The secular and spiritual courts were left to fight the losing battle with industrial and commercial progress

THE LIBRARY OF IBERIAN RESOURCES ONLINE A History of the Inquistion of Spain Volume Four Henry Charles Lea BOOK 8: Spheres of Action CHAPTER 16 Miscellaneous Business

USURY
The ecclesiastical definition of usury is not, as we understand the term, an exorbitant charge for the use of money, beyond the legal rate, but any interest or other advantage, however small or indirect, derived from a loan of money or other article. Forbidden by the Old Law, between the Chosen People, and extended under the New to the brotherhood of man, it has been the subject of denunciation continuously from the primitive Church to the most recent times. Ingenuity has been exhausted in devising methods of repression and punishment, only to show how impossible has been the task of warring against human nature and human necessities.
From an early period, usury was regarded as an ecclesiastical sin and crime, subject to spiritual jurisdiction in both the forum internum and forum externum. In 1258 Alexander IV rendered it justiciable by the Inquisition and, at the Council of Vienne, in 1312, the assertion that the taking of interest is not a sin was defined to be a heresy, which the Inquisition was in duty required to prosecute. (111) During the later Middle Ages, when the greater heresies had been largely suppressed, the prosecution of usurers formed a considerable, and the most profitable, portion of inquisitorial activity. It is true that the heresy consisted in denying that usury is a sin, but, as the Repertorium of 1494 explains, the usurer or simonist, who does not affirm or deny but is silent and tacitly believes it not to be a sin to commit usury or simony, is a pertinacious heretic mentally. (112)
In Spain, the usurious practices of Jews and Conversos were the principal source of popular hostility, but Jews were not subject to the Inquisition and, in its earlier years, it appears not to have recognized its jurisdiction in this matter over the Conversos, for I have met with no trace, at this period, of action by it against usury, whether in Castile or in Aragon. As regards the latter, indeed, it was impeded by a fuero of the Córtes of Calatayud, in 1461, prohibiting the prosecution of usurers, by both the secular and spiritual courts, and the procuring of faculties for the purpose by the Inquisition. To ensure the observance of this, Juan II was required to swear that he would not obtain any papal rescript or commission authorizing inquisition into usury and that, if such rescript were had, it should not be used but be delivered within a month to the Diputados. (113) It may be assumed that the Inquisition sought relief from this restriction, for Julius II issued [373] a motu proprio, January 14, 1504, reciting the fuero of Calatayud and stating that the usuraria pravitas had so increased that a measure of wheat would be multiplied to twenty-five within three years, chiefly because the Inquisition, in consequence of this fuero, was precluded from the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction. He therefore ordered Inquisitor-general Deza to prosecute all Christian usurers and compel them to desist, by inflicting the penalties prescribed by the general council, while Ferdinand was summoned to aid the inquisitors, and he and his successors were released from any oaths to observe the fuero. (114)
As all commercial and financial transactions at the time were based on interest payment and, as the agriculturist habitually borrowed seed-corn before sowing, to be repaid with increase after harvest, the Inquisition thus had an ample field opened for its operations. That it did not neglect the opportunity is fairly inferable from the opposition excited. It was the subject of one of the most energetic remonstrances of the Córtes of Monzon in 1510, and the Concordia of 1512 bore an article in which Ferdinand promised to obtain from the pope the revocation of the faculties granted to the inquisitors; that he would allow no other grant to be obtained, and that meanwhile he would arrange that no prosecutions should be brought except for open assertion that usury was no sin. For this, as for the other articles, he swore to procure the papal confirmation. Inquisitors were likewise sworn to obey the Concordia and, when Ferdinand was released from his oath by Leo X, in the brief of April 30, 1513, a motu proprio followed, September 2d, to the effect that, as heresy and usury are the most heinous of crimes, to be prosecuted with the sharpest rigor, the inquisitors were released from their oaths and directed to employ the faculties granted by Julius II for the suppression of usury. (115) This serves to explain why, in the compromise embodied in Inquisitor-general Mercader's Instructions of 1514, there is no allusion to usury--the inquisitors were not to be disturbed in the exercise of their functions in this respect. (116) When, however, Leo, in 1516, [374] confirmed the Concordia of 1512, he removed usury from inquisitorial jurisdiction and prohibited its prosecution unless the culprit should hold it not to be a sin. (117)
It has already been seen how completely the Inquisition ignored all these agreements, in spite of royal and papal confirmations. So, when Charles V was obliged, in 1518, at the Córtes of Saragossa, to take the specific and elaborate oath imposed on Juan II, it proved equally futile. (118) Inquisitors continued to exercise jurisdiction, but, in Aragon proper, they were impeded for a time by a brief of Clement VII, January 16, 1525, ordering them to confine themselves in future to heresy--a brief procured by Juan of Austria, Archbishop of Saragossa, who claimed jurisdiction over usury for his own court. (119) This afforded slender relief, for he employed the inquisitorial process and the Córtes of Saragossa, in 1528, adopted a fuero, confirmed by Charles V, reciting that the laws provide for the punishment of usurers by the secular courts, but that the ecclesiastical judges were prosecuting them, wherefore, at the desire of the four brazos, his majesty ordered the ancient laws of the kingdom to be enforced without exception. (120)
So long as the Inquisition was not involved, Charles was indifferent as to how usurers were treated, but, when the Catalans, at the Córtes of Monzon, in the same year, complained of the prosecution of usury by inquisitors and petitioned that it be prevented, he drily answered that the laws should be observed and justice should be done. (121) No greater satisfaction than this could be had when, a few years later, the Córtes of the three kingdoms reiterated the complaint of the prosecutions for usury by the Inquisition, inflicting an ineffaceable stain upon parties and their descendants, even though they were discharged without penance. The reply of the inquisitor-general to this was a simple denial, coupled with the demand that the names of injured parties should be produced. (122) In the absence of documents, it is not easy to understand why the Inquisition suddenly abandoned a jurisdiction for which it had contended so strenuously, but so it was. In 1552, Simancas asserts that inquisitors have no cognizance of questions arising from usury, but must leave them to the Ordinaries, for usurers [375] are not moved by erroneous belief, but by the desire for sordid gains. (123) In this Simancas evidently spoke by authority, for the Suprema, in a carta acordada of March 17, 1554, forbade the tribunals to take cognizance of usury, and the subject disappears from inquisitorial records. (124) The secular and spiritual courts were left to fight the losing battle with industrial and commercial progress, which eventually compelled the recognition of the fact that payment for the usance of money is customarily profitable to both parties.

