The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective --------- Robert C Allen

 

The Industrial Revolution in the 18^th century is generally considered to have heralded the modern age on Planet Earth. But why did this happen on a small island in North Western Europe and not elsewhere? And why at a particular juncture in history? And what brought it about and who? The questions are intriguing and the answers offered by economic historian, Robert C Allen, make for a fascinating read.

The story, the author asserts, begins with the Black Death in the mid-14^th century. The logic and sequence of events is as under:

Black Death --drastic drop in population --farms abandoned and much cultivated land reverts to pasture --sheep begin to eat better and the quality of their wool improves slowly, but very significantly, over time-- Britain, with better wool, produces better fabrics which find a big market in Europe --trade increases and along with it economic growth sets in with growing proto-industrialization (handicrafts produced in homes) urbanization, starting with London, and high wages. The labour shortage, of course, is primary in creating a high wage economy. A ban on export of raw wool encourages fabric export instead of raw wool export. State intervention is, therefore, very important here!

 Centuries go by.

 Population catches up, but trade driven growth backed by growing agricultural productivity and urbanization keep Britain a high wage economy. Innovations in printing reduce the cost of books and growing commercialization of the economy leads to increasing literacy and numeracy. The British economy is transformed over a couple of centuries.

The Scientific Revolution occurs in the 17^th century—people learn to control and manipulate nature instead of praying to it -- and this lays the foundation for the Industrial Revolution to come.

The Portuguese discover the sea route to the Indies via the Cape and the Spanish Crown funds the voyage of one Christopher Columbus. The first great Globalization begins and intra-European trade is replaced by inter-continental trade, helped along by the power of Brit arms, as the driver of growth in Britain.

So, we have a growing and high wage economy with an increasingly literate and numerate population and extensive proto-industrialization. The scientific revolution and globalization have occurred, Asian textiles and other exotic consumer goods have triggered some sort of consumerism and the 18^th century dawns.

The technological revolution that began in the 18^th century was primarily in cotton spinning, iron smelting with coke instead of charcoal and, of course, the use of steam for power -- the steam engine. And they all happened in Britain while the scientific revolution in the previous century happened to a great extent in Europe -- remember Galileo was Italian!

The question the author addresses is why the mechanization of cotton cleaning, carding and spinning, the use of steam for power and the change in the process of smelting iron evolved in Britain.

The answer in short is, for reasons economic. The pursuit of profit is what drove the effort that led to tech innovations in these areas. Many factors were necessary -- nature’s bounty (coal and iron ore in close proximity), consumerism, the scientific revolution and  an increasingly scientific outlook in society, but economic motivations, provided the tipping point.

Wages were high and coal was cheap and abundant. Wood was getting scarce and expensive and increasing coal use, initially for heating, was a logical step. This led to increasing demand for coal and for increasing coal production more effective means of draining the mines were essential. The Newcomen steam engine, which took Mr Newcomen ten years to build, did just that. The engine ran on coal, which at the mines was free, and despite its inefficiency, served a crucial commercial purpose -- enabling increased coal production. This was what the author calls a ‘macro invention’ which ‘set in train long trajectories of advance that resulted in great increases in productivity……. they also radically changed factor proportions, substituting energy and capital for labour.’

 

But these big inventions needed time and money and effort to create technologies that would exploit the full potential of the original macro invention. In the case of the steam engine, for example, a century plus was needed for steam engines to progress from only draining mines to powering machinery and later ships and, of course, the iron horse, the railways. This process of actualizing the potential of macro inventions by progressive improvements the author calls micro inventions. The forerunners to modern venture capitalists are to be found here, too, incidentally.

The author’s analysis of the three critical inventions that drove the industrial revolution, in terms of macro and micro inventions, is fascinating. The search for profit in the context of a high wage, urbanized, coal rich economy was a primary driver, but the particular stories in each case are extremely interesting. Who were the inventors? Upper class, rich university men or working-class weavers apprenticed to the trade as children? Who financed the invention processes? Did the patent system help innovation and did all innovators benefit from it? And what about industrial espionage? The questions go on and on…

 For students of economics, some curious issues surface: state intervention in general and trade restrictions and protection in particular have helped growth and neoclassical free markets are not the panacea that we were taught they were. Comparative advantage, the legitimate basis of trade, is a dynamic thing and can change dramatically over time when circumstances – technology, in particular -- change. Real life confounds a great deal of theory is the take away here.

Allen writes clearly, argues very convincingly and the book is, therefore, an easy read. For anyone interested in questions like Why Britain or Why the West and not the Rest, this is a must read.

