Latest news with #ManmohanSingh
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
Poetic journey through the Indian city streets
Do you have memories of the busy buzz and unending traffic of the lanes and bylanes of Amritsar, the twin city to Lahore, until the borders parted them in the divide of the cursed 1947. The former was called the business city while the latter the cultural capital of the once united Punjab. Well if you have not known then read the poems it's home-grown poet Manmohan Singh, which features in the delightful and amazing 'Penguin Book of Poems on the Indian city' edited by a young scholar of Mumbai at Oxford University, Bilal Moin. Thus go lines from the poem: Anthology of poetry featuring poems of Amrita Pritam & Manmohan Singh. (HT) 'After long years I am passing through its narrow lanes Dhab Khatikan, Chhai Khooni Chaunk, Bazaar Baansan, Loon Mandi, I want to hear the rickshaw pullers and tongawalas say: 'Take care Khalsa ji' ... 'Watch our Sahib!'... 'Hold on, Bhai ji', 'Let me pass Lala ji'... 'Move away my friend' As they weave their way through flocks of sheep, donkeys, piles of sugarcane sticks, pedallers, carts without hitting, hurting or trampling on anything or anyone' Move from Amritsar, crossing Jalandhar, once the city of Urdu poet Hafiz Jalandhari of 'Abhi jao main jawan hoon' fame and come to the Manchester of India, Ludhiana of course, and you cannot but think of the great poets it nurtured: Sahir Ludhianvi and Ibn-E-Insha in Urdu and became home to Punjabi poet Mohan Singh and later Surjit Patar. The Government College Ludhiana, from where Sahir was rusticated in British times for his revolutionary poetry, now remembers him with pride. Sahir's famous ode to his college meets the eye engraved in full glory: 'I could never forget these portals, these terraces, If I could not be owned here, at least I was disowned from here (Ham in hi fizaon ke paale huye tao hain/ Gar yahan ke nahi, gar yahan ke nahi yan se nikale huye tao hain'. This Ludhianvi is not included in this Magnum Opus but the woman poet who loved him greatly is featured with a poem. The reference of course is to one of the most celebrated poets of Punjabi, Amrita Pritam of course: Today I effaced my house number the name of the street at the very outset. I wiped away the direction of every road. And still if you must search me out just knock at the door in each street of each city of each country. It's a curse and a benediction both and wherever you find free soul -that's my home! The City Beautiful Interestingly, Chandigarh finds its place in this Magnum Opus which has as many as 375 poems across 37 cities of India and all of 993 pages and so big that it slips from my hands every now then. It is interesting to note that in the crowd of ancient and medieval cities that India can boast of, the new city designed in the tradition of the West, manages to make space for itself in this collection. One reason for this is that it works as a contrast to our Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and more and the other that it had poets coming here from other cities and there were poems aplenty in comparing the different cultures of the new and old cities. I once recall the great story writer of Punjabi, Kulwant Singh Virk, asked me which city I belonged to in my days as a young journalist. I replied in earnest, 'Chandigarh'. Dismissing my statement, he said 'No one belongs to Chandigarh. 'Where did you come from?' 'I was born in Chandigarh'. Exasperated, he questioned me again about where my parents were from. Then I told him 'My mother was from Rawalpindi and my father from Lahore.' This brought a smile to his face and he exclaimed, ' So that makes you the daughter of three capitals!' Interestingly, Moin-the editor, quotes famous writer Nirmal Verma from his treatise in 'Sugandh and Smriti' on how the metropolis is the centre of attraction: 'One can invite Le Corbusier to build a Chandigarh but one cannot import the values that turn a concrete structure into a home.' Yet he breaks this myth saying 'Each one of us has his own Chandigarh--Le Corbusier's town walls painted with blobs of Paan spittle. Where else can one come across a strange amalgam of modernity and Indianness?' Chandigarh is represented by poems of Malovika Pawar, Bernie Gourley, Tania Mehta and yours truly. Sadly our major poets like Kumar Vikal of Hindi and Amitoj of Punjabi, who contributed much to the mood of the city are not to be found and the reason for this is that translations of their works were not easily available. Poet as a loafer One congratulates Moin for creating this beautiful volume more so celebrating the poet as a loafer a la 'awara hoon'. In appreciation AE Stalins, Oxford professor of poetry says: As editor Bilal Moin points out, the poet of the Indian city is less French Flaneur than intellectual, sipping tea at a city than intellectual 'loafer', sipping tea at a cafe abuzz with flies and language.' Cheers all round. nirudutt@
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Modi govt must take clear stand on Israel-Iran conflict, cannot deviate from position of harmony with Iran taken by all his predecessors, says Sharad Pawar
