Retributions  

Bush dumb

Indian political parties, who find it well nigh impossible to have a conversation on issues of national importance have finally agreed on something. Across the spectrum, politicians have criticized U.S president George Bush for his purported remarks ”blaming” India and China for rising global prices. The criticism would have been entirely valid if Bush had actually said what the misleading and plainly sensationalizing headline in The Times of India suggests he did. Here’s what Bush actually said. (The excerpts have been taken quite deliberately from TOI it self)

“Worldwide there is increasing demand. There turns out to be prosperity in developing world, which is good. It’s going to be good for you because you’ll be selling products in the countries, you know, big countries perhaps, and it’s hard to sell products into countries that aren’t prosperous. In other words, the more prosperous the world is, the more opportunity there is,” the US President said. 

“It also, however, increases demand. So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That’s bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. 

“And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up,” he said.[link]

Does that quote justify Times of India’s screaming headline? In fact, he quite clearly states that rising prosperity in India and China would be beneficial to the global economy in the long term. He makes the obvious point that as people have more resources, the spending on food would increase. (At least initially.) Now where in his statement has he called for rolling back food consumption in India–even Bush is unlikely to make an error of judgment of that magnitude. 

Disagreements exist on whether it is merely rising consumption in India and China which is responsible for global food shortage or even if it is one of the factors (as Bush suggests). There is a huge difference in discussing factors responsible for a particular incident and actually blaming someone for it. The latter implies that the person responsible could have actually done something to avoid the incident. Reading Bush’s speech in its entirety, by no stretch of imagination, one can justify TOI’s headline or the the spin it gives to the story. 

That it wasn’t an inadverent error is clear from another story the Times of India ran a few days back on the United Nations attributing rising food prices to the demands of the growing middle class in India and China.  In fact, Bush’s speech sounds like a recycled version of the U.N statement. Notice the entirely different treatment to essentially similar issues: While Bush was ”blaming” India and China, the U.N was ”raising alarm!” Apparently, a mundane UN agency isn’t sexy enough to be sensationalized. 

The Times of India probably calculated that Indian politicians and policymakers would not even bother reading the speech before racing to express outrage. Unfortunately, the newspaper has been proved exactly right. In a rare show of political unanimity, politicians from Left and Right have criticized Bush for a crime which he did not even commit! Of course, it afforded them an opportunity to advance their own agenda with B.J.P criticizing the government’s failure to control inflation while the Communists blamed ”neo-liberal” agenda forced on the Indian government by the Bush administration! 

Perhaps, Times of India was being–well–Times of India and politicians can hardly be expected to give up an opportunity to offer soundbytes. What however is most interesting is the comment by Manish Tiwari, the articulate Congress spokesperson

India is a not a net food importer. It is a food exporter. The assumption that local prices are increasing because of a changed India is completely erroneous,[link]

The reality isn’t as clear as Mr Tiwari’s suggests: India’s ban on rice exports has certainly played a part in pushing up global prices. However, why should India feel obligated to specify that it is a net exporter of food grains? The Indian government is dutybound to ensure availability of food grains for its own citizens. If that means importing food grains then it need not offer any justification for it. It is its inherent right to do so! The entire edifice of international trade is build on countries leveraging their strengths to concentrate on certain specialities. Unfortunately, a country where agriculture–and not agriculturalists–remains a holy cow and food self-sufficiency a sacrosanct goal bereft of any emphasis on sustainability and economic benefit may frequently undermine its own long-term interest by allowing ideology to undermine pragmatism. 

Update:Gurmeet’s quotes from the likes of Paul Krugman–certainly no friend of George Bush. Prasanna and Gaurav Sabnis offer their takes.