As a career politician Chidambaram can, of course, never be the political lightweight that Manmohan has been. But he comes close. He struggles to hold on to his Lok Sabha constituency in Tamil Nadu. And in the history of that state’s Dravidian dominated politics, he would be happy to rise above the footnotes. His personal manner too is not entirely conducive to building political alliances, especially in north India. This should ensure that even the backroom approach to political dominance won’t exactly be kept ajar for him. He thus meets the essential condition of not challenging the Nehru-Gandhi family.
Chidambaram also did his case no harm by announcing—suitably early in his 2013 Budget speech—his commitment to a view that Rahul Gandhi has been supporting for a while: of growth coming before distribution. And in trying to use the budget to promote growth, he stuck firmly by the conventional wisdom of present day economists, which holds that the first step in economic strategy is to bring the fiscal deficit under control. He has placed a cap on the fiscal deficit for the current year at 5.2 per cent—a level that not many believed could be achieved. And he has gone on to promise a further reduction in that figure to 4.8 per cent in the coming year.
Chidambaram’s budget has also offered sufficient indications about his being open to protecting the political interests of his party. With crucial elections coming up in Karnataka in a couple of months, there are a number of Karnataka-related initiatives thrown in. He not only found it necessary to mention both the Chennai-Bengaluru industrial corridor and the Bengaluru-Mumbai industrial corridor, but also finally addressed the concerns of sericulture farmers in southern Karnataka. These farmers had been reeling under competition from Chinese raw silk, following a substantial cut in duties on imported raw silk. By raising the duty on raw silk from 5 per cent to 15 per cent, he has struck the right political chords.
What Chidambaram would need to watch out for is the gap his budgets seem to develop between the projected numbers and the reality as it unfolds. This budget too hinges on the official belief that the current crisis is necessarily a passing phase prompted by global conditions. He will be hoping there is no repeat of his 1997 experience when what was hailed as a “dream budget” turned into a nightmare.
Former Economic Times editor Narendar Pani is a professor at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore; E-mail your columnist: narendar.pani AT gmail.com
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The 'elephant in the room' is the almost FORTY BILLION DOLLAR ($ 40 bn ), allocated to the welfare of the nations feminists.
No economy can bear the brunt of unjust treatment to the hard working males.
WAKE UP to the injustice, MALES!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT