Brand New Delhi: Let Political India Move Out of the Capital

Brand New Delhi: Let Political India Move Out of the Capital

26 Mar 2004, 0000 hrs IST, Sauvik Chakraverti 

Gerhardt von Hoffman was in charge of the privatisation of the properties of the East German government in East Berlin. We spent a fortnight together in Goa during which he said a very interesting thing, namely, that since there is no profit and loss in government calculations, the state is a very inefficient user of real estate. 

In his Utopia, he said, the state would be constitutionally required to rent properties. That alone would yield an efficient real estate market. After meeting Gerhardt, a new vision unfolded in my mind, a realisation that we could also privatise state property. 

This vision seizes me every time I am in Delhi, for in Delhi almost half the city belongs to the state. If we decide to privatise state property, and use Delhi as an example for the purpose, what benefits can this yield for the average Dilliwalla? And what lessons can be derived for the rest of India? The first great benefit that this approach will bring is that, by taking such a path, Delhi will finally be possessed of a Central Business District. Every great city has one, but Delhi doesn't. The Mughals built Chandni Chowk; the Brits built Connaught Place; but both these markets are not CBD material today. 

How can the privatisation of state property yield Delhi a CBD capable of handling globalisation? Rajpath can be privatised. Every sarkari bhawan there can take 10 shopping malls and have enough room for parking besides. The street name can be retained so that we all know that the raj now is of the market and not the Central planner. This splendid, broad avenue can be the central shopping and nightlife district and breathe fresh life into Delhi's commercial spirit. How can this be brought about? We must think ahead. Globalisation means cities competing for commerce. Cities are the hubs of world business. 

If Delhi has to be such a city, it will require a CBD. But globalisation also means the end of the dominant state. In commercial societies, capital cities are small. Washington DC, Bonn, Canberra, Berne, Ottawa... there are so many examples. If Rajpath is to be privatised, this means we must also shift the Capital out of Delhi to some smaller town. Such a move will also mean that the diplomatic community will have to shift out of Delhi too, and the prime spaces occupied now by foreign embassies can be used by the market. Then, Shantipath can be the central office district, with high-rises belonging to every great multinational, and this name, too, can be retained showing that we Indians seek peace through trade. 

Shifting the Capital out of Delhi will also yield huge amounts of space currently occupied by sarkari babus . All the Bapa Nagars and Kaka Nagars and R K Purams can be privatised and sold to the market — that is, to the citizenry. The bungalows of Lutyens' Delhi could be left for the commercial as opposed to the political elite. The question arises as to what should be done with the money that this privatisation will yield. 

I propose that it be used to shore up the city's transport infrastructure. Let 20 250-km-long eight-laned expressways emerge as 'spokes' from Brand New Delhi and connect all the surrounding towns so that a vast amount of space is opened up for residence and commerce. For example: One spoke to Dehra Dun with 10 satellite towns on the way; another to Alwar; one to Jaipur, one to Agra, one to Chandigarh, and so on. In this way, hundreds of satellite towns can come up (and not just NOIDA and Gurgaon). There is enough land for all; what is required to get the land into service are roads. They say 'every great city sits like a giant spider on its transportational network'. 

Let Brand New Delhi be such a city. New Delhi certainly isn't. It sits like a blob of jelly on the map, bloating up every year. And let rail links parallel the roads. We can have 20 lines of the Delhi Metro extending parallel to the expressways. In great cities, the underground railway goes overground outside city limits and connects up the outlying towns. Today, the Delhi Metro does not plan to link even Gurgaon. 

The airport is not on the route plan of the metro. What about the grand Viceregal Palace on Raisina Hill that we now call Rashtrapati Bhavan? I believe the entire area would be very well suited to make the world's greatest casino. I would welcome the idea of selling it to some casino firm for, in Brand New Delhi, the electoral sweepstakes should not be the only form of gambling allowed, as is the case in New Delhi. If half the profits from the casino are given to the city coffers, then Brand New Delhi may also be tax-free. They say political change is 'loquocentric': It happens if we talk about it. In which case, we must all talk about these ideas: First, the privatisation of state property; and second, the idea of a new capital town by getting the state out of Delhi. 