Happy reading.

The Great Divergence -- China, Europe and the Making of the Modern World Economy -------- Kenneth Pomeranz

 

 

What accounts for the economic divergence of Europe from the rest of the world in the 19^th century? What was so special about Europe, or lacking in the Rest, that the Industrial Revolution happened in one place and nowhere else?

This issue, which has occupied a great deal of academic time and effort, is addressed by historian Kenneth Pomeranz in the book under consideration. In the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that it is a detailed, painstaking, academic work which makes it an occasionally tedious read for us non academics. That said, it offers the pleasure of fresh perspectives, qualified but categorical refutation of established ‘truths’, and fascinating insights into the workings of history. An extremely rewarding experience, all told.

The author argues that instead of simply asking why China did not become Western Europe, we also need to ask why Britain did not become the Yangtse Valley. This shift of perspective yields valuable insights.

Pomeranz insists that it is inappropriate to make historical comparisons using modern nation states as the entities being compared. Europe was very diverse before 1800 as was China. Comparisons of core areas in North Western Europe -- Britain, the Netherlands -- with core areas in China, and to an extent Japan and even India, are more appropriate. Comparing England with the Yangze Valley, the Japanese Kanto plains and perhaps Gujarat, would yield more valid results. The author focuses primarily on the Chinese core and establishes that before the 19^th century, North Western Europe in general had no significant edge over the Yangze valley; they were very similar. They all had commercialized agriculture, high and growing population, significant proto-industrialization (viz handicrafts) and reasonably developed markets. In fact, Chinese markets were perhaps more neo-classically ‘ideal’ than British markets. Europeans were no healthier than the Chinese who lived as long if not longer and Europe had no advantage in capital stock or even economic institutions that mattered in the context of the initial industrial breakout. The cotton textile industry that led the industrial revolution did not use joint stock companies to raise finance -- kin networks did the needful. Capital, in any case, was not the constraint at that point in time.

 The constraint was land and land-based products. This is the most important argument of the book. With rising populations, the cores at both ends of the Eurasian land mass were suffering from a growing supply problem of land-based products—wood for fuel and building, fiber for clothing and food. The cores were not quite at a Malthusian disaster stage, but supply problems had clearly emerged and were looming large. And here comes the divergence. The Chinese core could not resolve these problems while the European core – Britain -- managed to do so through a fortuitous combination of coal availability and acquisition of colonies.

 British coal was relatively easily available to the core, while Chinese coal was not, and that resolved the fuel issue. The colonies, especially in the New World, were major suppliers of calories --sugar, potatoes, and later, wheat and beef, cotton, tobacco and, most importantly, silver for which there was a huge demand in China, which had started re-monetization in silver from earlier on. In addition, they -- the New World colonies -- also absorbed surplus labour.

It is emphasized that European financial innovation, the so-called joint stock companies, were useful in the international trade space and these succeeded in the New World and the Old through the use of coercive force and, in the case of the Americas, the ruthless use of disease vectors to which the indigenous populations had no immunity. In one-on-one competition with local merchants in Asia the Companies did not demonstrate any particular edge.

 The slave trade contributed to the profitability of the New World colonies -- indigenous populations having been more than decimated and the use of European labour in quite the same low-cost fashion not being politically feasible. Profits from coercive international trade did help, of course, but were not as significant as the land- based products that the colonies provided.

The insights into trade patterns offered by the narrative are fascinating in themselves. Silver, through conquest, from the Americas to Europe and then to Asia, cotton textiles--amongst many other things -- to Europe and onward, in part, to Africa to be exchanged for slaves for the Americas, and sugar and cotton and other stuff back to Europe. And this is just one dimension of a very much more complex set of trade flows.

So, the bounties of nature, conveniently located coal and virulent disease vectors to which the New World had no immunity, combined with a willingness to use coercive force and human trafficking to promote their economic interests, appear to have been the principal European advantages in the race for economic development.

Emotive exaggeration? Not really, but you have to read the book to find out!

As always, this blog can provide only a glimpse of some of the important ideas that the author raises. The book needs to be worked through for the full flavors of the creation to be savored.

Happy reading.

The Tyranny of Merit: What Became of the Common Good?---- Michael J Sandel

 

Every society evolves ideologies to justify extant inequalities contends Thomas Piketty in his book Capital and Ideology.

Michel Sandel, American political philosopher and Harvard Professor, argues in the book under discussion here, that the wholly unwarranted justification for the huge increase in inequality in the USA over the last four decades is provided by the notions that conflate market value, material success and ‘merit’, with moral value. The argument, even of the so-called centre-left, from Clinton to Obama, is that success -- in the market driven, unregulated, globalized world in general and the US in particular -- is based on individual merit and is, therefore, a ‘good’ thing and occupies the moral high ground.

