Sunday, October 7, 2012

आदमी का स्वप्न


"...मनु नहीं, मनु पुत्र है यह सामने, जिसकी
कल्पना की जीभ में भी धार होती है
बाण ही नहीं होते विचारों के केवल
स्वप्न के भी हाथ में तलवार होती है..."
                                                   -रामधारी सिंह 'दिनकर'










अभी कितनी दूर है वह पहाड़ी
जिस तक पहुँचती सड़क
अभी बनी नहीं है -
सड़क - जिसकी कंक्रीट
अभी धरती की ओट में सो रही है,
जिसकी कंक्रीट, अभी कंक्रीट नहीं
सिर्फ रेत, सिर्फ चूना है,
जिसकी कंक्रीट के ऊपर
पहाड़ी से रिसता पानी
अभी भी चुपचाप बहता है

और कितनी दूर है वह पहाड़ी
जहां बस कल ही
मंदिरों के दर्शन के लिए
टूरिस्टों - और तीर्थयात्रियों - के जत्थे पहुंचेंगे -
मंदिर - जो अभी लताओं/ और फूलों की
गर्द में दबें हैं,
जिनके पत्थरों की अभी
ताजपोशी नहीं हो पाई है,
जिनमें उग रहे
सालों पुराने तरुओं की छाल का रंग
अभी चढ़ाई गयी चुन्नियों से
लाल नहीं हुआ है,
मंदिर - जिनमें अभी भी ईश्वर का वास है

बस आ ही गयी है वह पहाड़ी
जिसकी ढलानों को काट कर
रोज़गार के नए आयामों की खोज में
आधुनिक
रेसोर्ट बनाया जाएगा -
रेसोर्ट - जो घाटी में झांकता 
सीमेंट के चार पुश्तों पर
बहुत दिलेरी से खड़ा रहेगा,
जो अभी कागज़ों के बंडलों में बंधा
तीन सरकारी कार्यालयों में
पांच मुख्य अभियंताओं की प्रतीक्षा कर रहा है,
जिसके बनने के पश्चात/
विशेषज्ञों की राय में
यह पहाड़ी
इंजीनियरिंग का अप्रतिम नमूना कहलाएगी -

भोर होने से ज़रा पहले
इस पहाड़ी के पीछे छिपकर
घबराया सा
देख रहा है एक सूरज
आदमी का ये स्वप्न

स्वप्न - जो पूछता है बारबार
और कितनी दूर है वह पहाड़ी?
और कितनी दूर है वह सूरज?








Monday, April 2, 2012

Remembering School


Ten years ago, this day, around 65 of us attended our first class at The Doon School. Soon, we were to be joined by more. For the next six years (and five for some - not that it made much difference), each of us, different in his own way, was brought together by a bond that would keep us together forever. Here's to that bond called Doon.

Winding roads lead to paths untrodden.
Dim visions of the distance in thrall of majesty.
Camaraderie balancing sweet from the edges of dust
held on to the ground, to the dust beneath
by withering straws - shaffy blades growing out of the shale
glistening in the sun, reflecting off the waters
deep down – through caverns unsaid and vales unspoken.
Obscurity untouched in the kingdom of the pristine,
but no escape, even for this oblivion, preserved,
nurtured  - in the shadowy antiquity of the deodar.


Behold, those assembled in the faded facade
of the morning air packed in bands of sunlight filtering through,
dancing on the swirling dust, and now
the crescendo of the sitar to which move
voices on the margins of merger, notes of individuals
in the unison of feeling, and spirit unstated.

The unstated, though, raises its head -
a feverish din, fervour mounting with each second passing
another crescendo, and another one -
glory becomes the cause, against fate fighting intense
builds on, in anxious expectation aghast
at the ecstasy of swiftness in the sinewy moves -
laurels and nothing else.

And the fever, resting, for a while.
Impatience trying hard, subdued each moment
by the endless stream of the printed to be discerned, and
breaking through with the first clang -
a pageant of white against the aging edifices
and sunken grounds – and faster,
before another clang, till the break of a fretful silence.

