in the light of his legal wisdom that the changes sought to be made were a result of calculated deviousness indulged in by the IAS lobby, which was keen on furthering its interests and protecting itself from investigation. He went to the extent of calling the step "a silent bureaucratic coup". The BJP Government was, however, mainly responsible for the flawed ordinance. The Supreme Court had expressed concern over some aspects of the August 25 dispensation. It was during the multi-crore Indian Bank scam episode involving politicians, bank officers and bureaucrats that the government had taken a hasty and patently untenable step. Now the same government has amended the ordinance by another ordinance. It has made the CVC a four-member body of experts which will include non-bureaucrats also. The clause which stipulated prior sanction of the vigilance panel to prosecute officers above the rank of Joint Secretary in corruption cases has also been dropped. A situation had arisen in which criminals and their "judges" could have been viewed as one group working for self-protection and self-perpetuation. The need of the hour was the existence of an atmosphere of transparency and accountability while an agency like the CBI was probing allegations of corruption against politicians, bureaucrats and other public servants. The assurance given by Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee to the Supreme Court that the CVC ordinance would be fine-tuned was seen as the realisation on the part of the government that it was impossible to avoid a volte-face through politicking. Now the CVC has been brought in line with the relevant directions of the apex court. The new ordinance provides for the appointment of two non-bureaucrats to the commission. It would no longer be a purely bureaucratic body. The dropping of the single-point directive makes the provisions rational and keeps them beyond the shadow of doubt. The Supreme Court had struck down the directive last year to facilitate the investigation of corruption cases against the high and mighty. The Secretary, Personnel, would not be an ex-officio member of the commission. However, the appointment of Mr N. Vittal as Chief Vigilance Commissioner would remain valid. The broadbased commission would carry greater conviction among the public. Experts from the financial fields, including those in the banking, law, vigilance and investigation sectors, would lend authenticity to the CVC. The four-member commission should be relied upon as a credible institution. Political aberrations bring about such embarrassing situations and only political retreats rectify them. Ironically, the Law Commission, which had recommended the inclusion of "others" in the earlier ordinance, had allowed itself to be misled while examining the issue of granting a statutory status to the CVC. The Supreme Court Bench, which has closed the rather nasty chapter, has said that it would resume the hearing of the bank scam case on November 18. A wrong righted is a right thing, indeed. Praise must go to Mr Soli Sorabjee for his unflattering counsel to the government and the tactful handling of the case before the court. One hopes that those living under the shadow of criminality would be prosecuted and judged speedily. All the objections raised by amicus curiae Anil Dewan have been suitably addressed. The spirit of the ordinance should be allowed to prevail. Habitual politickers and manipulative bureaucrats are birds of the same feather.

REDISCOVERING INDIA
At stake is sensitivity & sensibility

by Hari Jaisingh

AS the country moves into the next millennium, a number of danger signals stare us in the face. Not that these are new pointers to the pitfalls ahead. They have been very much part of our democratic malfunctioning, of which we had a glimpse at last week's Education Ministers’ conference at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.

Certain issues which erupted there are fundamental in nature. A hasty retreat by Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi has, however, put them on hold. All the same, there are live issues, revolving around secularism, communalism, heritage, roots of civilisation and the place of broad-based cultural tradition in our educational system and society. Can we draw a line between diverse religious practices and what can be called composite Indian culture and common heritage?

In the first place, we need to honestly and frankly address ourselves to these issues, notwithstanding the prevailing distortions in our thinking process. Dr Murli Manohar Joshi surely does not belong to the tradition of our rishis. He has been a politician- cum-professor. He is not a pathfinder. He basically belongs to a class that is often beholden to rituals. As Human Resource Development Minister, he should be more concerned about the quality of education that we impart to our children than anything else. Perhaps, to him ritual is the gateway to perfection!

Second, too much of politics in every sphere of national life has blurred the vision even of the thinking persons, be they intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals, depending on how you look at them.

Third, politicians and political parties continue to thrive on the weakness of public memory being short. And thereby hangs the tale of double standard and dubious games.

