Rejecting mindless pacifiers

There were two news items today on the Haj subsidy – one heartening and one depressing.
First, the depressing one. The government has decided to increase the subsidy cover for Haj pilgrims which will, in effect, allow 10,000 more Muslims to be covered. This is clearly a ploy ahead of the Uttar Pradesh elections.
The heartening news. The Indian Express has reported that several Muslim religious scholars and leaders have criticized the subsidy and asked for the money (Rs 180 crore at last count) to be used for schools, healthcare and other basic infrastructure for the community’s welfare. They’ve termed the subsidy un-Islamic because according to the Quran, only those Muslims who can afford to go on Haj should do so.
Now there can be issues whether the state should spend money on the uplift of certain communities (religious or caste-based), but clearly there is a realization among Muslims that this subsidy is ridiculous and does not help the community in any way. That it is nothing but votebank politics and is only creating resentment against them. Maybe that realization was already there but what is positive is that they are now coming out openly criticising it.
What is significant is that this criticism is not coming from the sophisticated liberal Muslims – the Mushirul Hasans, Shabana Azmis, Javed Akhtars and their like – but from people like Maulana Mehmood Madani, general secretary of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, S Q R Ilyas, convenor of the Babri Masjid Committee and a senior member of the All India Personal Law Board, Mohammad Owais, CEO of the Haj Committee and Mufti Nazeer-ud-din, who runs the Darul Aloom Rehimiya, which is supposed to be Kashmir’s biggest seminary. These people probably have more clout with the community than the seminar circuit Muslims. Come to think of it, one has never heard these Muslims ever raising this point?
It is time now for other Muslims to take up this line of argument and generate awareness in the community that Haj subsidies, holidays for Friday prayers and bans on books is not what will help uplift it. Those will only continue to keep it in physical and social ghettos. Rs 180 crore is a lot of money. It shouldn’t be wasted on mindless sops.

Muslim appeasement a myth?

The Indian Express has got figures given to the high level committee on the social, educational and economic status of Muslims headed by Justice Rajinder Sachar. It only confirms what is common knowledge - that Muslims are poorly underrepresented in the job market. Few would deny or dispute these findings.
But this is going to provide yet another opportunity by the left-liberals to rubbish the criticism about appeasement of Muslims.
It has already started. The Express report quotes `a senior member of the Sachar committee' as saying "if this data is any kind of a benchmark, this not only nails the myth of appeasement, it also shows that the politics of batting for Muslims is limited to providing security and safety, and it has been unable to go beyond simply protecting their civil right to life."
So that old line is back - if Muslims were being appeased, could their socio-economic status be so pathetic?
I have always found this line specious, at best. In a post titled Hum to anything karega posted on 5 March 2005, I had cited several instances of ridiculous sops in the name of making Muslims feel less alienated. (http://beyondlabels.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_beyondlabels_archive.html).
To recap,

# The Mulayam Singh Yadav government declaring Friday a half day in UP schools to enable Muslim students to offer Friday prayers. Way back in the 1980s one government in Kerala had done something similar. Yadav was compelled to retract the step.

# The subsidy for Haj (which is not given in the most Islamic of Islamic nations)

# The Muslim Women's Bill

# The banning of Satanic Verses

The list could go on. If this isn't appeasement, what is?
Sure, the condition of economically backward Muslims is as bad as many from the scheduled castes and tribes. But that is because successive governments have focused on providing meaningless pacifiers and offering lip sympathy to the community. More often than not, these concessions are more to pander to communal parties and leaders who have a vested interest in keeping their community backward. So Muslims have been the victims of tokenism, instead of genuine efforts to improve their lot.
But that cannot airbrush the above-mentioned concessions away from the picture. These do fall into the definition of appeasement and there's no getting away from that.
Isn't it time for liberal Muslims to stand up and say, stop these stupid sops and help the community prosper? Isn't it time for them to protest every time any government gives in to the retrograde demands of the Muslim clergy and other self-serving politicians and refuse such token gestures? The burden of breaking `the myth of appeasement' lies with the Muslim community.