MORALS
The object of the Inquisition was the preservation of the purity of faith and not the improvement of morals. The view taken of its duties as to the latter is set forth in the comments of the Suprema on the report by de Soto Salazar of his visitation, in 1566, of the Barcelona tribunal. Clement, Abbot of Ripoll, was prosecuted for saying that so great was the mercy of God that he would pardon a sinner who confessed, even though he had not a firm intention to abstain in future, and also for keeping a nun as a mistress. He was fined in four hundred ducats, and was ordered to break off relations with the nun under pain of a thousand ducats. The Suprema sharply reprimanded Inquisitor Padilla for inflicting so heavy a penalty and for exceeding his jurisdiction in prohibiting the unlawful connection. So, when the inquisitors fined Jaime Bocea, an unmarried familiar, in twelve ducats for keeping a married woman as mistress, the Suprema told them that it was none of their business. It is true that in two other cases of familiars, fined in twenty ducats each for keeping mistresses, the comment is simply that the rigor was excessive. (125)
The same principle, as we have seen, was observed in the treatment of solicitation. The question of morals was studiously excluded, as a matter entirely beyond the purview of the Inquisition, and the only point considered was the technical one whether cases came within papal definitions drawn up to safeguard the sacrament of penitence. The same remark applies to the vigorous prosecution of those who held simple fornication to be no sin. [376] There was no attempt to repress the sin itself, for this was beyond the faculties conferred on the Inquisition, but merely to ascertain and punish the mental attitude of the accused.
As time passed on, however, and as the heretics who were the legitimate objects of the Holy Office grew scarce, there arose a tendency to enlarge its sphere of action and to assume the position of acustos morum. This has been seen in the censorship, which, during the later period, came to be applied not only to obscene books but to all manner of works of art that did not accord with the censor's standard of decency.
From this it was an easy step to intervene in the private lives of individuals, in matters wholly apart from its legitimate jurisdiction, of which we find occasional examples in the later period of decadence. Thus, in 1784, Josef Mas was prosecuted in Valencia for singing an improper song at a dance, and in 1791, there is a prosecution of Manuel de Pino for "indecent and irreligious acts." In 1792 the Barcelona tribunal takes the testimony of Ramon Seroles of Lloc, with respect to the scandalous life of the parish priest of that place and his abuse of the holy oils. In 1810 the Valencia tribunal is investigating Rosa Avinent, keeper of a tobacco-shop, for suspicion of maltreating some children in her house. In 1816 the Santiago tribunal sentences Don Miguel Quereyzaeta, a post-office official, to leave the city where he has led a disorderly and scandalous life, and charges him to reconcile himself to his wife and to live with her. In 1819, Don Antonio Clemente de Polar is prosecuted by the Madrid tribunal for propositions and for dressing in such wise as to satisfy the passions and for other excesses. (126)
In these and similar cases, it may be assumed that the parties inculpated richly deserved correction, but this sporadic defence of virtue and punishment of vice was much more likely to encourage the gratification of malice than to elevate the standard of public morals, and the employment of the tremendous machinery of the Inquisition in such matters marks the depth of its fall from its former height. Had its object from the beginning been the purification of morals as well as of religion, possibly the awe which it inspired in all classes might have resulted in some ethical improvement but, during the time of its power, the impression that it produced was that morals were of slender account in comparison [377] with faith and, in the day of its decline, thesa occasional attempts to extend its jurisdiction could only produce exasperation without amendment.

Money lender is an age old institution meeting the demand for credit

Name : Rajeev Dewal, Subject: Non Banking Finance Companies, Message :
1. Why NBFCs mushroomed?:

A developing economy like India always craves for financial resources. Demand for credit is great and often organised traditional financing institutions (like banks and financial institutions)do not meet such demand thus creating a space for other types of financing. Money lender is an age old institution filling such space. Opening up of ecomnomy gave a further boost to the demand for credit. At this juncture, NBFCs, which basically were better organised money lenders happened in large number.

2. Is money lending bad per se?:

Money lending, done judiciously, is certainly a profitable activity; thus explaining riches of traditional money lenders i.e. sahukars etc.

3. Why many NBFCs failed?:

There are multiple reasons for failure of a several NBFCs. Following paragraphs attempt to capture some of them.

a) Some NBFCs, in the haste of making profits diverted their funds into investments in shares etc. rather than sticking to safer activities like lending. Such funds were often lost due to vagaries of stock market.

b) In some NBFCs cases, funds were diverted to other group companies of the NBFC and eventually lost.

c) Some NBFCs lacked experience in lending and recoveries.

d) For quite some time, there was no regulator for NBFCs. However later Reserve Bank started regulating NBFCs.

Trust, that qunches some thirst. Free Newsletter Conferences

By means of usury, other people's need could be transformed into their subjection

The history of usury Abdalhaqq Bewley The prohibition of usury goes right to the legal and ethical roots of European civilisation. The prohibition was confirmed and even strengthened by the early Christians. St. Augustine for instance, who defined usury as occurring when a person expects to receive anything more than he has given, held usury to be so forbidden that any profits gained by it could not even be given away as charity. St. Thomas Aquinas was still continuing this position with clarity and vigour in the 14th century.

Very early on the ancient Jews had claimed a scriptural licence to practice usury and the conditions under which they claimed to be allowed to do so give us a profound insight into the real nature of the usurious transaction. Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 20 states: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury." The word "stranger" in this text is generally interpreted as "enemy" and armed with this text, the Jews used usury as a weapon, finding in it a means of gaining power over their enemies. By means of usury, other people's need could be transformed into their subjection.
From ghettos in the larger cities of Christendom, Jewish money-lending activities were carried on throughout the "Dark" and "Middle Ages". They were allowed to continue under strict scrutiny and were tolerated by the authorities only for as long as they were seen to provide a useful service. Even in this oppressive situation it was possible for the moneylender to gain enormous wealth by the practice of usury – Simon of Norwich, for example. At one stage in 13th century England nearly half of the country's tax revenue was collected from the Jewish community who represented less than 5% of the population – but they were never able to turn their wealth into power, being subject to frequent and terrible popular purges, which in this country, resulted eventually min their expulsion from the country in the 14th century not to return for 350 years.
Money lending continued to exist on a small scale throughout the Middle Ages. Unscrupulous local merchants would take advantage of humble people who had got into difficulties by reason of a bad harvest or mismanagement or some other misfortune and would be forced to borrow to fulfil the ordinary necessities of life. In these cases there would usually be an attempt to conceal the usurious nature of the loan and if it did come to light, the usurer was subject to heavy penalties and became a social outcast.
Another area in which usury existed was right at the other end of the social scale. Kings and princes would raise enormous loans at interest, generally to finance some military expedition. These loans were usually raised from foreign sources, frequently Italian, and were paid by means of taxation, escaping by sheer size from the general prohibition.
However, to all intents and purposes, usury was completely excluded from all normal commercial and social transactions. It was like prostitution, known to exist but universally condemned and reviled as were those who practised it. In this atmosphere it was impossible for it to gain hold and So long as the status quo in Europe remained unchanged this attitude continued to prevail. However, starting with the Italian Renaissance in the 15th century things started to happen to gradually undermine the traditional order and they reached a head when on 31st October 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg and the Reformation had begun. The repercussions of his challenge to the authority of Rome, went far beyond his apparent intention of reforming a corrupt institution. By his action he did more than any invading army had ever been able to do, he destroyed the unity of Western Christendom. His intention had been to break down the barriers between the individual and God; the actual result was to open the way to unlimited individual freedom of action. By breaking loose from Rome, he cast people ad rift from the anchor of traditional morality which had been held in place by the Church's Canon Law, part of which was, of course, the complete prohibition of usury. The Catholic Church, in spite of all its deviation and corruption, nevertheless represented an unbroken tradition leading back to the teaching of Jesus and before him Moses. When its authority was broken by the Reformation, it was inevitable in the freer atmosphere of Protestantism that the binding strictures on usury would be cast off.
This occurred, significantly, through the unlikely means of the rigorous Puritan moralist Calvin. Whereas before this the entire matter of usury had been subject to a whole body of traditional, time-honoured doctrine, he treated the ethics of money-lending as a particular case among the general problems confronting human society which had to be solved in the light of existing circumstances. In other words he took the law into his own hands. He arrogantly dismissed the passages on usury in the Old Testament and the judgements of the past as irrelevant in the light of the prevailing circumstances and arguing that taking interest on capital is as reasonable as taking rent for land, he opened the sluice gates to a flood which has since inundated the entire world. He took it upon himself to legalise the lending of money at interest, thus giving the sanction of the law to a practice that had been held to be illegal since earliest times. The fact that lie allowed only moderate interest and hedged his indulgence round with strict qualifications made no difference. The merchant now had a precedent from someone who spoke with religious y. According to Calvin the moral law had changed and therefore it was no longer immoral to charge interest. From then on the argument within the business community was not whether interest should be permitted, but how much.
From the Puritan atmosphere of Calvin's Geneva we move to the more salubrious goings-on at the court of Henry VIII in London. Henry had become extremely attached to one of his wife's maids-of-honour, one Anne Boleyn, and was determined to marry her. The Pope refused to annul his first marriage, being very reluctant to cross the powerful Emperor Charles V whose younger daughter, Catherine, was Henry's wife, and under Canon Law no other way of dissolving the marriage existed. So Henry, who, in his idealistic youth had earned the Pope's approval and the title "Defender of the Faith" for his denunciation of Martin Luther, proceeded to follow Luther's example by breaking with Rome and declaring himself Head of the Church in England.
Not being by any means so scrupulous as those in whose footsteps he followed, he did not hesitate to take as much advantage as possible from the new situation. The licence that he proceeded to take in matrimonial matters is notorious. It is less well-known, though infinitely more important in historical terms, that one of his first actions was, following on from Calvin's precedent, to raise a loan from City merchants at the rate of ten per cent per annum, which rate was fixed as the limit for moderate interest, thus putting the seal of royal and religious approval on usury in England.
However, it must not be thought that the ancient prohibition was set aside without a voice being raised. A furious debate on the subject raged for well over a century. Many treatises and pamphlets were written and countless sermons and speeches given. One cleric in an ironic mood, said on the subject, "This hath been the general judgement of the Church for above this fifteen hundred years, without opposition, in this point. Poor silly Church of Christ that could never find a lawful usurie before this golden age wherein we live." The Frenchman Bodin, whose authority on economic matters was above question and who had no ecclesiastical axe to grind bluntly reasserted the traditional position when he said, referring to Calvin: "Those who maintain under the cover of religion that moderate usury of four or five percent is just because the borrower gains as much as the lender, go against the Law of God which forbids usury absolutely and cannot be revoked." But none of this was able to really impinge on the course events were inexorably taking.