Take the case of Saraswati vandana. Though a ritual, the prayer is associated with learning. Last year at Vigyan Bhavan itself a national award ceremony for the welfare of people with disabilities began with Saraswati vandana. Present on the occasion were President K.R. Narayanan and the then Prime Minister, Mr I.K. Gujral. It is also no secret that the Marxist-run government in West Bengal has holidays for Saraswati puja and Kali puja.

If the sanctity of Marxism is not compromised with puja holidays in Calcutta, why did the state's Education Minister, Mr Kanti Biswas, get agitated over the invocation to the Goddess of Learning? Does the shade of Marx look different under the saffron canopy? Ironically, we tend to take jaundiced views of national goings-on, which, more often than not, make Indian politics look illogical, irrational and condemnable in the eyes of the rest of the world.

The issue here is not the desirability or otherwise of Saraswati vandana at the conference. The issue is of hypocrisy of our politicians, which plays havoc with our basic value system of tolerance, liberalism, forgiveness and rationality.

The reaction of the Congress and other political parties has been equally selective and lopsided. This brings us to yet another major problem of viewing every matter in terms of vote bank politics.

Whose cause does such an approach promote? Narrow and distorted thinking only leads to negative competition in communalism. Secularism does not mean anti-Hinduism. Tolerance has to be all-embracing. It is equally applicable to the majority as well as the minority communities. Our leaders do a disservice to the nation by playing communal cards for vote bank politics all the while.

No nation can attain great heights by disowning its civilisation and cultural heritage. It also needs to be appreciated that Hinduism is more than a religion. It is a way of life, though a lot of distortions in the faith have crept in because of today's negative competitive politics.

True, India's is a plural society. Our diversity is our richest asset if only we know how to use it. So, in all our moves, we have to rise above caste, religion and community considerations. Herein lies the importance of secularism. Secularism cannot be selective and one-sided. It has to be broadbased, stressing upon the finer points which unify the people. The key to this unity lies in our heritage and the silken threads of culture. Culture is not something which is imposed. It evolves itself among the masses and in due course becomes part of life.

Take the Onam festival in Kerala. It is celebrated by all communities, though its basic sustenance comes from the established Hindu tradition. Similarly, the Sufi tradition is very much part of our heritage. Hundreds of such examples can be cited which show that certain practices, though overtly linked to a religion, have got integrated in the life of various communities.

Take the case of the Church in Kerala. Some of its rituals have been indigenised and Indianised without provoking any murmur of protest. Even otherwise, religions do not divide us. It is their agents and middlemen who create an atmosphere of distrust and mistrust for their own petty ends. We have to fight against such elements.

Take A.R. Rahman's rendering of Vande Mataram. It has acquired new connotations and become a new symbol of Indian nationhood. This must not be viewed through the peephole of communal politics.

Culture is an integral part of the social and political existence of our society. However, such "a relationship" between culture and society does not lend itself to any ready use of culture for the promotion of political objectives. In fact, any crude intervention into the cultural and educational arena can lead to disastrous consequences unless we possess the requisite "sensitivity" and "sensibility" about it. Jawaharlal Nehru spelt it out in a speech he gave on the occasion of the inauguration of the Indian Council of Cultural Relations. He said:

"Does culture mean some inner growth in man? Of course, it must. Does it mean the way he behaves with others? Certainly it must. Does it mean the capacity to understand the other person? I suppose so. Does it mean the capacity to make yourself understood by the other person? I suppose so. It means all that. A person who cannot understand another's viewpoint is to that extent limited in mind and culture, because nobody, perhaps, barring some extraordinary human beings, can presume to have fullest knowledge and wisdom. The other party or the other group may have some inkling of knowledge or wisdom or truth and if we shut our minds to that, then we not only deprive ourselves of it but also we cultivate an attitude of mind which, I would say, is opposed to that of a cultured man. The cultured mind, rooted in itself, should have its doors and windows open. It should have the capacity to understand the other viewpoint fully even though it cannot always agree with it. The question of agreement or disagreement only arises when you understand a thing. Otherwise, it is blind negation which is not a cultured approach to any question."

The flawed view of Indian culture and heritage stems from intolerance and unwillingness to understand the basic sensitivity and sensibility that go with it. Indian culture is reflected in a diverse range of "creative endeavour" whose derivatives still sustain the fabric of our society. What we need in today's technological age is to "rediscover" India with all its values and ethos.

