Liberate Education from the State

Liberate Education from the State by Sauvik Chakraverti

Our socialist State is actually a miserable failure. It started off wanting to make steel – and failed at even this simple task. We are lucky that it was not given the task of cultivating fields and our farms were not collectivized. What is therefore unthinkable is that this failed State should be given the task of cultivating minds, and that all our minds should be collectivized. If we are to save our minds, and the minds of our youth, we must champion a free education system, writes Sauvik Chakraverti

Today, almost all Indians agree that placing the State at the "commanding heights of the economy" was a colossal mistake. Yet, these very same people believe that it is alright if the State occupies the commanding heights of education. It is because every mainstream newspaper editor echoed such views that we Indians are now saddled with the "education tax."

One argument repeatedly totted out in favour of a role for the State in education is that of "maintaining standards". There are people who believe that, without a commanding role for the State, rubbish will be taught. There will ensue "academic anarchy" with each teacher and professor teaching what he deems fit. Under these circumstances, the State must have a role. The Ministry of Education must play the role of Ministry of Truth.

Note that India's vibrant press – the "fourth estate" – works perfectly fine without a "ministry of truth." Each paper publishes its own version of stories, and its own opinions – which may be wrong. However, because of keen competition amongst them, errors are quickly found out. Further, each newspaper acquires its own reputation – one is deemed "free market," another is deemed "socialist," and a third is deemed "pro-BJP." Why should a free educational system not be established along the same lines, with professors, departments, colleges and universities acquiring and maintaining their own reputations, including the reputation of their biases?

There is, of course, a Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. It is rightly considered a propaganda arm of the government. And if it attempts to "muzzle" the free press, every journalist worth his salt stridently opposes it. Why do these same journalists not see that education must be run along the same lines? And that the ministry of education is just another propaganda arm.

Some years ago, Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute and I went to the National Academy of Administration in Mussoorie to deliver some lectures on population (as an asset) and urbanization (as a goal). This is the academy that trains our elite corps of Indian Administrative Service officers (IAS). We were later taken to meet the academy's professor of Economics. All the shelves of his office were filled with communist literature. And Karl Marx's Das Kapital lay open on his desk. And India had been "liberalizing" for more than a decade!

Now, IAS recruits come from a variety of backgrounds. There are engineers, botanists, zoologists and even veterinary doctors who make it to the service. They need to understand basic theories about man, society, economy and state before they are entrusted with the administration of our common affairs. As I liberal, I would insist that liberal theories must be taught. This would give these recruits an idea of how markets work and why they should be left free. A liberal administrator would have a view of man, society, economy and state that would envision a small role for the State in a largely free society. However, what is actually taught is Marxist propaganda. The State is guilty of peddling propaganda to its own elite personnel! What will they peddle if they are allowed to teach the whole of society? Obviously, more of the same.

Academic anarchy can also be looked upon as academic freedom. And this is a freedom that is vital for any educational system. For example: take this year's Nobel prize in Economics, awarded to Paul Krugman, whom I consider to be a dangerous Keynesian. And there are others like me. If we did not have the freedom to criticize this award, if the Nobel prize was awarded by a "ministry of truth," all dissenting voices would be stifled. Public understanding of crucial events would be very poor indeed if academics with differing views were disallowed from publicly airing their misgivings. In a free educational system, there would be many differing "schools of thought." And the brightest minds would gravitate towards those schools which were widely perceived to be teaching the right stuff. Even universities and academics would possess "brand equity."

As the great classical liberal, Thomas Paine, put it in the opening paragraph of his little pamphlet of 1776, Common Sense:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices…. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

This was "common sense" 250 years ago. We need to regain this same common sense today. Our precise problem is that we have "so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them." The role of government is to punish the wicked. It is the role of society to teach. We as a society have handed over our most important privilege to the socialist State. As my experience at the IAS Academy proves, it is the socialist State that is in need of education; it cannot impart it.

