It was a fascinating experience to engage in a conversation with Romila Thapar, one of the celebrated historians of Ancient and Pre-Modern India. I could literally see the organic link between reading History in schools and what she conversed over a span of nearly two hours - as if it started from that very moment where it ended in classrooms.
Over the past two years, the King's India Institute, under the leadership of Dr Sunil Khilnani and with support from other members of the faculty, has been quite successful in engaging some of the finest thinkers of and on Modern India with the students. Thapar was more of an exception to that long list of esteemed scholars as her work mostly related to Ancient India. However, even at this age, it never seemed that she was talking on something which was not part of a dialogue on Modern India.
Compartmentalising Indian history between the Ancient, Medieval and Modern was only for the purpose of working out the syllabus and holding examinations, she said and "we should never forget the roots" for a better understanding of the "contemporary". In fact, some of the questions raised by her during the course of the conversation transcends beyond the realm of History as an academic discipline. Even an anthropologist or a sociologist or an archaeologist could have come up with similar questions during the course of their research, assuring many among her audience that inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary thinking were also taking shape in India.
Thapar, through erudition, situated her thinking on Ancient Indian History at the very heart of what was contemporary, when she said "simply stating that Mohenjo Daro was a big urban settlement is not good enough, we want to know how big it was." These are some of the queries which come to our mind when we deal with anything contemporary, but such questions never raked our brains when we studied Indus Valley Civilisation in schools. Now out of sheer inquisitiveness we want to know more about the lifestyle of the ordinary people living in urban settlements like Mahenjo Daro and Harappa. We want to know many more things about the life world of those living in the ancient urban settlements.
When we studied Indus Valley Civilisation, it seemed as if Mahenjo Daro and Harappa were like two islands in the middle of nothing. Today, however, we want to know what was beyond those urban spaces, were there villages - if so how fertile was the land in those villages - what was produced in those fertile land - what was the mode of irrigation - did farmers use fertilisers?
Given my long association with journalism, Thapar asked "Was there any form of media during that period - if so what was the mode of communication?"
Many such questions come to our mind now but never did when we studied school textbooks on History. I am not sure whether we were encouraged to do so. For us, history, especially ancient history, was more of a static concept and without any organic element.
I asked if the change in attitude, approach and perception was an outcome of enhanced intellectual thinking?
For Thapar it was going beyond what she termed as "romantic History" - that is talking only about kings and queens, battles and kingdoms.
As I walked out of the room having gothic structures it seemed that it could be humanising history. After all history is the story of humankind. My curiosity now is not only confined to the monarchy and their empires but I also want to know more about the life world of the warrior who goes to the battlefield to defend the king. What was crossing his wife's mind or those of his children when he left for war? Did he make enough arrangements for his family to survive in case he never returned from the battlefield?
My father always says that history is the connection between the past and the present. His intention though was not to inculcate historical thinking but to encourage me to read more and develop my reading habits. I never listened to his advice then but now the 'pain of disconnect' - failing to situate the past in the present - makes me feel uncomfortable.
Our conversation with Romila Thapar in one of the historic rooms of King's College at least provided me with some temporary respite.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Tuesday
Thursday
From Savar with love
Everytime I make my way into Primark, H&M, Tesco, Asda and Matalan the helpless faces of those who lost their loved ones in numerous tragedies involving the readymade garment factories in Bangladesh come to my mind. Yet I regularly visit these and many other retail outlets for the simple reason that they sell cheap clothes imported from countries like Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka. Such products manifest some of the tangible benefits of globalisation available mainly to the people in the western countries. For me though they are no less than the labour of love of the garment workers who work under inhumane conditions but do everything necessary to provide us with cheap yet high quality products.
Once I bought a shirt from Primark and it cost me as little as £5. Just to clear my doubts, I took it to Kolkata, showed the shirt to many retailers and wholesalers of clothes, yet failed to get one of such quality at such a modest price. Undoubtedly, globalisation has changed the dynamics of trade fetching even more benefits to the consumers in the first world.
When Neoliberalism - a politico-economic doctrine that decimated the nation state - and trade liberalisation were introduced, capital flowed easily and swiftly from the North to the labour abundant countries of the South. Jobs and services were outsourced to places where cost of living was much less and factors of production had to be paid a fraction of the remuneration in the western economies. Large scale retrenchment and factory closures that followed caused huge resentment, yet the policy-makers assured the ordinary men saying that things like clothing, food etc. would be available at a much cheaper price bringing the cost of living down. The real ploy, one can now make out, was to keep the wages low so as to mop up even more profit for the corporate class.
