I couldn’t agree more with your arguments in the column. I believed in the India Shining campaign and whatever happened later in the polls was merely telling a different story that suited the Congress. India has definitiely progressed after liberalization, but it must hasten its progress. Economic growth is relative.

There’s nothing quite as gratifying as having an article I write stimulate another article, even one that claims to be a retort! It’s even more gratifying that the retort is as thoughtful and cogent as yours is. So thanks. I mean that. Were you silently working on this when we met at the Tea Centre?

I actually agree with a lot of what you say in your rediff article. The guy who takes my clothes to get them ironed bought a cellphone. And the truly interesting thing is that he immediately got on a train to a UP village to give it to his parents, who were then saved a 5km trip to the closest STD booth. (And consider that STD booths were themselves a great revolution some 15 years ago). Truly, cellphones are now the tool of the poor, and landlines the tool of the rich — what a fascinating inversion.

The shoes argument has made sense to me ever since I saw that nearly everyone in Cuba wears shoes.

And we are indeed better off in 2005 than we were in 1990. As I said in my piece, I strongly believe the reforms process had to happen and must keep happening.

So where does that leave this argument? Here: my feeling is that the reforms process has not been as wide, as rapid, as sincerely pursued if you like, as it must be. I meet too many people who are yet to see it making a healthy difference in their lives. I don’t believe those people can be wished away, or told that they must wait. After all, they were told they must wait for better times during our years of wrong-headed socialism too. So they see NO difference between the rhetoric from the days of socialism and the rhetoric today: both make promises that they are yet to see affecting them. I think that sentiment must be taken note of.

I travel by train a lot. The flood of destitute people on my most recent trip depressed me. As I said, in some 35 years taking trains, I’ve never seen such a lot of them. That’s where my article(s) came from.

You might want to look at this
earlier post of mine and the exchange in the comments: lots of figures there.

Which leads finally to a note about anecdotes. I quote figures all the time, rely on them a great deal. But also as I indicated in my rediff piece, I usually try to look for evidence that will corroborate the figures. That’s why anecdotes matter. They make the figures credible. Suppose I told you, 75% of Indians are left-handed. What is it that persuades you I’m bullshitting? The fact that the great majority of people you meet are not left-handed.

Once more, thanks.

In your article, you’d written, “I am yet to see the one effect they [the reforms] must have, first and above all: a visible lessening in the level of Indian poverty. Fewer poor Indians around us. I can’t see that.”

In your comment above you wrote, “we are indeed better off in 2005 than we were in 1990.”

But let that contradiction be. Just clarify the following two points for all of us, because we’re not clear where you stand on this: one, do you believe that there has been too little liberalisation, or too much? Two, do you agree with Yazad and me that there should be freer markets with less government interference?

Thank you.

But I think Yazad has already replied that in his article: “One reason Dilip and others see liberalisation not having any effect on poverty is that the occupations of the poor have not really been liberalised. How easy is it to run a small shop or practice a small trade? On the streets of India’s cities, that’s amongst the most difficult things to do. True liberalisation is making life easier for the poorest of the poor — by getting out of the way.”

So this is what the debate should be about: why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place? Is Yazad’s answer complete?

Cheers
Shivam

So this is what the debate should be about: why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place? Is Yazad’s answer complete?

My responses: Indeed, that’s the crucial question (why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place?). And yes, as far as I’m concerned Yazad’s answer (get out of the way of the poor) is pretty much complete.

So this is what the debate should be about: why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place? Is Yazad’s answer complete?

My responses: Indeed, that’s the crucial question (why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place?). And yes, as far as I’m concerned Yazad’s answer (get out of the way of the poor) is pretty much complete.