Our socialist State is actually a miserable failure. It started off wanting to make steel – and failed at even this simple task. We are lucky that it was not given the task of cultivating fields and our farms were not collectivized. What is therefore unthinkable is that this failed State should be given the task of cultivating minds, and that all our minds should be collectivized. This is the precise direction that our mainstream press, egged on by that arch-socialist Amartya Sen and his protégé Manmohan Singh, have embarked us upon. If we are to save our minds, and the minds of our youth, we must champion a free education system.

A version of this article was published in the Education World magazine, in October 2008. It can viewed here.

This article was published in the Liberty Institute on Sunday, November 09, 2008.

Author : Mr Chakraverti is the author of "Antidote: Essays Against the Socialist Indian State" and its sequel, "Antidote 2: For Liberal Governance". He blogs at www.sauvik-antidote.blogspot.com.

http://www.indefenceofliberty.org/story.aspx?id=2093&pubid=1886

Case for liberated education system

Case for liberated education system by Sauvik Chakraverti

A version of this article was published in the Education World magazine, in October 2008. It can viewed 

Today, almost all indians agree that positioning the State (i.e. government) at “commanding heights of the economy” was a colossal mistake. Yet, these very same people believe that it’s alright if the State occupies the commanding heights of education. It is because every mainstream newspaper editor subscribes to such views that Indians are now saddled with an education cess.

One argument repeatedly advanced in favour of a role for the State in education is that of “maintaining standards”. Even today there are people who believe that without a commanding role for the State, nonsense will be taught in the nation’s classrooms. This will result in academic anarchy with each teacher and professor teaching what he deems fit. Therefore, the State must have a role. The ministry of education must play the role of ministry of truth.

The champions of State domination of education should note that India’s vibrant press — the ‘fourth estate’ — works perfectly fine without a ‘ministry of truth’. Each newspaper/magazine publi-shes its own version of political, economic and social news and events and its own opinions — some of which may be ‘wrong’. However, because of intense compet-ition within the fourth estate, errors are quickly found out. Further, every newspaper acquires its own reputation — one is deemed free market, another socialist, and another pro-BJP and so on. Why shouldn’t a free educational system be established along the same lines, with professors, departments, colleges and universities acquiring and maintaining their own reputations, including their ideological and other biases?

Some years ago, Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute and I visited the National Academy of Administration in Mussoorie to deliver lectures on population (as an asset) and urbanisation (as a goal). This is the academy where our elite corps of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) receive their training. We were taken to meet the academy’s professor of economics. All the shelves of his office were filled with communist literature. And Karl Marx’s Das Kapital lay open on his desk. And at that time India had been ‘liberalising’ its economy for more than a decade!

It’s pertinent to note that IAS recruits come from a variety of backgrounds. Engineers, botanists, zoologists and even veterinary doctors are inducted into the IAS. They need to be familiar with basic theories about man, society, the economy and State before they are entrusted with the task of administering the country. Therefore, it’s important they are taught liberal politics and economics as well. This would give IAS recruits an idea of how markets work and why they should be left free. A liberal administrator would have a view of man, society, economy and State, that would envision a small role for the State in a largely free society. However, what is actually taught is Marxist propaganda. The State is guilty of peddling propaganda to its own elite personnel! What will they peddle if they are allowed to teach the whole of society? Obviously, more of the same.

Therefore it’s in the public interest that differing views are freely allowed and academics can express their misgivings. In a free education system, there should be many differing schools of thought. And the brightest minds would gravitate towards the schools which are widely perceived to be teaching the right stuff. In such a free environment, even universities and academics would acquire ‘brand equity’.

As the great classical liberal, thomas paine, put it in the opening paragraph of Common Sense, a pamphlet written in 1776: “Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.”

This was ‘common sense’ 250 years ago. We need to regain such balanced common sense today. Well into the 21st century, India’s problem is that we have “so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them”. The role of government is to punish the wicked, the role of society is to teach. Unfortunately as a society we have handed over the important privilege to teach to the socialist State. As my experience at the IAS Academy indicates the socialist State is in dire need of education; it cannot impart it.