On the other side of the world, sweatshops engaged in industrial production of readymade garments became the hallmark of national pride and identity. Mushrooming of readymade garment factories ensured fast buck for the traders, which also paid for the comfortable living of their political patrons. Unhindered wealth creation in Bangladesh benefited the rich and the influential but the misery of those who toiled hard to earn foreign exchanges and pride for the nation continued. The garment workers were literally locked up in dingy buildings so that their masters could deliver orders on time. They were left to die from suffocation as the country's foreign exchange reserve touched new highs. And finally, they were literally pushed to the throes of death as a building in Savar, housing at least five garment factories, caved in following a crack which was evident well ahead of the worst industrial disaster Bangladesh has ever seen.
As I sport the cheap yet high quality, trendy yet comfortable clothes exported from countries like Bangladesh, I often indulge in a cost-benefit analysis for the poor workers who work in inhumane conditions only to add to the forex reserve of the national economy so that Bangladesh could upgrade to a developing country, and to make Neoliberalism palatable for the westerners.
The readymade garment sector accounts for more than 70 per cent of Bangladesh's export earnings, yet the inhumane condition of the hapless workers in this sector and their deaths in tragic circumstances have failed to stir the nation's moral imagination. Everytime a tragedy strikes the readymade garments sector, political parties of all hues make a beeline to offer nothing more than lip service only to ensure that the perpetrators go scot free.
One tragedy after another have failed to awaken the political class from the opportunistic slumber. Awami League claims to have situated the country on a higher trajectory of growth and prosperity, but what have they done for the garment workers who lost their lives and their families. BNP is more interested in bringing back the caretaker regime before the general elections but have very little to offer to the poor workers. Jamaat-i-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam vow in the name of Islamic morality and norms, yet they are silent over the tragic killing of innocent and poor garment workers at Savar.
The ill-fated workers are neither compensated enough for the hard work they do in inhumane conditions nor are they sure to survive another day to witness a new dawn. The surplus generated through their economic and social exploitation pays for the comfortable living of the rich and the influential, yet the garment workers carry on with their labour of love - what else can one call it - day in and day out.
It is no surprise though that the international community, which speaks so highly on human rights and values, also become muted when it comes to the sufferings of the poor garment workers in Bangladesh. After all, the cheap products produced by the hard work of the poor workers in Bangladesh contribute to a lower cost of living in the West.
The dresses that I wear everyday are drenched in sweat and blood of those very people who, along with many others, lost their lives under tragic circumstances in places like Savar. It seems they are caught in a quagmire of high stakes from various quarters both within and outside Bangladesh.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Once I bought a shirt from Primark and it cost me as little as £5. Just to clear my doubts, I took it to Kolkata, showed the shirt to many retailers and wholesalers of clothes, yet failed to get one of such quality at such a modest price. Undoubtedly, globalisation has changed the dynamics of trade fetching even more benefits to the consumers in the first world.
When Neoliberalism - a politico-economic doctrine that decimated the nation state - and trade liberalisation were introduced, capital flowed easily and swiftly from the North to the labour abundant countries of the South. Jobs and services were outsourced to places where cost of living was much less and factors of production had to be paid a fraction of the remuneration in the western economies. Large scale retrenchment and factory closures that followed caused huge resentment, yet the policy-makers assured the ordinary men saying that things like clothing, food etc. would be available at a much cheaper price bringing the cost of living down. The real ploy, one can now make out, was to keep the wages low so as to mop up even more profit for the corporate class.
On the other side of the world, sweatshops engaged in industrial production of readymade garments became the hallmark of national pride and identity. Mushrooming of readymade garment factories ensured fast buck for the traders, which also paid for the comfortable living of their political patrons. Unhindered wealth creation in Bangladesh benefited the rich and the influential but the misery of those who toiled hard to earn foreign exchanges and pride for the nation continued. The garment workers were literally locked up in dingy buildings so that their masters could deliver orders on time. They were left to die from suffocation as the country's foreign exchange reserve touched new highs. And finally, they were literally pushed to the throes of death as a building in Savar, housing at least five garment factories, caved in following a crack which was evident well ahead of the worst industrial disaster Bangladesh has ever seen.
As I sport the cheap yet high quality, trendy yet comfortable clothes exported from countries like Bangladesh, I often indulge in a cost-benefit analysis for the poor workers who work in inhumane conditions only to add to the forex reserve of the national economy so that Bangladesh could upgrade to a developing country, and to make Neoliberalism palatable for the westerners.
The readymade garment sector accounts for more than 70 per cent of Bangladesh's export earnings, yet the inhumane condition of the hapless workers in this sector and their deaths in tragic circumstances have failed to stir the nation's moral imagination. Everytime a tragedy strikes the readymade garments sector, political parties of all hues make a beeline to offer nothing more than lip service only to ensure that the perpetrators go scot free.
