Hindustan Times
Media should lead where politicians have failed
For nearly as long as I can remember, the prevailing consensus in mainstream media has been that liberalization is a good thing. Way back in the 1980s, when Dilip Thakore was the founding editor of Businessworld, he always made it clear that his policy was to back the corporate sector against government because there were too many restrictions on doing business in India. Few editors went quite as far as Malcolm Forbes who used to cheerfully describe his eponymous magazine as a capitalist tool, but there was no doubt that few socialists would ever make it to the top editorships.
Partly, this was because newspapers and magazines were owned by corporate houses who had no interest in promoting the Marxist cause. And partly this was because most journalists realized that India needed desperately to liberalise.
In 1991, when Manmohan Singh opened up the economy, he did not have to work very hard at finding supporters in the media. My old boss, Aveek Sarkar, loudly declared, “Forget Mohandas, Manmohan is the true Father of the Nation.” He was over-stating the case, of course, but all of us, myself included, recognized that what Manmohan Singh was doing was long overdue.
Since then, many of us have judged governments by how committed they are to the reforms process. Our old impatience with socialism has been transformed into a mass welcoming of all capitalist innovations and enterprises. More important, we have come to identify liberalization with globalization and have treated the big international financial institutions as forces for the public good.
Over the last year, two events have occurred that could have caused us to stop and change our minds. The first of these is the global economic crisis. Nobody seriously disputes that this crisis was caused by capitalism run amok, by Wall Street’s irresponsibility and by the lack of accountability that international financial institutions enjoyed.
The second event was the General Election. During the UPA’s first term, the Prime Minister had to be persuaded by the Congress Party to accept the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. He also bitterly opposed the loan write-off for farmers and only fell in line when the Congress insisted.
His reluctance was matched by the press’ lack of enthusiasm for such measures. Most newspapers regarded the National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme as a joke and the write-off was violently opposed by nearly every editorial writer and economic commentator.
We know now - judging by poll surveys - that the primary reason why the UPA won a second term was because it pursued these measures and policies. Even while we in the media were arguing in favour of the market as a mechanism for allocating resources, the people of India seemed to prefer a more direct transfer of wealth.
In the West, the economic crisis has led to the publication of scores of books questioning the basic tenets of global capitalism. Such distinguished economists as Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and Joe Stiglitz have become media celebrities because of their trenchant criticisms of modern capitalism.
But while the old economic consensus has broken down within Western media, we in India seem entirely unmoved by the events of the last year. Few of us have questioned whether our opposition to the UPA’s social welfare measures was justified. And in all the economic journalism that I read, there is rarely a questioning of the old liberalization-is-terrific consensus. What’s more, we still support globalization with the same enthusiasm.
It is not my case that we are wrong to do this: the jury is still out on that one. My point is: why have we not had the same debate as the West?
At a political level, the absence of the debate can be attributed to the misplaced priorities of the two men who should have led it. Manmohan Singh is our most respected politician and leading liberal economic thinker. Prakash Karat is bright, articulate and entirely committed to Marxist economics.
You would imagine that these two titans would have done battle over the direction that Indian capitalism should now take. Instead, both men got embroiled in a sideshow: a tussle over the nuclear deal. Both invested their egos in this battle and allowed the major issue of the crisis of capitalism to go undebated.
But what about us in the media? Should we now not be questioning our faith in the market as the cure for all ills? Should we not wonder whether it is right for us to oppose loan write-offs at a time when the West is also talking of loan write-offs - for African debt, for example.
The old socialism-is-bad assumptions may have made sense when our economy was at a certain stage of development. But don’t these assumptions need to be re-examined in the light of recent events.
I would argue that they do. What we miss in the Indian media is the sort of debate that has gripped the West: about the nature and direction of capitalism in the future.
The politicians have clearly failed us when it comes to a battle of ideas. So journalists must now take over and debate these issues.
(15 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...Posted by Vir Sanghvi on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Filed under Media · Tagged capitalism, economic journalism, globalization, liberalization, modern capitalism
Vir,
I have always admired your opinions and columns but I am somewhat confused about this one. Your argument rests on the following premise - What earns votes is good and since it is good, media should support it.