Muzzling the media

Attempts to muzzle the media are back. What else can one expect from a Congress-led government supported by the Left.
I reproduce below a letter from the media advisor to the PM, Sanjaya Baru, a letter from the director, public relations attached to the PMO and a protest letter written by a spunky journalist, Jal Khambatta.
Going through Baru's letter, it appears that the behaviour of some journalists has sparked off the action of limiting coverage of Prime Minister's functions to only accredited journalists.
Without defending journalists abusing officials, staging dharnas and breaking security rules (I have myself been appalled at the behaviour of many of my tribe), let me explain why I (and Jal) see this letter as an attempt to gag the press.
Firstly, Baru's statement that the PMO will decide which meetings the press will cover smacks of arbitrariness. How can he decide which meeting will yield a news story for the media? What will end up happening is that Baru will later call select journalists who he is sure will toe his line and give them private briefings briefings with the PMO's own angle. It is a sad comment on journalism that this is happening and some of the people indulging in this are very senior journalists.
Then look at the warning that those who engage in unruly behaviour will have their accreditation cancelled. Such a provision exists anyway and often is not used because people complain to editors and the concerned persons are pulled up. In such a situation for Baru to seek opinion on how to deal with unruly journalists is nothing but a threat.
Accreditation rules don't allow newspapers less than a year old and journalists with less than a certain number of years to be accredited. So all such newspapers and journalists will be barred from covering the PMO, making it easier for the PMO to `manage' the media. In any case, mostly it is accredited journalists alone who cover PMO. And often the unruly behaviour is by them. So what is Baru trying to do, really?
I think this letter has less to do with some unruly incidents and more to do with the security breach that happened when two young girls and one boy drove into the PM's house complex. The PMO - especially Baru - tried to downplay it but the whole incident would never have come to light if the electronic media had not been present there to cover a cabinet meeting. Now briefings of the cabinet meeting are held at the office of the Press Information Bureau, some kms away from the PM's residence. The journalists were hanging around there to get sound bytes from departing ministers. And that's how they got not just visuals of these youngsters driving up to the reception area but also of the utter laxness on the part of the security forces. Now, clearly, this is not something that will be a `news story for the media' in Baru's definition. In fact, his proposed action will effectively ensure that the media doesn't get to know of any such incidents which could occur.
The other reason I think this smacks of muzzling is that this is the second time Baru has written to editors in such a high handed way.
In the wake of the dizzying market rise and the sudden crash last year, one irresponsible television channel put out the news that the PMO and the Intelligence Bureau etc were holding a meeting on the market behaviour. Most newspapers swallowed this and wrote about it. Turned out such a meeting never happened. Bad and irresponsible journalism and worthy of condemnation. It was an incident that should have journalists and their bosses introspecting on the way they work.
But what did Baru do? He shot of a letter to editors hectoring them on what happened and asking them to take action against the journalists concerned and - hold your breath - report back to the PMO on the action taken!
Well, going by that, this letter is very, very mild!

Dr. Sanjaya Baru D.O. No. 970/MA/G/2006
Media Advisor to PM PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Tel 23016920 New Delhi - 110 011
August 24,2006
Dear Editor,