The situation was in some ways comparable to the nuclear debate in our own time. None of the passionate views expressed for or against nuclear disarmament in the public arena has any real effect on whether nuclear arms are manufactured and deployed for the simple reason that the decisions concerning these things are made in another sphere altogether and public opinion has no bearing on it one way or the other. So it was also with the introduction of usury. The source of political power had changed and the guardians of morality no longer had any real access to it.
Eventually, of course, the Churchmen themselves capitulated, and compromised rather than appear ridiculous – the Church of England has always been prone to the philosophy of "If you can't beat them join them." They officially redefined usury to fit in with normal business practice. It was now only usury to charge extortionate rates of interest and exactly what constituted an extortionate rate of interest was not clearly defined: so to all intents and purposes businessmen had a completely free rein. Whereas previously business practice had been subject to the moral law, now the moral law could be altered by business practice...

In presenting this historical overview, it has clearly been impossible for me to cover in detail the two hundred or so years involved and I have necessarily taken a particular thread and followed it through weft and warp of the historical continuum. However, when all the details are filled in, the conclusions that I have drawn will be seen to remain true and valid. My purpose was to show how, in a period of under two centuries, the transaction of usury changed from being a crime absolutely condemned since ancient times, subject to the severest penalties of the law and despised by all people, to being respected and recognised business practice whose practitioners were honoured with the highest possible accolades the state could award.
The rightness of the position of our earlier ancestors on this issue is made daily more clear as the insidious effects of usury make themselves more and more felt on the environment and in our lives. It is hoped that this seminar will help to focus attention on the harmful and destructive nature of usury which has now become so inextricably bound up with modern life and awaken awareness of it as an important political issue. Our forbears demonstrated that life is possible without it and it may well be that a cure for the otherwise terminal sickness of the society in which we live lies in the return to the ancient prohibition of it which formed the starting point of this paper.

Usury: The Root Cause of The Injustices of Our Times (PAID, Norwich, UK, 1987) The False Growth Cycle Inherent in the Credit-based Economy Together with some Historical Illustrations 17 May, 2007 23:07 The Open Trade Network is a non-profit making voluntary organisationbased in Norwich, UK. Tel: +44-(0)870-730 3132

Natural tensions between creditors and debtors were added to social, political, religious, and economic strains

Usury From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look up usury in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Usury, from the Medieval Latin usuria, "interest" or "excessive interest", from Latin usura "interest") was defined originally as charging a fee for the use of money. This usually meant interest on loans, although charging a fee for changing money (as at a bureau de change) is included in the original meaning. After moderate-interest loans were made more easily available usury became an accepted part of the business world in the early modern age. Today, the word has come to refer to the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest.

The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the Act 'In restraint of usury' of Henry VIII in England in 1545 (see book references).

Historical meaning Main articles: History of banking and History of pawnbroking
The historical rendition of usury as a vile enterprise stems not only from a spiritual view that charging exorbitant interest is a flagrant manifestation of unchecked greed, but carries with it social connotations of perceived "unjust" or "discriminatory" moneylending practices. This is well explained by the historian Paul Johnson, who believes:
Most early religious systems in the ancient Near East, and the secular codes arising from them, did not forbid usury. These societies regarded inanimate matter as alive, like plants, animals and people, and capable of reproducing itself. Hence if you lent 'food money', or monetary tokens of any kind, it was legitimate to charge interest.[1] Food money in the shape of olives, dates, seeds or animals was lent out as early as c. 5000 BC, if not earlier. ... Among the Mesopotamians, Hittites, Phoenicians and Egyptians, interest was legal and often fixed by the state. But the Jews took a different view of the matter.[2]
The Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible criticize interest-taking, but interpretations of the Biblical prohibition vary. One common understanding is that Jews are forbidden to charge interest upon loans made to other Jews, but allowed to charge interest on transactions with non-Jews, or Gentiles. However, the Hebrew Bible itself gives numerous examples where this provision was evaded.[3]
Johnson holds that the Hebrew Bible treats the lending as philanthropy in a poor community whose aim was collective survival, but which is not obliged to be charitable towards outsiders.

A great deal of Jewish legal scholarship in the Dark and the Middle Ages was devoted to making business dealings fair, honest and efficient. One of the great problems was usury, or rather lending money at interest. This was a problem the Jews had created for themselves, and for the two great religions which spring from Judaism. [4]

Usury (in the original sense of any interest) was denounced by a number of spiritual leaders and philosophers of ancient times, including Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses, Philo and Gautama Buddha. For example, Cato in his De Re Rustica said:
"And what do you think of usury?" - "What do you think of murder?"
Interest of any kind is forbidden in Islam. As such, specialized codes of banking have developed to cater to investors wishing to obey Qur'anic law. (See Islamic banking)

As the Jews were ostracized from most professions by local rulers, the church and the guilds, they were pushed into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as tax and rent collecting and moneylending. This was said to show Jews were insolent, greedy usurers. Natural tensions between creditors and debtors were added to social, political, religious, and economic strains.
... financial oppression of Jews tended to occur in areas where they were most disliked, and if Jews reacted by concentrating on moneylending to gentiles, the unpopularity - and so, of course, the pressure - would increase. Thus the Jews became an element in a vicious circle. The Christians, on the basis of the Biblical rulings, condemned interest-taking absolutely, and from 1179 those who practised it were excommunicated. But the Christians also imposed the harshest financial burdens on the Jews. The Jews reacted by engaging in the one business where Christian laws actually discriminated in their favour, and so became identified with the hated trade of moneylending.[5]
Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked. Gentile debtors may have been quick to lay charges of usury against Jewish moneylenders charging even nominal interest or fees. Thus, historically attacks on usury have often been linked to antisemitism. According to Walter Laqueur,
"The issue at stake was not really whether the Jews had entered it out of greed (as antisemites claimed) or because most other professions were barred to them... In countries where other professions were open to them, such as Muslim Spain and the Ottoman empire, one finds more Jewish blacksmiths than Jewish money lenders. The high tide of Jewish usury was before the fifteenth century; as cities grew in power and affluence, the Jews were squeezed out from money lending with the development of banking."[6]
In England, the departing Crusaders were joined by crowds of debtors in the massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189-1190. In 1275, Edward I of England passed the Statute of Jewry which made usury illegal and linked it to blasphemy, in order to seize the assets of the violators. Scores of English Jews were arrested, 300 hanged and their property went to the Crown. In 1290, all Jews were expelled from England, allowed to take only what they could carry, the rest of their property became the Crown's. The usury was cited as the official reason for the Edict of Expulsion.
The growth of the Lombard banking and pawnbrokers, who moved from city to city along the pilgrim routes, was important for the development of trade and commerce. Laqueur continues:
"Following centuries of church condemnations of Jewish usury, the Jews were expelled from many countries and regions, their communities were impoverished, and very few individuals had the necessary capital to engage in money lending. Money lending continued, of course, and the Lombards took 250 percent interest (this, however, did not cause a wave of anti-Lombardism)."[6]
In 1745, the Catholic teaching on usury was expressed by Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical Vix Pervenit, which strictly forbids charging interest on loans, although he adds that "entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract" through separate, parallel contracts.

