| INDIARIGHT.ORG |
Indiaright.org is owned, managed and edited by the Centre for National Renaissance (CNR). The CNR has been founded by the Naveen Hindustan Foundation. [ read ] |
| RIGHTWING IDEOLOGY |
The three strands of any Rightwing ideology in the West are: open society, free economy, and limited government. [ read ] |
 |
 |
 | Tryst with collectivism: Advani disapproves of Ranbaxy sale Ravi Shanker Kapoor LK Advani's disapproval of Ranbaxy's sale to Japan's Daiichi-Sankyo is not very wise. What it shows is that the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP's) leader still views nationalism in a narrow context. If an Indian company, say, Tata Motors, buys a foreign firm, it is good; if a Japanese major takes over a pharmaceutical company, it is bad—this line of thinking, brimming with meretricious patriotism, is deeply flawed. The fallacy lies in confusing companies with territories and shareholders' gains with the national interest. Advani said, "It's a cause for worry that an Indian company, known for its research & development capabilities and operating in a critical area like pharmaceuticals, has lost its identity to a foreign company." Regrettably, it was not some Swadeshi fanatic's rant against globalization; it was the disapproval of the prime ministerial candidate of a political party whose fortunes are on an upswing. To be fair to Advani, he did not dismiss globalization as unmitigated evil: "I am not trying to find fault with globalization and profit motives. But these cannot override considerations of national interests." But, Mr Advani, what do "national interests" have to do with sale of a private firm? Ranbaxy promoters Malvinder Singh and his family sell their 34.81 per cent equity in the country's largest pharmaceuticals firm to Daiichi-Sankyo. Singh gets Rs 10,000 crore in the deal, and is obviously not complaining. Nor is the Japanese major; otherwise, it would not have paid this kind of money. Nor have we come across any small shareholders, creditors, bankers or anybody else lamenting the acquisition. So, what's the problem? The problem is with the Indian political class: it has made a tryst with what Ayn Rand calls collectivism or tribalism. Our political masters have immense faith in the collectivism credo that the individual is supposed to exist and function in society for the sake of some collectivity. In our context, this credo means that just because an Indian entity—be it a company, an individual achiever, or an institution—is successful, it becomes national property even it is not technically nationalized. Why and how? Because any entity owes its existence to the nation: how could it exist without the nation? So, our politicians have internalized John F Kennedy's famous exhortation to his countrymen: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." In Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman scrutinized and criticized JFK's famous quote, saying that its neither half "expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society." According to Friedman, "To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive." In our politicians' scheme of things, the nation—and often also the government—"a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served." They see salvation in some sort of collectivity. For the BJP, a supposedly Rightwing party, the collectivity assumes the form of nation; for the Left, it is society. Both, the Right and the Left, put the interests of the collectivity ('nation', 'societal goals', etc) above the aspirations, concerns and pursuits of the individual. So, a successful company—in this case, Ranbaxy—is not the result of Bhai Mohan Singh, enthusiastically promoted by his son Parvinder and prudently sold off by the third generation. Aren't we entitled to enjoy the fruits of the efforts of our parents, their parents and their parents? 'Yes' would be the answer of commonsense, instinct and natural law; collectivists of various hues are unanimous in their negation. Advani and his party have to shed the nationalism that suppresses individualism. Only then they would be able to comprehend the reality of economic situation. Posted on : 6/30/2008 Mail this article to your friend |