One tragedy after another have failed to awaken the political class from the opportunistic slumber. Awami League claims to have situated the country on a higher trajectory of growth and prosperity, but what have they done for the garment workers who lost their lives and their families. BNP is more interested in bringing back the caretaker regime before the general elections but have very little to offer to the poor workers. Jamaat-i-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam vow in the name of Islamic morality and norms, yet they are silent over the tragic killing of innocent and poor garment workers at Savar.
The ill-fated workers are neither compensated enough for the hard work they do in inhumane conditions nor are they sure to survive another day to witness a new dawn. The surplus generated through their economic and social exploitation pays for the comfortable living of the rich and the influential, yet the garment workers carry on with their labour of love - what else can one call it - day in and day out.
It is no surprise though that the international community, which speaks so highly on human rights and values, also become muted when it comes to the sufferings of the poor garment workers in Bangladesh. After all, the cheap products produced by the hard work of the poor workers in Bangladesh contribute to a lower cost of living in the West.
The dresses that I wear everyday are drenched in sweat and blood of those very people who, along with many others, lost their lives under tragic circumstances in places like Savar. It seems they are caught in a quagmire of high stakes from various quarters both within and outside Bangladesh.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Saturday
Thatcher's legacy: Empowerment or state's decimation
The other day I came across Alfredo Saad Filho at King's College in London. I first met the scholar of the Marxist Political Economy in 2008 when he was heading the Department of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). The Brazilian of Lebanese origin shaped much of my understanding on Neoliberalism. After spending two years with the United Nations in Geneva, he is back again in London.
During the course of his lectures on the demise of Keynesianism, Alfredo had observed that the global financial crisis was not the handiwork of only the bankers, who are blamed the most for their greed and financial imprudence, but also of the government policymakers. In fact, the sub-prime mortgage, considered to be the germ behind the financial epidemic, was the result of a concerted government policy in the US.
Alfredo introduced me to the writings of Allen Greenspan, who is one of the 25 people listed by the Time as blameworthy for the financial crisis.
In his book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" , Greenspan writes: "The gains [from home ownership] were especially dramatic among Hispanics and Blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of sub prime mortgage programmes enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. This expansion ... gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation."
The motive behind the policymakers encouraging the banks to provide sub prime mortgage to the relatively less well off, knowing fully well that they were more likely than not to falter to repay the debt, was to ensure a sense of ownership in the system and a stake in the dominant discourse,i.e, Neoliberalism.
I doubt if the US policymakers had any noble intention about the well being of the Hispanics and the Black population when the banks were dishing out sub prime mortgages. On the contrary, giving home ownership, however flimsy it might be, to those who didn't even dream of having their own properties was a way of discrediting the nation state, which was the dominant development paradigm in the post-war period and it continued till the early 1970s.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow the council tenants to buy the properties they lived in was a way of , giving the less well off a sense of ownership in the system, encouraging them to live outside the purview of the welfare state and portraying that it was not only the state which was capable of providing home ownership.
One might argue that Thatcher's intention was to empower the people but as the events of the post-Thatcher years would prove it has resulted more in the decimation of the nation state. I haven't come across any empirical evidence to prove that those who bought their council properties moved up the property, social and economic ladders in substantial numbers. I wonder if buying the council properties have in any way changed the life world of those who have done so or made them more enterprising.
I would also argue that Thatcher's crackdown on the trade unions and widespread privatisation were also guided more by the motive of liquidating the state and not so much to empower the people.
The Thatcher years might have changed Britain significantly. The days of rampant trade unionism are a thing of the past, the industrial heartland of middle England has undergone significant
de-industrialisation and is struggling with a high level of unemployment and the society has become more unequal, but it is hard to believe that the ordinary man feels more empowered now. The positive effects of societal changes and technological development have been overshadowed by insecurity and instability.
So as Margaret Thatcher goes to her grave, I will remember her more for the arrogant one-line snipers and much less as someone who has made significant positive changes to people's lives.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
During the course of his lectures on the demise of Keynesianism, Alfredo had observed that the global financial crisis was not the handiwork of only the bankers, who are blamed the most for their greed and financial imprudence, but also of the government policymakers. In fact, the sub-prime mortgage, considered to be the germ behind the financial epidemic, was the result of a concerted government policy in the US.
Alfredo introduced me to the writings of Allen Greenspan, who is one of the 25 people listed by the Time as blameworthy for the financial crisis.
In his book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" , Greenspan writes: "The gains [from home ownership] were especially dramatic among Hispanics and Blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of sub prime mortgage programmes enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. This expansion ... gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation."
The motive behind the policymakers encouraging the banks to provide sub prime mortgage to the relatively less well off, knowing fully well that they were more likely than not to falter to repay the debt, was to ensure a sense of ownership in the system and a stake in the dominant discourse,i.e, Neoliberalism.