We picked up curios from the hillside,
lugged them all the way back, to the base,
the base – if we ever had one – perched dangerously
on to another hill, once we slipped off
(those who did will understand,
only the inconsequential merits explanation)
to climb up once again the god-given hills,
forbidden, feared, welcoming, remembered.

Blazers piled up in the comfortable closet of dark,
the agony of sleep put away, no dread now
of freedom impinged – unless, of course, this day
the bards decide to themselves walk right through –
concocting the most innocuous of dishes, in cauldrons treasured -
having been passed on for generations, and
eaten in the daintiest of ways, for every skill of hand
and Eye, we learnt to share even as we
sparred, plotted, conspired, gave up.

In grandeur, we learnt
of asphyxiating classrooms, and straight chins,
of sound recorders, and the English country,
of how Galatea was sculpted, and of devilish angels,
words that were meant to be - we never remembered.
In those we did, and in the meanderings in the dark,
was found that which was cherished – the illumination of light.

Beauty demands form, so does memory,
which time knows to dodge so well, and yet
to forget is to remember - that which wasn’t.
Images of transient capture beauty eternal.
In them, arrested, glory days, fleeting fast,
or in our own voices, lifting to the heavens
our unknowing hearts, or the smell of the water
as it pours incessant on the ground so dry,
and yet so fertile,
in muted mutterings of the moments gone by,
We’ve preserved it well -
the untrodden, the majesty,
the dust, the shaff,
the sun, the unspoken,
the oblivion, the pristine,
and the shadowy antiquity of the deodar.


Tuesday, March 20, 2012

शहर अभी भी


जो थे रास्तों पे कल पल दो पल को
हैं वो आज बादल चाँद की चांदनी पर,
ये बिखरे हुए हैं सड़क पर जो पत्ते 
सूखे हुए / कल थिरकते थे न थमकर,
है सूरज नहीं तो ये रात काली
क्या नहीं छिप रही आकर आइनों में, 
क्या नहीं रुक रही हैं सांसें ज़रा भी, 
नहीं हो रहे क्या - तुम और मैं परस्पर

ये हवा है जो बहती/ संभली सी आहटों में 
क्या कदमों तले दबा कर छोड़ जाती 
है रात के दर पर दस्तक की आवाज़ें
गुपचुप ही सही / उजाले से थककर, 
क्या अब भी वही है तुम्हारी नम खुशबू 
रहती थी जो हमेशा इस हवा की सिहर में,
अब नहीं पास आना तो फिर खेल जाओ 
अधूरी सी चालें रात के साहिरों पर,
है शहर अभी भी, हैं रास्ते कि जिनमें 
घूमते अब भी बादल ज़रा रुककर / बरसकर, 
जो कल थीं पल दो पल को चाँद की चांदनी पे 
वो बूँदें हैं अब - तुम और मैं परस्पर

 

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

कसक

पीछे छूट गयी है
बाहर जाते लोगों की बुदबुदाहट के,
रह गयी है बैठी
खाली कुर्सियों से भरे
कमरे में

लकड़ी के हत्थों पर
धीरे-धीरे अपने हाथ पसारती है,
धीरे-धीरे
रीढ़ सीधी करती है अपनी,
फिर आराम से आसीन हो लेती है
कुर्सी पर

अकेलापन आश्वासन देता है -
अपनी मर्ज़ी की मालकिन है अब,
कोई छेड़ेगा नहीं,
नहीं परखा जायेगा बात-बात पर,
नहीं होगी विवेचना
उसकी संवेदनाओं की,
अपने निजित्व में
इस एकांत में अब वह
खुलकर मखौल उड़ाएगी अपना ही-
स्वछंद पंछी सी उड़ेगी बंद दरवाजों के अभ्यारण्य में

अब डर नहीं है दलीलों का
उफनते जज़्बातों की कर्कशता का,
अब नहीं याद रखने पड़ेंगे शर्म के मायने,
जी चुराकर
नहीं चुरानी पड़ेंगी नज़रें -


कुछ खटका सा हुआ -
सहमी सी आसपास देखती है,
अकेले होने के भ्रम में
वह अकेली नहीं है,
खचाखच भरा है कमरा/ सभी कुर्सियों पर
उसी के जैसी बैठी हैं
स्वप्न भंवर में तल्लीन

अचानक ही
अपनी गद्दी के कोने पे
खुद को बैठा पाती है वो
किसी अभिन्न अनहोनी की अपेक्षा में -

आखिर
यही नियति है
कसक की



Tuesday, November 15, 2011

A Commemoration?!