I am sure it must have come to your attention that we have once again had a couple of unfortunate incidents in the recent past at the Prime Minister's House involving the media.
I am writing this letter to you to seek your cooperation in a matter that I, as a media professional myself, feel we should revolve in the best interests of both the media and the Prime Minister.
You will agree with me that the Prime Minister has several meetings which do not necessarily yield a news story for the media. Whenever there is a meeting or an event of interest to the media, my office and the PIB normally ensure that the media is kept informed.
It is as much in our interests as it is in yours to secure media coverage for Prime Minister's programmes. Hence, you will appreciate that on occasions when the media is informed that there will be no statement from the Prime Minister's Office with respect to any meeting that the Prime Minister may have, it would be inappropriate for journalists to protest/sit in dharna and demand a statement or a byte for TV.
I, therefore, request you to tell your colleague who has been assigned to cover the Prime Minister's Office that it would not be regarded as good professional conduct to stage demonstrations in pursuit of news either at Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or at Prime Minister's House (PMH).
May I also request you to draw the attention of your colleagues to the imperatives of security at PMO and PMH and the need to be courteous in their behaviour with officials and staff to Special Protection Group and Delhi Police. The security personnel are only doing their job just as our media colleagues are also doing their job.
I have issued instructions that henceforth only PIB accredited media personnel will be permitted access to the media stand at PMO and PMH.
I request you to ensure that your reporting and audio-visual staff covering PMO and PMH have PIB accreditation.
I would like your advice on what action you feel, as an editor and senior colleague, we should take when journalists misbehave and use foul language when dealing with PMO/PIB staff and security officials.
Do you think it is fair to seek their transfer out of the PMO beat or withdraw their accreditation? Or, would you prefer that I merely report such instances to the editor concerned in the hope that the organization to which the journalist belongs, will take necessary disciplinary action. I will be grateful to you for your considered opinion.
Finally, let me add that I am fully aware of the physical stress reporters and cameramen undergo while waiting for a briefing outside PMO/PMH.
I have tried to improve facilities, especially at RCR. We are in the process of securing sanction for a media room at RCR that will provide some basic amenities and facilities.
I hope you will appreciate my concerns in writing this letter to you.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Sanjaya Baru)

28 August 2006
To
All correspondents covering PM Beat
Dear Sir/Madam,

As is the practice for coverages in all Ministries, the Prime Minister's Office has decided that henceforth media persons with PIB accreditation alone be permitted to cover the programmes of the Prime Minister both at South Block and at 7 Race Course Road. This also includes the media stand within the precincts of 7 Race Course Road and the Car Park area at the South Block. This will be in force with effect from 1st September, 2006.
2. You may like to bring this to the notice of all concerned persons in your organization.
3. Further communication regarding enhancement of accreditation quota will follow separately.

Y.S.R. Murthy, DPR[PM]
PIB, 1st floor, A wing, Shastri Bhawan
Tel. 23381211; 9868111273
2338 4768; 9873079681 [Dhiraj, IO-PM mobilie]; 2338 3203 [fax]

Jal Khambata replies to this email on 28 August

Please be advised that this attempt to gag the Media would not get better publicity to the PM. The media persons gather at the two places not only for official version but also to catch those coming to meet PM for their comments.
Your media alert and the letter of the PM's Media Advisor to editors last week smacks of the Emergency days when we were allowed to publish nothing except what is officially cleared by the Censor. 2006 is, however, not 1976.
what a poor attempt to get positive publicity to PM by allowing only accredited journalists and that too only outside PMO and PMH and not inside PMO and threatening to cancel their accreditation if they do not sing the official tunes. Accreditations are sought for entry into ministries for coverage and not for coverage from outside and hence,may I please point out that it is wrong to say that it is the practice for coverages in all ministries that you now want to introduce in PMO.
As a seasoned PR executive, you may please like to advise the PMO, and rightly so, to desist from this kind of gag orders.

With thanks and regards,
Jal Khambata

Y.S.R Murthy replies on 28 August 2006, by email:
Dear Jal Khambata,

I am sorry that you have not understood it in the correct perspective. For entry into any Govt. building you require security cleared PIB accrediation card.
Media freedom does not entitle one to sit on a dharna at high security places and obstruct passage of Ministers etc, as happened twice in the recent past. I do not share some of the sentiments expressed by you.
We can discuss it over in person. If you happen to pass by Shastri Bhavan, it will be a pleasure to meet with you and clarify a few aspects.

best,

To which Jal replies:
Dear Mr Murthy:

Journalists will always remain watchdogs irrespective of howsoever you try to banish inconvenient ones. They will certainly block ministers and officials to extract information. Would you suggest that the kind of restrictions Dr Sanjaya Baru is trying to slap tally with the Right to Information? If I am not wrong, almost all journalists involved in the two incidents you refer to were the security-cleared accredited PIB card holders. Threat to cancel accreditations of inconvenient journalists or ask editors to remove them from the PM's beat will only boomrang.
Today, journalists in a chorus protested to Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhavi at the AICC Press briefing about Dr Baru's letter. Here is also a statement by Delhi Union of Journalists for your ready reference. I believe Editors' Guild and other professional bodies may also follow suit.