Actually India’s socialist experiment has been a miserable failure. The State started off wanting to make steel and failed at this simple task. We are lucky that it was not given the task of cultivating fields and that farms were not collectivised. Therefore it’s unthinkable that this failed State should be given the task of cultivating minds, and that the nation’s minds should be collectivised. Regretably this is the direction in which mainstream media, egged on by arch-socialist Amartya Sen and his protege Manmohan Singh, is leading us. If we are to save our minds, and the minds of our youth, right thinking people must champion a free education system.

(Sauvik Chakraverti is a columnist and author of Antidote: Essays Against the Socialist Indian State)

 http://educationworldonline.net/index.php/page-article-choice-more-id-1465

The car…and the planner

The car…and the planner by Sauvik Chakraverti

Posted: Sun, Sep 14 2008. 9:54 PM IST

A focus on universal automobile ownership and its potential in transforming urban India is essential today

New Delhi is the seat of the Central Planner. And this brand new city has been destroyed because the planner failed in his most crucial function — the ability to think ahead; the ability upon which any Five-Year Plan must be based.

The unmasking of the planner was performed by a very capitalist machine — the car. The localities for the middle class built monopolistically in New Delhi by the Delhi Development Authority are all equipped with “scooter garages”. Today, there is no place to park the owners’ cars. The Ring Roads of Delhi have been built with this scooter garage vision. They have T-junctions everywhere because in those days, when everyone waited 10 years for a scooter, this was a way of saving money on traffic lights. Today, the streets of New Delhi, jammed with fancy cars, loudly demonstrate an economic revolution brought about by free markets. And they also pass a verdict on the planner.

The Great Czar of Central Planning failed to “perceive” the automobile revolution that has been happening on our streets for more than 15 years now. He did not plan for this to happen. Perhaps he has not yet woken up to it as yet—for he rides a dowdy white Ambassador in between Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone (LBZ) and North Block. Sometimes he drives to the airport—and the roads are cleared for that.

Note that in New Delhi, the citizens have entirely moved up from the Maruti 800. All the cars on the road demonstrate the fact that the Theory of the Vicious Circle of Poverty is nonsense. But perhaps the planners believe in this nonsense. They planned for poverty. Mass poverty.

The car will empower the people to live away from city centres and commute, if roads are built

Both the car and the cellphone show which way the country is headed — and that is towards that “universal opulence” Adam Smith dreamed of. If we are to think ahead, to perceive a glimpse of the future and plan for it, then this country urgently needs to factor in the possibility and desirability of universal automobile ownership. If the domestic help has a mobile phone today, there are good chances she will have a car tomorrow. If India is to think ahead, it must think of roads for these cars, of parking, of highways and expressways. And it must do so right now. There is no time to waste.

Our cities depend on this. We need expressways built on a “hubs-and-spokes” pattern from all our major urban agglomerations — there are over 100 of them — into the surrounding tier 2, tier 3 and tier 4 towns. This will decongest the primary cities. The surroundings will develop. There will be cheap urban land for all. And the automobile will power the decongestion. The car will not cause urban congestion, as the greens believe today. The car will empower the people to live away from city centres and commute — if roads are built.

This is, then, the only “private-public partnership” we need: the cars are private; the roads are public. We pay taxes for roads. Quality toll-free roads must be built for India’s burgeoning car owners.

But the Central Planner has a miserable five-city vision of the “Golden Quadrilateral”. This must be replaced with a 1,000-city vision of hubs-and-spokes expressway systems combined with a coastal expressway network. In a free trading scenario — which Kamal Nath has wrecked — great new cities will come up on the coast, and India’s coastal highways are abysmal. Ask me: I have been living on the Konkan coast for quite a few years now.