I'd written this in College, and it was published in a newsletter of the Economics Society. But I think today, as I put behind a semester of introductory macro, is a rather auspicious time to post it here! 


The Ballad of Macroeconomics
(With apologies to - and respect for - all those heretics who do not find a mention here. Karl Marx, Please note.)

Content the whole world was, there was no excess or glut,
For all that was grown was eaten, and all the shops then shut!
This the genius of Ricardo, with eyes so discerning saw,
And what Jean Say had had to say, quickly became a law.

But providence sought to turn the tide, and who could hold its reigns,
Except, perhaps, the multifarious man, the insuperable J M Keynes.
In doldrums lay the hopes of masses, the holiday could not be so long,
When riding came the Don from Cambridge, to the tune of the saviour's song.
His magnum opus within its bounds, did many a novelty hide,
But what transpired to the more humble minds, was what was actually tried:
It would not do good, as things stood, to pay less to the already poor,
'stead it was needed, the Don conceded, that the government dished out more.
Countered for its irreverent miss of the market's glorious lore,
there's no denying, in fervour or note, the heresy did in fact score.

But what looked slick and seemingly sound, perhaps for its eloquence profound,
Was actually obsure, perplexingly stiff, the best brains of the time it did confound.
The apparent chaos had to be tamed, the race was on to resolve the fix,
Many a brave soldiers did their mighty swords wield, but emerged glorious the young John Hicks.
His uncanny arms of remarkable ease, IS and LM their names,
did many shock and many appease, for they so resembled Marshallian games.
The markets two, of goods and money, summed up adroitly into lines distinct,
he found a way to formally say what in the past seemed to defy instinct.

Jumping across the mighty Atlantic, another kingdom did unconquered endure,
the eccentric monarch had firmly averred: with more money will the prices soar.
But as it emerged from its treacherous past, an entire generation forsaken,
It might not come as a drastic surprise, that the kingdom’s foundations were shaken.
And even as the new order found new converts in the new land,
this young blood crew comprised a few who sought an intermediate stand.

So appeared on the scene, with his calculus of choice, the erudite, young lad Paul,
‘Revealed’ in his potent text was the science of wealth, for all.
He did have doubts, but could not resist Hicks’s equilibr'ating temptation,
So in his instructive Economics he presented the Keynesian Cross to the nation.
Nonetheless, he did reconcile, and Fisher he did not have to shun,
For Keynes stood strong for immediate need, but faltered in long-run.
He wasn’t alone in this brave new world, several others cannot be given a miss,
With Solow, Tobin, Modigliani and more, he formed the neoclassical synthesis.

The order in the system realised, smart actuaries skilfully seized

Every opportunity to capture all that, which previously had eluded and teased.
Mustering hundreds of numbers and series, these econometricians painfully explored
How the economy actually ran, beyond the chalk-dust of the blackboard.

But just when the waters appeared to be settling, Friedman decided to dissent,
In the hallways of Chicago, a monetary past was documented to disrupt the consent.
The market was uncertain already, why must unsaid shocks make it more flighty
Governments must not overrate themselves, professed the Chicago deity.
You can fool people for a few years perhaps, but they will finally sense the design,
And once they form their predictions better, the Philips curve would be a vertical line.

The new classicals joined the fray, to reveal of all Keynes’s machinations,
And dawned into the larger world, the search for microfoundations.
To divulge the entire architechture, they said, we must proceed brick by brick,
So endow each man with the rational gene, and here again did Friedman tick.
But going a step further, averred the likes of Lucas, Sargent and Hall,
That even the labour market does clear so ideally employment should never fall.
In their masterly rigor they showed, using apparatus sophisticated and sound,
With agents looking ahead enough, money couldn‘t really make the world go round.

