tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post8379546327534323763..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: The Insufficiency of Economic GrowthAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-91394009874935623892007-11-10T22:21:00.000+05:302007-11-10T22:21:00.000+05:30Khilnani seems to be living in the 60s. The primac...Khilnani seems to be living in the 60s. The primacy of politics is in fact proving to be the shackle which is making governance virtually impossible. The Prime Minister himself has questioned whether the multi-party model that we have adopted is capable of providing the unity of purpose needed by the nation.<BR/><BR/>Politically and administratively, the country is worse than the 'functioning anarchy' it has often been called.Morality is not even a factor any more as politicians of all parties willingly rip apart every single norm of civilized behavior in their unbridled greed and lust for perverse, personal political power.<BR/><BR/>The failure is multi-dimensional and there is need for a drastic change in the political system which has failed to deliver.<BR/><BR/>I have written at some length in a number of posts which can be found by those interested in pursuing the subject here: www.vinodksharma.blogspot.comVinod_Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14654167848186778789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-46257734115234788602007-11-09T11:09:00.000+05:302007-11-09T11:09:00.000+05:30This is a rambling piece with the author meanderin...This is a rambling piece with the author meandering across an array of topics without a sustained focus on any of them. His suggestions such as not focusing on growth to the exclusion of social inequities and the pursuit of sound environmental and other policies even at the expense of big-power ambition are reasonable. He predicts internal and international tensions to increase in the future and advocates keeping a certain distance from the US. These notions have been propounded by others before as well. However, his idea of a foreign policy as a ‘bridge’ between the rich and poor, the US and China, is fuzzy at best. Acting as a bridge is not merely a matter of one’s choice as he seems to think. It is often driven by an assessment of where the nation stands with respect to others based on the state of its interdependencies and interests – Britain, for example, sees itself as a bridge between the EU and the US because of its unique associations with both and extensive interests with each of them. Does India stand on a similar footing vis-à-vis the US and China? Moreover, the British role as a bridge does not appear to have been particularly influential in recent times either in Iraq or in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In this light, is being a bridge a superior alternative to being a major power in one’s own right (caveat: the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive)?Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.com