A focus on universal automobile ownership and its potential in transforming urban India (if proper roads are built) is essential today. We must plan for prosperity. It cannot be denied that, on the streets of New Delhi, the people are getting richer every day. Their cars prove it. And since the Central Planner rides an Ambassador, his car also proves his mindset. Note that LBZ is laid out along a hub-and-spoke road network. But he sees it not.

What about “public transport”? Well, all the smaller cities and towns can have privately built tramway systems. DLF is building a private rail network in Gurgaon to connect its properties with the Delhi Metro. Let us not depend on the state for publicly-funded public transport. Recall that old Calcutta has its excellent tramway from the private sector. And note that high levels of automobile ownership can coexist with a good public transport system — as in Germany today. So we can choose when to drive. The car gives its owner self-directedness. Let us not throw away this essential freedom for the designs of a “transport planner”: the failure of the Delhi Bus Rapid Transport corridor only proves this point.

An ad of today goes, “A phone for every home.” I will add “a car for every home” too. That is the future. We must plan for it. We must think ahead. Our planners have not thought ahead. How can markets think ahead? It seems impossible.

Actually, the precise function of the entrepreneur is “to make provision for an uncertain future”. You get umbrellas on rainy days on demand because of entrepreneurs. That is why there are scooters on demand today. Under the planners, there were no scooters.

Further, the highest profits are reaped precisely by that entrepreneur who thinks ahead of all the rest. The later entrepreneurs only make “normal profit” — if at all. Ford Motor Co. is rich because Henry Ford used the assembly-line to produce the Model T in 1908. Ratan Tata is a late entrepreneur, making the Nano in 2008.

India is 100 years behind. But we are waking up to the possibility of catching up. I just hope our planners wake up soon.

Sauvik Chakraverti’s most recent publication is Four Wheels For All: The Case for the Rapid Automobilization of India, from Liberty Institute, New Delhi. He blogs at www.sauvik-antidote.blogspot.com. 

http://www.livemint.com/articles/2008/09/14215403/The-car8230and-the-planner.html

The original sinners of Singur

The original sinners of Singur by Sauvik Chakraverti

Posted: Wed, Oct 8 2008. 12:12 AM IST

The destruction of land administration, painstakingly built by the British, has undone capitalism in India

After Singur, it has become obvious to every farmer — and every policy analyst, too — that property titles to farmlands are of vital importance. Without clear, transferable property titles, there cannot be a free market for land. Without a free market for land, those who own farmland cannot leverage themselves to take part in India’s budding capitalist economic system.

Of course, to those who understand what capitalism is, these truths were evident a long time ago. Peruvian economist and activist Hernando de Soto’sThe Mystery of Capital is now old hat. In this path-breaking book, de Soto looked at many developing countries, from Egypt to Bangladesh to the Philippines — apart from his native Peru — and showed us all that capital, which is the lifeblood of capitalism, eludes the poor in these countries not because they do not possess property — they do. Rather, it is only because they do not possess clear and transferable property titles to their properties that they, and their nations, are condemned to remain poor forever. This is because, without a title, the owner of property cannot approach a bank for a loan. It is as simple as that. This is the “mystery of capital”. Once all property owners are in possession of marketable titles, capital automatically kicks in.

Now, if we are to look for the “original sinner” in Singur, then the so-called “steel frame” of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) must face the music. Property titles are a basic — nay, fundamental — aspect of any civilian administration: This is what the administration of land is all about. Why is it that the IAS has totally neglected this task? The fact that this task was being neglected was pointed out in the Sixth Five-year Plan: “A systematic programme would be taken up for compilation/upgradation of land records, to be phased for completion within a period of five years, i.e., 1980–85. In states where the backlog is heavy…”

Once property owners are in possession of marketable titles, capital automatically kicks in.