As the ivory towers saw it now, the Keynesian construct was defective,
But all that the resurrection required was another change in perspective.
Once again it was considered that supply might overshoot the demand,
But with the rational gene still throbbing strong, the inconsistency was tough to command.
In valiant attempts did some early scouts, tried to revive the old, lost fables,
Resorting to their very predecessors’ kits, they hoped to turn the tables.
They might not have succeeded in their endeavors but the battle wasn’t lost on them,
For after them, in waves anew, many an insurgency did stem.
As Fischer tried to counter the claim that fed’s actions couldn‘t be a cause for cheer,
A newer crop tried to dwell at length on why the markets might not clear.
From efficiency wages to menu costs, to analysis of market power anew,
Theory and practice freely mix, for the likes of Akerlof, Blanchard and Mankiw.

We must not leave out one single man, who in his semi-inebriated verve,
Of an uptown restaurant napkin had once sketched, the tenuous laffer curve.
Many a surfs have come and gone, broken noisily on this ocean’s shore,
But it appears from recollections of the past - there will always be scope for more.
And if you think it has all been a waste, and you could not care about this less,
Blame it all on Adam ladies! for its his concoction, this entire mess!

                                     


P.S. For those interested, a good introduction to the history of macroeconomic thought is Mankiw's short history of the profession as we know it. For another take, here is a rather well known QJE article by Blanchard. There is considerable debate in the history of ideas in macroeconomics and not everyone agrees with Blanchard. A Google search would help. A more detailed discussion of the evolution of modern macro is here.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

जे. पी. टी-स्टाल

फिर, चित्तकबरी धूप में 
छाँव ढूंढती है ज़िन्दगी,
समय की कल-कल में फिर
एक पड़ाव ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी

फुटपाथ से रुख्सत होती धूप की
कुछ मूक अर्जियों में 
कोई आस ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी,
कढ़ी हुई चाय की सुड़कियों के बीच
पकी शक्कर की कड़वी महक में
वही पुरानी प्यास ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी

ठिठुरती शाम के कागार पर बैठ 
चुपचाप कुछ सोच रही गर्माहट का
एहसास ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी,
चमचमाती गाड़ियों पर जम रही 
मरम्मत की धूल में 
कण-कण संवरता
बिखरता/ इतिहास ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी,
इश्तिहारों, विचारों, गुनाहगारों, रोज़गारों में
रोजाना के इत्तेफ़ाकों के व्यापारों में
अपना ही परिहास ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी

प्रेम के अल्फ़ाज़ों में/ छटपटाते  दरवाज़ों में 
किसी पुरानी फ़िल्म के गीत सा 
ठहराव ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी,
तेरी आँखों के पैमाने में, फिर 
कोई मृदु भाव ढूँढती है ज़िन्दगी/
इस अकेली तालाश में 
खुद से ही जूझती है 
ज़िन्दगी

फिर, चित्तकबरी धूप में 
छाँव ढूंढती है ज़िन्दगी.



Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Anna Hazare, Democracy and Corruption: Some Open Questions

Since my last post on the Anna Hazare led anti-corruption movement, I've found myself thinking about the issue more seriously that ever. This post too, however, is no less ambivalent than the last one. This would perhaps be expected for the matter at hand is indeed complicated. To be sure, this is not a desirable situation. It is expected of all thinking citizens to hold well-reasoned views on matters of public importance. But reason had led me afar, into a land of unanswered questions, albeit with some insight.

Photo Credit
It has been asserted that a group of individuals self-professedly holding high moral ground cannot rightfully claim represent the myriad interest of civil society. Some have doubted Anna's intentions altogether. These are questions worth asking. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the government has itself been using arbitrary, high handed means to overcome the situation. These too make for unworthy constitutional practices. An excellent editorial by Pratap Bhanu Mehta in today's Indian Express succinctly puts together the contradictions at hand and argues for a 'fine balance' that a constitutional democracy deserves.  