If enough people talk about these ideas, then only will we be able to say that their time has come. As a lesson for the future, let us now be very careful about how much property we allow the state to accumulate. Here's to a lean state and a lean government unobtrusively performing its chosen tasks well. Let the state be in a small government town and let every city blossom. As the poet put it: "Into such a haven of freedom, my Lord, let my country awake!" 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-582269,flstry-1.cms

A Second Republic

A Second Republic -There Can Be No Collective Property by Sauvik Chakraverti

 30 Dec 2003, 0000 hrs IST The Times of India 

India's socialist judiciary, even after a decade of liberalisation, remains inextricably wedded to the notion that publicly held property is in the public interest: The collectivist ideal. 

This indeed must be the rationale for blocking privatisation in the oil sector and referring the matter to Parliament — the custodian of collective property in socialist thinking. 

To understand the pitfalls of the notion that collectively held property actually exists, the reader should take a walk around Lutyens' Delhi. All the bungalows there are public property: They belong to the state. 

But does this mean that they belong to us, the people? Certainly not. If anyone of us were to try and enter one of these compounds, even if just to admire the flowers in the opulent garden (maintained at public cost), we would be turfed out pronto. 

From this, we arrive at a theorem: There is no such thing called public property. Whatever goes under that name is very much private property, in the hands of someone or a group that claims to represent the public. 

That person or group has obtained a lien on that property, and exploits that so-called public property for private gain. Thus, in the case of the bungalows of Lutyens' Delhi, various functionaries of the state have obtained liens on these public properties at rates far below market prices. 

Having understood this, let us extend this theorem to the public sector enterprises our socialist rulers have invested in: Are all of them public property by virtue of the fact that they belong to the collective — the state? Of course not. 

Indeed, we can analyse them in much the same way as we saw the bungalows of Lutyens' Delhi: Certain individuals or groups have obtained private control over these public properties and are exploiting this for private gain. 

In the case of the state-owned enterprise sector, we can even develop a public choice model of the political economy based on our theorem, as follows: All these firms are the properties of various ministries. 

Whoever gets appointed minister then rents these firms out to individuals or groups for private exploitation. Hence, totally at odds with the opinion of our learned judiciary, liberal jurisprudence will hold that publicly held property is a socialist myth. 

A truly liberal constitution would debar the state from holding property. 

What should be done with the vast properties of the socialist Indian state? Before we arrive at that decision, let us first inquire as to how these property titles were obtained in the first place. 

This is necessary because the title may have been criminally acquired. For example: If we see A snatching at B's wristwatch, this does not necessarily mean A is a thief, for B may have stolen A's wristwatch in the first place and A is simply trying to regain his just property. 

According to liberal jurisprudence, only just property titles are valid — there is always an ethical dimension to liberal law. 

So let us consider how the socialist state acquired these titles. It owns all these bungalows, all over the country, where its functionaries reside for free. 

It owns all these enterprises which it leases out to its cronies. It operates a land monopoly in most cities, including the Capital. It owns all the forests, all the rivers, all the mountains, all the oil under the ground, all the minerals: It practically owns the entire country. 

For the rest of us, property titles are extremely insecure. We really own nothing. Tribals get booted out of their traditional homelands, which are leased out to forest officials and contractors for private gain. 

In Karnataka, the state government is passing law to take over temples: God is being nationalised! 

At this point, let us pause to reflect on the fact that there can be some truly public properties which every citizen and even every foreigner is free to use like a public thoroughfare or a public park. 

Liberal economists call these public goods and call for public investments in public goods alone. This is because businessmen will not invest in goods which everyone can use for free. 

In India, although this is a planned economy, the state has not invested in these public goods at all. Instead of investing in roads, it invested in an automobile factory. It owns Scooters India. It owns oil companies. Hotels. Steel plants. Airlines. Should liberal jurisprudence hold these property titles to be valid? 

