Amartya Sen vs Jagdish Bhagwati: When Intellectual Heavyweights Hit Below the Belt!

July 13th, 2013 at  letters(a)economist.com 

SIR-We read your review of “An Uncertain Glory”, the latest book on India by Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze. The review approvingly cites us as advocating faster growth through labour and land market reforms to cut poverty yet more deeply and to generate more revenues for social programmes. But your claim that Messrs Sen and Drèze wish to go “much further” leaves us puzzled. 

The truth of the matter is that Mr Sen has belatedly learned to give lip service to growth, which he has long excoriated as a fetish. He did not explicitly advocate any pro-growth policies, such as opening India to trade and to direct foreign investment, in practice before or after the 1991 reforms. Nor does he recognise that significant redistribution to the poor without growth is not a feasible policy.

Instead he continues to assert that redistribution has led to rapid growth in Asia, a proposition that has no basis in reality and puts the cart before the horse. Growth has made redistribution feasible, not the other way round. 

Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati

Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya      

Professors of economics
Columbia University
New York

Sen's reply came on July 20, 2012 at the same space: 

SIR – In complaining about your generous review of “An Uncertain Glory”, which I wrote with Jean Drèze, Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya have misdescribed my past work as well as the book itself . I have resisted responding to Mr Bhagwati’s persistent, and unilateral, attacks in the past, but this outrageous distortion needs correction.

Their letter says that, “Mr Sen has belatedly learned to give lip service to growth.” On the contrary, the importance of economic growth as a means— not an end—has been one of the themes even in my earliest writings (including “Choice of Techniques” in 1960 and “Growth Economics” in 1970). The power of growth-mediated security outlined in another book I co-authored with Mr Drèze in 1989, “Hunger and Public Action”, is a big theme in the present book.

Economic growth is very important as a means for bettering people’s lives, but “to go much further, faster” (as your reviewer commented) it has to be combined with devoting resources to remove illiteracy, ill health, undernutrition and other deprivations. This is not to be confused with mere “redistribution” of incomes, on which Messrs Bhagwati and Panagariya choose to concentrate.

The understanding, which is central to our book, that economic growth is greatly helped by early public support for the education and health of the people draws on positive experiences from Japan, China, Korea, Singapore and many other countries. It can scarcely be like putting “the cart before the horse”.

Amartya Sen,

Prof. Amartya Sen

    

Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

The exchange of letters cited above took place at The Economist.

On August 26, 2013, four personalities wrote "getting the facts right" on The Hindu, one of the most reputed newspapers in Delhi on the ongoing 'quarrel". The article chided Bhagwati for hitting below the belt!

Free speech and dignified debate are an integral part of democratic functioning. Therefore we cannot but be concerned about the plummeting standards of intellectual debate as evidenced in Jagdish Bhagwati’s personal attacks on Amartya Sen in the Indian media. Not only are Mr. Bhagwati’s attacks offensive and abusive, they are also factually incorrect. 

We are indeed surprised by the misinformation in Mr. Bhagwati’s recent articles on Mr. Sen. Mr. Bhagwati charges that Mr. Sen appointed himself Chancellor of Nalanda University. This is patently false, as Nalanda University is a cooperative initiative involving several Asian governments, and India’s then President Pratibha Patil, as Visitor to Nalanda University, was the responsible authority for the appointment of the Chancellor. Amartya Sen was requested by President Patil to undertake the role as Chancellor without remuneration which he did because of his commitment to the vision of Nalanda University, an invaluable intellectual heritage for India, indeed for the world. 

Mr. Bhagwati’s claim that Mr. Sen “asked for and accepted a million dollars from BJP Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha for his new NGO, whereas I have not asked for a Rupee or received any financing from the BJP” is false. When Mr. Sen got the Nobel Prize and used his prize money to set up a Trust to conduct policy research on education and health in India (he set up a similar charitable Trust in Bangladesh), the Government of India volunteered a matching contribution to the Trust, in appreciation of Mr. Sen’s achievement and commitment. Mr. Sen neither requested nor received a million dollars. Accepting a celebratory gesture in support of a charitable Trust from your own government (Mr. Sen remains an Indian citizen) is not the same as getting a grant from a political party. His commitment to advancing children’s health and education in India has continued, and indeed his royalties from the book that Bhagwati attacks (An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions) are going wholly to the same charitable Trust. 

Also, it is incorrect to say, as Mr. Bhagwati does, that “Mr Sen gratuitously attacked Chief Minister Narendra Modi.” Mr. Sen spoke about Mr. Modi in response only to pointed questions in a television interview. Surely in a democracy Mr. Sen has a right to his views and a right to reply truthfully in a media interview.

Again, Mr. Sen has never denounced the “provision by the private sector” of arrangements for the delivery of “food, education and health” to the deprived. He has never said — let alone “insisted” — that “the government alone must provide them,” as Mr. Bhagwati claims. 