I wish to pick up from where I left off in the last post. It takes an elementary knowledge of 'matters of state', and a modicum of common sense, to appreciate that a democracy 'idealized' is different from a democracy 'realized'. In practice, there are several frictions inherent in the workings of a constitutional democracy that hinder its smooth functioning. Specifically, the bureaucratic hierarchy instituted by the system provides ample scope for corrupt practices, broadly defined as the use of public office for private gain. The idea that decentralization, or delegation of authority by the principal (the authority of the public vested through the constitution in the state) to agents (the functionaries of state, including the bureaucracy, the executive, the legislators, even the judiciary), in the presence of imperfect monitoring of actions by the principal, creates perverse incentives for side-payments between the agents and the beneficiaries of state action. This is definitely not a happy situation. But it is inbuilt into a democratic system. Surely, checks and balances can be placed. They tend to be costly and the state functionaries lack incentives to install them in place. The first cry for the Lokpal bill was a clearly demand for such checks and balances (as were successful movements such as the RTI which did become an Act).  By coming out in the open once again though, what Anna seems to be pushing for implicitly, perhaps unknowingly, is an overthrow of parliamentary democracy as we understand it today. He seems to be advocating a 'civil-society authoritarianism' where the civil society dictates a point wise mandate to the government. But who forms the civil society? The millions of protesters who have come together in support of his movement. This is a potential onset of anarchy. May be I am exaggerating this a bit too much, but it is clear that by defying the proceedings of the Parliament, he is hitting out at fundamental principles of democratic government. The desires of a certain section of middle class for Anna to stay within the restraints of parliamentary framework  may be interpreted as their 'conservative bourgeois' mindset, much like that of the moderates who formed the INC in 1885 (now that such analogies are being indiscriminately being drawn). I wish to take no sides. I feel I am too young, and too unwise, to yet indoctrinate myself . If democracy has to suffer a blow for the want of a better system let it. (Here is a fairly radical viewpoint on the issue. An exceedingly good piece on Ambedkar's distaste for Gandhian ideals and methods is here. It forms an interesting counterpoint.) My contention is this: As a leader of a movement that has instantly gathered a large following, Anna has a higher moral responsibility. If his agenda is marked with such radicalism, the people taking part in the movement need to know this. Or the movement becomes self defeating. I take nothing away from the conscience and good sense of the Indian public when I say that 'they' need to know it. I myself am a part of 'them'. But the aggregated beliefs of such a large multitude of people tend to lose their individual shades of grey, and the 'wisdom of the crowds' is instead turned into a 'foolishness of the mob'. This is where an entire program might become misdirected without any particular person's intention.

At the same time, I do doubt the extent to which passing of a law like the Jan Lokpal Bill can go forth to tackle the more deep seated phenomenon of corruption. If it cannot, then is all the noise pointless? To be sure, corruption is not new to indian polity. In perhaps the earliest foreboding of the principal agent kind of problem, Kautilya writes in the Arthashastra:
Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey (or the poison) that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking water or not drinking, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out while taking money (for themselves).
In fact, the UCLA economist Deepak Lal (though I personally do not subscribe to some of his views) has gone on to argue in his book, The Hindu Equilibrium, that some sort of expropriation of resources from the public has always been undertaken by the ruling class (in one form or the other) and it is so deep rooted that it may never be removed. The society is so structured that it may continue to do good despite such expropriation. (Note this is different from the efficiency theories of corruption which say that in a second best world with policy induced distortions corruption might well be a corrective factor. It is has also been argued that the opportunity for bribe taking helps the public authorities obtain a signal as to who has the greatest marginal willingness to pay for a certain public benefit being provided by the authority (whosoever is willing to pay the highest bribe) and hence deliver the benefit to the person who values it the most, improving the efficiency of the system. There are several counterarguments to these views, but we would be digressing. The point here is not to examine whether corruption is efficient.)