Professor Sandel in this disturbing book -- disturbing because it questions some ‘ basic and obvious truths’-- examines the emergence of a “meritocracy” in the US since the 1980s as a consequence of globalization: free(er) trade and capital flows, outsourcing et al. Globalization  has been accompanied by rapidly growing inequality in income and wealth and a growing divide between the white collar college-degree-holding rich and the blue collar, not so well ‘credentialled’, working classes. The justification for the emergence of such a meritocracy is that given equality of opportunity the rise of the talented -- the meritorious -- is both natural and just. Individual effort and ability is being rewarded and that is all to the good -- morally good.

Sandel’s demolition of the merits of ‘meritocracy’ proceeds in two stages. To begin with, even in the land of the free and despite all the hype about the American Dream, there is, in fact, no equality of opportunity in the US. A college degree, especially from a high-profile college, is the modern key to high salaries and wealth accumulation and SAT scores are most closely corelated to family income as are admissions to good colleges! Well-to-do families ensure their children get admissions counselling, attend test prep classes, participate in CV building exercises like high profile sports and highly regarded social work. The kids work hard, but work is not the only criterion here; natural ability, if indeed there is such a thing unrelated to ‘nurture‘ and environment, is helped by what props their parents’ concern and most importantly, income can provide. Two-thirds of Ivy League students come from the top 20% of the income distribution and at Princeton and Yale more come from the top 1% than from the bottom 60%! And when the front door doesn’t open there is a back door -- alumni are favoured with admissions for their wards and donations help a great deal too.

Before proceeding to the second and more powerful argument against meritocracy, we need to step back and look at some of its more distressing consequences. If I merit success due to my personal ability and hard work, then it follows that she who does not succeed also merits her failure. Thus, you have unwarranted hubris on one end and humiliation and resentment on the other and society faces a growing, emotionally charged divide powered by arrogance on the one hand and anger and a lack of self-worth on the other. A recipe for social disharmony and for the empowerment of savvy political operators who can manipulate the simmering anger, create ‘enemies’, and rise to power on a wave of violent negative emotion. The Democrats, argues the author, by their extended support of the logic of globalization and meritocracy without effectively tackling the economic and social consequences thereof, stoked the fires of resentment and paved the way for Donald Trump’s victory!

And this brings us to the principal argument against the tyranny of merit. Natural ability and talent --which in most cases is impossible to define and measure, and exceptions only prove the rule here, is about more than nature alone. Nurture is critically important for the development of talents and abilities and this, in turn, depends a great deal on good fortune! The contingent nature of good fortune is self-evident and destroys any argument that there is any moral value attached to individual ability. Besides, an individual talent to be materially rewarded in a market economy needs to be located where there is market demand for it and a high monetary value placed on that talent by the available market. A matter of good fortune again. Luck does not necessarily favour the good, so the successful cannot seriously claim a moral right to their success.

From the above it follows that even if true equality of opportunity could somehow be ensured in any society, meritocracy would even then not lead to a just society. Opportunity may somehow be made equal but ability is still a matter of luck and rewarding the lucky does not ensure justice or make for a healthy society!

Professor Sandel’s focus is almost entirely on the USA and developments there since the 1980s. However, the arguments presented have widespread relevance. The valorization -- even sacralization -- of market outcomes is widespread in most modern societies and the consequences of globalization, free and inadequately unregulated markets and growing financialization of developed and developing economies pose a major threat to social cohesion, justice and stability everywhere.

The Tyranny of Merit is disturbing because it makes one think and question. A book worth reading and absorbing with care and attention.

Happy reading.

Capital and Ideology --- Thomas Piketty

 

Professor Thomas Piketty has once again, in 2020, published a 1000+ page book that educates, challenges, provokes and disturbs. The book is simply and clearly written, cogently and convincingly argued with loads of data and details. It demands stamina on part of the reader and offers in return a serious educational experience-a very high return on the effort expended.

Piketty’s focus is on the nature and evolution of inequality regimes across space and over time -- from the pre-modern world to Donald Trump and from China and India to Russia, Europe, Brazil and the USA. An ‘inequality regime’ is defined as a set of ‘discourses and institutional arrangements’ that both ‘justify and structure extent inequality’ -- social, economic and political -- in a society.