As concerned citizens of India, we write this letter because erroneous charges should be corrected for the public record. We also appeal for a commitment to truth, a respect for facts, and the use of temperate language in anyone seeking to engage responsibly in a public debate. Presenting untrue statements in support of false accusations vitiates the practice of democracy. 

Somnath Chatterjee, A seasoned Parliamentarian

 N. Ram, Chief Editor of The Hindu

Sudhir Anand, an Economist teaching at Harvard/Oxford

 A.K. Shiva Kumar, an Economist teaching at Harvard/member of National Advisory Council, India.

The topic of debate between the two figures is, I think, very important. And I also think both of them are not really totally negating growth or the welfare of the poor; it's just about the need to emphasize at a particular point of time. After all without growth, there is no money to provide cheap education or healthcare. Yet what good is growth if 50% of the population is illiterate or hungry? I think the contention is about whether government needs to emphasize more at present.

And in this debate I sit on the side of Amartya Sen. I don't think that unless the government takes serious measure to promote healthcare or education, the economy won't just trickle down to, say, the North East. The North East as such has been not at all at par with the mainstream Indian economy in term of growth, let alone on social sector. Even few months back, the President of India says to this effect in his visit to the North East. A society that is becoming more individualistic and where age old social bond is disintegrating;  where people are just vying to get on top of the others, there is no one to care for the child begging on the street. Considering the social reality I think government should invest more on healthcare and education that what it is doing now.

Reflections of Death: Can the Dead Ones Really Come Back to Life? Part 4

It's a basic fact that the dead ones remain dead. This is a fact that ancient people knew as much as we know know. We don't need modern science to tell us that the dead ones remain dead. But  when we ask the dead ones about afterlife, they don't really answer. So is there any way one can know anything about afterlife?

Jesus Christ lived and died in the first century.  He was crucified on a cross like a Roman criminal, and buried on a tomb. His disciples thought then that all was gone. It was usual then that a movement withered away into obscurity once the leader died or was put to death. Since Jesus was put to death after a criminal trial, his disciples ran for their life.

Few days later, the disciples claimed to have seen their Lord and Master having come to life. They received new zeal and fresh boldness to continue the work their teacher had initiated. And so the church or rather Christianity came to be in the history of human civilization. This rise of the church is attributed to the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and that he is vindicated to be the Lord and Master of  the world. And this man who is raised from the dead says that there is life beyond death; and this event also gives sufficient evidence that the dead ones do not have to remain dead.

The Bible says that those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God will be raised to life for an ever fullest life. So, can the dead ones really come back to life? Well, look at Jesus Christ for the answer; it is an event that has happened in this time and space.

How Much Interest Rate is Too Much?

In Senapati town and adjoining areas, those who are in a desperate situation borrow money from private lenders at the rate of 60% per year. Sometimes the rate may reach 90% or 120% or even upto 150% per year, depending on how desperate a situation one is in. Proponents of free-market economy would argue that demand and supply matrix engenders such a state of affairs. None compels a person to borrow; the borrowers take loan from the private lenders at his own free will, they would argue. They would thus justify their action stating that based on the demand, supply at such rate flourishes. One may, however, may raise two objections to such an argument: first, the fairness argument; second, the corruption argument.

The fairness argument would go this way. Those who borrow money at such a high interest rate are in a desperate economic situation. Many a times it is for urgent medical care or similar urgent and desperate requirement. They would never prefer to borrow at such a high interest rate. However, the condition was such that borrowing at such a high interest rate would have been better for them than otherwise. It is only in such desperate moment that they are compelled to borrow at such a high interest rate. Therefore, those lenders who are charging high interest rate in such a situation is actually taking advantage of someone's helplessness, someone's desperate condition. So it is not fair; and it is morally wrong to be taking advantage of someone's helpless moments.

The second argument appeals to the end purpose of lending. It argues that as a member of a community, it is a duty of each person to help one another. This fact is acknowledged even by the private lenders themselves. Private lenders would further agree that the lending of money is to help the needy person, not to exploit him or add more misery to his woes; nor is lending purely for profit alone. However, when interest rate is just so high, the substantive reason of lending money to help the needy ones is damaged. Instead of helping the needy ones, more misery is added unto him. If one is to truly help a person in need, charging lesser interest rate would much better fulfill the purpose.

Banks usually lend money at a rate of 10%-12% per annum. Per month it comes to roughly one rupee or less. Considering this figure, the current figure charged by private lenders in Senapati district is way too high. It cripples the poor man's economy. This is nothing short of a selfish and mean character. When churches too join in lending at such a rate, they ostensibly demonstrate a poor understanding of the Bible. A church is not supposed to be instrumental in adding more woes to the poor. Its calling is to rather help the needy ones. To charge very high interest rate on the poor borrowers in order to gain more money for the construction of a magnificent church building is to make a mockery of the institution. Church building is never to take more importance than building the followers of Christ.