So why does corruption persist? To understand this, we need to understand why corruption occurs in the first place. Corruption can be viewed, as mentioned before, as a principal agent incentive problem. In a similar spirit, it may be seen as a Coasean bargaining transaction between say a bureaucrat and a private agent. (This particular interpretation lends weight to the efficiency thesis. Even if the efficiency idea were to go through, it would not mean that there are no distributional consequences). Through one of the above routes, or through any other, once the society converges to a 'corrupt equilibrium', why is it not able to deviate? Precisely because it gets 'locked into' an equilibrium. There are several explanations to how this lock-in is sustained. The textbook explanation in Economics is that the elaborate system of state licences and permits gives rise to rent seeking behaviour by private agents, which sustains corruption. The sociologists explain it differently. They attribute persistent social behavior to 'social norms' that become inherent in a society and bootstrap themselves. This may well turn out to be a tautological explanation though, especially to the economist (or even the analytical sociologist). Recent developments in the theory of repeated games have sought to develop a coherent theory of social norms, with agent based models, evolutionary game theory, bounded rationality models, institutional economics, putting in their bit. The body of literature is wide, yet it is undoubtedly work in progress. (Perhaps more on this at a later date). Another way of looking at the tenacity of corruption is to view it as a coordination problem, and this is possibly more productive from our point of view. Essentially, there are several equilibrium behaviors a society can stabilize at several equilibria (and there is no conclusive theory as to which equilibrium will be chosen) but once the stabilization happens, deviation from the equilibrium becomes difficult. The equilibria thus attained are frequency dependent equilibria i.e. the expected gain from a certain behavior (say corruption) depends on how many people are (believed to be) engaging in that behaviour (how many people are corrupt). There can be several variations on this idea, for instance, Andvig and Moene (1990) paper which assumes that the expected punishment for corruption, if detected, falls as corruption becomes more rampant. But the essence is unchanged. Jean Tirole's (1996) papers adopts an approach in a similar spirit, but provides greater insight. Tirole uses the idea of collective reputation, nicely explained (and exemplified) by Rajiv Sethi. The broad idea is that in an overlapping generations framework, the younger generation inherits the bad reputation of the older generation and because actions may be imperfectly monitored, they have no incentive to act in a virtuous manner. The implication derived by Tirole in the paper (in respect of corrupt behavior) is that while a sudden increase in corruption levels might be long lasting, a one shot fall in corruption may not have substantive effects. This, in some sense, undermines those who make a case for Anna's protest by claiming that the movement  has helped create mass awareness. However, another emerging branch of game theory offers them some respite. Epistemic game theory tries to construct game theory bottom up from foundational issues about beliefs and knowledge. In this tradition, though inching away from core theory, Michael Chwee has a beautiful little book, Rational Ritual, Culture, Coordination and Common Knowledge, (available here for free download and reviewed here). The main thesis of the book is that people can coordinate without communication simply by forming common knowledge of each others intentions, and, in traditional societies, rituals are an effective way of ensuring common knowledge of certain beliefs. The idea is that if I know that you will act in a certain way, and I know that you know that I know that you will act in a certain way and so on, and there are mutual gains to be had through cooperation (say both of us adopting fair means), then without communicating individually, we can converge on the same (good) focal point. Rituals ensure that people can see each other at common ceremonies, and they can see each other seeing the same things that they are seeing. This helps them coordinate. In a sense, we can view the countrywide anti-corruption get together as a modern day (though on a much larger scale, and much weaker) ritual, manifesting itself not only on the streets but also on social networking sites.

The point nonetheless is that we cannot be sure that such a bill once passed will be able to make a significant difference to prevalent corruption. This does not offer us reason to be pessimistic. But if we are to significantly alter a system, we must be aware of potential consequences.

Eventually what I have ended up with is a set of open questions. There are pointers in both directions, but they confuse rather than clarify. If we are to be thinking individuals, however, then, I suspect, it becomes impossible for us to avoid such quagmire. To form strong opinions, and hold on to them, might, for all one knows, require some indoctrination. Or else we shall remain guilty of ambivalence. However, as Joan Robinson once said, "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." Similarly,  any exercise in constructively thinking about a social issue has value to it perhaps not in being able to provide the right answers, but in being able to see through a more conventional outlook.

Photo Credit