Because
many Muslims are from lower Hindu castes and BJP or the upper Hindu
castes (no matter what the party) have never seen them as equals or even
as heterogeneous and competitive, conflicted as themselves.
Secular is a bad phrase in the Indian context. Most people who think of themselves as secular also consider themselves deeply attached to the religious practices of their particular castes.
Muslims from formerly upper caste backgrounds also consider themselves non-communal, even secular. Same muddled thinking.
I don't mind muddled thinking. Principle are signs of weak minds. I also consider a common human weakness to think of "Us v. Them", one requirement of which is stereotyping "them" and considering "them" to be all the same, a united enemy, incapable of human weaknesses and conflicts. All that serves to call upon "us" to be united, creating a stereotype of "us", requiring ideological purity of "all of us".
One evening I walk down to the hotel bar to eat something. The air condition seems to have freaked out. It is so cold in the bar that I do not know whether I should stay or not.
I walk around in the bar for a couple of minutes, trying to find a table where the cold air is not too disturbing. Suddenly I discover that a woman sitting at another table are following my efforts with an intrigued and somewhat amused look in her eyes. I notice that she wears the same badge as I do. Without it you will get nowhere at the World Economic Forum in Cape Town.
Finally I find a table and sit down. The woman at the other table asks me if the oasis that I have found is “warm enough”.
We start to talk. After a while we move our two separate tables and make them into one. When we break up from each other’s company an hour later, I think that this has been one of those surprising and rewarding meetings you have in life.
Her name is Rahel Kassahun, she’s from Ethiopia, got a PhD in economics from the University of California. Before she left the US, moved back to Ethiopia and started Africa Unbound Inc, she worked for the World Bank.
– I did not want to make only a career in general, she says. I wanted to do something more with my life. So I went back home and founded this organization.
I cannot say how old she is. Sometimes I think she is 25, as often I think she is over 40.
But that is not important. What is striking is that she belongs to a new generation of young African entrepreneurs. With intelligence, knowledge and an inviolable belief that everything is possible on the African continent. She has no gloomy premonition that she will fail. Nor does she say a word about international aid as a precondition for her business.
Her curious questions are remarkable. She has no polite attitude. She really wants to know what I think about different topics. I find myself thinking: How often in mass media do we get a chance to meet an African intellectual who can discuss the continent’s problems and possibilities with insight and sharpness. And who also has important things to say about Europe and the rest of the world.
Rahel Kassahun is about to build an organization that will help young people on the African continent to fulfill their creativity and their ideas in different ways. She started in Ethiopia in 2008. Already her organization has set up offices in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Uganda.
For her this is only the beginning. Her enthusiasm is palpable and genuine. Africa is an old continent with a young population. They are the future. Their creativity will decisive. And it is them that she wants to help.
But she is realistic. When I ask her a decisive question she does not hesitate to answer.
– If you walked out of here and were run over by a car and died, I ask. Would your organization survive?
– No, she answers. Not yet. If I died today it would disappear. But in a couple of years I will have created the stability that my organization needs.
She goes to her room to collect a scarf. The chill in the bar spreads. When she comes back it strikes me that she is very beautiful. And dressed with great personal integrity. But most important is that she is so willing to discuss. What do I think about her ideas? Is there something I think she should do? And I can ask her questions. Her answers are well informed and sometimes, unexpected.
Around 11 pm we head for the elevator where we split up. I think to myself that Rahel is an example of a new Africa, which is growing at a tremendous speed.
– Nothing is too late. Everything is still possible, she says.
The day after we see each other at the congress. I am on my way to listen to a discussion about the development of telecommunications in Africa. We exchange a few words. Rahel has just listened to an African president who has talked about Africa’s future. I can see that she was not pleased with what she heard. Then she heads off in another direction.
I think: One of Africa’s greatest challenges is to empower the women.
Rahel Kassahun has not waited. She has empowered herself.
Economists who have no sense of engineering and systems are pitiable. They end up doing econometrics, which I think is the first refuge of intellectual scoundrels.
Today I found a delightful review piece by Nick Stern in JEL September 2013 issue.
His abstract says, "A new generation of models is needed in all three of climate science, impact and economics with a still stronger focus on lives and livelihoods, including the risks of large-scale migration and conflicts."
Yes, but the uncertainty about the quality of models and the risk of getting wrong policy prescriptions are high. :-)
In the Introduction to his book "The Global Deal", he goes on to admit that he uses "risk" and "uncertainty" interchangeably, which to me is an unpardonable confusion.
Anyway, here he says,
"Where do we go from here? Essentially we need a new generation of models in all three of climate science, impact and economics. I think the scientists are moving purposefully in that direction and that some of this will be reflected in the forthcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. I am less convinced that one sees this within economics. We have to embrace many models, each with its own insights. They should be capable of speaking greater judgment in using the models. As the late Frank Hahn used to say, “a model is just a sentence in an argument.” We need more and better sentences that embody more of the risks that are at the heart of the problem. And, in exercising the judgment necessary in putting the sentences together, one should remember Amartya Sen’s remark, “it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.” In particular, it is time for our profession to think much more carefully about processes of damage and destruction. We have considered theories of growth and have produced valuable insights. We should combine these insights with an examination and modeling of ways in which disruption and decline can occur."
I agree completely. I also remember Bob Solow's caution: "We economists are quite good at finding juicy plums in the puddings we have baked, especially the plums we have put in ourselves." (I remember this from a Finance and Development issue some 15 years ago, but couldn't find it online. I did find this, though: "The idea of endogenous growth so captures the imagination that growth theorists often just insert favorable assumptions in an unearned way; and then when they put in their thumb and pull out the very plum they have inserted, there is a tendency to think that something has been proved." (A JEP 1994 article "Perspectives on growth theory" available at http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/ECON2102/2007/REFERENCES/SolowJEP94.pdf)
Stern is a master chef of baking plum puddings with most surprises.
Stern concludes:
"We know that models leave out much that is important—that is what makes them models. But we must also assess how they may mislead. Many scientists are telling us that our models are, grossly, underestimating the risks. In these circumstances, it is irresponsible to act as if the economic models currently dominating policy analysis represent a sensible central case. Put simply, the “consensus” of the IAMs is in the wrong place, from the point of view of the science, the economics, and the ethics.
Presenting the problem as risk-management is likely to point strongly towards a policy for a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy. As in past waves of technical change this could involve a few decades of discovery, innovation, investment, and growth. Further, we shall probably find, if we manage the transition well, that such growth can be cleaner, quieter, safer, more energy-secure and more bio-diverse. But that is another story."
Or another dream. Depends on who pays the production costs of the fantasy.
He says now,
"Economic modelers should abandon the assumption of damages being focused on current output and should incorporate lasting damage in the models. They should embrace a real possibility of creating an environment so hostile that physical, social, and organizational capital are destroyed, production processes are radically disrupted, future generations will be much poorer and hundreds of millions will have to move."
Please, sir, have you no humility? Do you not realize that all economic forecasts marketed around have some basic assumptions about population (no mass migration), radical disruption of production and transport, destruction of social and organizational capital (including, say, loss of computers and inability to organize conferences and publish nonsense)?
But I suppose Stern is a good marketer. This is just advance marketing for his next book. And for new economic models that people who know will dismiss but people who don't and can't know will lap up with the thirst of a rabid dog? (I know the contradiction, but with Stern, why bother?)
I remember Solow again - his 1974 (AEA Presidential lecture, I think) piece - "The economics of resources, and the resources of economics." He or Apurva Sanghi should now do a paper: "The economics of poverty, and the poverty of economics."