The principal takeaway from this book-for this blogger- is that there is always hope; nothing is inevitable and historical determinism is a myth. Sweden was an extremely inegalitarian society till about the early 1920s, after which, quite unexpectedly, it took a radically different path and became over time not only a very prosperous, but also one of the very egalitarian societies in the developed world.

This, however, is not a widespread phenomenon and the reverse too happens, and far more often. From about the mid-twentieth century till around the 1980s inequality in both income and wealth declined in Europe and the USA: the destruction of war in Europe, steeply progressive taxation, nationalization of various sectors in many countries, minimum wage legislations, the emergence of welfare states, et al led to this outcome. This, however, was reversed thereafter and a renewed sacralization of property, moderation of progressive taxation, globalization, deregulation of financial sectors and the ‘tyranny of meritocracy’ -- to steal a phrase from another book -- have propelled a drastic about turn.

And this leads us to the second major takeaway from the book: measures to bring about an egalitarian society and build a welfare state are not inimical to growth; history teaches that such measures led to greater growth than the subsequent freeing up of the markets, reduction of tax rates and the liberalization-globalization paradigm.

US per-capita income grew at 2.2% pa between 1950-1990 and only 1.1% pa between 1990-2020 while inequality increased significantly, real minimum wage declined, and top income tax rates fell from an average of 72% in 1950-90 to 35% in 1990-2020.

In Europe too, the same pattern emerged -- reduced inequality and fiscal progressivity was associated with higher growth between 1950-1990 and globalization, meritocracy and reduced rates of direct taxation with a slowing down and growing inequality.

The lesson here, of the value -- material and moral -- of egalitarianism, is a very difficult sell in an environment powered by unrestrained greed. Regardless, the facts are there for all to see. An interesting snippet of information here—labour participation in management- seats on the boards of corporates is a given in Germany and Sweden and both economies are none the worse for it, to put it mildly! Co-management is not some pinko-idealist fantasy but a reality in two strong industrial economies.

The lessons of history, especially as regards the ‘quasi-sacralization’ of property are both disturbing and thought provoking. When the British abolished slavery in 1833, the slave owners were indemnified and compensated for their loss of property!! About 20 million pounds sterling (approx. 5% of National Income of Britain at that time) was paid to about 4000 slave owners as compensation for their loss; the slaves of course were not paid any compensation! The French did the same when they abolished slavery and gave Haiti its freedom! Incidentally, when the British, helped by the French, forced China to open up to opium imports (the Opium Wars of the mid 19 Century) the Chinese had to pay a war indemnity to the winners! The cost of the wars was a business expense paid for by the looser. Free trade is both ideology and business, and perhaps more business than ideology.

Marked inequality in education systems, not just in US and British higher education, but even in French state run systems at all levels, is detailed by the author and highlighted as one of the basic drivers of modern inegalitarianism. Rich parents are almost a necessary condition for children to acquire ‘quality’ higher education, which in turn determines salary levels and in turn contributes to the low levels of intergenerational mobility and to income and wealth inequality.

Some numbers are illustrative -- between 2000 and 2020 the top decile in the US acquired 45%-50% of total income, while the top centile, 20%! Wealth inequality is greater than income inequality and the top decile had 70% to 75% of all private property!

The basis for the discontents of globalization/deregulation et al are fairly evident.

Besides shining a hard clear light on the evolution of inequality regimes, the author offers possible solutions too -- reasoned and not unreal possibilities culled, for the most part, from real world examples.

Prof. Piketty paints on a very large canvas but a great deal of his focus is on the US and Europe in general and France in particular. Nonetheless, there are important lessons to be learnt from working through Capital and Ideology. The task requires both time and stamina, but for anyone interested in the issues he addresses, the effort is enormously rewarding.

Happy reading. 

Masters of Detective Fiction - Arthur Upfield

 

Readers of detective fiction rejoice! Upfield’s ‘Boney’ series are now available on Amazon (and cheaply on Kindle)!

Arthur Upfield (1890-1964) migrated to Australia from England at age twenty and proceeded, after fighting in WWI, to write an extraordinary set of detective novels starring Napoleon ‘Boney’ Bonaparte, an Aussi police detective.

In the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that Upfield was writing in the first half of the 20^th century in ‘white’ Australia and true to context -- ‘desh, kaal and patra’-- there is politically incorrect material to be found in his work. The dreaded ‘N’ word is used occasionally and the phrase ‘half caste’ is found often. And, of course, Boney is a ‘half caste’ in whom the “ instinctive ‘Abo’” and the rational and logical white are often at war. Such contextual aberrations apart, the novels are an absolutely delightful read.