Writing off loans is the easiest thing govt can do.. After all that does not involve the personal funds of any politician, right?
Take for an example the loan write off and loan modification in USA for defaulting home owners in USA. Anyone who has followed foreclosures and mortgage default in USA would tell that Obama’s remedies for these home owners is corrupt and tantamount to rewarding bad behavior. Nevertheless, this program is popular amongst most owners except those who are renters (because no one modifies their rent) or the responsible home owners who make the mortgage payments on time and bought the home that they could afford. Many in US media (except the one who have special interests) have questioned such loan write offs for irresponsible people at the expense of American tax payers. In the end, however, this may earn Obama some votes if his policies keep the owners in their homes.
A journalist is supposed to argue each issue based upon its merit and not based upon what makes a politician popular.
[Reply]
Great reply Shikha. Also Vir two things: NTR won the elections on his Rs.2/kg rice scheme. This nearly bankrupted the AP economy and the scheme had to be quietly shelved some time later. So vote winning schemes are not necessarily good for the country. They really speak to the appalling poverty in India and the systematic failure of the political establishment for the past 60 years in doing anything meaningful to get India out of this quagmire.
The second things is this: if you didn’t have a market economy, where is the money for your NREGA or other populist schemes going to come from?? Don’t forget that it is govt. revenues collected from businesses and taxes that help fund these schemes. Don’t delude yourself into thinking that some wrong-headed socialism will do the trick. It hasn’t anywhere else in the world.
[Reply]
Vir
I agree with your point about debating loan wave offs but more from efficiency in implementing point of view not really from economic benefit to the society point of view.
For debate “whether market can cure all ills” I would say Indian media is not capable of doing so. They simply do not have credentials. This debate should be rather between economists.
[Reply]
VIR , IT IS AN INTRESTING POINT THAT YOU HAVE MADE HERE. THERE SHOULD BE A HEALTHY DEBATE ABOUT THIS. I THOUGH PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH MOST OF THE ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY OF THE LEFT, BUT I DO REALLY THINK THAT IN A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA WE NEED THE LEFT. MAILY BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT THE POINTS OF VIEW OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE HAVE NO VOICE IN THE SYSTEM. I HAVE OFTEN SEEN TV ANCHOURS REDICULING AND LAUGHING EVERY TIME A LEFTIST IS MAKING A POINT. AS YOU RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT CORPORATE HOUSES THAT OWN THESE MEDIA ORGANISATIONS DO NOT LIKE THESE VIEWPOINTS. ALSO THE POOREST OF THE POOR PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. SHOULD ALSO GET A VOICE. REGARDS
DR.KAZMI
[Reply]
I’m not convinced with your argument, especially in the Indian context, Vir. Populist measures,under the garb of socialism, are the easiest way to appease voters; hence they commonly practiced in India. We’ve institutionalized poverty as a result. There are many failed examples for us to see such as loan write-off’s, free electricity, legalization of illegal slums etc.
The US and India are not in the same boat when it comes to capitalism. Consequently, what measures the US may need to regulate capitalism may not be worth a debate in India which is already mired with red tape and babudom.
[Reply]
I appreciate your honesty. While opening up the economy, we were assured that the wealth generated in the country would percolate down to the lower strata. It didn’t happen. While the upper classes prospered, the poor became poorer. While the media was applauding the dream budgets of Manmohan Singh and Chidambaram, there were starvation deaths in places like Baran in Rajasthan. A daily wage earner still earns around Rs.60/- per day in states like MP and Rajasthan. Even at these abysmally low wages, employment is hard to come by. For them NREGS has certainly come as a blessing. It is wrong to write these schemes off as populists measures, though they might have been introduced with an eye on the vote banks.
It’s high time for Manmohan Singh and Prakash Karat to sit across the table and give shape to a genre of capitalism that will suit the country. Sanghvi is certainly right in saying that media should take the lead in initiating a meaningful debate across the nation and force the politicians to rethink their strategies.