Governing is most of all about building viable coalitions and we economists are not especially good at that

Should economists rule the world? by Tyler Cowen Marginal Revolution

Here is Anil Hira:

This article examines more carefully the oft-made hypotheses that

(1) "technocrats" or politicians with an economics background are increasingly common and

(2) that this "improvement" in qualifications will lead to improvements in economic policy.

The article presents a database on the qualifications of leaders of the world's major countries over the past four decades. The article finds that while there is evidence for increasing "technification," there are also distinct and persistent historical patterns among Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American leaders. Using statistical analysis, the article finds that we cannot conclude that leadership training in economics leads to better economic outcomes.

Here is the (only temporarily non-gated) link, thanks to Bill Evers for the pointer. There is also an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on this work, I am told. The natural defense of economists, which I will not attempt, is to cite selection effects for which economists achieve public office, and what they must do to rule.

I am happy to admit that governing is most of all about building viable coalitions (more than having good policy knowledge, at many margins), and that we economists are not especially good at that. So I don't find this result a surprise. Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 4, 2007 at 07:24 PM in Political Science Permalink

There was a prior period of slow and gradual improvement in living standards

A Farewell to Alms, through p.272
Sep 4, 2007 from Marginal Revolution by Tyler Cowen

Clark reconceptualizes what the Industrial Revolution was all about. It wasn't a huge spurt of technology, circa 1780-1830, but rather there was a prior period of slow and gradual improvement in living standards. That contribution completely revises the "rise of the West debate." While Clark is not the first "gradualist" on this topic, he makes the best and most conceptual case for throwing out previous understandings of the Industrial Revolution.

That point alone makes this one of the most important books of recent times. My main difference with Clark, in these sections...

***

Liberalization? Nah. Pokhran! from The India Uncut Blog by Amit Varma

The WTF lines of the day come from S Gurumurthy, the convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch. The Hindu reports:

He [Gurumurthy] said India’s economic resurgence owed nothing to the Western ideas of market capitalism and globalisation. “I believe that our rise is due to one event — the atomic blast in Pokhran.” “This aroused a sense of pride even in the Non-Resident Indians who had been criticising everything about India for 20 years.”

Heh. Swadeshi Entertainment Manch, they should be called. It’s a pity some people take them so seriously. (Link via email from Jayakamal Balasubramani.) The India Uncut Blog © 2007 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.Visit: India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

High rates of human mobility have brought adherents of various religions into sociable relations

Religion is pluralistic, so let's make sure it stays that way

By Ali Noer Zaman THE DAILY STAR Tuesday, September 04, 2007

One of the much-debated religious issues in Indonesia today is that of pluralism. Its opponents, such as the Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI), believe that pluralist theology is harmful for Islamic theological foundations, as it would undermine the idea that a particular religion is supreme and that other religious beliefs are apocryphal. A MUI fatwa of 2005, which called for the abolishment of pluralistic theology, alarmed the Muslim community of the danger of pluralist theology. The fatwa did nothing to appease the controversy. It only made the debate fiercer.
Adian Husaini, from the Indonesian Council for Islamic Propagation (or DDII), represents another view also calling for the abandonment of pluralistic theology. The DDII highlights the fear that such theology tends to make Muslims regard Islam as relative, making some fear that Muslims will convert to other religions easily, or at least accept and even adopt other religions' practices, such as attending common prayer sessions or celebrating other religions' holy days.
The plurality of religion is an inevitable fact of humankind. Multiple religions have existed alongside one another throughout history. While recognizing the existence of other faiths, founders of religion and their adherents generally provided guidance on interfaith relations based on their own experiences. Stories of these interactions were usually documented only after years of oral tradition and subject to change. In most holy books, stories of contentious interactions with people of other faiths can be easily misinterpreted or seen as instructive of anti-pluralism.
At present, all such paradigms need to change. High rates of human mobility have brought adherents of various religions into sociable relations within different contexts, such as in the educational or business realms. Multicultural communities are found in the world's big cities. Now with the help of user-friendly information and communication technologies, people have opportunities to get to know others of different faiths through empathy-driven correspondence and dialogue among religions.
For Paul F. Knitter, a Catholic theologian from the United States, different religious teachings and forms of worship can be resources for a dialogue to enrich one's religious experience. Every religion can maintain or deepen its own integrity through encounters with other faiths. Making this materialize, however, requires a shift from the old religious mindset. For example, in Christianity Jesus is divine and the savior of the world. However, in a global context, he is not the only God and savior, because God has also inspired other communities.
Muslims need to apply a similar approach. Muslims should not consider the Koran as the only revelation to hold the absolute religious truth. A human being is merely a limited interpreter, while God is an infinite entity with far more wisdom to impart than the human mind can process. What a human being receives from God is only the reduction of God's word in the frame of an individual's socio-cultural language, which might be incongruent with that of others'. There are revelations other than the Koran, and indeed the Koran itself confirms this. The messages of the Koran, the Bible, the New Testament, and the Vedas, among others, are directed in each case to all humankind and are aimed at creating spiritual prosperity and peace for all. In other words, the aim is not the conversion of other believers, as has been the attempt for centuries. http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Let conversion become a personal issue, influenced by a person's own social, cultural and individual considerations. Rather than forbidding someone from leaving his or her faith, conversion should be the result of his or her own decision.
According to John Hick, a British theologian and religious philosopher, pluralist theology tries to understand that different faiths are different responses and perceptions of various communities toward the materialization of God. Pluralist theology wants to change the religious view from focusing on one's own tradition to seeing God as the source of all faiths.
Based on this perspective, one would not judge another faith from one's own religious perspective, but from a universal standpoint. This does not require individual believers to abandon the teachings of their respective traditions. What does need to change, however, is the individual's standpoint toward other traditions. Pluralist theology has no intention of undermining the faith of religious adherents; in fact, it seeks to strengthen it.
Through religious diversity, God has given blessings without any preference. Pluralist theology is a gift with which to eliminate discrimination against fellow humans for their religious beliefs. In such a context, every religious believer has the same opportunity to gain salvation. Pluralist theology, therefore, has no relation to the conspiracy theories upheld by certain groups, such as the DDII, that believe that there are concerted efforts trying to conquer adherents of their faith.
Pluralist theology should be fostered and protected, not abolished. Ali Noer Zaman is a writer on socio-religious issues. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.

A polyarchy is a modern representative democracy with universal suffrage

Robert Dahl's On Democracy Aaron Miller PSC 129 January 31, 2001

In the opening pages it is fairly apparent that the author, Robert Dahl, is going to take on a large subject matter in this book. His opening chapter, "Do We Need a Guide," he starts off by talking about twentieth century democracies and concludes with the line, "Our journey begins at the beginning: the origins of democracy." This is a clear indication that Dahl is attempting to give an overview of the entire democratic history. Fitting such a topic in a mere two hundred pages seems like a difficult task and doing it well seesm the intention of this section is to clarify exactly the message being convey when some political science jargon like a difficult task and doing it well seems like an insurmountable one.
Dahl takes on this task by working very methodically through this large topic and not straying to tangents of ideas even when they might be beneficial to the reader. Instead, he alludes to other texts throughout the book, so the reader can get a better sense of an idea if Dahl knows he will not fully cover it. Also, he includes a further reading section at the end of the book, broken down into the categories that On Democracy covers.
Using lists in almost every chapter, Dahl breaks down each topic covered in a logical fashion that allows the reader to clearly understand him in fewer words. While discussing what an ideal democracy is, Dahl makes a bold statement of describing "What is Democracy" in five attributes that people must have: effective participation, equality in voting, gaining enlightened understanding, exercising final control over the agenda, and inclusion of adults. Dahl goes on to explain each one of these more completely, but these lists help the reader understand the main points that Dahl is trying to make. In addition to the lists Dahl usually sums up each chapter in one page at the end of the chapter allowing the reader to comprehend the main ideas that Dahl is trying to get across. In the chapter "Why Democracy," Dahl summarizes the undeniable advantageous qualities of an ideal democracy. These qualities being that:

• Democracy helps prevent government by cruel and vicious autocrats.
• Democracy guarantees its citizens a number of fundamental rights that nondemocratic systems do not, and cannot, grant.
• Democracy insures citizens a broader range of personal freedom than any feasible alternative to it.
• Democracy helps people to protect their own fundamental interests.
• Only a democratic government can provide a maximum opportunity for persons to exercise the freedom of self determination- that is, to live under laws of their own choosing.
• Only a democratic government can provide a maximum opportunity for exercising moral responsibility.
• Democracy fosters human development more fully than feasidble alternative.
• Only a democratic government can foster a relatively high degree of political equality.
• Modern representative democracies do not fight wars with one another.
• Countries with democratic governments tend to be more prosperous than countries with nondemocratic governments.

