One Ajit Vadakayil has posted a blog on, among other subjects, on the Bengal Famine of 1943. The blog at http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/09/amartya-sen-gets-nobel-prize-for.html?m=1 is such an enormous load of nonsense that I felt obliged to write something. Much of it is based on total misinformation or some half-digested facts. First of all, although I am Bengali, I am not a total admirer of Amartya Sen -- I rate him highly as an economist, but I thoroughly dislike his habit of poking his nose into every facet of life -- as if, just because he got a Nobel Prize, he knows everything. He doesn't, and moreover, he has lived abroad most of his life, so he has no way of knowing what happens here in India. In respect of the Bengal famine of 1943 I would much rather rely on the account of Ashok Mitra ICS, later Census Commissioner of India, who, as an SDO of a famine affected subdivision, had an insider's view of what caused the famine. According to him it was a policy of 'Denial and Evacuation', really a 'scorched earth' policy, followed by the British government in mortal fear of a Japanese takeover of Bengal, coupled with a terrible combination of a cyclone and Tsunami in a place called Kanthi in the present Purba Medinipur district of West Bengal. And the main person responsible, according to Mitra, is the half-crazed British governor of Bengal, Sir John Arthur Herbert, who was responsible for this cynical policy. Prime Minister Churchill, Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery and Viceroy Lord Linlithgow are primarily guilty of apathy and negligence. The blog contains a lot of other rot. Amartya Sen's first Hindu wife Nabaneeta Deb-Sen did not leave him because of his pro-Western views -- in fact she still sports his surname 'Sen' bears witness to the fact that it is not so. I know what caused their divorce, but I shall never make these domestic matters public. Ajit appears to be an anti-Semite, which is why he blames Rothschilds for all the ills of the world. The Rothschilds are powerful, but not that powerful. That Santiniketan, the ashram built by Rabindranath Tagore's father Debendranath,was built with opium money, or that Edwina Mountbatten was a Rothschild is pure baloney. He says Ramanujam, the mathematical genius, was "whisked off to England and then discarded like a curry leaf". Total rot. Ramanujam's talent was discovered not by any Indian, but by Hardy and Littlewood, two English mathematicians. What Ajit exhibits is called xenophobia, an irrational fear of everything foreign, in support of which he tries to marshal all this misinformation. The blog just teaches us what a lot of nonsense makes its rounds on the internet. One has got to be very,very careful.
Heard Rahul Gandhi out speaking to CII. First the good news. He is right in saying that India is a very complex country, there are no simple solutions. He is also right - at least so far - when he says that power has not devolved to the grassroots, with the result that MPs and MLAs have to think about things that ought to be thought of by the Pradhans. And he is right when he says the country lacks physical infrastructure, that we have to think exponentially rather than incrementally, and for it gives credit to the Green Revolution, the Telecom revolution, but understandably stops short of doing so to the Highway revolution launched by Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Now the bad news. Lots of it.
Whoever wrote that speech for him did an awfully shoddy job, and it sounder shoddier when Rahul was reading from it at times without maintaining eye contact with the audience. It is full of ill-fitting metaphors, platitudes and some management jargon, and (this reminded me of the Communists) contains enunciation of a lot of problems, BUT NOT A SINGLE SOLUTION. He repeated his fascination with the Aam Aadmi which was manifest in his Kalavati speech in the Lok Sabha, this time talking about some poor workmen travelling from gorakhpur to Mumbai. He appreciated their optimism amidst squalour. He did not offer any solutions for their hopelessness.
The central theme of his speech appeared to be that India's strength will flow from its huge numbers, who are each working in their own way. His beehive analogy, with which he rubbished the elephant analogy, summed this up very adequately. He even said obviously trying to take (but failing) to take a dig a Modi, when he said "give one person the power to do something and he will fail: give it to the 1.2 billion people and it will be done immediately", or words to that effect.
All this is arguable, though at times sometimes dangerously vague and hazy. The question is, WHERE IS HIS ROLE IN ALL THIS? And if he honestly means what he repeatedly said, that Rahul Gandhi is irrelevant (sometimes bracketing poor Montek Singh Ahluwalia with him,)then it is possible he is speaking God's truth, but does he hold that the quality of LEADERSHIP IS ALSO IRRELEVANT? That the country does not need leadership or policy, or to use his analogy, it does not need a Queen Bee?
Apparently he does.
And for having vented so many of his ideas frankly and truthfully, he might be forgiven for the gaffe of calling Rani Laxmibai as 'Rani ki Jhansi'. It was at the very end of his speech, the poor fellow must have been tired and nervous. He was trying to run down Modi, by comparing him to the 'guy who comes charging on horseback'. It must have hurt him to think that no way he can be that guy, and that might have made him even more nervous. It happens to all of us.
Now the bad news. Lots of it.
Whoever wrote that speech for him did an awfully shoddy job, and it sounder shoddier when Rahul was reading from it at times without maintaining eye contact with the audience. It is full of ill-fitting metaphors, platitudes and some management jargon, and (this reminded me of the Communists) contains enunciation of a lot of problems, BUT NOT A SINGLE SOLUTION. He repeated his fascination with the Aam Aadmi which was manifest in his Kalavati speech in the Lok Sabha, this time talking about some poor workmen travelling from gorakhpur to Mumbai. He appreciated their optimism amidst squalour. He did not offer any solutions for their hopelessness.
The central theme of his speech appeared to be that India's strength will flow from its huge numbers, who are each working in their own way. His beehive analogy, with which he rubbished the elephant analogy, summed this up very adequately. He even said obviously trying to take (but failing) to take a dig a Modi, when he said "give one person the power to do something and he will fail: give it to the 1.2 billion people and it will be done immediately", or words to that effect.
All this is arguable, though at times sometimes dangerously vague and hazy. The question is, WHERE IS HIS ROLE IN ALL THIS? And if he honestly means what he repeatedly said, that Rahul Gandhi is irrelevant (sometimes bracketing poor Montek Singh Ahluwalia with him,)then it is possible he is speaking God's truth, but does he hold that the quality of LEADERSHIP IS ALSO IRRELEVANT? That the country does not need leadership or policy, or to use his analogy, it does not need a Queen Bee?
Apparently he does.
And for having vented so many of his ideas frankly and truthfully, he might be forgiven for the gaffe of calling Rani Laxmibai as 'Rani ki Jhansi'. It was at the very end of his speech, the poor fellow must have been tired and nervous. He was trying to run down Modi, by comparing him to the 'guy who comes charging on horseback'. It must have hurt him to think that no way he can be that guy, and that might have made him even more nervous. It happens to all of us.