Absolutely not. These are all criminally acquired titles. The taxpayer's interests have not been represented in this planned socialist democracy. Instead of investing in public goods, they have invested in private goods. This is planned theft. 

All these properties should be seized and auctioned off. Those responsible for this diversion of public money should be prosecuted. The charge: Criminal misappropriation of public money. 

If the disputed site at Ayodhya is handed over to a Hindu group, then this temple will not belong to all Hindus. It will be the private property of that group of Hindus alone. Thus, as mentioned in these columns earlier, the disputed site at Ayodhya should be auctioned. 

And, with this de-politicisation of the saffron agenda, let us also bury the notion of collective property. We put an end to both fascism as well as socialism. Onwards to a Second Republic.  

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/394205.cms

Reinventing our social science

Reinventing our social science by Sauvik Chakraverti 

The government, at the commanding heights of education, has impoverished social science in India

Posted: Thu, Jan 15 2009. 10:28 PM IST The Mint

To understand the difference between the mind of a scientist and that of a social scientist, it is useful to contrast Newton’s fortuitous discovery of gravity with Frederic Bastiat’s “broken window fallacy”. In the former, an apple fell bang on Newton’s head; in the latter, the social scientist proceeds “from what is seen to what is not seen”. 

A hoodlum hurls a brick at a shop window and breaks it. A glazier approaches the shopkeeper and offers to install a new window. A deal is struck. The window is repaired. Everything is back to new. And so, all the passers-by conclude that the breaking of the window increased economic activity in their little town. 

This is what is seen. 

Bastiat then takes the discussion into “what is not seen”. In reality, the shopkeeper was saving to buy a new suit. His savings have all been consumed by the cost of the new glass. What is not seen is that the glazier’s gain of business is offset by the tailor’s loss of business. The town has gained nothing. Property has been needlessly destroyed.

So, the destruction of war is not beneficial because it gives a boost to the construction industry. So, government spending does not create employment—because the taxpayer is “what is not seen”. The taxpayer, if he is allowed to keep his money, could generate even more employment by spending or investing it. So, all our UPS manufacturers are not an “industry”: They repair the broken window of an erratic power supply. There is much in society that requires minds that can go beyond what is seen, to uncover hidden, long-term effects. This is social science. It is underdeveloped today.

A true science of society is based on truths that each individual finds ringing true in his own mind.

 

There are other important differences between the physical sciences and the sciences of society. In physical sciences, we investigate something “out there”—something outside ourselves. Even the anatomist investigates someone else’s body. The scientist also starts from the big picture and then goes into the components. First, there is iron; then, its molecular structure; and then there are the atoms. In social sciences, things are the other way round. 

The science of society is based on individualism. We understand society by understanding its elements—individuals such as you and me. Thus, the quest is begun not by understanding others, but by understanding oneself. We engage in introspection. We look inside rather than outside. And we then “look outside from within the consciousness”. A true science of society is based on truths that each individual finds ringing true in his own mind, as thoughts familiar to himself. 

The only thing common between all human beings is the human mind, with its uniquely human “logical structure”. The philosopher has to look into his own mind to find the “laws of thought” that he has in common with all other human beings. There is nothing to study “out there”: Everything is inside his own mind. There is also nothing to measure as in the case of physical sciences. Social science is therefore subjectivist and individualist in its methodology. Let us take some basic laws of economics to illustrate this point. 

Thus, the great law of demand is a law of thought. We think like that only. As is the parallel law of supply. And also the law of diminishing returns. These basic laws are mistaught today by those who copy the methods and language of physics. The elegant diagram with intersecting curves, all capable of being represented mathematically, is a false science. It is “scientism” and has nothing to do with the idea of a true social science that is based on an understanding of the elements, the individuals and their minds. The true and real social science is based on laws of thought common to all our minds and, unlike physics, these laws of thought require no empirical proof. They are truly a priori because anything else would appear illogical to all of us. Just as 2 + 2 = 4 requires no empirical proof. Using introspection to discover laws of thought is very different from the pseudo-scientific nature of current academic teaching. And the reason is simple: government control over all subject areas in the social sciences. 