Kolhapur: NCP (SP) chief Sharad Pawar said the current govt under Prime Minister Narendra Modi must take a clear stand on the conflict between Israel and Iran and ensure it aligns with the positions taken by previous prime ministers, ranging from Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, during a speech in Satara on Thursday. Pawar arrived in Satara to inaugurate the Centre of Excellence in Artificial Intelligence at Rayat Shikshan Santha. Addressing a press conference, Pawar commented on the conflict between Middle Eastern countries, stating that Israel initiated the attacks against Iran, which he deemed inappropriate towards a larger nation. "Israel started the attacks. India's position to hurt Iran is not appropriate. All PMs, from Nehru to Indira to Manmohan Singh and even Vajpayee, have always stood in harmony with Iran. We have respect for what Israel is doing in the field of agriculture in terms of research. But when it attacks a bigger country and brings bitterness in relations, it's not good. So far, India has taken a favourable position with respect to Iran, but today's govt is not taking a clear stand on it. Govt must decide. It should not deviate from the stand India has taken so far. This view it has to accept," Pawar said. When questioned about Centre marking the 50th anniversary of the Emergency as Samvidhan Hatya Diwas, Pawar said, "No doubt people reacted strongly against the Emergency. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo After that, Indira Gandhi said sorry in public before the nation. Even after the leader leading the country is making an apology, bringing the issue to the fore repeatedly is not a sign of civility and wisdom. Whatever BJP has to say, Congress suffered defeat. But when the time came to choose who to lead the country, people gave power back into the hands of Indira Gandhi, it should not be ignored." Pawar reiterated that Maha Vikas Aghadi parties will contest the upcoming local body elections in alliance. "We already had discussions, but soon, most probably on June 30, our politicians will meet. We will discuss facing the elections together," Pawar added.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Reforms are both economic and political, says historian David C. Engerman
The idea of 'development' is a highly contested one, a site of intense ideological and policy debates. But as an idea, it has shaped the lives of billions in the Global South. In his new book, Apostles of Development: Six Economists and the World They Made, economic historian David C. Engerman tells the story of international development and development economics through the lives and work of six stalwart economists, all from South Asia: Amartya Sen, Jagdish Bhagwati, Manmohan Singh, Mahbub ul Haq, Lal Jayawardena, and Rehman Sobhan. Engerman spoke to the Sunday Magazine about the ideas in his book, the challenges he faced, and why he picked these six 'apostles' in particular. Edited excerpts: What prompted this book project? I wanted to write a global history of international development, and experimented with a couple of ways of doing it. When I found that some of the people I was interested in had attended all Cambridge, I started digging, and found there were six South Asian economists who were in Cambridge between 1953 and 1957. All of them had long, illustrious and highly varied careers, which allowed me to tell a surprising amount of the history of international development and of development economics through their lives and work. Apostles of Development: How six South Asian economists shaped the Global South ft. David Engerman You are trained as a historian, but your book discusses some complex economic concepts. Did you get some training in economics as well? At Yale I received a fellowship that allowed me, for a semester, to take courses rather than teach them. I used that to take courses in development economics, although even with those under my belt, I am no development economist. Why limit yourself to six economists from South Asia? Did you not consider some from Africa and Latin America as well, given that the book is telling a story that concerns the Global South as a whole and not just South Asia? I did, but the problem was I could never answer why I chose that particular set of six economists. I did look at the Argentine economist Raúl Prebisch, the Saint Lucian W Arthur Lewis, and the Taiwanese economist S.C. Tsiang, but I could never get them all in the same room or the same frame. I was also surprised, as I looked into the lives and work of these six South Asian economists, how much they connected with these other economists. For instance, both Lal Jayawardena and Manmohan Singh worked with Prebisch in the course of the 1960s, and they both represented their countries in IMF and World Bank circles over many years. So I felt that, yes, it's a South Asia story, but also a global one. I look forward to the person who writes a similar book about Latin America and Africa. How long did it take to write this book? What was most challenging and most easy about this project? It took me six years to write it, I essentially finished it last summer. One year of that was during COVID, which had both disadvantages and advantages. For a historian, going to the archives and seeing the primary sources is the sine qua non of historical scholarship, but that was impossible for a couple of years. On the other hand, people were sitting at home and available. Even someone with as rigorous a travel schedule as Sen was sitting in Cambridge, happy to speak. So I conducted almost a 100 interviews with the four 'apostles' who were living when I started the book, with the widows of the others, with family members, students, with colleagues, with friends, with rivals, and I built this whole base of oral knowledge that became indispensable for my understanding of these folks. This was the easiest. For a historian who is used to staring at documents, to interact with people, including the very subjects I was writing about was an honour, a privilege and plain fun. The hardest part was understanding the economics, especially the work of the two academics in the mix, Bhagwati and Sen, and to understand it enough to be able to convey it to readers equipped with even less economic expertise than I do. Here I had a lot of help from other economists and colleagues, and I hope I have represented their work for its intellectual rigour as well as contributions to how we think about and act on development. Manmohan Singh worked in the government during the so-called 'licence permit raj' and he also led from the front during India's liberalisation. Was he a different economist in the 1970s-80s, compared to the 1990s, or did he evolve? As a civil servant, he had to serve the interests of the ruling party and the government. He did that ably enough that when the Janata government came in after Indira Gandhi lost the elections, they kept him on -- they considered him to be sufficiently loyal and dedicated to making India a better place. So in that sense, it is hard to attribute to him all of the ideas of that period, especially early in his career, when he is quite junior. But by the 1980s, he is holding pretty substantial roles – Deputy Chair of the Planning Commission and Governor of the RBI, where he had a little bit more leeway to set a direction for the institutions. Overall he did not reverse course. He evolved perhaps. After all, he took plenty of international economics when he was at Cambridge, and his dissertation at Oxford was on building an export base for Indian goods overseas. This was at a time when the phrase 'export pessimism' was dominant. Similar to what Bhagwati was batting for around the same time? Yes. I wouldn't say they were lone wolves but they did not have a ton of company in the early 1960s, when they both promoted trade. Very early, as early as 1962, Bhagwati promoted devaluation. But that devaluation didn't go down well. That's the fault of the Americans as anyone else. Mrs. Indira Gandhi did devalue [the rupee] in 1966. Bhagwati was one among a handful of people who were consulted about it. The problem was Indira Gandhi and her staff had come to a basic understanding with the Americans that if they undertook deregulation, devaluation, and liberalisation of trade, then significant aid would come their way. But that aid never materialised. So, there are many reasons why things went wrong – there were difficult years in food harvests in the mid-1960s, and the war with Pakistan set politics and economics in India askew, but also left Americans less interested in providing assistance. So the devaluation was not a tremendous success but I don't think that can be laid at the feet of Bhagwati. How much of the credit for India's economic reforms should go to Manmohan Singh, how much to Narasimha Rao, and how much to the World Bank and IMF? I would leave the World Bank and the IMF mostly out of the picture. Successful reform, especially something as radical as that, is both an economic and political project, and Narasimha Rao was a master politician, managing to work with a difficult party and a divided Parliament in order to usher these policies through. He could not have done it without the economic leadership of Dr. Singh, but the opposite is also true. Dr. Singh told me that he cut a deal when Rao invited him to be Finance Minister. He told him, 'To do these reforms, I want your support. If the reforms fail, I'll fall on my sword and take the blame, and if they succeed, then you can take the credit for it.' What kind of politician wouldn't want a deal like that? There have been powerful critiques of the limitations of the development doctrine. Of the six apostles, would you say Haq was the most radical, the most sympathetic to these critiques, given his engagement with the Third World Forum and the likes of Samir Amin. Well, Samir Amin was not ultimately satisfied with Mahbub ul Haq's engagement with the Third World Forum. I would say that the most politically engaged was Rehman Sobhan, so much so that he is the only one of the six apostles whose name was on a hit list of his government, targeted for assassination on the basis of his work with the Awami League. There have been powerful critiques of the development doctrine by intellectuals such as Arturo Escobar, Majid Rahnema and Gilbert Rist, to name a few. They frame development as a Western paradigm, and a form of cultural imperialism. But in your book, you argue that development was a project shaped by the Global South. How do you substantiate your argument? Too often both the proponents and critics of development will tell you the story from Washington or from Cambridge or London, as if it was only a Cold War weapon. By 'Cold war weapon' do you mean 'development' as a means to keep communism out of the Global South? I mean it as a tool to win friends and influence people. The Soviets also engaged in what they called economic cooperation, including a number of projects in India. So I understand that impulse. Western archives are easier to work in. This is an accessible