In fact, the richest resource of Indian civilisation lies in "a powerful religious and philosophical literature". As eminent socio-political thinker P.N. Haksar puts it, the Vedic Samhitas and associated texts also reflect the moral and material concerns of all sections of society. The epics reflect the creative turmoil and social ferment of a civilisation that continues to be in transition. What has added to the richness of Indian culture and its civilisational values is the constant flow of ideas, new cultural forms and resource. This speaks volumes for the people's openness and resilience.

Even the Sufi tradition of Islam is equally relevant to "our recapitulation of the historical development of Indian culture." And in this forward march the roots of Indian civilisation remain unchanged. Viewed in this light, Saraswati Vandana even as a ritual symbolically reflects the lyrical richness and beauty that hold out the values of spiritual dignity and self-realisation both to the learner and the common folk.

Unfortunately, new cleavages have come into existence within the fabric of society, partly through explicit political and pseudo-intellectual intervention and partly as a byproduct of the domination of the new class of vote-bank politicians.

Can't we ask them to get lost and leave Indian heritage and culture alone? India's cultural heritage should not be a plaything in the hands of politicians. Nor should education be allowed to become a political tool. Educational and related matters should be left to the academic community to decide. As for "spiritualising" our education, this is simply abracadabra, peculiar to Dr Joshi.

What should be of immediate concern to us is improvement in the standard of education and the milieu that we are able to offer to our students. It is equally vital to create a proper educational atmosphere in our schools and colleges so that they are able to compete with the best in the world. Dr Joshi and state Education Ministers would do well to learn a few lessons from Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's words of wisdom on the quality of education.

‘Overdiscipline’ as Army’s problem
by P.K. Vasudeva

DISCIPLINE is a branch of instruction. In the Army, it is the system of maintenance of order. It causes obedience, devotion to duty, respect for the command, loyalty to seniors and orderliness in the services and society both.

The Army is, however, facing a serious and unique problem of overdiscipline. Too much discipline in the Army has created problems for the forces. That is because formation commanders and commanding officers follow the rules and regulations too rigidly, and are unwilling to “take risks or independent decisions on their own initiative”. These are the findings of a study carried out by the College of Defence Management (CDM), Secunderabad, on “Motivation profile of the Army”.

An Army training note prepared by the Army Training Command, based on the CDM study, brings out the motivational ills among the Army for over-emphasising on discipline. It says, “We tend to become processionary caterpillars who blindly follow only habits, customs, traditions, precedents and producers without regard to ground realities.” Where are we going then?

More than 50 years have already passed when we took over from the British the complete set-up and are following its dictates blindly — training schedules, dress codes, customs, etiquettes and traditions which are not applicable in the present-day environment of high-tech warfare. For example, the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) was created in the Army by the British to have an interpreter between an officer and a jawan. Today the jawans and the officers of the Indian Army have similar geographical backgrounds and understand each other’s language. And the men are also quite educated.

There is no requirement of JCO rank, but more than 25 per cent men need to be promoted to officer rank as they are competent to hold leadership assignments based on certain criteria.

The organisation of an infantry battalion is based on the same old British pattern. It needs to be restructured. Sufficient inbuilt reserves have not been provided to fight a pitched battle. In view of its use for insurgency operations, the Army should be restructured and the arms, ammunition, equipment and vehicles have got to be allotted accordingly.

In the western armies they have “yes” and “zero defect” syndromes which cannot be followed in the Indian Army. When a soldier goes on the job to nab insurgents or an enemy, he is more worried about his weapon at night lest it should not get lost or be taken away by the enemy — the loss of a weapon is an offence inviting court martial. Whereas during war conditions, he should only be trained for a kill, without worrying for his losses.

It is interesting to note that the senior army commanders have started discussing openly and expressing concern regarding strict control under which army officer commandings are functioning.

The study found five areas of concern where formations and unit commanders were found wanting. These are (i) conformity, (ii) responsibility, (iii) organisational clarity, (iv) standards, and (v) leadership. There were far too many rules and regulations which inhibit the initiative and development of individual potential. “Commanders at all levels follow regulations without regard to local conditions”, says the study.