[Reply]
Vir,
I thinking writing off loans is just the recognition of fact that all our other delivery mechanisms has failed in achieving their objectives. Its true that poor sections of society need support and it should come directly rather then waiting for the fruits of economy to trickle down. But dont you think that it is better to give these incentives in a way that increases the productivity of these farms rather then giving in a way that makes the people who pay their debts on time think themselves as fools.
[Reply]
People vote even when given money at the time of election so should that be the mantra.. In a country as outrs where literacy rate is so abysmal success in failure in election should not eb the judge of which policy is good for India in long ternm and which is not..
I still believe NREGA is nothing but bribery to get votes.. When impetus is on employment guaratee not on projects then its open season for crooks in govt machinery.. lakhs of crores will be spent and as usual poverty numbers will remain the same..
NREGA is present form make sure that in mindless ways district officers decide to build roads which will be wiped out next year.. in most caes they don;t even bother since they can always claim road waas laid but subsequent flood wiped it off..
Had the emphasis been on concrete big-ticket projects it would have served both purpose employment plus infrastructure development..
Ask yourself honestly.. We saw a golden quadrilaterla a huge infrastructre in five years of NDa nwo please point me out anythign tangible which this NREGA has ahcieved althoguh the bill for NREGA is many times what we spent on GQ..
Bootmline just because some thign buys you vote doesn;t make it good for india and india’s development in long run.. these remains a short term vote buying gimmick.. Let us see how long this kind of money can be spent without serious result on the ground.. NDA left surplus economy so it was easy for UPA I now they are in biggest deficit ever let us see how logn UPA II can keep on spending in these profligate way without anything fruitful in return…..
I am sure once again if thigns fail blame will go to capitalism and this NREGA like socialist mindless spending will escape the blame..
[Reply]
Politicians are reactionaly never practive.. Even much hailed MAnmohans Singh used to socialist stalwart till India was bled to bankrupcy through socialist ethos.. Suddenly on insistance of WBNarsimah RAo got hobson;s choice of capitalism and liberalization .. Manmohan Singh true to hsi follower hue turned into cheer leader of capitalism..
I am sure if tommorow Sonai Gandhi asks Manmohan Singh to bat for nonsense-ism he will say yes why not madma let us go for it….
That’s why I laugh when peopel call manmonahsn singh visionary he is anything but..
Narimha Rao was the decision maker even he took the decisison when he was left with no choice but Manmohan Singh was no where in decision making. IN fact he was not even first choice to see through this change of policy .. So let him be the clerical policy follower visionary word doesn;t fit to anyone in Indian politics as fo now.. they are all followers reaosn being those who have ability to think ( Read Shourie Manmohan Singh and ilk) have no political power and those who have political power( read (Sonia Gandhi Jaitley etc) can’t think.
Seriously I pity characters like Manmohan Singh, Shahsih tharoor, Mani Aiyar who take brief from a matriculate ) Sonai Gandhi) and are waitign to take orders from a character with dubious education ( Rahul gandhi)..
How can any self-respecting intellectual stoop this low for sake of soem crumbs in power corridor.
[Reply]
I have been a great admirer of yours but this time I find myself in a fix what actually you are trying. What ever I have understood, I might be very wrong, that you are trying, to get stand with the politician, assist them, if they don’t try with their heart in terms of reforms, the media should stand against them. should come forward and try to enlighten the countrymen
A journalist is supposed to argue each issue based upon its merit and not based upon what makes a politician popular. You have said it very right, but do you think, today’s journalists are focussed on the spirit of journalism? No.
Media is taking us to nowhere. You take print media, electronic media. No one is focussed, though some editorial pages do come “invoking”. but, don’t you think, those invoking things should be described first.?
Well! I may take this argument in the wrong direction. But I got disappointed finding you confused.
[Reply]
Yes- but for that media has to rise above TRP pangs. It is not easy because it again needs a vision, needs a nationalism feel which is eveporating from our blood streams very rapidly.
A psuedo democracy which infact was and is imperialism- managed to lead India upto 2009 with slight head high but India has/had potential but it needs some changes in it’s main frame.
[Reply]