In India, what is obvious today is that we have got our social science wrong. We have been producing great doctors and engineers, our software engineers are the world’s best, but we are a miserable failure when it comes to social science. Take economics: Our people are wretchedly poor. Take political science: Our politics and democracy are centralized. There is deep-rooted corruption. There is no local self-government. Take law: The courts system is clogged, with the government as the biggest litigant. And take public administration: Ours is a disgrace to the human race. 

Do note that in all these areas, it is the government that controls all the teaching. Just as the lawyers control all the teaching of law and the IAS controls all institutes of public administration. In India, it seems the bad news never stops. But I hope my readers will wake up to the fact that choosing the government as universal teacher is a grave error: the state at the commanding heights of education. 

A true science of society based on individualism cannot be ideologically acceptable to collectivists. For them, individuals do not matter. All that matters is the collective—the society, the nation—and these are then fused into the party and the leader.

To classical liberals, government is just an organization within society with certain functions. Commanding the heights of academia is not one of them, more so in social sciences, where the government is an interested party. The private sector must step in. 

Sauvik Chakraverti is an author and columnist. He blogs at www.sauvik-antidote.blogspot.com. Your comments are welcome at theirview@livemint.com 

http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/15222808/Reinventing-our-social-science.html

When freedom comes first

When freedom comes first by Sauvik Chakraverti 

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 The New Indian Express 

Today, democracy is the 'holy cow', but as a political arrangement it must ultimately rest on a 'political culture'. Where this culture is illiberal and undemocratic, western-style democracy can never thrive. This is the story of Pakistan and Nepal. Within India too, we are now perilously close to a situation in which none of the established 'political parties' – all of whom resemble criminal tribes because of their perverted political culture – can single-handedly form a constitutional government, not only at the centre, but also in states like Karnataka.  

As with Pharaohs and Caesars, no political arrangement in human history has lasted indefinitely. Monarchs have been beheaded in Europe and the new arrangements have been subject to constant revision, as they still are. Tyrants often took over the city-states of ancient Greece, and not all tyrants were unscrupulous. 

Today, democracy is the 'holy cow', but as a political arrangement it must ultimately rest on a ‘political culture’. Where this culture is illiberal and undemocratic, western-style democracy can never thrive. This is the story of Pakistan and Nepal. Within India too, we are now perilously close to a situation in which none of the established ‘political parties’ — all of whom resemble criminal tribes because of their perverted political culture —can single-handedly form a constitutional government, not only at the Centre, but also in states like Karnataka. Our socialist democratic state is in crisis. 

The doctrines of classical liberalism prescribe ‘limited government’. To the liberals of the 17th and 18th centuries, universal adult suffrage was a dangerous pipe dream of radical egalitarians. What mattered most to liberals was not how the government is formed, but what the government does. Indeed, their primary concern was with what the government is not allowed to do by constitutional law. Only under such ‘limited government’ could the people be free as also secure in their properties. This was the ideal. And all efforts were thus directed towards limiting the powers of monarchs. Liberals of those days would be horrified at the unlimited powers of modern parliaments and it is only now that some of us are beginning to realise that, just as monarchs were ‘limited’ in those days, so too must parliaments be limited today. 

In other words, the classical liberal is an enemy of all unlimited government, be that of a king, a dictator or a popular assembly. This is because, to the classical liberal, the highest political value is Liberty. There was Liberty in Hong Kong under British rule and this Libertyhas been preserved after the colony was transferred to the Chinese communists under a ‘one country, two systems’ policy. There is Liberty in Singapore under one-party authoritarianism. There is Liberty in the Emirates of the Gulf. It is this Liberty that the classical liberal emphasises, irrespective of the exact political arrangement. Any government that preserves Liberty is good government. Any government that destroysLiberty is bad government — a tyranny that must be toppled. 