 I discovered Boney in the footpath bookstalls of what was then known as Flora Fountain, Mumbai, back in the day. Having devoured the first book I had picked up out of sheer curiosity, I proceeded to hunt down and procure all that were to be found on the pavements of South Mumbai. The books were in pretty poor condition then and are close to disintegrating now, but are kept carefully and reread occasionally with great effort -- the paper is crumbling and the binding coming apart. I had refrained from blogging about Boney as the books were long out of print and simply not to be found anywhere; but today, purely by accident, I found that Amazon has resurrected them and on Kindle they are around Rs 500 a pop. This is a price well worth paying, in my humble opinion, for a long afternoon’s entertainment.

The Upfield books are slim volumes that narrate Boney’s hunt for evildoers -- murderers mostly -- in distant and beautifully described parts of distant Australia before the advent of the Internet, cellphones and DNA technology for solving crimes. If we consider Protagonist, Plot and Pace as the three pillars of detective fiction, then Upfield builds all three remarkably skillfully to create an entertainment experience that is often attempted but rarely achieved as successfully.

Upfield’s sketches of nature and life in remote regions of Australia present a fascinating picture of the world Down Under in those days. He has obviously been there and loved it, and that shows. The plots are gripping and Boney, of course, is remarkable.

In all fairness, one cannot disclose the details of a murder mystery’s plot and generalities become uninteresting after a point, so I must conclude this post with a simple exhortation:

A quiet afternoon, a cold brew or two and Boney beside you, adventuring in the Australian outback and the Corona blues retreat for a while, the evil ones are bested and good triumphs over bad in the fictional world of Arthur Upfield.

Ah bliss!

Happy reading.

Castes of Mind -- Colonialism and the Making of Modern India by Nicholas Dirks

 

Anthropologist and historian, Nicholas Dirks, brings together colonialism and its compulsions, and the politics that is inevitably associated with knowledge generation, into a rather disturbing -- near explosive -- mixture in Castes of Mind -- Colonialism and the Making of Modern India.

Knowledge creation, especially in times of colonialism, Dirks argues forcefully over more than 300 pages, is both ‘contingent and compromised”. It is driven by the requirements of a colonial/ imperial state and conditioned by the prevailing ideologies that work to legitimate such a state and its continued existence.

The ‘colonial knowledge’, the generation of which Dirks studies, pertains to Indian social organization and structures in general and caste in particular, its use in Imperial rule and the consequences of this for both Indian society and politics.

The Great Rebellion of 1857, the insecurities it generated and the resultant transfer of power to the Crown gave a huge impetus to what may be termed ‘colonial anthropology’ studies. The principal objective of these studies was to understand the cultural drivers of the violent outbreak that began in Meerut and cost a great deal of blood to subdue. The goal was obviously to understand, so as to ensure no recurrence of such disturbances to Imperial continuity. An interesting curiosity here is the significance of not just state interests, compulsions and ideologies, but also that of the individuals used by the state to further its desire to understand. The name of HH Risley, senior bureaucrat, ethnographer, census commissioner, anthropometerist and dedicated racist comes forcefully to mind here. Cometh the hour, cometh the man!

Individuals aside, colonial researches into Indian social structures yielded a very clearly defined, universally applicable, over time and across sub-continental space, text based (The Manusmriti ) and  Brahaminically articulated framework for classification and labelling of Indian society and Indian populations. The varna system as described to the British by their Brahamin educators, placed the Brahmins at the head of a hierarchically structured society based on ritual status. The framework was sanctioned by ancient religious tradition, universally applicable, fixed and unchanging. It essentially characterized a static, divided society, backward and in dire need of a modernizing paternalistic Imperial state. The modernizations would necessarily be gradual and the Imperium would, therefore, extend far into the foreseeable future.

The Imperial administrators carefully did not note the fact that the ‘ideal’ varna system described was far removed from the realities of social structures on the ground. Social organization varied enormously over time and across regions; caste structures were flexible, especially when you went beyond the Brahmin space, and political, military and economic power were, all too often, clearer markers of status than nominal caste.

The Census became the primary tool for gathering information about Indian society, to rule it more effectively than in the past. The first All India Census was held over 1871 and 1872 and the primary classification used was varna. The attempt to pigeonhole all the myriad jatis found on the ground into the standard varna framework, however, created enormous problems. The response of the population was disruptive in the extreme. Large numbers of representations were received for ‘correct’ varna status, identification of varna became difficult as occupational markers did not correspond to status claimed and some varnas simply could not be found in any numbers in some regions. The vast majority of the population in many areas was lumped into the Sudra varna ignoring the extensive variety and differentiation within that category and the significance of markers other than caste, denoting status. Varna was simply not good enough a means of labelling and classifying the population of the subcontinent.