With thanks and regards,
Jal

And on 31 August 2006 this is what happens (Jal files a story):
JOURNALISTS THROWN OUT OF PM'S HOUSE
From Our Delhi Bureau
NEW DELHI: Journalists turning up at the Prime Minister's House Thursday evening on official invitation to attend a book release by Dr Manmohan Singh had the first taste of the new game rules for the PM's coverage set by his media advisor Dr Sanjaya Baru.
They were thrown out, though with due courtesy, by the security personnel as soon as the function was over, not allowed to even have tea and snacks served to guests after the function.
Every such occasion gives an opportunity to journos to have a chat with the Prime Minister but the security personnel firmly and yet politely told them that they cannot go anywhere near him. The function over, you have no reason to remain on the premises,a senior officerof the Special Protection Group (SPG) that provides security to the PM affirmed, pointing out that the security had orders to banish all journalists from the PM's House immediately.
The gathered guest at Panchvati hall in the PM's House for the release of noted constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman's book titled "India's Legal System : Can it be Saved?" looked askance as the SPG personnel cordoned off the Media persons and drew them out of the gate.
Dr Sanjaya Baru looked at from a distance just as some journalists pleaded with security men that they had come on invite and not barged in the premises to be dealt in such a manner.
They,however, quietly left without picking up any fight as if sobered by Dr Sanjaya Baru's threat to cancel their PIB (Press Information Bureau) accreditation and get inconvenient correspondents removed from the PM's beat.
Two, three journalists, however, did protest at the security personnel, showing all courtesy in pushing them out, that they always get opportunity to approach the Prime Minister and ask some questions after such functions. You are doing your duty but let us also allow us to do our duty, they pleaded but in vain. "Sorry, you cannot meet him.You cannot even stay here any longer," a senior officer responded.

Profiling and labelling

It was heartening to see, on this Sunday, columnists in various newspapers - Vir Sanghvi in Hindustan Times, Gautam Adhikari and R Jagannathan in DNA rubbish the hysteria over `racial profiling' in the west in the wake of 12 Indians sparking off panic on the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Bombay.

Jaggi very rightly pointed out that the whole problem arose because of the boorish behaviour of Indians, something all of us are familiar with. There are many who will argue that all they were doing is stretching themselves out, switching seats, exchanging new cellphones they had bought etc. so what's the big deal?

The big deal was that they refused to listen to warnings by the flight staff. It's something all of us are familiar with. But what is normal in India is not normal in other parts of the world and certainly not in an atmosphere of heightened and perfectly justified nervousness.

Gautam pulled no punches when he called the Indian reaction to the Dutch action "infantile". Vir Sanghvi felt the action was racist but very rightly lambasted Indian double standards, reminding us about how at one time every Sikh was seen as a potential terrorist. Remember how for many years there was no Sikh in the Prime Minister's security after Indira Gandhi's assassination? He also points to how innocent Muslims are harassed in a similar fashion now.

But I don't recollect the whole of India getting into such a lather about the Sikhs as it does about Muslims. This racial profiling noise is something that the media in India and self-proclaimed liberal Indians (mostly leftists, actually) indulge in every time Muslim homes are raided and Muslim youth rounded up after a terrorist attack. It's always called a knee jerk reaction. The minute any Muslim is arrested, there are interviews with neighbours and family members saying the person is innocent, he used to mind his own business, he was such a nice person, we can't believe he is a terrorist, this is a frame up etc etc. It's almost as if the media is trying to drum up sympathy for him. For heaven's sake, if I get arrested for a crime, my family is hardly likely to say I am guilty and that they always knew I was up to no good!

It's interesting that this debate should be happening during the week after I saw Rang De Basanti on television. One aspect of the film left me feeling very disturbed and depressed and I was planning to write about it as a sequel to my previous post on Putting a Name to Terror.