Throughout On Democracy, Dahl emphasizes the importance of words and their definitions. To illustrate their importance Dahl looks to Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass where he says 'When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean-- neither more, nor less. According to this everyone is free to call any government a democracy, even a despotic one. Just as Alice finds Humpty Dumpty's logic to be irrational so does Dahl of leaders like Lenin who pronounced themselves more democratic than western countries like the U.S. In almost every chapter Dahl includes a sections called, "Words about Words," the intention of this section is to clarify exactly the message being convey when some political science jargon like "popular government" is used. Often people argue solely because they have a different idea about what a word actually means or how it is being used. At the opening of one of Dahl's chapter, he is referring to actual governments, not ideal ones. In the same section Dahl identifies that when he uses the term "popular government" he is referring to a government that is democratic aside for its exclusion of some adult population from suffrage or some other political participation.
Dahl has also coined words to express ideas or physical entities that he feels are not express well. One of these words that Dahl uses is which Dahl feels is necessary in a modern democracy. Coined in 1953 a polyarchy is a modern representative democracy with universal suffrage. It calls for the creation of political institutions that can compensate for the fact that contemporary states are too big, and the lives of the people living within them too complex, for everyone to get together with any frequency to decide things in common. Elections, a free press, autonomous associations, and inclusive citizenship are among the institutions required to make polyarchy work.
In Dahl's section on actual democracy he points out that the sheer number of people that exist in America or most other places for that matter make the direct democracy the Greeks envisioned impossible. The amount of time necessary for so many people to have a say in any matter would take so long that progress would be non-existant, if not backwards. Even in a small Vermont town assembly that still operates in the Greek fashion, direct democracy instead of representative democracy, a meeting takes four despite only seven percent of eligible voters choose to speak at all. Common sense therefore dictates the Law of Time and Numbers: The more citizens a democratic unit contains, the less that citizens can participate directly in government decisions and the more that they must delegate authority to others. This conflicting emotion between wanting to include all members of society directly in the decision making process and the need to solve problems in a timely fashion is one of the areas that Dahl leaves to the reader to investigate further if they wish.
In the acknowledgments, Dahl asserts that his intention was to write a book on democratic theory and practice that was accessible to a general audience. On Democracy is an example of Dahl's desire to make equality a rule rather than a goal. In the readings it is apparent that Dahl is a proponent of democracy though he does not entangle the reader much with his thoughts on solutions to problems or how governments should be run. Dahl seems to bring a message throughout the book that his reasons for supporting democracy is not that it is flawless, instead alternative governments eliminate the best parts of democracy. His clear and thoughtful writing brings the knowledge of democracy to people, like democracy brings power to people.

Despite the complexity of the products, the processes are simpler. Like the joy of driving a superbly crafted car

Indian Express Express Money Uma Shashikant August 13, 2007 60 years, 3 generations, the journey begins...Grandpa lived through the trauma of a pension-less retirement. Dad filed accounts meticulously. ATMs and investment choices gave me my financial freedom. I wonder what will do it for the kids

A peek into history always brings back memories of granddad and dad — the two people who influenced me the most. Thatappa (as we would call granddad) had to draw out of his PF for his daughter’s wedding, and lived through the trauma of pension-less retirement. In his working years, he did a second part-time job, to fund his children’s education. Appa (as dad was called) did monthly home budgets, wrote daily accounts, tallied the home cash box and filed all the papers of his life. If both of them were alive today, they would be amazed at the ATM, credit cards, Internet accounts and the variety in my investment portfolio. The options we have today and the efficiency that accompanies our financial transactions is the beautiful freedom we enjoy.
There was a time when one called the broker on the phone, placed an order, and dealt with ‘patawat’ — the day when bundles of share certificates were brought to Dalal Street, physically counted and exchanged. The electronic trading screen has meant that we can participate in the market and get the best prices, without having to wait for 45 days before the share certificate came by post. These delays not only cost money, but also provided ample scope for cheating. Thatappa was worried in my post-graduation days that I was joining a group of gamblers in the stock market. In the first boom that I saw in 1985, most of us had paper profits, which we could not book, because of the damning process and paper. The demat account has meant freedom from frauds for so many of us, and efficiency in participation. I have little doubt that fruits of the India growth story would have bypassed most investors if not for the electronic screen and demat revolution. There is still ground to be covered to enable most of India to reap the benefits of our modern capital markets.
In Thatappa’s time, they dealt with bankers with awe. Bankers seemed to own all the deposits and have tremendous powers to give loans. Thatappa wanted me to become a bank officer. Growing up in times of loan melas, where bank managers meekly lent to those that politicians chose, I refused to take his suggestion. The surge in retail lending, ATMs and technology that enables us to transfer funds instantly have meant so much of freedom for all of us in the way we deal with the bank. Credit cards, personal loans and home loans have restored the power of the customer and banks compete to give us loans. Appa would have been amused at the mailers and phone calls from selling agents.
Back then, there was little money to save and investment options were few. The choices came only in the 1960s, after UTI was formed, banks were nationalised and forced to go rural. Then, there was always the preference for income, which made several choose chit funds and company deposits, some of which defaulted. If I bought him shares, Appa always asked what the dividend would be. The shift from income orientation to growth is the freedom we enjoy. From a time when salaries were not adequate to finance the family’s needs, many of us enjoy the ability to save, to invest and to make our choices from a range of products that offer growth. We make financial plans, save for our goals, and are serious about retirement plans. Thatappa will approve. We can also do all of this with tremendous ease. Appa would be surprised that mutual fund transactions can be made by signing a small transaction slip and confirmed by account statements that have no signature. He would still file them, all the same.
The freedom today is precious because it unfetters the way we earn, save and invest our money. Despite the complexity of the products, the processes are simpler. Like the joy of driving a superbly crafted car, confident that it has been assembled by the best minds, knowing nothing more than the brake, clutch and the accelerator. A demystified product is a joy to use. While I cherish the freedom we now have, I wonder what my children will say 25 years from now. To the generation that thinks money is produced by the ATM, that anything can be bought with credit cards, and to whom home budget and daily accounts are unheard terms, what will financial freedom mean? And how will attitudes towards the less fortunate be shaped? What will their freedom be and how will they cherish it?

Center for Investment Education and Learning

CIEL is a provider of learning solutions that enable sharpening of skills and competencies in the investment industry. We bring learning modules in a web-based environment that is convenient to access, easy to update and facilitates community learning. We understand learning as a continuous process, where interaction enables learning from one another. CIEL means 'Sky' in French. We are about the limitlessness that is knowledge, learning and education. More

I would like to reduce the role that hierarchy and authority (institutional not moral) plays in our world

EconoSpeak Annals of the Economically Incorrect Monday, September 3, 2007 Perp Walk Hmmmm. I guess I should say a word about myself, so as not to be too different from everyone else? (Q: What are you going to do when you grow up? A: Find some people, dress like them and follow them around. --Firesign Theater)

I am Peter Dorman, an economist and long-time political obsessive, not affiliated with any school, camp or fire ring. I teach at the Evergreen State College, known for its extraordinarily demanding brand of wanton indulgence. I do a little of this and that academically, never wanting to specialize to the point of accomplishment boredom. Some topics over the years: occupational safety and health, benefit-cost analysis, trade theory, international political economy, child labor, unemployment insurance, climate change, the precautionary principle.