The study explains, “It will be seen that a large gap exists in what is perceived to be ideal in our work environment and as it actually exists. The military system is highly centralised and procedure-oriented, resulting in curbs on capabilities and initiatives of officers, JCOs and ORs. Commanders do not appreciate the rules — financial and legal guidelines only”.

Delegation of authority is probably the most important of all the skills which is denied in the Army. Commanding officers and formation commanders are reluctant to delegate responsibility to junior officers which is essential for the development of higher command. The study says, “very little responsibility is delegated to subordinate officers and junior officers who also feel left out on the decision-making process in the setting of tasks and objectives”.

Delegation is a process followed by senior officers for dividing their work, entrusting part of it to their juniors and establishing the conditions that will enable them to hold them accountable for performance. Senior officers do not understand that delegation does not imply the complete surrender of power and authority. The capacity of the junior officer who is being delegated authority must always be looked into. If this leads to too much concentration of work, then it need not be done.

Another serious aberration in the working environment that has been adversely commented upon is the risk-taking factor involving senior officers. Indian Army commanding officers and formation commanders are professionally competent, sympathetic to the men they command and approachable, but they have been found to be unwilling in risk-taking in routine matters. Let us hope that they don’t display this attitude during war which can prove suicidal for them and dangerous for the country.

The lake resort
by O.P. Bhagat

WITH our host we drove out of Udaipur in the evening. He was taking us — my four friends and I — to his lake island resort.By the time we reached the Jaisamand lake, dusk was creeping in. We got into one of the several motorboats waiting there and made for the bank opposite.

Jaisamand is the largest man-made lake in India. Fifteen km long and eight km wide, it is more than 30 m deep. A 50-km pipeline takes its water to Udaipur for the city’s use.

Except for the loud purring of the motorboat, there was almost no other sound. The dark gray of the lake, amidst low, silhouetted hills and under a darkening sky, lent the scene an aura of mystery or secrecy.

I was reminded of the movies I had seen as a boy in which a group of city men rowed across a faraway river on a treasure hunt or ventured out to locate a fabled queen’s palace.

Soon we were at the Jaisamand Island Resort. The stone steps of a terraced garden led to it as, white and illuminated, it rose into the dark air in many-pillared splendour. It seemed to be the palace of that celluloid queen.

The story of the building of the resort deepened that feeling. The resort stood on one of the nine islands in the lake. This island was actually a hill that towered out of the water. Our host, Pratap Bhandari, had leased it for 99 years. By cutting and levelling it, he made his dream come true.

Hundreds of men and donkeys worked there for many long months. Everything had to be brought there across the lake by boat. Even kitchen stuff and all other things now came there by motorboat.

Curiously enough, when I climbed into the lobby, I felt as much in the real world as in the romantic realm of those old movies.

The lobby was furnished like that of any four-star hotel. But when I thought that I was in a corner of a dark, deep lake, I felt as if I were on a small island which could be anywhere — or nowhere — on the map.

The nearest there was a games sanctuary where roamed, among other animals, panthers and bears.

However, I did not feel anxious or upset in any way. Rather, with my friends there, I felt quite at home. Then there were a few guests who were already staying there. Also the courteous resort staff.

A bit tired, but more than that happy with the novelty of the island experience, I had a nice sleep in my room that night.

An early-riser as I am, I was up as usual. I sat out on the balcony. It overlooked the lake. In the half-light its surface was now light gray. A gentle breeze made rippled patterns on its surface. Darkish, the hills around looked sleepy yet.

But the birds were fully awake. They chirped and fluttered about. Some came and went winging across the sky. From the sanctuary came once or twice the cry of a peacock.

As I was facing west, I could not see the sun rising. But I had some idea of its slow coming up from the soft colours appearing in the sky. The lake mirrored them and, like the sky, seemed to be painted with pastel colours.

Later, while my friends set out for a long walk, I chose to sit on the beach, the only lake beach in India. It was made by laboriously bringing 300 truck-loads of sand there.

I spent much of the day going round the resort. All its rooms opened on the lake. Two conference halls were also there. The garden could be the pride of a most modern city. Out of it was carved a small park for children. A large swimming pool was in the making.