In socialist democratic India, Liberty is dead. The Economic Freedom of the World Index finds us ‘economically repressed’. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland top the list. We cannot trade with foreigners freely, we cannot change money freely, we cannot freely open businesses, our properties are insecure, we cannot grow, sell or smoke ganja — something even the Brits did not outlaw. Toddy, mahua, apong — all are illegal, wasting traditional ‘knowledge’ that could take on Mexican tequila. No Indian can open a bar freely, and heaven help them if some nautch-girls were to perform therein! The Brits patronised nautch-girls, and a Mughal prince even fell in love with one. 

So let us examine the ‘liberal’ credentials of those Indians who champion democracy inPakistan and Nepal. Nepal under a limited monarch can surely have a ‘gross national happiness’ index just as the neighbouring kingdom of Bhutan does. Similarly, if Musharraf were to limit his rule and preserve liberty, it would certainly be better for the average Pakistani than the corruption and chaos of either Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif — and their ‘political parties.’ The moot point is not whether Musharraf or King Gyanendra or Lee Kwan Yew are dictators: the real issue is what exactly are their dictates. Lee Kwan Yew, for example, grants his people total economic freedom, but bans chewing gum and hangs anyone found smoking ganja. It is this illiberality that matters most. If the dictator’s dictates are not so intrusive, and if as a result Liberty is preserved, then one dictator may indeed be preferable to a rag-tag coalition of popularly elected criminal tribes posing as ‘political parties’. Let us turn to this critical issue. 

For a Pakistani citizen, what matters most is a clear understanding as to what he is free to do and what he is not. If Musharraf spells out clearly that murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, rioting, arson and the like are illegal, and those who indulge in these will face the brunt of his coercive powers, I have no doubt that every honest, hard-working Pakistani will breathe easy. Simultaneously, Musharraf will also be sending a clear command to his forces that only if someone indulges in these illegal activities should his men in uniform intervene. Thus, the military dictator will at one stroke liberate the good people, freeing them from interference, while also establishing ‘command-and-control’ over his own forces, by providing them with clear instructions on when they must act. The good people ofPakistan will be free, while Musharraf’s own men will be on a tight leash. Musharraf will not command the economy (like Nehru did), nor ‘education’ (like Manmohan Singh); he will command his own organisation of coercive government power. 

And his commands will be ‘just’. The citizenry will operate in a free economy, a ‘spontaneous natural order’. If this happens in Pakistan, I will applaud. For what matters most is what government does. Any government that preserves Liberty is good. 

Indians who clamour for democracy in Pakistan or Nepal should look critically at their own illiberal order. Under no circumstances can our socialist democracy be called good government. Pointing the ‘democratic finger’ at Pakistan and Nepal is not only injudicious, but also insincere. Freedom comes first. The precise political arrangement is inconsequential. 

This article was published in the New Indian Express on 16 December 2007.  Please read the original article here.

Company towns

Company towns by Sauvik Chakraverti 

Date:Aug 21, 2006; Section:Editorial; Page Number:18  The Times of India 

The UPA government’s clearance to private firms for the setting up of over 100 Special Economic Zones (SEZs) has raised loud objections from those who are otherwise defenders of free markets. Noted columnist Swaminathan Aiyar warned that this is a “real estate scam” in the making. A lead editorial in The Times of India echoed his view.

    It is easy to surmise that the transfer of land to these private parties will involve corruption. Each SEZ requires between 25,000-35,000 acres of land. Since they are not buying this land outright, but getting it via the state, politicoadministrative corruption must be expected. However, this is in the nature of a onetime pay-off. That is the full extent of the “scam”. Thereafter, each of these private parties will own vast stretches of land that will have to be developed by them and converted into real estate. They will all have to then compete for buyers. Indian society will have much to gain when this happens.