Bloggers seem to be pronouncing themselves on free trade and liberty, so for my part I will say I have theoretical and political issues with the justification for unregulated trade, and I would like to reduce the role that hierarchy and authority (institutional not moral) plays in our world. What really irritates me is nationalism, the utopia of ages past that has now attained a gruesome hegemony. I will mostly post on economics-related matters, since I figure the web is overrun with everything else, and because I think there is mostly a big hole where serious economic thinking ought to be in the discourse of the left. Posted by Peter Dorman at 11:12 PM

State power rests with the bourgeois-landlord class led by the big bourgeoisie

People's Democracy (Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vol. XXXI No. 33 August 19, 2007 60 Years Of Our Independence And The Left: Some Thoughts Jyoti Basu

The Swadeshi movement during the first decade of the last century marked an important phase in the growth of organised popular resistance across India. Another turning point was the growth of political consciousness of the working class, which became evident from the period of the First World War. However, it was the entry of Gandhiji in Indian politics that marked further maturity and consolidation of the freedom struggle. Gandhiji’s contribution to the politicisation of the masses from all walks of life – students, youth, women, peasants and workers – and his commitment to secular values helped radicalise the movement. The Rowlatt satyagraha was his first confrontation with the British Raj. But despite Gandhiji’s profound impact, the main negative trait of Gandhian nationalism was its opposition to class politics. The basic premise of his concept of non-violence negates the class consciousness of the working people. It is also a fact that Indian independence struggle was characterised by various streams of militant struggles along with armed struggles, all of which contributed to the gradual erosion of the mighty colonial regime...

After the adoption of the Constitution, our Party was legalised under the orders of the Calcutta High Court and many of us were released only then. However, the Constitution we have adopted reflects some of the ambiguities of the ruling classes. The Constitution declares India as a socialist republic. In reality, the State power rests with the bourgeois-landlord class led by the big bourgeoisie. The directive principles though declared as ‘fundamental in the governance of the country’ have not been complied with by the ruling Congress party. The Constitution enables the government to enact legislation for detaining people without trial and other draconian laws. Articles like 356 have been used many a time to oust elected governments. Even emergency, which abolished all rights of the people including the right to life, was declared under the provisions of the Constitution. On the other hand the rich-poor gap is increasing day by day and the concentration of wealth has taken an alarming shape. Consequently, class polarisation became accentuated in both urban and rural sectors.

Despite the negative features of the Constitution and a capitalist landlord dominated bourgeois parliamentary system, we have to utilise whatever opportunities are available to further the interests of the people. We in West Bengal never enacted draconian laws which are undemocratic and anti-people and used those undemocratic provisions against the common people. We have always expressed our opposition to black laws like MISA or TADA.

The interests of finance capital must take precedence over the people’s interests, and the country’s future

People's Democracy (Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vol. XXXI No. 35

September 02, 2007 “TWO NATIONS” Prabhat Patnaik

The fracturing of the nation into “two nations” and the growing ascendancy of the “nation of the rich” for which it needs the support of imperialism, has serious implications for the country’s future. The most obvious relates to democracy. Broad-based democracy, democracy based on universal adult franchise as we have known it, is basically in the interests of the poor, since political empowerment gives them some opportunity for arresting or even reversing the process of their economic marginalisation. On the other hand, such broad-based democracy which threatens the ascendancy of the “nation of the rich” is anathema for the latter.

Its attempt therefore is always to attenuate democracy, to make it hollow, to reduce the effectiveness of the people’s political choice. Not that it necessarily wishes to do away with universal adult franchise, but it wishes to enfeeble its significance. It wishes to institutionalise the kind of democracy which the Americans push everywhere: “the government must be chosen by the people but must follow the policies we like”. Indeed the very instance of a government pushing ahead with a nuclear deal (which it would have done but for the opposition of the Left), even though a majority in the parliament is opposed to such a deal, throws light on the kind of “democracy” that the “nation of the rich” and its imperialist backers want.

There are a number of ways in which a democracy that has struck roots among the people, that has captured the people’s imagination, and that is vigorously used by them to assert themselves, is sought to be enfeebled.

• These vary from a substitution of parliamentary democracy by a presidential form of government;
• to a substitution of politicians by bureaucrats and technocrats as the heads of government even within a parliamentary democracy (to facilitate which a process of vilification of politicians is unleashed by the bourgeois media and “opinion makers”);
• to the institutionalisation of a uniformity among all political parties on policy issues, ostensibly for the sake of “development”.

One national daily has even called upon both the prime minister and the CPI(M) to quickly reach a settlement (for which, needless to say, the latter must abandon its opposition to the nuclear deal), so that the “stock markets are not disturbed”! The interests of finance capital in short must take precedence over the people’s interests, and the country’s future.

The introduction of capital account convertibility greatly increases the voice of finance capital in the country’s affairs; and it is instructive that in the very midst of the stand off between the prime minister and the Left, a committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of introducing capital account convertibility. You may think it is a case of bull-headed obtuseness; but it is not. It is a part of a strategy.

From an idealistic point of view, the co-operative is best; however, from a practical viewpoint the company is to be preferred

LEGAL STRUCTURING OFINTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES Reproduced for private study purposes by Ecological Solutions Pty Ltd. David SPAIN

Experience shows that it is advisable for intentional communities to adopt, at the outset, a legal structure formally documenting critical aspects of their inter-relationship. Failure to do so may result in confusion and injustice should trustand idealism sour under the inevitable pressures of life. Inspiration, reason and comradeship are needed to interpret and enliven the written constitution, but it is unwise to rely upon these alone: they can dissipate quickly once doubts and bickering set in.

A strong & appropriate legal structure will assist settlers in focussing on primary and secondary aims, overcoming obstacles and protecting individual rights & investments. It will regularize such matters as allocation of homesites and farming areas, protection of private capital assets, rentals and sales of interests, decision-making, disciplining of deviants, vesting of a member's interest on death and allocation of assets upon dissolution. Being a legal entity facilitates the vesting of land title, permits contracting as a group and limits individual liability.

It may appear attractive, easy & enlightened to hark back to traditional societies and avoid written or verbal rules, but this idealistic approach must be treated with caution. It tends to be unrealistic and bound to culminate in disappointment, and due less to wisdom than to a knee-jerk reaction against authority or sheer laziness as regards rigorous thought and responsibility. Many self-managing (anarchist) communities have adhered to a formal constitution. Eventually a community may evolve spontaneously and reliably to share a high sensitivity, understanding and morality. Formal rules may then wither and die as irrelevant and unnecessary, but this stasis must be eventuated by gradual group attunement: it cannot be pre-supposed.

Probably the biggest concern in an intentional community of striking a balance between privacy & security (on the one hand) and communal decision-making & obligations (on the other). In a typical Australia "cookie-cutter" suburb, with the land fragmented in a formal & antiseptic way, it is quite possible for neighbours to live side-by-side and barely know each other. They have absolute privacy in their surveyed lots and security against trespassers or for mortgaging purposes. Yet a lot of the quality & potential of life is ousted. There is no obligation to co-operate with a neighbour, there is no persuasion towards basically like-minded & co-operative communities and there a diminished impetus towards economic & social etc. sharing...

All of this just shows the shortcomings of the law as an instrument of control. A wide range of legal structures have been used by intentional communities, and in this essay each one is examined & evaluated. The conclusion is that, from an idealistic point of view, the co-operative is best; however, from a practical viewpoint the company is to be preferred... Posted by mana at 6:25 AM GEN.ede.Auroville

Bush is India's best friend

SWAMINOMICS Don't hate Bush, he's India's best friend

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar times of india 2 Sep 2007

Indian leftists are outraged by the way Indian Ambassador to the US Ronen Sen has defended the nuclear deal with the US. The uproar has focused on Sen's description of critics of the nuclear deal as ''headless chickens.'' Sen has now apologised for his language. But surely this is not the key issue. Prakash Karat, chief headless chicken of the politburo, is not a thin-skinned ninny. He is a suave politician who has shrugged off far worse abuses in the past. No, the fundamental reason for the Left's outrage is not Sen's language but his claim that India should regard George Bush as its best friend.

