logo
Meghnad Desai was a man of many passions. Marxian economics, politics to Bollywood

Meghnad Desai was a man of many passions. Marxian economics, politics to Bollywood

The Printa day ago
In 1965, Meghnad joined the LSE as a professor of econometrics. But over time, his interests and his contributions as a professor and as a researcher and writer broadened. His major contribution to improving the LSE was the Development Studies Institute and the Global Governance Centre. He brought me into the centre as a Distinguished Fellow when I retired from the United Nations.
In the first few years of his life in London, we met regularly because his home was where I stayed when I came to London from Liverpool or Southampton, where I worked at the universities. What connected us was not just our shared Leftist political inclinations but much more, including our shared interest in films, novels, and Gujarati food. All of this shows up in the vast variety of Meghnad's actions and achievements in his life.
July is a rather special month in Meghnad Desai's life. He was born on 10 July 1940, he married Kishwar on 20 July 2004, and now he has departed from this world on 29 July 2025. We met 60 years ago when he joined the London School of Economics as a lecturer, and I had just finished my master's degree there. This connection, inspired by our shared surname, was also in July 1965.
He taught and wrote about Marxian economics, development economics and later also on broader issues about the global economy and political economy. He never lost his interest in Marxist thought, and at the beginning of the new millennium and a little more than a decade after the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, he wrote a truly interesting book Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism. I do believe he thought that, despite the rise of capitalist belief in politics, the socialist goals would be restored in political life.
In 1970, he married Gail Wilson, his first wife, who was connected with the Labour Party. Much of his active political focus was with the Labour Party. Though he did become the Party's chairperson and shadow cabinet member, his politics perhaps became less hard Leftist beyond his youth. He was independent-minded in his political statements, and he continued as a relatively independent member of the House of Lords, though he formally separated from the Labour Party only in 2020.
Meghnad retained his interest in Indian politics throughout. Talking about it was a part of our arguments in the post-Nehru years for some time after 1965. In more recent years, his interest and contribution became much more intense. He participated in public events in India connected with politics and policy matters, contributed much through his newspaper columns and was even honoured by the Indian Government in 2008 when he was awarded a Padma Bhushan. In 2014, he set up the Gandhi Statue Memorial Trust to raise resources to build a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square in front of the UK Parliament House.
Also read: Lord Meghnad Desai belonged to no camp—and, somehow, to every camp at once
A good life
Meghnad's interest went much beyond economics and politics. This is reflected in his writing, particularly after his retirement as a full-time LSE Professor in 2003 (though he did continue as an Emeritus Professor for life). He wrote a book about Dilip Kumar, and that is when he met his second wife, Kishwar, who was the editor of the book. His passion for cinema was a long-standing element in his life. During our get-togethers in his house in the late sixties, he relished telling me about Hindi films, showing them when possible. I remember his detailed, scene-by-scene description of the Mehboob Khan film Andaz, which he considered near perfect!
Meghnad was a devoted secularist who formally became an associate of the National Secular Society in Britain. But he did apply his academic strength to studying Hinduism and wrote a couple of books, including one on the Bhagwat Gita, where he argued that some elements there supported social inequality.
What is remarkable in Meghnad's life is the range of ideas and activities in which he was involved. And for those of us who connected with him personally, what we will miss is his warmth and courtesy, his delightful sense of humour, his sociability which saw him connecting with a vast range of people in India, Britain and elsewhere.
Meghnad had a good life, and Kishwar was a great source of love and support for him. All of us who have been his friends and associates join Kishwar, his three children from his first wife and the rest of the family, not just in mourning his departure, but also in celebrating his life.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard
What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard

Hindustan Times

time18 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard

At Harvard you can study negotiation. This being Harvard, there is in fact an entire academic programme dedicated to the craft. The principles are simple. Understand your alternatives—what happens if you fight rather than compromise—and your long-term interests. This being Donald Trump's America, Harvard itself is now the case study. Mr Trump has turned full guns on that supposed hotbed of antisemitism and left-wing indoctrination. America's oldest and richest university would be his most satisfying trophy and its capitulation would become a template for coerced reforms across higher education. The government has sought to review some of Harvard's coursework as Mr Trump has pressured it to hire fewer 'Leftist dopes' and discipline pro-Palestine protesters. When the university refused, his administration froze federal research grants worth $3bn and tried to bar it from enrolling foreign students. Harvard has fought back and sued the government twice. Its many constituencies have loudly supported this resistance. Seven in ten faculty who took part in a poll by the Crimson, a student newspaper, said the university should not agree to a settlement. Yet it seems likely that Harvard will fold in the manner of Brown University and Columbia; reports suggest it will pay up to $500m. Consider Harvard's options. Litigation has succeeded initially: a judge paused the ban on foreign students. Harvard had a sympathetic hearing in its lawsuit to restore government funding. Yet the university knows that it cannot count on the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority. Meanwhile, the potential damage from Mr Trump's campaign looks both acute and existential. Losing federal funds would transform Harvard from a world-class research university to a tuition-dependent one. They constitute 11% of the operating budget and represent almost all the discretionary money available for research. Making do without while maintaining current spending levels would see the university draw down its $53bn endowment by about 2% a year. That is possible for a while, though it would erode future income and much of the endowment is constrained by donor restrictions anyway. Already Harvard has frozen some hiring and laid off research staff. More trouble awaits. The Internal Revenue Service is considering revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status. Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman, has suggested that the university committed securities fraud when it issued a bond in April and failed initially to tell investors about the government's demands. She wants the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate. The Department of Homeland Security has sought records about foreign students who participated in pro-Palestine protests. Alumni, faculty and students report pride in Harvard's president, Alan Garber, resisting Mr Trump's extortion scheme. Yet more and more faculty are calling for a deal, especially in medicine and science since they have the most to lose. Steven Pinker, a psychology professor, has argued for a 'face-saving exit': Mr Trump may be 'dictatorial' but 'resistance should be strategic, not suicidal'. A deal similar to Brown's would not be so hard to swallow. To restore its federal funds, that university will pay $50m to workforce-development organisations. A likelier model is the one reached with Columbia, which coughed up $200m to the government. Most of its federal funding, worth $1.3bn, was reinstated and probes into alleged civil-rights violations were closed. Viewed from the outside, the price paid by Columbia looks arbitrary—there was no explanation for how it had been calculated. Columbia also agreed to dismantle DEI initiatives and will hire faculty specialising in Israel and Judaism, among other concessions. An outside monitor will ensure compliance. Claire Shipman, the university's acting president, said Columbia had not accepted diktats about what to teach or whom to hire and admit. Maybe so, but the settlement was still a shakedown. Mr Trump skipped the legal process by which the government can cancel funds. By law the administration has to offer a hearing and submit a report to Congress at least 30 days before the cut-off takes effect. None of that happened. Of course coercive, bilateral deals are Mr Trump's métier—he has achieved them with law firms and trading partners. Harvard has been making changes on campus that may be labelled as concessions in any eventual settlement. Some do appear designed to assuage Mr Trump. Since January the university has adopted the government's preferred definition of antisemitism; ended a partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank; removed the leadership of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies; and suspended the Palestine Solidarity Committee, an undergraduate group. DEI offices have been renamed and their websites scrubbed. Harvard's lack of ideological diversity will not be fixed by fiat. In 2023 a Crimson poll found that less than 3% of faculty identified as conservative. Now the university is reportedly considering establishing a centre for conservative thought akin to Stanford's Hoover Institution. Across campus it is understood that too many students seem ill-equipped to deal with views that challenge their own, says Edward Hall, a philosophy professor. Another insight you will glean in a Harvard negotiation class is to grasp your opponent's interests. In Mr Trump's practice, this means bagging a deal and bragging about it. He wrote a whole book on the topic. It could go on a syllabus.

