Manmohan Singh talks to the press

You may already have read about this, especially if you read the newspaper everyday (or just on Tuesday, the 7th of September – you know, I’m just saying…)

Manmohan Singh was interviewed by several editors.  He talks about why it is that the Government cannot randomly give away the foodgrains, even if government-owned godowns have surplus stock.

His reasoning that farmers will stop producing food if the government starts giving away free food may be a little too Ayn Rand-ish for my liking. Also, it may seem a bit obtuse to say that when you have 37 percent of your population below the poverty line, and there’s no way you can feed all of them for free, you can’t feed a some part of them (because that would be unfair to the rest, I guess). But when he takes on the Supreme Court and says that the higher judiciary in this country should not go around talking about policy formulation, I think he’s spot-on.

I’ve written about this before. You should also read Arundhati Roy’s dismantling of the judiciary’s keenness to stick their noses in other people’s business:

The higher judiciary, the Supreme Court in particular, doesn’t just uphold the law, it micromanages our lives. Its judgements range through matters great and small. It decides what’s good for the environment and what isn’t, whether dams should be built, rivers linked, mountains moved, forests felled. It decides what our cities should look like and who has the right to live in them. It decides whether slums should be cleared, streets widened, shops sealed, whether strikes should be allowed, industries should be shut down, relocated or privatised. It decides what goes into school textbooks, what sort of fuel should be used in public transport and schedules of fines for traffic offences. It decides what colour the lights on judges’ cars should be (red) and whether they should blink or not (they should). It has become the premier arbiter of public policy in this country that likes to market itself as the World’s Largest Democracy.

I think it’s fantastic that the Prime Minister has just asked the Supreme Court to mind its own business.

I also think what he had to say about people in his government disagreeing with each other, or two ministries in his government fighting it out (the Environment ministry and the Civil aviation minister are at loggerheads over the Navi Mumbai Airport. The Environment ministry also stopped Vedanta from plundering Orissa’s forests. Kamal Nath and Montek Singh have gone toe to toe) was brilliant. He points out that Nehru or Indira Gandhi’s cabinets had a lot more internal disagreement, and that disagreement should be the norm in a democracy, not something to be looked upon as a bad thing.

He also says, of his being interviewed by several top editors, that the pigeon has been set amongst the cats. Indeed!


7 thoughts on “Manmohan Singh talks to the press”

  1. While I completely agree with the PM when he says that the SC should not poke its nose in policy formulation, I would love to hear from him what exactly he is going to do with the thousands of tonnes of food grains lying in the PDS warehouses which are going to start rotting in two months. Its not like we have an efficient supply chain or a very willing bunch of bureaucrats to ensure that they are delivered to the markets in time.

  2. Quite. It does sound a little odd to say ” I can’t feed everybody who’s hungry, so let me not feed anybody, even if the food is rotting away.”

    To be fair, that isn’t really what he’s saying. He’s saying food will be provided at low cost. And as low cost as can be managed (the Ayn Rand thing again – at what cost of food will farmers stop farming? or something like that).

  3. I agree with the low cost argument in view of the spirit of free market. The question is if the government will be able to deliver it before its too late and everyone ends up hungry. I think the Supreme Court made its “suggestion” keeping in mind the time frame, and the government’s capability (or the lack of it) to manage the public distribution system.

  4. 🙂 for “suggestion”.

    Yeah, the thing with higher judicial (I wanted to say ‘supreme court-al’) “suggestion”s is that somebody tomorrow can sue the government for contempt of court.

    Also, none of the people on the bench are economists, social or financial policy makers, administrative officers, or field-workers. They have no expertise in this regard, save for that they think it’s bad that food is rotting while people go hungry. I could have told them that.

  5. I think you mean >>>But when he takes on the Supreme Court and says that the higher judiciary in this country should “not” go around talking about policy formulation, I think he’s spot-on.<<<

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s