''There has not been, and I don't think in the near future we will see, such a friend and supporter as this president. Absolutely. There is none.''

Now, leftists view Bush rather as the Pope views Satan. They are incensed at being told that Satan is our best friend. For decades, Marxists were passionate supporters of the Soviet Union and its East European empire. They saw white imperialism as the greatest threat facing humankind, and red imperialism as salvation. They were not ignorant of the mass killings of Stalin and Mao, but regarded this as collateral damage in the great fight against US imperialism. The collapse of the Soviet Union exposed Marxists as life-long supporters of murder and torture in support of a bankrupt philosophy. The revolt against communism in East Europe showed that red imperialism was not salvation at all. Marxists found themselves toppled from the high moral ground they had long thought was theirs.

Then came 9/11. Suddenly, the US under Bush was determined to use its full military power against anybody it saw as a threat, without reference to the UN or anyone else. Once described as ''the reluctant sheriff'' (because of its reluctance to use its awesome military power), the US became a trigger-happy one. It invaded Afghanistan (amidst much global approval). Then it invaded Iraq (amidst much global opposition). It called Iraq, Iran and North Korea an axis of evil, threatening all with military retribution. This dismayed even Indians well-disposed to the US. For Marxists, it was a tonic. They saw in Bush proof that they had been right all along, that US imperialism was indeed the main threat to humankind. They prepared to do battle with the great Satan. Naturally, they were dismayed by the Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement of 2005 envisaging a strategic Indo-US partnership.

First, the Marxists lambasted various clauses of the Hyde Act, echoing Indian scientists who said that the legislation fell short of promises made in the Bush-Manmohan agreement. There followed tortuous Indo-US negotiations on the 123 bilateral agreement. India won argument after argument, and Indian scientists agreed that the final 123 draft was as good a deal as India could expect. Why then has the Left doubled its objections and threatened to bring the government down if it proceeds further? Because the Left's main objection was never to nuclear co-operation, but to the very concept of Indo-US partnership.

The Left views Bush as the ultimate symbol of US imperialism, of US willingness to attack anybody anywhere on bogus grounds like lack of democracy or weapons of mass destruction. Now, the Left is hardly alone in anti-Bushism. Many moderates in Europe are extremely worried about US muscularity, and revel in its discomfiture in Iraq. People across the ideological spectrum in India view Bush as a disaster. But does this contradict Ronen Sen's view that India has not seen and will not in the near future see a US President who is as strong a friend and supporter as Bush?

I don't think so. Much as we may disapprove of Bush's muscularity, the record shows that no other US president has ever been willing to ride roughshod over the anti-proliferation lobby, the pro-Pakistan lobby and the pro-China lobby. Former ambassador to the US Naresh Chandra notes that Indians dislike Bush and like Clinton. Yet, he notes that Clinton gave India little save sanctions. Clinton sought to punish India for its nuclear explosion, not convert it into a high strategic partner. Earlier US Presidents - Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy - did nothing much for India. Nor in the future will Hilary Clinton, who strongly opposed some clauses of the Hyde Act. Why is Bush so strongly pro-India?

Because of the same simple-mindedness he has shown in other foreign policy areas. Bush is determinedly anti-intellectual. He divides the world into good guys and bad guys, and cannot see shades of grey. This can be very dangerous: it led him to invade Iraq. Yet, that same good-guy bad-guy lens has led him to see India as a very good guy. And so, he has brushed aside objections from US experts who call this view of India a gross oversimplification. From Ronen Sen's viewpoint, the issue is not whether we like or dislike Bush. The issue is whether he has done more than any other US president to promote partnership with India and crush anti-Indian lobbies. The answer is surely yes.

Exchange of big money at art auctions of Indian art

Indian art scene is on the threshold of a new era: Book

The Hindu Thursday, June 7, 2007

New Delhi, June. 7 (PTI): Indian art scene is on the threshold of a new era riding piggyback on a rapidly expanding art market. The contemporary art in the country is attracting more and more people who are complete strangers to the art world till the other day, says a new book. From Singapore to San Francisco, newspapers point towards the exchange of big money at art auctions of Indian art and of events mounting Indian artists worldwide.

This is one reason why any Indian artist, especially one like Bikash has to be written about extensively for readers both at home and abroad, says the book "Close to Events". The book explores the life and works of contemporary artist, Bikash Bhattacharjee by noted author and critic Manasij Majumder in his foreword by eminent painter M F Husain.

"More and more people are now keen to know and understand contemporary art, often as part of efforts to cope with their own time. They include young collectors as well as those who can afford to buy art only in prints and reproductions and they want to read lucid exegetic texts about art and artworks," Manasij says. The tome analyses the techniques and styles through which art developed with detailed illustrated explanations on the paintings, contained in the book. The sketches and writing used throughout the book has been taken from Bhattacharjee's own notes.

We had rules that were not conducive to imports and that’s why Indian fashion grew indigenously

Ritu Kumar, J.J. Valaya, Tarun Tahiliani at the EXPRESS

Indian Express Sunday, September 2, 2007

RITU KUMAR: In India there are over 16 million craftsmen on whose work the fashion industry depends. Those are statistics that nobody hears, because people only see the frivolous side of fashion — the partying, the glamour, the alluring ramp visuals. When I started in the fashion business 40 years ago, fashion was called crafts. This (the focus on the frivolous) is largely due to the media, especially the electronic media. Actually, fashion is the backbone of a large textile industry...

When we talk about Indian fashion, it’s a definition that cannot be used in any other part of the world, because you could be talking about the sari or any variety of indigenous clothing. Globally, almost every country today is ruled by the European or American fashion palette and style. India is one of the few countries that have come up with a very strong, indigenous fashion handwriting. I think it’s due to 60 years of independence. We had rules that were not conducive to imports. We also have a very huge crafts base, and that’s why Indian fashion grew indigenously...

Fashion abroad is dictated by a few multinationals. I’ll go further and say that we are watching how lots of foreign brands are coming into India. I won’t be surprised if in the next five years we don’t have every brand in the world in India. They see India as a huge potential market. This is where Indian fashion will come in, because there’s an alternative here, while in the rest of the world there’s none. These MNCs are strong and have deep pockets that give them staying power. They are looking at the young market, the 460 million young people in the country. I think where Indian designers will come in — and that’s going to happen fast — is that they are going to give Indians their alternative to western dressing. With more malls coming up, we will see a lot of prêt from Indian designers in these places. So rather than go and buy a Calvin Klein, you probably will be able to buy a J.J. Valaya, whose clothes suit our lifestyles better, are more climate-friendly, and are in line with our tradition. That’s where Indian fashion should go: give Indians an alternative to western fashion...

Let me tell you my story. I started work 40 years back, when what you are wearing today was just not available. There was no hand-block printing — thanks to what 150 years of colonisation had done to our crafts. There was no hand screen-printing. The embroiderers had no work because the market was full of cheap copies of Indian prints imported from Lancashire. Today, we have about 16 million people actively engaged in handcrafted textiles — not in a studio, not as a hobby, but as a livelihood. They are people who have been doing such work traditionally and for generations. Fashion has been the single, most visible marketing tool for craftspersons. Before that, emporia did it, even before that, cottage industry groups did it, and Pupul Jayakar and Indira Gandhi made sure many of these crafts were revived. For instance, the blue kurta you’re wearing today, you wouldn’t have found it back then because the fabric was gone. So I think fashion has a very important part to play in shaping the way India looks today.