Caste was removed from census enumeration in 1931 but the politicization of caste had been firmly established by the significance given to it in all matters official -- army recruitment (creating ‘martial’ races), maintenance of law and order (labeling certain castes as ‘criminal castes’), recruitment to government positions (affirmative action for minority groups, both religious and caste based), to list but a few.

The ‘knowledge ‘derived from the census had other significant consequences too; the communalization of political behaviour -- formation of separate electorates for ‘different groups’ -- being the most damaging of all.

In essence, the Raj used its rather inadequate understanding of Indian society to both create and, where they already existed, amplify distinctions and differences in society. To divide and thereby to rule was the objective of the exercise. Unity would be dangerous to the Empire and so difference was emphasized.

The price of this Imperial exercise in the acquisition and use of knowledge as and for power, led to ‘fiction creating history’ and a very bitter history at that. Caste as we know it today is ‘a creation’ of British Imperialism.

All too often a reaction to Dirks’ theses, some of which are highlighted above, is skepticism and non-acceptance. But when one sits back to try and work out how one knows what one knows, the conclusions can be disturbing.

Joan Robinson wrote in Economic Philosophy words to the effect that Freud taught us to question our motives -- why do we want what we want. Perhaps Dirks can push us to wondering how we know what we know and how that piece of knowledge was ‘created’ and why.

Castes of Mind is a difficult read, aggravated by the purple phrases that pepper the pages and make one reach for the dictionary and tear one’s hair out at the same time!

Nonetheless, the book is both challenging and provocative; well worth the effort involved in working through it.

Happy reading.

Masters of Entertainment : Georgette Heyer -- the Regency Romances

 

About fifty years ago, while recuperating from a rather severe bout of flu, I ran out of reading material and, desperate for entertainment, picked up the only book available, a novel by Georgette Heyer. Having devoured it, I then went and acquired all the Regency Romances and gifted myself hours of delightful entertainment.

High-brow, literary minded folk who only read ‘serious’ stuff may raise a supercilious eyebrow or curl a cynical lip, but those who haven’t read The Grand Sophy -- one of my favourites -- have missed out on a vastly entertaining account of a strong female protagonist’s adventures in Regency England. Sophy is independent minded and unafraid, a skilled horsewoman and an excellent shot, who is not intimidated by domineering men in a male dominated society. When she decides to resolve a complex set of family tangles, she goes about it with skill and courage and the resulting tale is a superbly written, vastly amusing and lighthearted romance.

Heyer writes very well indeed and that itself is a good reason for reading her books. Trashy romances – the old Mills and Boon variety -- were poorly written pieces dashed off by incompetent scribblers to help pass the time. That is simply not true of Heyer’s work .She did not set out to create a Roskolnikov or write War and Peace; she set out to entertain in a particular genre and she did it very skillfully indeed. Her plots normally require a complete suspension of disbelief, but so do the novels of Lee Child and the Mission Impossible and Star Wars movies; and we don’t sneer at them -- we consume them eagerly with enormous pleasure.

That holds true for Georgette Heyer’s Regency Romances too.

And quite often Heyer comes up with characters that are actually more than caricature and storylines that go some way beyond titillation.

The love story of Justin Alastair, the Duke of Avon and Leonie, the Parisian waif, related in These Old Shades, is one example of a romance novel that, at one level, is just another tale of an ageing rake who falls in love with an engaging young girl. But somehow, every couple of years, when one needs to get away from it all for a short while, that is one of a small set of books that one reaches for.

Heyer’s romances are the hot chocolate sauce on the double scoop of vanilla ice cream, the chilled glass of sweet nimbu-paani after a  sweaty summer walk, the stolen slice of pizza in the middle of a rigorous dieting program.

Just a trifle sinful and enormous fun!

Happy reading.

On First Looking at the Indian Constitution

 

For those of us who dozed through Civics classes in school and did not elect to study Political Science in college, references to the Constitution evoke hazy notions of something very important confined to weighty books, dusty journals and erudite discussions between learned scholars far removed from our immediate concerns.

However, given the growing significance of constitutional questions in day to day lives of citizens -- especially issues of individual freedoms, civil liberties and the like -- an attempt to understand the nature of our Constitution becomes imperative.

Instead of attempting to ‘summarize’ any one of the huge number of books on the subject -- Granville Austin’s ‘classic’ study, The Indian Constitution-Cornerstone of a Nation  or even The Indian Constitution by Madhav Khosla for Oxford India Short Introductions series -- this post shall attempt to itemize the major questions that need to be asked about the Constitution. Once we have the questions clear, it may be easier to find answers than if one were starting cold on this vast subject.