In the film, when the college students are partying in a monument, the political goons who come and disrupt the party, saying `band karo ye nanga naach' and ranting about `videshi parampara' have saffron scarves around their necks and huge tilaks on their foreheads, clearly marking them out to be Hindu extremists. And obviously the party they belong to is the one in power and is responsible for the corruption in defence purchases! The activist who first disrupts the party and then becomes friends with the college gang is beaten up by his party colleagues for trying to expose the government on the MiG issue. The imagery is very clear. It is the Hindutva spewing politicians who are unreasonable and steeped in bigotry and responsible for corruption as well.

Why did it offend me, even though I have utter distaste for the Vinay Katiyars, Bal Thackerays and their like? Because it is not just those kinds who rage against `nanga naach' and `videshi parampara'. Don't Muslim extremist organizations do the same? Don't the left parties keep raving and ranting about consumerist culture and western lifestyles? What was the need to identify the ideology of the political party activists? This film was just about aimless youth. Why bring in the religious fundamentalism angle into it? And then labour the point that such chauvinism is the hallmark of the Hindutva types?

I had felt a similar sense of outrage when I had seen Mahesh Bhatt's Zakhm several years back. That was about illegitimacy and it so happened that the hero's mother was Muslim and father Hindu. So, Mahesh Bhatt being among the self-proclaimed liberals, it had to be about secularism. And how was this to be depicted?

Go check out the picture again, if you've forgotten it. All the good characters are Muslim, Christian and Sikh. The Hindu characters belong to a Shiv Sena kind of organization and are rabid fundamentalists who cause riots. The hero's brother who joins them is, therefore, a wayward youth who is brainwashed by them. The hero is not brainwashed by them and is, therefore, the hero.

My question is simple: aren't there fanatics in other religions who do the same amount of harm as the Shiv Senas and Bajrang Dals do? How come they are never caricatured like this? If there is ever any hint of caricature, our pseudo-liberals are quick to jump to their defence and immediately blame the saffron brigade for vitiating the atmosphere.

Really, when are these double standards going to end? How long are we to treat fanaticism by Islamic groups with kids' gloves and even try to rationalize it even as we keep condemning Hindu fanaticism? Fanaticism has no colour. It is fanaticism and has to be condemned whether it is green, saffron or red (yes, communists are also fanatics).

And for what I've written, I'm going to be ideologically profiled - as a Hindutva type!

Putting a name to terror

American President George Bush's latest gaffe has everyone - liberals and leftists - in a tizzy. When commenting on the terror plot to blow up ten planes bound for the United States from the United Kingdom, he warned about the dangers of "Islamic fascism". The short point everyone is making is this: how can he brand the entire community and entire religion ideology like this?

It's not the first time such labeling has been done - Islamic terrorists is a common enough phrase in the West and India (and that's why I suspect a lot of the objection to Bush's words is because Bush said them) - and invited similar reaction.

That is not to say the point is irrelevant, but why does it apply only to Islam? Every terrorist movement comes to be known by the cause it espouses. The terrorists fighting for a separate Sikh homeland of Khalistan were known as Sikh terrorists. LTTE cadres are referred to as Tamil terrorists (not Eelam terrorists, though Eelam is the name of the Tamil homeland they are fighting for). The IRA is an Irish terrorist outfit. The insurgents in the north east are known variously as Naga, Mizo, Manipur rebels. Separatist militants in Kashmir are known as Kashmiri terrorists. So terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam, who say they are staging a jihad, come to be known as Islamic terrorists. Why should it be seen as anything more than that?

The counterpoint put forward to this is that the terrorists are misinterpreting Islam and misusing it for their own ends. Sure they are. No one seriously believes that any religion advocates or even condones the kind of violence we are seeing now. A majority of the Sikhs had little sympathy for the Khalistan movement or the terrorists. I don't know too much about the popular support for the other militant movements but am confident that ordinary people who may be sympathetic to the cause would not approve of the violent means adopted by those fighting for the cause. How come the other labels never invited this kind censure? Come to think of it, why is Hindu fanaticism an acceptable term, but not Islamic fascism?

