Some things to Reconsider

Couple of years ago, was have a discussion with Andhbhakt, who firmly believed that Prime Minister Modi was correcting the ills of the past, my position was vehemently opposite. During the argument, my question to this friend was, “what’s the difference between planning commission and NITI aayog.” This was rhetorical question because none of us had a clue, but the response was interesting. “This kind of hair splitting is for JNU kind of debates, not for working mortals like us.” In other words which is the standard belief among the community “Modi ji ne kiya hoga to soch samajh ke he keya hoga.” But I came to see, thanks largely to Eram Agha’s Caravan article and other public sources, that the differences are deep, structural, and troubling. The Planning Commission was born in 1950, just after the Constitution came into effect. It was the product of a consensus among leaders across party lines. President Rajendra Prasad spoke of raising living standards through structured planning...

For years, Indian economists droned the same refrain — too much revenue expenditure, not enough capital expenditure. The government, they said, must stop spending on salaries and start building roads. It’s the fiscal equivalent of being told to eat more protein and less dessert. Under Narendra Modi, the state has gone on a construction binge worthy of the Mughal emperors — ₹54 trillion poured into capital expenditure in just eleven years. In the last three alone, we’ve spent over ₹11 trillion annually. Roads, railways, defence, water projects — you name it. The bulldozers haven’t rested since. So, naturally, one would expect an economic dawn — faster movement of goods, lower logistics costs, more jobs, happier people. A Keynesian dream, in other words: the government spends, demand rises, and the private sector jumps in, inspired and eager. Only, it hasn’t. The animal spirit is not just asleep; it seems comatose. Private capital expenditure — the ultimate litmus test of investo...

 Donald Trump is back doing what he does best — throwing tantrums in prime time and calling it policy. His latest target? India. From parading deported Indian immigrants in chains — yes, actual chains, mid-flight — to snatching credit for ending Operation Sindoor, Trump’s message is simple: “I’m the boss of Vishwaguru.” He’s slapped tariffs on Indian goods, frowned upon Russian oil imports, and hiked H1B visa fees — a direct jab at the Indian tech class. And New Delhi’s response? Silence . The kind that pretends to be strength but smells suspiciously like fear. Spin doctors call it strategic restraint . The rest of us call it waiting for Trump’s next mood swing. When Trump wished Modi on his 75th birthday or extended his velvet glove , BJP’s online cheerleaders pounced on it like a Bollywood twist — “See! Friendship restored!” — until, of course, Trump’s next tweet arrived with his usual thunder. As the American columnist Ashley Tellis politely put it, India’s “extreme discipl...

R. Jagannathan in his article titled “Wooing billionaires & HNIs” published in Business Standard recently wrote that India needs “patient capital” or a booming plea for Indians and Indian Diaspora to invest in India. He asked, why do our wealthy continue to pack their Louis Vuitton luggage and say tata-bye-bye to Mother India? The answer isn’t rocket science. All it takes is a little honesty, a little introspection, and a little less finger-pointing. Take the case of Salman Khan. Eternal bachelor, permanent controversy machine. In January 2014, just before elections, there he was — flying kites with Narendra Modi in Ahmedabad. Salman smiled, called Modi a “good man,” but stopped short of endorsement. Clever man. At that time, his hit-and-run case was hanging like a noose. In 2015, BJP in power, a sessions court gave him five years in jail. By the end of that year, Bombay High Court acquitted him. Coincidence? God’s grace? Call it what you will. But Salman never converted into a...