Wow! As I read this, there are 119 comments on Yazad’s post about poverty and if Yazad’s blog weren’t acting up a bit, I suspect there would be more. Unfortunately, much of the debate seems to be centred on Amit and others trying to get Dilip to confess to something. I don’t see the point. The question is not what he believes in his heart, but what he conveys through his article. I must insist that we look only at what the article says and not at any subsequent clarifications that he gives at Yazad’s place. The reason is simple. An article on Rediff and the Hindu reaches lakhs of ill-informed readers who aren’t going to come over to Yazad’s place to get further education on the topic. They are going to leave with an “overwhelming impression” and it is that impression that I am concerned with.
Then Abinandanan responds to my post, saying… I am not sure exactly what. The points he raises would have been answered if he had actually completed reading my post. But let me try again.
Abi points out that in conclusion Dilip says that he has no doubts in his mind that reforms must happen. But why must they? Go read Dilip’s article again. He says that he sees more poor people than 15 years ago. Poverty was reducing even during the Socialist era. The green revolution reduced poverty from around 55% to 40% over a period of 25-odd years (figures quoted from memory – don’t hold me to them). If you thought that this trend had reversed, would you still support reforms? No, don’t give me that stuff about pursuing reforms in “some other way”. That is not going to work. If a doctor replaces a treatment that has been improving your condition too slowly for your comfort with a treatment that makes you worse, what would be the first thing the doctor would do? A doctor I trust would first stop the new treatment and put you back on the old one. He wouldn’t tinker with the new treatment. It has failed – by the only standard of success that matters. So why does Dilip think that reforms should continue? I find no answer in the article. The only way the article can be consistent is if by “reforms” he means something completely and fundamentally different from free market reforms. Or perhaps he has some other reason to continue to support reforms – reasons he hasn’t mentioned. But… shouldn’t he mention them to provide a balanced view?
So here is the reading comprehension question. Based on the article, explain to me why Dilip supports reforms. If you can’t, I am right.
Ravi,
For a change I agree with you totally and infact had wanted to post something quite similar.
The basic rant of the socialist has not changed – only his/her method has. Reform when seen as a tool to improve society loses it’s very purpose. The reason I support it (partially with a million reservations, because of the way it is being done and because of the fact that it “needs to be done”) in it is because it *tends* to return my basic rights.
Answer to the RC question:
Why does the author support reforms?
Because there is poverty and it needs to be reduced.
end answer
That is the difference, isn’t it? This is not necessarily free-market reforms that Dilip is talking about. It is just anything which can meet the goal of reducing poverty. Obviously, the only
The only way the article can be consistent is if by “reforms†he means something completely and fundamentally different from free market reforms
Of course!
The only way to ever have a meaningful discussion with Mr D’Souza — and I’m skeptical that it’s possible at all — is to get him to disclose right upfront his understanding of the semantics of the terminology of the debate. When he says ‘dog’, for example, does he mean dog as you and I know it? Or is it possible be that we’re speaking dog, but he is talking vacuum-cleaner?
(Amit Varma, who is pretty good at scripting imaginary situations, must write one on the scenario outlined above. For starters:
Dilip D’Souza: It sucks man, it sucks.
Confused Debater: Sure, it barks and makes noise. But, for crying out loud, don’t forget that it is man’s best friend!
I digress.)
This is important because whereas we all depend on tomes like the Merriam-Webster when we need to look up words, Dilip D’Souza has — according to the buzz in informed circles — devised a brand new reference all for himself. It’s called Merry-I’M-Spinmeister or some such thing.
I don’t think Dilip has been either dishonest or inconsistent. Although the first impression I got from Dilip’s article was that he wasn’t in favor of liberalizing the economy. And it left me confused to read that he believed the reforms were not as rapid and as far reaching.
After 119 comments, I think I know Dilip’s stand. Now the question is that if everyone kind of agreed on this issue, why did the arguments drag on for 119 comments? 🙂
Niket, exactly.
Easwaran, that reminds me of the time when Socialists redefined “Socialism” from a set of policies to a bunch of outcomes. Anything that achieves the goal of poverty alleviation is Socialism, including Capitalism. The only problem is, we can’t achieve outcomes without following policies. What we mean when we say “Economic Reforms” stand for a certain set of policies and ideas. If you change the definition of a term midway through an article, how can you have an intelligent discussion on the merits of policies that the term “Economic Reforms” is understood to stand for?