Agreed Ganesan. The easy part for is over socially, economically and politically. The mountain from here is very steep and tough. We got to the base camp - now begins the steep mountain climb. Though I am not sure we have the capacities and capabilities to do this climb. Of course I keep hoping I am wrong but then think may be we have achieved the level of mediocrity we can and should stay satisfied with it and now focus on transforming the extremely poor human development indices we have - rather than superpower and what not. 

 "n general, attempts to reduce the extreme economic inequalities may increase trust in government and make it easier to persuade most people to make short-run sacrifices for the long-run benefits of all"

Why should any step be taken to reduce economic inequalities-extreme or otherwise? Who is to determine what is moderate?

As for short run sacrifices to long term benefits, that is the line used by all totalitarian govts-starting with Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao. It is a cliche which sounds great to hear but utterly meaningless when it comes to implementation.

 As for India, we need to discard the parliamentary system and go for the Presidential style-with suitable modifications. The topic is huge to be discussed here but modifications to be adopted have been listed by many thoughful people. Parliamentary system will not work for diverse country like India. 

 "In the US, also, political parties find gridlock for the cause of narrow ideological and special interests preferable to compromise for the long run, legislative filibusters, and other devices of checks and balances form a chokehold on major policy decisions. "

The US system is built with the express idea of creating gridlocks. Just read the Federalist papers.

Inability to compromise has led to dysfunctional democracies in both the U.S. and India. The opposition parties block legislation that they themselves advocated when they were in power.

Prof. Bardhan rightly suggests that it is high time "both democracies pay some attention to devising new institutional mechanisms for insulating long-term decision-taking from the wheeling-dealing of everyday politics. ... India could modify through various commitment devices the power of coalition partners in central government to threaten constant support withdrawal if their view is not fully accommodated."

Inability to compromise has led to dysfunctional democracies in both the U.S. and India. The opposition parties block legislation that they themselves advocated when they were in power.

Prof. Bardhan rightly suggests that it is high time "both democracies pay some attention to devising new institutional mechanisms for insulating long-term decision-taking from the wheeling-dealing of everyday politics. ... India could modify through various commitment devices the power of coalition partners in central government to threaten constant support withdrawal if their view is not fully accommodated."

 "In the US, also, political parties find gridlock for the cause of narrow ideological and special interests preferable to compromise for the long run, legislative filibusters, and other devices of checks and balances form a chokehold on major policy decisions. "

The US system is built with the express idea of creating gridlocks. Just read the Federalist papers.

 As for India, we need to discard the parliamentary system and go for the Presidential style-with suitable modifications. The topic is huge to be discussed here but modifications to be adopted have been listed by many thoughful people. Parliamentary system will not work for diverse country like India. 

 "n general, attempts to reduce the extreme economic inequalities may increase trust in government and make it easier to persuade most people to make short-run sacrifices for the long-run benefits of all"

Why should any step be taken to reduce economic inequalities-extreme or otherwise? Who is to determine what is moderate?

As for short run sacrifices to long term benefits, that is the line used by all totalitarian govts-starting with Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao. It is a cliche which sounds great to hear but utterly meaningless when it comes to implementation.

Agreed Ganesan. The easy part for is over socially, economically and politically. The mountain from here is very steep and tough. We got to the base camp - now begins the steep mountain climb. Though I am not sure we have the capacities and capabilities to do this climb. Of course I keep hoping I am wrong but then think may be we have achieved the level of mediocrity we can and should stay satisfied with it and now focus on transforming the extremely poor human development indices we have - rather than superpower and what not.