From somewhere came a turbaned man with two camels for the guests to ride around. Puppeteers were also there. And a platform for Rajasthani singers and musicians. They performed in the evening. In the daytime there was enough of bird music in the air.

The lobby and the dining room echoed with the laughter of women and kids. Some were staying there. Some others had come all the way from Udaipur for lunch.

Mostly it was quiet and peace that reigned there. It was this that brought many there to soothe their jaded nerves or to forget their city blues — or just for the thrill of it.

At dusk when I again sat on the balcony, I felt that, after setting in orange glow, the sun had only left darkness to me. I was alone, but somehow did not feel so.

Was it because the solitude of the place sat or stood by me for company?

Welfare economics not the final answer
by M.S.N. Menon

EVERYONE is marching today to the tune of “welfare economics”. Prof Amartya Sen has made it popular. But I prefer to stand aside. I have something different to say.Man is the measure of all things, the Sophists said. But he is also the cause of his rise and fall. That is why Plato put the laws above man.

Our problem is not in the nature of the Constitutions or laws we make, but in who is at the helm, in who administers the state. Are they the right men or are they the wrong men? How can a society make sure that wise men rule over it? This is the ultimate problem, and Professor Sen has nothing to say on it. That is why his welfare economics and call for public action leave me cold.

If the great Soviet experiment failed (it was the greatest promise of the 20th century), it was because there was no way to control the Communist Party or the Soviet bureaucracy. If Socialism and planning failed in India, it was because there was no way to control either the Congress Party or the Indian bureaucracy. By corrupting the entire administration, destroying the value system and spawning a permissive society, in which “chalta hai” has become the dominant ideology, the Congress and the Indian bureaucracy have inflicted incalculable harm on this nation.

Bureaucracies tend to expand. The more they expand, the less useful they become. With competence devalued, mediocrity reigns supreme. During 1947-95, the Central ministries grew from 18 to 71. In Bihar and Maharashtra, known for their criminals, one Inspector-General of Police was able to provide security in 1947. Today there are 15 or so in each state, and they are unable to protect the citizens.

Once Narasimha Rao spoke of the Indian bureaucrat as a “trained animal”. But in league with the untrained animal, that is the Indian politician, all that training has gone to waste. Can’t we stop the growth of these trained animals? We can’t, because just as Ministers will not allow the number of ministries to be reduced, the bureaucracy is not going to allow any reduction in its ranks.

It is universally admitted in this country that the Indian middle class, which mans the vital institutions of the state, is the worst possible in the world. How then have we come to entrust the care of the poor to the same people? The bureaucracy has let us down, bemoans one retired Cabinet Secretary:

These being the realities, who is to bring about the welfare state; who is to honour welfare economics?

I have the greatest respect and regard for Prof Amartya Sen. But I cannot take his prescriptions seriously, for I find that there is none I can trust with its implementation in this country. This is the conundrum. It continues. I will believe in these prescriptions when I find a new man around, who is not a “trained” animal but a genuine human being.

But to find him or to raise him is not the job of Amartya Sen, but of religious leaders, philosophers and political scientists. A tall order? Yes, that is why I remain highly pessimistic about social economics. How to find sensitive souls, thus is the ultimate challenge before us. It is social sensitivity that is the hallmark of a higher civilisation.

But social sensitivity is still rare among men. There were many princes at the time of the Buddha. But only Siddhartha was moved by human suffering. He alone gave up the luxury of his kingdom.

Many artists were living at the time of the Spanish revolution. But only a Piccaso was sensitive to its sufferings. He alone drew the “Guernica”.

There were many social scientists in India during the 1943 Bengal famine. But only an Amartya Sen, a young boy then, was moved by its horrors, that it became a mission in his life to explore the causes of poverty.

The point I want to make is this: sensitivity is not common among human beings. What is common among men is their beastliness — what is left of the beast. The task before us is to raise men above the beasts. Without a social concern for each other, man cannot pursue social objectives. Without ethics, there can be no good or just society.

That is why I say public policy cannot be left to private sentiments. Land reform cannot be left to the social sentiments of landlords. Bhave was wrong. He expected a change of heart among landlords.

