Thursday, November 05, 2009

Understanding recession

Well its quite common these days to cut costs but i really dont think the Macro Economy level impact of this can be ever positive .Cutting costs by itself would reduce the short term loses in a given recessionary condition, But it will actually prolong the over all recessionary cycle, as cutting costs reduces agg demand of the economy.. When there is unemployment then consumer demand falls. Even if you have reduced short term lose, you will still incur some lose over a longer period of time, and hence negating the effect of the cost cutting. Instead if a price cut is brought into place then you will increase your short term lose, but reduce the recessionary period without hampering your production pattern, There would be no stock piling in warehouses and also the company can retain its employees and expertise and can attain super normal profits when market recovers.The recession would really wont last long as given the fact there would be no un employment and hence no reduction n the aggregate demand.Its better going production optimizing during recession than trying to go for profit maximization mode of production. One of the major reason India at a negative inflation rate had a reduced recessionary cycle it was a mare slow down

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Jinnah's Islam or Gandhian Hinduism???

Its been years a read the book, i remember i had borrowed it initially from a friend who was preparing for his IAS exams. He told me the UPSC recommends "The Freedom at Midnight" as an appropriate course material for Indian History.
Having bought it later as the book had made an impression on me,i thought it was time i revisited the book.As it was endorsed by the UPSC i guess i needed to go back to it before i penned down the thoughts.

Since the Jinnah row re-appeared on the news, the thought put forth by Mr Jaswant Singh had haunted me. What made an Ambassador of Hindu - Muslim unity turn into Qaid -e-Azam of Pakistan.
And i still agree it was Gandhian Hinduism rather than Jinnah's Islam.

Islam for Jinnah was just a surname he was born into. He was non practicing anglicized barrister for whom practicalities of life mattered more than rigid faith.

His day started with the best Bacon's of Bombay served in a full English Breakfast, and ended with the Highland Malts and cigar. I dont think these can be traits of a religious fanatic propagating Islam.
He was also one of the first person to ostracize Mohammad Iqbals demands for the separate states.

Before pointing fingers we need to get a few facts right. The demand for seperate electorates was first demanded by Sir Seyed Amir Ali of the (Aligarh Muslim university fame) along with Mr Aga Khan. The reason was less political and more social , though it would go ahead and create a political divide. The Muslims then were losing out on social equity on grounds of education. The demand of separate electorates were done as a quota system. The same system for which our friends from the UP legislature still hails B.R Ambedkar.
To enforce this system required a leader who could fight the Muslim cause yet remain united for the Indian cause. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was their man.

Mahatma Gandhi on the other hand could have been a Mahatma when we try understand his ideologies but for all practicalities of politic he was just M.K Gandhi for me. Though he has been portrayed as a great secular leader, to me , a person who enforces his own religious fundamentals on his followers is far from being so. He was strong follower of Hinduism and was preacher of atma suddhi, ( self cleansing of soul) dharma and vegetarianism . All traits of Hinduism. He did not even have faith in modern medicine , and wanted his followers to follow the same path.
And Jawaharlal Nehru was a blind follower of Mr M.K Gandhi the politician.

In one of his writings the Mahatma had mentioned his detest for modern parliamentary democracy. for people who do not know for him democracy was like a prostitute and parliamentarians her brokers. His perfect form government was the Ramrajya the self restaining vegeterian form of government with out any administration. And for him Jinnah would not fit the bill for such a governance he was too practical for that. Hence even though Jinnah was a better administrator he chose Nehru over him as the Prime Minister of India.
This was against the aspirations of Jinnah, and also he realised in the kind of government the Mahatma was endorsing Muslims of the country would not be able to relate to.
And rest as they say is history.
I dont know if Jinnah was secular or not he was not religious... and to me Mahatma Gandhi too religious to be secular and to idealistic to be practical.

To end i would just like mention some interesting facts. Jinnah died of tuberculosis within few months of independence, and during the same time Nehru had gone to Lord Mountbatten and confessed he was not a good administrator. It was the last viceroy who was running the Indian Government for his Nehru's behalf.

Only if Jinnah ruled for these months instead of Mountbatten and had Nehru become his understudy , I guess when Nehru would have taken charge it would have been an unified India