The Constitution was drafted between December 1946 and December 1949 by a group of about 300 men and women, and the first question of interest relates to the nature of the group. How exactly was the group selected, by whom and what was its composition. Universal adult suffrage did not prevail in 1946 so just how representative of the people of India was the Assembly?

Some scholars have regarded the Constitution as a triumph – ‘a moral document embodying an ethical vision’ with the ‘theme of social revolution ‘running throughout the proceedings and documents ’. Universal adult suffrage, fundamental rights, the Directive Principles are all markers of a commitment to transformative social and economic development. Others, however, have argued that a document that incorporates large portions of the colonial Government of India Act of 1935 and severely constrains the rights and freedoms it purports to grant to its citizens has to be viewed a trifle differently. When many important colonial institutions, designed to rule rather than serve, are adopted along with the laws that govern their functioning, are not the promises illusory and the vision but a mirage?

Constitutions serve to establish structures of the state and its institutions and distribute power between them. How exactly has this been done in our case and has the balance shifted over time? Power has to be distributed to ensure checks and balances so that no particular institution has too much of it. Has this been done effectively? Importantly, what should be supreme, the will of an elected legislature or the judgement of an appointed judiciary?

Federalism is an oft mentioned word in our context. What, however, does it precisely mean? Are we federal, quasi federal, cooperatively federal or what? Instead of looking for an appropriate label and the related problems of definition, should we not try and itemize the relationship between the central government and the states in terms of the power each wields including legislative and financial powers?

And then there is the vexed question of the limitations on the fundamental rights of citizens, the reasonableness or otherwise of the conditions under which these constraints can be imposed and the availability of emergency powers to the central government. It may be important to recall here the circumstances in which the Constituent Assembly was doing its job; the violence and social disturbance, the problem of ‘integration’ of the Princely states, the uncertainty, the turmoil. As Dr B R Ambedkar put it, “The principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation or if you think this to be an overstatement, I say they are the views of the members of the Constituent Assembly.” Such blunt honesty is rare amongst political figures especially when the views of a leadership or political dispensation are effortlessly conflated with the views of the nation! Views are conditioned by circumstances, and at that point the circumstances were difficult, to put it mildly, and perhaps that explains the stress on a ‘strong centre’ and all that implies.

A larger question pops up here. Scholars have argued that if individual freedom is to be ensured the state must be constrained in its operation. If the state is to solve all economic and social problems, it must necessarily be granted powers to do so and this would inevitably ‘exact a heavy price on freedom’. The validity of this point of view needs examination.

Finally, it needs to be asked if all the high-minded rhetoric has had much of an impact on the common citizen. How has the ordinary woman or man used the provisions of the Constitution, especially the fundamental rights and the legal remedies to enforce them, in interacting with the almighty state and its perceived injustice?.

A fascinating account of this is to be found in Rohit De’s A People’s Constitution:The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic. The author picks up sets of cases in four socio-economic areas to examine how the aam admi and aurat went to court to protect their fundamental rights and even when they did not win, caused serious turmoil in the complacent corridors of state power. The battle that Behram Khurshed Pesikaka, a middle aged government servant, waged against the state of Bombay regarding his prosecution under the draconian provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act makes an amazing read. Just as gripping are the other cases that De highlights: the case of the honest prostitute, who went to court against the provisions of SITA as they violated her right to exercise her profession as guaranteed by the Constitution, is just one example.

Has the Constitution ‘worked’ in the seventy odd years it has been in operation is an obvious question to ask. And here, we may end where Granville Austin begins in the book cited above. The author contends in the preface that ‘Constitutions do not ‘work’, they are inert, dependent upon being ‘worked’ by citizens and elected and appointed leaders.’

So, at the end of the day, it is up to us-‘We the people of India’ -- and those whom we select to lead us, to determine if the vision of the founding fathers of a just and equitable society, is ever realized.

Happy reading.

On a first glimpse of Urdu poetry

 

 

A famous Urdu poet is reported to have said that Urdu is Khari Boli ( spoken North Indian Hindi) in Persian script. While this observation may be considered a bit of an exaggeration, perhaps for emphasis, it does serve to reinforce the contention that one can savour the joys of Urdu poetry without necessarily knowing the script. If one has access to a good Urdu/English or Urdu /Hindi dictionary one can plunge into the world of Urdu poetry without any effort at all. 

