Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Interesting readings

S. A. Aiyar in the Economic Times, 2 March.

Ila Patnaik in the Indian Express, 2 March.

An editorial in the Times of India, 1 March. 

Ashok Desai in the Telegraph and in the Hindu, 1 March. The Economic Times, 2 March.

Budget analysis by P. Chidambaram, in the Indian Express, 1 March.

Budget 2016 shows that Modi is a reformer in retreat, by Shekhar Gupta, in the Business Standard, 1 March.

Rationalised taxes for pension plans, by Renuka Sane, in Mint, 1 March. 

Not risen to the challenge, by Ajay Shah, in the Business Standard, 1 March.

Rathin Roy in the Business Standard, 29 February.

Income tax statistics: filling the gaps, by Ashutosh Dikshit, in the Financial Express, 29 February.

Editorial in the Business Standard, 28 February.

How to govern dissent, by Upendra Baxi, in the Indian Express, 27 February.

The causes of NPAs, by Renuka Sane, Anjali Sharma, Susan Thomas, in the Business Standard, 27 February.

What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team, by Charles Duhigg, in the New York Times, 25 February.

An emerging pattern, by Salil Tripathi in the Mint, 24 February.

Is Modi sarkar fully in control?, by Subir Roy, in the Business Standard, 23 February.

Better news needed, by Ashok V. Desai, in the Telegraph, 23 February.

A test of freedom by Fali S. Nariman in the Indian Express, 17 February.

2 comments:

  1. Ref Fali Nariman's post:

    "Sedition in India is not unconstitutional, it remains an offence only if the words, spoken or written, are accompanied by disorder and violence and/ or incitement to disorder and violence"

    P Chidambaram said the same thing in his article. I am not sure if Mr Nariman here is endorsing this or merely describing the state of the law.

    As an aside: I am not in support of a sedition law, prefer something along the lines of the US constitution's 1st amendment, which is probably not possible in India given the lack of understanding of freedom of expression. I have heard majority, educated Indians say that freedom of speech is not the freedom of offend which is exactly what it is. Why would you need legal protection to say something agreeable? Its only the offensive speech that the legal system must protect. The issue resolves itself based on whether the offense has some truth in it or not. False offensive speech withers away on its own (and doesn't require any censorship) while offense with some truth in it hurts and appropriately so and should be shouted out aloud (and protected legally).

    But, putting that aside, it is quite unimaginable to me that someone with even an iota of good sense can endorse the quoted statement above made both in this article and by PC. Because, essentially what it means is that the barbarian willing to indulge in violence will have the last word, as opposed to the civilized person who is willing to protest just as vigorously and perhaps with better arguments, but who refrains from violence. It legitimizes violence and/or incitement as an instrument in getting what one wants, regardless of the truth. This flaw in our constitution explains why we have more and more incitement to violence, rather than less.

    Either sedition should be sedition regardless of whether it is backed up by threats of violence, or, we should have no sedition law and a pristine freedom of speech law. Take your pick.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It legitimizes violence and/or incitement as an instrument in getting what one wants, regardless of the truth. This flaw in our constitution explains why we have more and more incitement to violence, rather than less. Justice
    I hope it reaches your targetted audience. all the best thank you

    ReplyDelete

Please note: Comments are moderated. Only civilised conversation is permitted on this blog. Criticising me is perfectly okay; uncivilised language is not. I delete any comment which is spam, has personal attacks against anyone, or uses foul language. I delete any comment which does not contribute to the intellectual discussion about the blog article in question.

Please note: LaTeX mathematics works. This means that if you want to say $10 you have to say \$10.