 Of course, this “systematic programme” never happened. And almost three decades have passed since this pious intent of our central planners was written. Why did it remain just on paper? The answer must lie in our socialist politics, which has been all about “land reforms”: The socialist usurpation of the properties of the landed for distribution among the landless. But then, even this was “sabotaged in action”—as this comment that Communist leader S.A. Dange made in Parliament shows: “If you pass a resolution about ceilings on land holdings, you cannot keep ministers who are opposed to that in principle… But here a peculiar situation exists. When suddenly the Honourable Prime Minister takes up an issue they start opposing it; then they pass it and say: It does not matter. Let him talk, we can sabotage him in action.”

It is socialism that destroyed land administration. If we want capital and capitalism, we must focus on the administration of land. Indeed, this is precisely what the “civilians” who ran the country in British times did.

An excellent book on the manner in which the British ran India is Philip Mason’s The Men Who Ruled India. Mason was an Indian Civil Services officer, but his book starts off at the very beginning, when the civilians of East India Company took charge of the first districts in undivided Bengal. This quote is telling: “In India, by accepting the revenue for a plot a collector automatically bestows a title; gradually it comes about that the collector of land revenue spends only a few minutes a week on seeing that collections are coming in to his subordinates, but many hours deciding disputes.”

We can now arrive at an exact estimation of what went wrong because socialism infected the IAS. And it is this: The “collector” who collected revenue and bestowed titles in exchange was transformed into a client of the state who spent tax money. Indeed, that is all the IAS does today. The thousands of crores of rupees being foolishly spent on “employment guarantees” flow through the fingers of the IAS “district spender”. They call themselves “development administrators”. As Deepak Lal pointed out, all our poverty is the result of the “development economics” the IAS relies on. This is the original sin. And it’s the IAS that is the sinner. It is not an apolitical administration. Rather, it is very much a part of the ugly and corrupt politics that consumes the socialist Indian state.

Some years ago, Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute and I travelled to the IAS Academy in Mussoorie to deliver some lectures on population (as an asset) and urbanization (as a goal). After our lectures, we were taken to the office of the academy’s professor of economics—who did not attend our talks. The shelves of his office were stocked with communist literature. And Karl Marx’sDas Kapital lay on his desk. He attempted to hand me a book by Piero Sraffa, the Marxist-Ricardian. I, knowing better, politely declined. We were more than a decade into “liberalization” — but the IAS Academy was still in the cloud cuckooland of socialism. There is method in their madness.

Frankly, it is the height of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of socialism that this socialist state should take upon itself the task of teaching the people. Their elite administrators need to learn themselves. Education should be totally removed from state jurisdiction. These ignoramuses and propagandists can’t be allowed to teach. Indeed, instead of “generating employment” these administrative idlers should be made to work themselves. All our cities and towns are collapsing. Our land administration is in shambles. And the IAS is culpable. They are the original sinners in this horror story.

Sauvik Chakraverti is the author of Antidote: Essays Against the Socialist Indian State. He received the Frédéric Bastiat Prize in 2002.

http://www.livemint.com/articles/2008/10/08001241/The-original-sinners-of-Singur.html

What pumps up the economy

What pumps up the economy by Sauvik Chakraverti

Posted: Mon, Nov 3 2008. 11:55 PM IST

An understanding of Jean-Baptiste Say’s Law of Markets is essential in these turbulent times

To theoretical economists, the current turmoil in global financial markets is a battle between Keynesians and Austrians. Yet, I would prefer to go back in time to an older insight. This is Jean-Baptiste Say’s “Law of Markets”, which dates back to the early 19th century, long before either Keynes or any Austrian appeared on the scene. J-B Say was known as the Adam Smith of France. An understanding of his important law is essential in these turbulent times.

In a nutshell, Say’s law holds that the sale of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X. Thus, the Law of Markets makes a clear distinction between those who compete and those who do not. So, while the sale of X hurts those who compete with X, the same sale helps those who do not. For example, if I sell my bhel-puri, I have the means to demand everything else in the market— jeans, shoes, books, CDs...—everything except bhel-puri, which I obviously will not demand.