The Mahatma believed in a change of heart among businessmen. It is easy to have a change of dress (khadi, for instance), but it is very hard to have a change of heart. That is why very few even care to attempt it. That is why most people live the life of Jekyl and Hyde, trying to pretend what they are not.

Adam Smith was wrong. So was Karl Marx. They did not study the true nature of man. Warts and all. That is why the great socialist experiment in Russia failed. Membership of a party sworn to idealism does not change the innate character of a person. That soon-re-surfaced and played havoc with Russian society. We put faith in Congressmen because they were disciples of Gandhiji. It was the greatest mistake we made. But Gandhiji warned us.

Professor Sen calls for “public action”. It was public action that led to the debacles in Russia and China. We too had public action. But only 15 paise in a rupee reached the poor. Public action leads to corruption and misuse of power. Before public action, we must create the true public spirited men. It is a constant task.

It is not easy to change the world or reform men. Greater men — the Buddha, Christ and Mohammed — have tried and failed. What can we expect from the poltroons who make a habit of exhorting us from new pulpits?

The Christian world deliberately purged ethics from economic life. It was said that business and ethics do not mix. It forgot that the very notion of family and society is not possible without an ethical foundation without a caring concern for each other. The world is now trying to put the care of man (ethics) back into economics and care of nature (environment protection) back into our way of life.

Today few men support the classical laissez-faire theories. The left is recovering in Europe. Britain has a Labour Government. The SPD has just won the election in Germany. France has a socialist government. So has Italy and China. Russia has lost faith in the market.

In America, they call the new ideology “social economics”. In Europe, they call it “social market economy”. It provides for the social, psychological and political needs of men, not merely the economic wants. They assert that traditional economics is unable to solve real life problems because its approach is very narrow. They oppose greed and selfishness, characteristic of individualism, and believe that the right of the individual must be balanced by the individual’s responsibility towards society. Similarly, they challenge the assumption of traditional economics that people are “sovereign” consumers, forming their preferences independently. Classical economics assures that these preferences are guided by the desire for the maximisation of happiness (utility), which it considers the only goal in life. This is a hedonistic theory that has little to do with real life.

The social economists argue that man is at once a seeker of pleasure as also of morals. He seeks to do what is right even when it may turn out to be unpleasant for him. They also reject the belief in the rational nature of man, seeking the most efficient means to his goals. They do not accept the vision of an economic man, entertained by classical economics. According to social economists, what we do is influenced by emotions and values.

All these have become relevant because with the rejection of Communism, capitalism has emerged victorious. In its mood of triumphalism, it is least interested in the correction of its multifarious sins. And the most glaring weaknesses of the capitalist system are: the absence of an ethical concern for man, and the ready acceptance of the theory of the survival of the fittest. The social economist rejects both.

In this change of attitude, two influences have been cardinal: the continuing belief in the validity of the Marxist ideal and the advocacy of welfare economics. Men like Professor Sen have made a major contribution to put ethics back into economics and defeat the American establishment.

But his welfare economics and his call for public action cannot go with globalisation. Globalisation takes away our choice. It takes away our sovereignty for public action.

75 YEARS AGO
Unemployment in England

LONDON: Reviewing the question of unemployment in the House of Commons, Sir Montague Barlow said that there was a difficult winter ahead. The occupation of the Ruhr, which at first seemed to assist in improving matters, subsequently had the contrary effect. Nevertheless, unemployment figures had been steadily falling to 1.35 lakh but there was no hope of reducing them below one lakh this autumn.

Speaking of the Government’s plans to cope with the situation, Sir Montague Barlow mentioned that the whole amount sanctioned under the exports credits scheme had been borrowed, and provision had been made for the continuance of the scheme. The government departments were arranging to accelerate work. For instance, the Post Offices was spending £ 5 lakh on trunk telephone cables.

The government also would again help the local authorities to launch new works, such as tramways, gas and electric undertakings. Proposals to the amount of several million sterling had already been submitted, and it was calculated that altogether three lakh men would be employed. An abundant harvest was promised. It was hoped that the peace made at Lausanne would result in an industrial boom.