Time to stop obsessing with China and FDI

MIT professor says potential for disruption of reforms is high

Seetha

New Delhi

http://digital.dnaindia.com/

Is China vulnerable to an East Asian kind of crisis? It could, given the combination of high financial inefficiency and declining productivity. That was the combination in East Asia, right before the financial crisis, says Yasheng Huang, professor at the MITs Sloan Institute of Management.

Huang, who co-authored the definitive paper "Can India overtake China" along with Harvard Business Schools Tarun Khanna, was in India to deliver lectures on "Policy framework and development strategies: India and China" organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry.

Improvement in Chinas financial sector has been very modest compared with the Indian reforms in the 1990s. "The potential for disruption is and remains high. Though whether or not there will be an actual crisis will depend on other things we cant foresee," he warned, speaking to DNA Money.

Huang, who has been a trenchant critic of the development model followed by China in the 1990s, had one message for India: dont be obsessed with China or foreign direct investment (FDI). Ascribing Chinas success to its world-class infrastructure or its huge FDI inflows is an incorrect, misleading and harmful way of understanding the Chinese phenomenon, was Huangs simple point. "India is achieving 8% growth with 50% of Chinas investments and 10% of its FDI. To me this is a picture of more sustainable growth.

Chinas FDI inflows, Huang argues, reflect the systemic weaknesses in the economy. The financial system heavily supported the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and actively discriminated against domestic private sector firms, which, then had no choice but to turn to foreign investors for equity capital.

A vibrant domestic private sector, Huang argues, can pull in high quality, technologically intensive FDI. Suppressing it, he warns, will bring in only low quality FDI, as it is in China. Huang questions the popular notion in India that FDI is needed to bring in technology. Korean firms, he points out, obtained technology by getting technical designs and information from the companies they supplied to, as also by exporting capital and acquiring firms in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Much of Indian investments abroad too, he notes, are for acquiring technology, mentioning Ranbaxy as just one example.

Provinces like Zhejiang following an Indian growth model tend to get more technologically intensive FDI. They may have poor infrastructure but fairly liberal financial policies that support the domestic private sector. Zhejiang is home to a lot of the Indian IT firms. "India has the best of both worlds because it can get FDI as well as the benefits of domestic private sector growth."

Nor has Chinas growth to do with its huge infrastructure build up. The huge investments happened in the 1990s, his presentation showed, while the growth preceded it. China, in fact, may have over-invested in infrastructure, since the actual usage of expressways and some other hard infrastructure is very low. Not for him arguments that usage volumes will increase ten years down the line. "

Why? The volume is a function of growth and the growth is a function of education, health." Putting huge amounts of capital in physical infrastructure, will pull away resources from the health and education systems, which are equally, if not more, important for growth. Most business analysts underestimated India because they only looked at the lack of airports and hotels, he rued, ignoring its soft infrastructure. "Economic growth is a function of soft infrastructure, property rights and a relatively efficient financial system."

Though China is on a course correction of sorts, this, says Huang, is yet to show up in increased domestic consumption, another factor that economists like Morgan Stanleys Stephen Roach have identified as a factor behind Indias more sustainable growth. The government has started waiving rural education fees, reducing rural taxation. All this, Huang believes, will increase the consumption to GDP ratio over time.

Though attempts are being made to address the problem of lack of local entrepreneurship (which Huang and Khanna had identified as a major weakness in the Chinese growth model), Huang isnt sure the government is going about it in the right way.

"They think the lack of innovation is because of too much FDI. Its not because you have very liberal FDI policy. It is because you have very illiberal domestic investment policies." The government is beginning to look into the domestic business environment but not as drastically as Huang thinks they should.