Lenders should not charge an interest rate higher than 2%-2.5% per month; which comes to 24%-30% per annum. The value and beauty of solidarity is slowly fading away in our community. It is high time that we arrest further deterioration. A society that has completely degenerated will take ages to heal. Moral degradation is not just about getting into adultery or drug abuses; it includes wearing away of virtues such as friendship, community bond etc. Unless we remain vigilant, the love for money will tear into our age old social fabric and destroy the community. This attack can be very dangerous because it is so subtle unlike drug abuses or adultery which everybody considers as vices.

(To appear in The Hornbill Express on 9th August, 2013)

Reflections of Death: Can a Dead Man's Spirit Become a Bad Spirit...? Part 3

Can a dead man's spirit become a bad spirit and terrorise/frighten people? 

The post put up yesterday advanced ideas that say that righteous dead and unrighteous dead go to different realm. And that they remain where they are supposed to be till Jesus would raise them in future and assign them where they are to remain till the end. Now if they are to remain dead, then what do we make out of this story that says that a particular place/location is haunted. 

Dead people will remain dead. Their spirit cannot frighten us. But the evil spirit is active. And the one desire of the evil spirit is to harm us. And so it is possible that the evil spirit takes on the form of a dead person, and tries to harm people or frighten others. In villages we hear of stories of dead people scaring away people from visiting certain location. Well, the dead people remains dead. It would have to be the evil spirit that wants to harm the good name of a dead man or to harm those who are still alive. So whether it's a house that is known to be haunted or a place considered haunted it's not the business of the dead people to disturb those who are still alive. 

Do we have to call the spirit to come along when a man dies in a foreign land? 

In certain religious tradition, it is said that a man should call his spirit to return along when he visits a strange land. It could happen that if the spirit is not called to return along, then the man could find his spirit missing when he is home; and the spirit would be wandering somewhere. Similarly, when a man dies in a foreign land, it is important to call the spirit home so that it does not wander around here and there. 

In Christian belief there is no such thing. Dead people go where they are supposed to go. The spirit wandering here and there if not called to return 'home' (where the dead body is buried) does not make sense, according to Christian belief. Dying at one's home or in hospital or in the open sea does make any difference where one goes after death. 

Reflections on Death: Where do the Dead Ones Go? Part 2

2 Peter 2:9 says, " ... then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to hold the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment". This passage can be understood to mean that the unrighteous goes through punishment even while they are on earth, and continues till the day of judgment in future. But it can also be understood to mean that the unrighteous ones go through punishment in Hades, while they continue to wait for the final judgement. The second interpretation goes well with the story of Lazurus and the rich man. In this story, the rich man continues to go through suffering while Lazarus was not. But this is not the final state. Along with the righteous, the unrighteous too will be raised on the last day. But the unrighteous will be raised to shame; to face punishment. 

Jesus told one of the thieves on the cross, "today you will be with me in Paradise". In Philipians 1.23-24 Pauls writes, "... I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." These passages tell us that the righteous dead go to be with Jesus. Paradise is more like a garden, and not a permanent resting place. Jesus used to refer to death as 'sleep'. So in one sense being in Paradise is not really a vibrant and full of life kind of a place. But definitely they are resting in the Lord. This is not the final state; it is rather like an intermediate state. At some point in the future, they will be raised with the unrighteous ones as well to face the Lord. And the righteous ones will be in the new heaven and new earth with the Lord forever. This is the final state. This is the state of being resurrected. They will be embodied in this state; yet space and time that constraint us now will no longer apply here. It's a body that will never see decay and death again.

Reflections of Death: Must Christians Always Bury the Dead? Part 1

On first of March, a close relative of mine passed away after battling coma for ten and half months. It was on 15th September, 2012 that a speeding car hit him, resulting in head injury and limb fractures. Since then family members took turn to care for him hoping that he would eventually get out of coma and live though he may not really be able to walk and function as before. But God has a different plan! This event made me reflect on few things about death; and I thought of putting them in words. And the following few posts will be about my reflections on death and related matters. 

Traditionally Christians bury the dead. From the dust we came, and upon burial we eventually become dust. So it's in a way natural that the dead ones are buried. But it's not just those who are buried that become dust eventually; even animals and plants that die and decay eventually become dust. A frog that gets preyed upon a snake who is in turn eaten by an eagle that finally ends up in the frying pan of a farmer too becomes dust. Everything that decays finally becomes part of the earth! So to say that only that which is buried becomes dust, and therefore Christians should always be buried will not be right. 

There have been Christians in the past who had been thrown into lions den. And they got eaten by the lions. There were also Christians who had been burnt to ashes or who got drowned in the sea who did get buried. Whatever form of dead a person would have faced, eventually the body decays and merges with the dust. Being buried is just one way of becoming dust. There is no theological ground, therefore, to insist that Christians should necessarily bury the dead ones. If there is cultural tradition to bury the dead, fine. But if due to space constraint, people choose to cremate or be placed on electric chair, I think it's okay. God can surely raise the dead, whichever way one decays and merges with the dust, to face him on the Last Day. The one eaten by the lions or burnt as torch by king Nero or burnt in electric chair will get no more or no less special treatment than those who got buried. The bottom line is, in my view, follow the cultural norm of the day!