The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror

Friday, August 31, 2007 SCUM AND VILLAINY Dr. Sanity An interview in the Jerusalem Post with Natan Scharansky, who discusses where President Bush went wrong:

Many politicians and institutions that should be promoting democracy and freedom are cynically reluctant to do it, because Bush raised the agenda," Sharansky went on. "That's why I give Bush an "A" for raising the idea, a "C" for implementation and I give his opponents, who abandoned the idea, an "F," because they are attacking Bush not for inconsistency in implementing the agenda but for raising it. Their approach denies the people of the Middle East the ability to live in freedom."Sharansky called Bush "a lonely dissident for democracy in the White House" because of his lack of support. But he cited three cases where Bush could have and should have been more consistent in his insistence on democratization: the Palestinians, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Sharansky, whose book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, is the author who inspired Bush to push for democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

Sharansky is exactly correct on several points. President Bush continues to be demonized for even raising the idea of spreading democracy and freedom in the world. To the extent that such behavior has been fueled by useless "utopian" fantasies, it has failed; that is, anyone who expected "perfect" freedom or "perfect" democracy to instantly bloom in that Middle Eastern desert, is high on idiocy. Neither Freedom, nor Democracy are perfect; nor will they ever be. Leave it to the utopian leftists to think that everything and everyone must be perfect to exist in their perfect and unreal world.

I sincerely doubt that anyone would be able to get much above a "C" in today's postmodern (i.e., insane) world, where a simple (i.e., not particularly nuanced) and fundamentally good person like Bush--who means what he says and is himself honestly--is more frightening to the political left than a tyrant or a murderer. Even Republicans and conservatives tend to misunderestimate the man and want to hold him to ideological points that he in good conscience is unable to support.

But an "A" in conception and a "C" in execution are both passing and perfectly acceptable.

I wrote:
[Bush] has had a lot to deal with over the course of his presidency and, to say the least not everything has been handled with extreme competence. But we are a nation at war and I expect major mistakes will be made. Most of the emotionalism of the left and the media has focused on issues that frankly are trivial or irrelevant to me as a voter. I could care less about their rage toward Gonzales; I think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame should go to jail for their self-aggrandizing and utterly deceitful behavior. They are just two pitiful clowns who history will erase from serious concern. I could go on about the manufactured "scandals" but you catch my drift.

No, if there is one thing I have to take issue with the President for, it is that he has chosen to "rise above it all" and not aggressively defend himself against all the deliberate falsehoods and malicious attacks that have come his way. As one of my friends has put it, "The man has a Christian martyr complex!"

I suppose he figures that history will ultimately judge him well (I think it will for all the missteps); or perhaps he feels that it is enough to help this country change course and go on the offensive against Islamofascism. Contrary to what meatheads like John Edwards think, the war on terror is quite a bit more than a bumper sticker.

Bush's strategy has always been to introduce the seed of democracy and individualism into the sick collectivism of Middle Eastern politics. In that, I believe he has succeeded and receives a "passing" grade. As for Bush's opponents, to paraphrase Obi-wan Kenobi, you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, than those who have failed abjectly to stand up for Freedom and Democracy in the world today and who dare criticize Bush for even trying. - Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity @ 11:24 AM Comments (44) Trackback <<>

Democracy in modernity means that the media play an integral part in the modern lifestyle

FrontPage Columns Friday, August 31, 2007 - namibian.com.na

A Lesson In The Genesis Of Democracy - The Right To Question All LOUISA NAKANUKU

It is my understanding that democracy in modernity means that the media play an integral part in the modern lifestyle, which is not only characterised by mass-scale production of goods for entrepreneurial markets and urbanisation to keep up with industrialisation, or even newly adopted innovations in science and engineering.
But large communities of strangers without any kinships, common social values or religion are also elements of the modern life.
Thus, in modernity, the idea of democracy means that society requires well-informed individuals to actively engage in debates and negotiations to reach agreements on the rules of society; a society with diverse citizens who are often distrustful of each other.
The mass media are that platform where issues are deliberated, and where citizens can engage in a language game.
This language game favours those with the ability to persuade others to their ideology.
We in Namibia gained our right to determine ourselves in 1990.
As with most revolutions, such as ours, people fought long and bitterly for their right to determine their own rules of existence, a fight that is still occurring in many parts of the world.
It is thus with gloom that I observe that there are those who dare to assault the idea of democracy, which not only comprises of free elections and parliament, but also free speech.
In this regard, what was Phil ya Nangoloh's crime, apart from exercising the ideals of democracy, a system that we, as Namibians, all agreed to adhere to? Exercising his democratic right in turn, the Swapo Chief Whip in the National Council, Jhonny Hakaye, used the media as a platform to vent his uneasiness about the fact that every citizen has the right to become a politician; "even an unsound mind" says Hakaye.
With those words, Hakaye shows that he is obviously against the idea of democracy, and perhaps he has a point (think Adolf Hitler).
However, even though no one dares to argue that democracy is the only way to govern society, history has shown us that it is the better of all evils.
So unless a new governing system is designed, not one that has already been tried and failed, democracy is the ideal system to work with, and within this system comes along its institutions of communication - that is, free elections, parliament, free speech, and free media as an integral part thereof.
That means that everyone has the democratic right to use the institutions of communication in order to question the socio-economic and political spheres of society.
In other words, if there are issues like the ones that have emerged, then we need to find ways of dealing with them rather than suppressing them.
That is the "healthy" part of democracy - or ought to be.
Enlightenment thinkers have guided us to use reason to find rational explanations of life, which consequently led to the transformation of a new social order that allows for ordinary citizens, (grudgingly even those with "unsound minds") to question all spheres of life and to engage in the language game.
But this transformation of a traditional social order to a modern social order could only happen because God, the unquestionable ruler of life in ancient times, could be questioned.
Positivist thinker Albert Einstein came to the following conclusion after questioning the existence of God: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
This freedom to express oneself like Einstein did has allowed for reason to excel, for if we could not question the existence of God, we could not find rational explanations of life that led to human milestones such as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon in 1969.
Even Mother Theresa participated in democracy by questioning her ruler of life.
The TimesOnline recently reported on letters that revealed that Mother Theresa of Calcutta, who was canonised six years after her death in 2003, had severe doubts about the existence of God.
In her letters, Mother Theresa wrote: "Where is my faith? Even deep down there is nothing but emptiness and darkness.
If there be a God — please forgive me."
If saints and intellectuals who have altered the way people view the world can question the existence of a God, why should a President be exempt? After all, in the words of Jefferson: "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property."
Theo-Ben Gurirab queried, rightfully if I may add, the media's agenda.
It is in his democratic right to raise that question.
As a communication scholar with an interest in the analysis of global media systems, I encourage all to question the media, which are instrumental in controlling messages to mass society.
However, just as Gurirab and Hakaye used the media as platform to raise their concerns, so does Ya Nangoloh have the right to use the media in order to raise his rhetoric.
Thus, when a new law is proposed to regulate the media, some questions come to mind: What criteria will be used to decide who will be given the platform to raise their satisfaction, anger, frustrations and concerns, among many other emotions on the socio-economic and political sphere? How will it alter the socio-economic and political organisation in Namibia? In my view, a new law to regulate the media not only spells danger for the marketplace of ideas, which is essential for a progressive society, but it is an attack on any free individual's ability to use reason for the betterment of society.

Namibians are currently at a crossroads. We can use our dilemma to choose one of two avenues:

(1) to regulate the media, and the fearful society that will follow as a result; or

(2) to start a national dialogue on addressing the unmistakable cracks in our democratic foundations.
We all have a role to play in the path that will be selected. Politicians might be able to propose a law for media regulation, but we, the ordinary citizens, can rise up and defend our democratic right to question ALL, including the highest political office in this country.
In other words, Councillors and Members of Parliament of the Namibian Government have the mandate to govern us, but we, the ordinary citizens, have the mandate to decide on their parameters.
In conclusion, if the questioning of God's absolute rule can lead us to a modern society, how would Namibia progress if we allow the marketplace of ideas - the media - to flourish? There is a phrase that states: "look to the past to glimpse the future".
History has shown us, yet again, what happens when the marketplace of ideas is controlled: Zimbabwe. The unquestionable autocratic rule of Robert Mugabe has turned Zimbabwe into one of the poorest nations in the world. Is that the path that Namibia really wants to follow?

* The author of this opinion piece is a PhD candidate in mass communication at Carleton University, Canada. Latest Columns • Summary• Headlines• Forums