    There will be an additional 100-plus new cities and towns where Indians can choose to live. These private developers have to mandate only 25 per cent of the land for export-processing purposes. The rest of the land can be developed for the market: Housing, shopping, schools, parks etc. Citizens who choose to shift to any of these areas will definitely be able to find a better quality of life than they do in present-day urban India.

    What is important for the future is that these SEZs remain full-fledged “company towns”, maintained and administered by their developers/promoters, with neither “democracy” nor “bureaucracy” having any say in their internal affairs. Without any “elections”, without the IAS-IPS combo, these 100-plus new towns will mimic the “princely states” of British India: Areas where “sovereignty” is local, while the “suzerainty” of the “paramount power”, the Centre, is formally observed. There were over 600 “princely states”: We can have thousands of such “company towns”.

    There will be a gradual decline of India’s “metro” cities, as more and more people “vote with their feet” and shift to these attractive and functional new towns. This is what happened to Murshidabad, the Nawab of Bengal’s capital, when the Brits built Calcutta. There will be a huge opening up of urban space, with vastly improved choices, and the “government cities” of today will face an exodus. The new “company towns” will blossom.

    It is, therefore, important to view these SEZs as purely real estate projects instead of export processing zones. Only mercantilists see economic advantage in promoting exports. Real economists see economic gain in two-way trade, with imports mattering more than exports. There is thus nothing to gain by treating exports favourably. On the other hand, there is a lot to gain from quality real estate development on a massive scale which is really where the private players intend to make their money.

    It is the government’s intentions and motives that are questionable, not those of the private developers. If there is a “scam”, then the needle of suspicion should point to the politico-administrative apparatus of the state. The private players should be deemed innocent of any ulterior motive. As with all competitive businessmen, they can only gain by serving their customers better.

    Two points need attention. First, there is no reason why FDI in real estate should not be invited in at this stage. Real estate development is an industry in its infancy in India, with little expertise, and not too deep pockets. Everybody from ITC to Manikchand (of “gutka” fame) is in the real estate business. If people like Donald Trump, for example, could invest here, there would be better choice, and consumer interests would be better served. There would be added competition in the market for buying vacant land too, leading to better prices for those selling land.

    Second, the state’s misuse of “eminent domain” must end. Even firms like Infosys have acquired land via the state. Eminent domain should not be used to give land for private purposes; its use should be restricted to “public goods” like public thoroughfares and parks. “Land acquisition” by the state for private businesses, for private mining, for private toll highways and the like should end.

The writer is an economist.

 

http://www.karmayog.org/library/html/libraryofarticles_815.htm

The economics of false philanthropy

The economics of false philanthropy by Sauvik Chakraverti  

03 January, 1998  The Indian Express 

Watched some dhotiwallahs and topiwallahs arguing on TV as to which party was most `pro-poor'. They all seem to want to help our unfortunate fellow-citizens. But what do they give the poor, and what do the poor really need?

When I studied economics in Delhi University in the '70s, they taught us something called `The Theory of the Vicious Circle of Poverty'. This stated that, because the poor had low income, they had less to save and invest, and so were stuck in poverty. The only way out: statal subsidies.

Lord Peter Bauer says that if this theory was true, the world would be still in the Stone Age. The world is a closed economic system: no resources have come in from Mars. Every country that is `developed' today started off underdeveloped. Impoverished migrants built America -- and Hong Kong. What is poverty then?

Poverty is nothing but the absence of economic achievement. If you seriously want to tackle mass poverty, you must vastly expand the opportunities for poor people to make these achievements. How?