and commonly told story. But it's important to flip the script and see how much of development economics and international development was based on a desire to solve particular problems and those problems were problems in the majority of the Global South. People in the West weren't the only ones to be looking at them. That said, one of the confounding principles here, and the apostles illustrate this well, is that it's hard to tell North and South apart at some point. People like these six went back and forth between the North and the South. But their training was in the North. You quote Mahbub ul Haq in your book, commenting on the difficulties of Third World intellectuals educated in the West. He thought they were 'prisoners of [their] own past training and somebody else's thought.' Well, but the other part that Haq said, is reported by Sen. In one of their first weekends in Cambridge together in the fall of 1953, Haq says, 'I don't know why do we need to study all this economics – who cares about the price of tooth paste.' And Sen says, 'We need to know this, but we don't need to use this very much.' Cambridge provided them entry into a Western-centred economics profession, it provided them with the credentials, and it also provided them with a sense that development economics is not a single doctrine but an argument, and they had this argument, and to some degree we are still having this argument, some 80 years after they went to Cambridge. sampath.g@
Indian Express
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
India wary about Iran's nuclear project: Voted against in 2005, abstained in 2024
Almost 20 years after India voted against Iran's nuclear programme for the first time, Delhi's careful balancing act — between Israel and the US on one side and Iran on the other side — has come into play. While India has always tried to walk the diplomatic tightrope walk, its discomfort over Iran with a nuclear weapon was apparent then. On September 24, 2005, India voted with 21 other countries on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) resolution (GOV/2005/77) which found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement. This was seen as a departure from the past, as India had voted with the US and the western bloc against Iran, which was in its extended neighbourhood and with whom it has a historical and civilisational relationship. This was the time when India had just started negotiating its agreement with the US on its civilian nuclear programme, and Washington was able to lean on Delhi to vote against Tehran. Delhi, which was keen to portray its responsible behaviour as a nuclear power, went along with the idea that voting against Iran's nuclear programme would burnish its reputation. However, the resolution did not refer the matter immediately to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and India was one of the countries which urged the western bloc of European countries — UK, France and Germany (EU-3) — to keep the issue at the IAEA. According to Indian officials, India voted for the resolution at that time, against the majority of NAM members who abstained, because it felt obligated to do so after having pressured the EU-3 to omit reference to immediate referral to the UNSC. Months later, on February 4, 2006, India again sided with the US when the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran's non-compliance to the UNSC. 'As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international commitments and obligations… (But) it is incumbent upon Iran to exercise these rights in the context of safeguards that it has voluntarily accepted upon its nuclear programme under the IAEA,' then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament on February 17, 2006. Over the years, as India negotiated the nuclear deal with the US, Delhi came out of the pressure to vote against Tehran as the issue went to the UNSC. Sources said that once the matter went to the UNSC, India did not have to take any position on Iran's nuclear programme between 2007 and 2024. In between, the US administration under President Barack Obama negotiated the JCPOA (joint comprehensive plan of action) with Iran in 2015 — which was a deal between P-5+1 and Iran. US President Donald Trump walked out of the JCPOA in 2017, and Iran's nuclear programme once again came under scrutiny. India was forced to stop oil imports from Iran, although its Chabahar port project development was going on. While it did not have to take any firm position against Iran's nuclear programme, that changed last year when the US brought in a resolution against Iran. In June 2024, India abstained from a vote at the IAEA regarding Iran. The vote, initiated by the US, aimed to censure Iran for its nuclear programme. While the resolution passed, with 19 out of 35 board members voting to censure Iran, India was among the 16 countries that abstained. This decision reflected India's balancing act between its deep defence and security relationship with Israel and its historical ties with Iran. In September 2024, India again abstained from voting on a resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors that censured Iran for its lack of cooperation with the agency's investigations into its nuclear programme. The resolution, brought by France, the UK, and Germany (E3) along with the US, followed an IAEA report noting Iran's increased uranium enrichment. In June this year too, India abstained on the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution strongly criticising Iran's nuclear programme and declaring it in breach of its 1974 Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. This time, India's decision to abstain from the vote reflected its balanced stance — recognising Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy programme while calling upon Tehran to adhere to its non-proliferation commitments. While the change, from voting against to abstention, marks Delhi's shifting positions as geopolitical alignments changed, India's concern about the Iranian nuclear programme was evident. Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Editor at The Indian Express, has been a journalist for more than 25 years now. Roy joined The Indian Express in October 2003 and has been reporting on foreign affairs for more than 17 years now. Based in Delhi, he has also led the National government and political bureau at The Indian Express in Delhi — a team of reporters who cover the national government and politics for the newspaper. He has got the Ramnath Goenka Journalism award for Excellence in Journalism '2016. He got this award for his coverage of the Holey Bakery attack in Dhaka and its aftermath. He also got the IIMCAA Award for the Journalist of the Year, 2022, (Jury's special mention) for his coverage of the fall of Kabul in August 2021 — he was one of the few Indian journalists in Kabul and the only mainstream newspaper to have covered the Taliban's capture of power in mid-August, 2021. ... Read More
News18
20-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
In First Litmus Test After Op Sindoor, Congress Eyes Muslim Vote Ahead Of Bihar Polls
Last Updated: Having attempted to gain ground with the Hindu vote and not found sustained success, the Congress now seems to be doubling down on its appeal to minority communities. The first big election that the Congress will face as a litmus test after Operation Sindoor will be Bihar. With a 17 per cent Muslim population, Bihar presents a crucial electoral opportunity, with the Congress, JD(U), and RJD all eyeing the same vote pie. However, this battle for the Muslim vote is not limited to Bihar. Nationally, the almost 20 per cent Muslim votebank could be a game-changer for the Congress in its broader revival strategy. In recent years, the Congress has attempted to strike a balance between wooing the Hindutva constituencies and appealing to minority voters. However, it remains acutely aware that when it comes to the Hindu votebank, the BJP continues to be the natural first choice. In areas where Congress does secure Hindu votes, it is often not for religious reasons but due to local dynamics or disenchantment with the BJP. Given this reality, the party appears to be falling back on what was once its traditional stronghold — the Muslim vote. It was not without reason that former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh once advocated for the speedy implementation of the Sachar Committee recommendations and emphasised increasing the rights of Muslims. This policy orientation underlined the Congress's commitment to minority welfare and social justice. Having attempted to gain ground with the Hindu vote and not found sustained success, the Congress now seems to be doubling down on its appeal to minority communities. But this is easier said than done. Not only does it face tough competition from regional parties such as the RJD and JD(U), it also has to deal with vote-sharing challenges with its own allies. The 17 per cent Muslim vote share in Bihar is being hotly contested, and Congress is in the race with both allies and opponents. The party's stand on the Iran-Israel conflict also reflects its evolving minority strategy. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra delivered one of the sharpest critiques of the government's silence on Gaza, accusing it of ignoring human rights violations. 'India is standing silent as Israel annihilates a nation," she said, making it clear where the Congress's sympathies lie. Her carrying a pro-Palestine tote bag in Parliament only further reinforced the message — a calculated effort to align with minority sentiment. At the state level too, groundwork has begun. The Karnataka Congress government recently announced 4 per cent reservation for Muslims in government contract jobs and proposed an increase in housing reservation for minorities from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. These decisions are not just governance moves but political signals, conveying that a Congress-led government at the Centre or in states like Bihar or Kerala would prioritise minority welfare. Looking ahead, seat-sharing talks and the Bihar elections will be a critical moment for the Congress's minority outreach strategy. Despite its alliance with the RJD, the Congress is clearly trying to carve out an independent appeal among Muslim voters. The induction of leaders like former JD(U) MP Anwar Ansari and other Pasmanda Muslim figures into its fold is part of this push. However, in its attempt to reclaim the Muslim vote while also appeasing some Hindu constituencies, the Congress often appears directionless — caught between conflicting impulses. Its struggle to choose between consolidating the Muslim vote and pursuing a soft Hindutva line leaves the party at political crossroads. First Published: June 20, 2025, 13:17 IST