India must invest in basic education'

Yasheng Huang says in the long run, the Indian growth story is far more sustainable than China's

http://digital.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?queryed=20&eddate=7/30/2006

India's economic growth has prompted many to suggest that it will eventually compete with the other Asian economic giant, China. The numbers of course tell another story. On most counts, foreign investment, infrastructure and sheer economic strength, China is way ahead. Yet, there are sceptics about China. One of them is Yasheng Huang, MIT Sloan Institute of Management professor, whose paper, Can India Overtake China, co-authored with Tarun Khanna, has become a must read on the India-China race. He thinks India's economic model has several positive aspects that Indians themselves tend to dismiss. In an interview, Huang tells Seetha where he thinks China has gone wrong and why India is a better bet.

The Indian development model is seen as more sustainable than the Chinese one. But India is now pursuing the Chinese pattern of export-led, FDI-driven growth.

Indians are enamoured of China when the Chinese themselves increasingly recognise the shortcomings of their development model. I am not criticising the Chinese model as a whole. I am criticising the 1990s model, which is more investment driven. The current central leadership is more concerned about the aftermath of the huge investment programmes, about social issues, of the crowding out effect of FDI. They are increasing investments in agriculture and rural areas. But they cannot change policies drastically, because a lot of them have strong local support base. Besides, it will take some time for the changes to filter through the system.

You have argued that it is not FDI that propels growth but growth that pulls in FDI.

Over the last decade in India, FDI increased but only very moderately, but the growth pick-up was substantial. It's incorrect to say that China's economic miracle was created by FDI. It was created in the 1980s by rural entrepreneurs and economic liberalisation. Worldwide, FDI has played a relatively insignificant role in economic development. Why do we expect large countries like China and India, with huge entrepreneurial bases and domestic markets, to depend so heavily on FDI as a way to grow? I'm not against FDI; I'm FDI neutral. I am also not for protectionism. But the obsession with FDI in China has created huge distortions in the economy, with foreign investors being favoured and domestic ones being discriminated against.

The conmon argument is that FDI provides technology. That is just patently not true. In China we are talking about FDI in textile factories, shoe factories, garment factories. India has the best of both worlds. It can get FDI as well as the benefits of domestic private sector growth. This is what makes the Indian growth story superior and far more sustainable.

You argue that China's infrastructure hasn't been responsible for its growth. But can a country grow if it has an infrastructure deficit?

I didn't say infrastructure is not important for growth. My point is that poor countries struggle without infrastructure and they do something else right that promoted growth. Once you have the growth, you have the resources to invest in infrastructure. A lot of the Indian obsession with China is with Shanghai, with high rises and skyscrapers. That is wrong. I distinguish between business necessary infrastructure like power and roads and business unnecessary infrastructure, like government buildings. Much of the perception of China in India is shaped by business unnecessary infrastructure.

You identify China's lack of democracy as a weakness. But India's democratic advantage is seen as being overestimated.

High quality democracy should not slow down decision-making excessively. If there are problems with political interest groups in the Indian system, the first thing to look at is the quality of democracy. I think democracy is used in India very often as an excuse for not getting things done. It could be a reflection of poor leadership. In a democracy you need leadership, management. Rather than saying it is the problem of democracy, let's ask: do we have the necessary leadership?

Indians lament that our politicians have only a five year vision, while China's policy makers have a longer term vision.

What if that long-term vision is wrong? There is no free lunch. In a democracy, just as in a one party system, you come with certain liabilities. But they are of different kinds. Indians must make up their minds about what kind of liabilities they like and don't like. Land seizures, corruption are big problems in China. And it's all because China doesn't have democracy.

Wage costs in are rising faster in China than in India while productivity is rising slower. Could that be another reason why India will overtake China?

That's a big factor. Whether India is actually going to overtake China or not depends on what China is going to do. They need to reform their financial system, their legal system.

And what does India need to do?

For India to transform itself from a poor struggling developing country into a middle income prosperous one, it needs to have broad success in the manufacturing industry - labour-intensive low-end industries. For that, it has to invest massively in basic education. It should do everything possible not to divert resources that would have gone to the social sector. Indians are so creative, they can think of clever ways of managing this trade-off between physical and social infrastructure. We should never lose sight of the fact that basic education should take priority over all these things.