This Law of Markets was a pillar of classical liberalism. In the 19th century, in England, France or the US, you were not considered a political economist if you did not understand this law and its various serious implications. And it is precisely this law that the Keynesians mistaught as “supply creates its own demand”. But the supply of plasma TVs does not constitute the demand for plasma TVs! The very thought is nonsensical. Yet, a leading Keynesian, Prof. Joan Robinson, is on record saying that her mission in life was to disprove Say’s law. She taught Manmohan Singh.

There are important lessons in this for Indian industry. These leading businessmen of our country supported Keynesianism and economic autarky only because they did not correctly comprehend the Law of Markets. That is why they all waited hand-and-foot upon the finance minister and his “budget” for 60 years. To them, “supply creates its own demand” meant government deficits were the only way to pump up the economy. They applauded deficits. Demand to them was government demand, not consumer demand, which is “real” demand. They never served the consumer. They served the state.

Not only does Say’s law indicate that consumer demand is paramount, it has important implications for free international trade. We now see that when a Sony plasma TV or a Honda City sell, all our markets hum with catallactic energy. The seller of real estate gains. The bhel-puriwallah gains. Everyone gains when the energy in the market rises to fever pitch. The critical understanding that Say’s law can deliver for Indian industry is that they all stand to gain when foreign goods that do not directly compete with their products sell in our markets. So, more Kingfisher beer is likely to be sold if French cheeses sell in India. In those bleak days of protectionism and autarky, nothing sold. A Bajaj scooter came with a 10-year wait list. Amul Cheese was advertised as “The Taste of India”. There was no catallactic energy in our domestic markets. And Indian industry lost.

The Keynesians obscured all understanding of ‘sound money’. The central banker is their God

Let us now turn to what light Say’s law has to shine on the current housing bust in the US. I have taken a small liberty by representing the law as “the sale of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X”. The actual law goes deeper. What it really says is that “the production of X gives rise to the demand for all non-X”. The classical liberal understanding of markets was that anything produced is destined to be sold. If goods and labour are lying unsold, then prices must be lowered until markets clear. And this was the precise point: Markets Always Clear.

A classical liberal would, therefore, advise the US to allow housing prices to fall until all unsold stocks are sold. Note that the US government is doing the very opposite. By inflating the economy to the tune of $700 billion, it is attempting to keep up housing prices. It is preventing losses from being booked. It is, therefore, postponing the inevitable bust. And it is risking hyper-inflation during a recessionary stagflation. You cannot get it more wrong than this.

The mythology of the Keynesians holds that government spending through deficits has a “multiplier effect”. Nonsense. All that is multiplied is inflation, which is a hidden tax. According to the classicals, Say’s law contains a “natural multiplier”. So when an unsold house in the US is finally sold at a lower price, demand for all non-houses is automatically generated. Or when a labourer agrees to work at a lower wage, he immediately possesses the means to spend on all wage goods. This is a “real multiplier” based on real money. The Keynesians, of course, obscured all understanding of “sound money”. For them, fiat paper money is king. And the central banker is God. In the early 19th century, gold was the only money everyone knew, and the International Gold Standard was what all political economists called money.

The greatest tragedy that Keynesianism has wreaked upon the world is that it has caused a total loss of understanding of how markets actually work, an understanding at least 200 years old. Furthermore, the Keynesians exaggerated the role of the state. Classical liberals stood for “limited government”: a constitution that limited the government’s powers; and a parliament that limited its revenue. Thanks to the Keynesians we now have omnipotent government. No government is “limited” if it has unlimited powers to “create money”. Parliaments become meaningless then. Democracy becomes “pork-barrel politics”. Economic totalitarianism, and the consequent inflationism, are the twin evils Keynesians have bequeathed to the modern world. This is the long run Keynes laughed about.

Sauvik Chakraverti is an author and award-winning journalist. He blogs at www.sauvik-antidote.blogspot.com. Comments are welcome at theirview@livemint.com

 http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/03235549/What-pumps-up-the-economy.html