One excellent source for undertaking this exercise is the website Rekhta.org which has a wealth of poetry and accompanying it an online dictionary. One can select from Devanagari, Roman and Urdu scripts  and on encountering an unfamiliar Persian or Arabic word-many Persian and Arabic words are in fact very familiar to Hindi speakers- we simply select the word(tap and press it for a moment) and the meaning pops up! It is actually as simple and well organized as that!

Once one dives in ,one finds all the stuff of great poetry-love, humour, rebellion, pain ……

Humour always helps and one turns to Akbar Allahabadi for samples thereof. In these times when courts of law and litigation are taking up a lot of the public imagination a comment on lawyers by this poet who was also a sessions judge is as under

पैदा  हुआ  वकील  तो  शैतान  ने  कहा

लो  आज  हम  भी  साहिब-ए-औलाद  हो  गए

 

(Sahib e aulad  means father)

 

जब  ग़म  हुआ  चढ़ा  लीं  दो  बोतलें  इकट्ठी

मुल्ला  की  दौड़  मस्जिद  'अकबर'  की  दौड़  भट्टी

 

 

Firaq Gorakhpuri ranks high amongst modern  Urdu  poets and a glimpse of his work is of interest

किसी  का  यूँ  तो  हुआ  कौन  उम्र  भर  फिर  भी

ये  हुस्न  ओ  इश्क़  तो  धोका  है  सब  मगर  फिर  भी

हज़ार  बार  ज़माना  इधर  से  गुज़रा  है

नई  नई  सी  है  कुछ  तेरी  रहगुज़र  फिर  भी

…………………………

बहुत  पहले  से  उन  क़दमों  की  आहट  जान  लेते  हैं

तुझे  ऐ  ज़िंदगी  हम  दूर  से  पहचान  लेते  हैं

-----

एक  मुद्दत  से  तिरी  याद  भी  आई  न  हमें

और  हम  भूल  गए  हों  तुझे  ऐसा  भी  नहीं

-------

मौत  का  भी  इलाज  हो  शायद

ज़िंदगी  का  कोई  इलाज  नहीं

 

Mirza Ghalib is of course the tallest figure in the genre

vo aa.e ghar meñ hamāre ḳhudā kī qudrat hai

kabhī ham un ko kabhī apne ghar ko dekhte haiñ

A glimpse of Ghalib’s ever enquiring, questioning, restless mind

हुई  मुद्दत  कि  'ग़ालिब'  मर  गया  पर  याद  आता  है
वो  हर  इक  बात  पर  कहना  कि  यूँ  होता  तो  क्या  होता

And a modest mind at that

रेख़्ते  के  तुम्हीं  उस्ताद  नहीं  हो  'ग़ालिब'

कहते  हैं  अगले  ज़माने  में  कोई  'मीर'  भी  था

 

And this brings us naturally to Mir (1723-1810)

इश्क़  इक  'मीर'  भारी  पत्थर  है

कब  ये  तुझ  ना-तवाँ  से  उठता  है

 

(Na Tava means weak or feeble)

क्या  कहूँ  तुम  से  मैं  कि  क्या  है  इश्क़

जान  का  रोग  है  बला  है  इश्क़

Mir wrote during difficult times-the decay of the Mughal Empire and the rise of Company Bahadur to power. And the depression shows

शाम  से  कुछ  बुझा  सा  रहता  हूँ

दिल  हुआ  है  चराग़  मुफ़्लिस  का

 

दिल्ली  में  आज  भीक  भी  मिलती  नहीं  उन्हें

था  कल  तलक  दिमाग़  जिन्हें  ताज-ओ-तख़्त  का

……..

अमीर-ज़ादों  से दिल्ली  के  मिल  न  ता-मक़्दूर

कि  हम  फ़क़ीर  हुए  हैं  इन्हीं  की  दौलत  से

In more recent times, we have Jigar Muradabadi (1890-1960)

ये  इश्क़  नहीं  आसाँ  इतना  ही  समझ  लीजे

इक  आग  का  दरिया  है  और  डूब  के  जाना  है

………………..

तेरी  आँखों  का  कुछ  क़ुसूर  नहीं

हाँ  मुझी  को  ख़राब  होना  था

…………………………..

आदमी  आदमी  से  मिलता  है

दिल  मगर  कम  किसी  से  मिलता  है

…………………………..

हमीं  जब  न  होंगे  तो  क्या  रंग-ए-महफ़िल

किसे  देख  कर  आप  शरमाइएगा

The list goes on and on. But this is not an anthology. To borrow a phrase from a very different context-it is just a finger pointing at the moon.

Have a look, it’s rather beautiful.

Happy reading