Starmer's Palestine problem
Starmer's Palestine problem

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

Starmer's Palestine problem

The attacks on Israel of October 7th 2023 fell on the first day of the Labour Party's conference, and the scale of the slaughter was still emerging when it was taken as a proxy for a more trivial conflict: the battle between Labour's factions for control of the party. Acolytes of Sir Keir Starmer, then its leader and now prime minister, wanted delegates to stand for a moment's silence. Could it pass, live on television, without a heckle? It did. In the zero-sum struggle with followers of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's leftist former leader, it was a symbolic victory. For the Starmerites, how the conference responded to the massacre was a test of their boss's project to change the party. It would reveal whether Labour could be a home again for British Jews after antisemitism had flourished in its ranks, and whether a Labour government would be able to tell Britain's allies from its enemies. Above all, they saw a test of whether Labour could elevate the priorities of its working-class electorate over the passions of its middle-class activists, and talk about Nuneaton more than Nablus. But that declaration of victory now looks like hubris. Palestine is, again, the animating force within Labour's internal politics. Sir Keir, a leader who defined himself against his members' concern with the Middle East, will now be defined by it. On July 29th he announced that Britain would recognise the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, unless Israel acted to end Gaza's humanitarian crisis, implement a ceasefire, repudiate settlement-building in the West Bank and commit to a two-state solution. It was a shift from Labour's position, tucked away on page 124 of the manifesto, to recognise Palestine as part of a peace process (currently conspicuous for its absence). The prime minister had let himself be pushed. More than a third of MPs, half of them Labour, had signed a letter demanding recognition. A third of the cabinet agreed, some publicly. If pleasing his colleagues was the aim, it is unlikely to work. The government's supporters describe a systematic shift in policy on Israel. It restored funding to UNRwA (an aid body accused of harbouring Hamas), stopped many arms exports to Israel, ended trade talks, indicated it would uphold an International Court of Justice arrest warrant for Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, and imposed sanctions on his most extreme ministers. Yet Labour's pro-Palestine supporters regard these shifts as wholly inadequate given the enormity of the crisis now unfolding. Sir Keir may have given his MPs most of what they wanted, but he looks slow, moving after rejecting the declaration days before by France's Emmanuel Macron (the Élysée is now thrilled). Making the recognition dependent on Mr Netanyahu sticking to his course was intended to maximise Britain's leverage, but in practice may waste it. Action over words is Sir Keir's mantra: judge him by his plodding results rather than bold rhetoric. Yet words are what his critics want above all, and Sir Keir struggles to find them. Nine in ten Labour activists want him to criticise Israel more harshly. For them, Palestine is a moral crisis more than a strategic one, and for those who characterise the war in Gaza as a genocide, his low-volume approach is not a sign of statecraft but complicity. What Sir Keir cannot admit is that what he says on Palestine does not matter all that much. His members think him indifferent; in truth he is impotent. Mr Netanyahu angrily accused the British government of 'appeasement towards jihadist terrorists', but in reality it is not Britain or France but America that can make Israel change course. The British-made arms exports to Israel that really matter—spare parts for F-35 jets—could be stopped only by pulling out of a global components pool, which ministers will not do. In a letter to the Guardian Andy Burnham, Emily Thornberry and other Labour bigwigs declared it would be 'fitting' for Britain and France to take the lead in recognising Palestine because together they 'conspired together to carve up the Ottoman Levant' in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. This is the sort of appeal to imperial grandeur last seen on the Brexit right. A migraine without a cure Sir Keir's election landslide last year masked how much Gaza had gouged his electoral coalition. Across the electorate Labour gained six percentage points in support compared with 2019. Among those voters who said they sympathised 'much more' with Palestinians than Israelis, it fell by 18 points. Gaza was to many Muslims what Brexit was to the white working class, argues More in Common, a polling firm. It was the moment a poor, patronised, socially conservative underclass asked what the Labour Party had ever done for them. In the 21 seats where more than 30% of the population is Muslim, Labour's share dropped by 29 points, to 36%. Five pro-Gaza independents were elected, among them Mr Corbyn. One in three Muslims say they would vote for the new left-wing party Mr Corbyn has launched with Zarah Sultana, another ex-Labour MP, according to Stack Data Strategy, a consultancy. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, speaks with glee of how Gaza has fractured Labour's coalition in northern English towns, bringing them closer to his grasp. Expect the Labour Party to repeat that logic ad nauseam in the next three years: its best hope of retaining power lies in a terror of Mr Farage gluing its coalition of progressives back together. But Gaza breaks the old rules of politics. Labour officials admit they struggle with a new media, in which TikTok is flooded with horror that would be cut from the television news. For such voters, Gaza is much bigger than Mr Farage; bigger than Westminster itself. 'We have to vote for them or it's Farage? We're saying screw your false choice,' declares Ms Sultana, who terms her former colleagues the 'genocide party'. The Starmerites thought they had defeated the politics of Palestine. It may defeat them.

'One of the nicest places I've run', Omar Abdullah praises Sabarmati riverfront during Gujarat visit
'One of the nicest places I've run', Omar Abdullah praises Sabarmati riverfront during Gujarat visit

Hans India

time6 hours ago

  • Hans India

'One of the nicest places I've run', Omar Abdullah praises Sabarmati riverfront during Gujarat visit

Ahmedabad: Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, currently on a two-day visit to Gujarat to promote tourism in the Union Territory, took to social media to praise Ahmedabad's Sabarmati Riverfront, calling it 'one of the nicest places' he has run. CM Abdullah, who went for a morning jog along the popular promenade, is in the state to engage with tour operators and reconnect with a key domestic travel market following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that deeply impacted tourism in Kashmir. He wrote on X: While in #Ahmedabad for a tourism event I took advantage of being here to get my morning run at the famed Sabarmati River Front promenade. It's one of the nicest places I've been able to run & it was a pleasure to get to share it with so many other walkers/runners. I even managed to run past the amazing Atal Foot Bridge." The tweet set a lighter tone to a visit marked by a serious mission: rebuilding tourist confidence in Jammu and Kashmir following the April terrorist attack in Pahalgam that claimed 26 lives, including several from Gujarat. The J&K CM, in the city for a major tourism outreach event, said the visit is part of efforts to restore Jammu and Kashmir's standing as a safe and welcoming destination. "Gujarat, along with Maharashtra and West Bengal, has always played a major role in Kashmir's tourism economy," said CM Abdullah, expressing hope that Gujarati tourists would soon return in large numbers. However, the visit also carried a strong political undertone. Addressing the media on July 30, Abdullah sharply criticised the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration over intelligence and security lapses linked to the Pahalgam attack. 'Even the Lieutenant Governor has admitted there was a failure. If that's the case, someone must be held accountable,' he said. While the three terrorists responsible have been eliminated, CM Abdullah pointed out that no action has yet been taken against the officials responsible for the lapses. He also questioned the Centre's claims post-Article 370 abrogation. 'They said terrorism would end after 370 was removed. It's been five years. Terrorists are still being killed. So what happened to those promises?' he asked. Earlier on Wednesday, he met Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel in his office in Gandhinagar. The meeting focused on deepening inter-state relations, promoting tourism and sharing best practices for inclusive development.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store