Economic achievements are made in markets. Here, you can sell something: your labour, some guavas, or perhaps a ripe pumpkin. If you're lazy, and people are charitable, you can hang around in some corner and beg. Many do. Observe any Indian market and you'll see them all: the big shops, the small shops, the hawkers and peddlers - and the beggars. Certain principles emerge.First, that markets are urban. Therefore, poor people will flock to urban centres to look for economic opportunities. If you truly want to help poor people you must nurture and expand the urban economy. Singapore had 250,000 hawkers in its Central Business District in 1965. They created special hawkers' markets in newly built outlying residential areas. Today, the very same people are part of Singapore's tax paying middle class. Here, a `pro-poor' communist government simply chucks out Calcutta's teeming hawkers and calls it Operation Sunshine! South Asia's `informal' economy is growing two times faster than its formal counterpart. Here, a `pro-poor' politico-bureaucratic set-up eats up subsidy money, completely neglects urban areas and allows petty municipal and police functionaries to prey on the surpluses of the informal sector. You don't have to look very far: huftha money is collected from ice-cream vendors on Rajpath, right under the President of India's nose, because they stay open till very late at night. In Singapore, they pay great attention to `nightlife'. Cities shouldn't sleep. Our urban economies, unfortunately, shut down every evening.So, all that statist economics with its vicious circle of poverty does is divert scarce resources to finance a politics of false philanthropy. By teaching this ridiculous theory in universities, the state creates `economists' who view poverty to be something incurable without direct statal subsidy. These economists study poverty intensely. Many JNU dons have written weighty tomes on poverty.

Real economists study prosperity, and prescribe means my which prosperity is attained. Adam Smith looked into the `wealth of nations' - and prescribed free markets. Statists don't believe in markets. They believe the poor need the state - not the market. How can they ever make this country prosperous?So what is all this `pro-poor' talk really? Just this: false love. Thesedhotiwallahs and topiwallahs just talk of how their hearts bleed for the poor and the downtrodden. They espouse high socialistic ideals. In reality - and this is fairly obvious today after 50 years of false love - they simply milk away our economic surpluses, from both formal as well as informal sectors, and fund expensive `schemes' based on nonsense economics.

What the poor really need is urbanisation with an eye on the urban economy. This is a country with 10 mega-cities, 100 cities, 5,000 big towns and innumerable small towns. The STD index still doesn't list them all. Highways and inter-city rail connections are horrible. The poor have no chance to make economic achievements because the state has not enabled them to do so. We must do away with this subsidy-culture fast, and invest in an infrastructure that generates prosperity.

Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

http://www.indianexpress.com/old/ie/daily/19980103/00350304.html

Long Live the King

Long Live the King by Sauvik Chakraverti 

1 Jun 2005, 0014 hrs IST, The Times of India 

Multiparty democracy with universal adult suffrage is a very recent phenomenon in human history. Europe had Hohenzollers, Hapsburgs and Romanovs till the end of World War I. My point is this: Since libertarians believe in minimal government, what could be smaller than a king? Hong Kong and Singapore are prospering without democracy. Why can’t Nepal do the same? Adam Smith, writing in the mid-18th century, gave three tasks to the king: "The sovereign has only three duties to attend to: The duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions". So, according to Smith, if the king looked after defence, justice and public goods, society would flourish like never before. If the king of Nepal can do these things, the poor people of Nepal will be free to generate wealth for themselves. 

The solemn oath to ensure justice lay at the heart of mediaeval kingship in England and France. The same was true for the rulers of the Indian princely states. In the book, Lives of the Indian Princes, the Maharawal of Dungarpur makes it clear that justice was a prime value to Indian princes. He is quoted saying: "I was head of theexecutive and head of the legislature. As far as the courts were concerned, there were practically no pending cases — and that was a characteristic feature of the Indian (princely) states". The king of Nepal can recruit good judges from the international skills market.Simultaneously, if he declares unilateral free trade and the judges preserve property rights, the Nepali people will realise they don’t need democracy and party politics. Instead, they will seek their sustenance in the free market and their security and justice under their monarch. With free trade and property rights under the rule of law, Nepal will gallop from feudalism to full-fledged capitalism. The lure of Maoist ideology will fade as free markets and the resulting prosperity kick in. Then, democracy can be ushered in. Democracy now is a bad idea. 

The writer is a regular freelance contributor.  

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1156865.cms