I doubt if the US policymakers had any noble intention about the well being of the Hispanics and the Black population when the banks were dishing out sub prime mortgages. On the contrary, giving home ownership, however flimsy it might be, to those who didn't even dream of having their own properties was a way of discrediting the nation state, which was the dominant development paradigm in the post-war period and it continued till the early 1970s.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow the council tenants to buy the properties they lived in was a way of , giving the less well off a sense of ownership in the system, encouraging them to live outside the purview of the welfare state and portraying that it was not only the state which was capable of providing home ownership.
One might argue that Thatcher's intention was to empower the people but as the events of the post-Thatcher years would prove it has resulted more in the decimation of the nation state. I haven't come across any empirical evidence to prove that those who bought their council properties moved up the property, social and economic ladders in substantial numbers. I wonder if buying the council properties have in any way changed the life world of those who have done so or made them more enterprising.
I would also argue that Thatcher's crackdown on the trade unions and widespread privatisation were also guided more by the motive of liquidating the state and not so much to empower the people.
The Thatcher years might have changed Britain significantly. The days of rampant trade unionism are a thing of the past, the industrial heartland of middle England has undergone significant
de-industrialisation and is struggling with a high level of unemployment and the society has become more unequal, but it is hard to believe that the ordinary man feels more empowered now. The positive effects of societal changes and technological development have been overshadowed by insecurity and instability.
So as Margaret Thatcher goes to her grave, I will remember her more for the arrogant one-line snipers and much less as someone who has made significant positive changes to people's lives.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Thursday
Vandalism at Presidency: Remembering Father Huart
The recent events at Kolkata's Presidency University reminds me of the grit and determination of our very own Father A Huart, the former Rector of St Xavier's College.
I don't remember the exact year now - probably it was in 1987. Once during a students' strike in West Bengal, members from both the Student Federation of India or SFI and the Chhatra Parishad wanted to stop classes and impose the shutdown at our college. In fact, they had jointly put flags at the college gate on the Park Street side.
However, Father Huart, then the Vice Principal, was not ready to relent. He argued with the student leaders that there was no political union in our college so closing it down for external reasons would amount to imposing a decision on the students to which they might not agree.
One of the student leaders, who was probably from the Moulana Azad College, even threatened Father Huart with violence and blood shed (rakto ganga boye jete pare).
Father Huart, as he was, in a very composed manner replied that he had witnessed the Naxalite violence at its peak in West Bengal and if he had to die the person replacing him would do the same thing.
Finding an unassuming Father Huart such a hard nut to crack, the all imposing student leaders left.
Father Huart then called all the students and narrated what he told the student leaders. He then asked us whether we wanted to join the strike. Getting a negative response from the students, he then announced that the following day the college would be closed after lunch break.
Later in 2009, when the college was celebrating its 150th anniversary, the Belgian father recalled the tough time they had to face at the height of political instability in the state.
He told The Telegraph: "I remember the ’60s and ’70s when the whole city was in turmoil with the Naxalite movement but St. Xavier’s escaped from it entirely. There were some attempts in the ’60s to bring in a college union based on politics but it met with resistance from the students who thought it would divide them."
Father Huart was always very proud of the college and his students. When I was doing my Economics Honours he used to teach us Political Theory. Once he asked me to leave the class as I was busy doing things for our picnic to Nurpur the next day rather than paying attention to his lecture. He asked me not to return without seeing him. But when I met him after the class and apologised in Bengali, following an advice from a senior, he excused me. As I was talking to him, I could see a copy of the well known Bengali magazine 'Desh' on his table. He later confided his passion for Bengali.
He was a true custodian of his students, now a rare breed in the world of education across Bengal. Following threats from the leaders of the warring students' unions, Father Huart could have easily sought help from the Park Street Police Station, which was literally across the road. Instead he chose to take things on his own stride and did what he felt was best for the college and its students.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
 |
| Father Huart (Courtesy The Telegraph) |
I don't remember the exact year now - probably it was in 1987. Once during a students' strike in West Bengal, members from both the Student Federation of India or SFI and the Chhatra Parishad wanted to stop classes and impose the shutdown at our college. In fact, they had jointly put flags at the college gate on the Park Street side.
However, Father Huart, then the Vice Principal, was not ready to relent. He argued with the student leaders that there was no political union in our college so closing it down for external reasons would amount to imposing a decision on the students to which they might not agree.
One of the student leaders, who was probably from the Moulana Azad College, even threatened Father Huart with violence and blood shed (rakto ganga boye jete pare).
Father Huart, as he was, in a very composed manner replied that he had witnessed the Naxalite violence at its peak in West Bengal and if he had to die the person replacing him would do the same thing.
Finding an unassuming Father Huart such a hard nut to crack, the all imposing student leaders left.
Father Huart then called all the students and narrated what he told the student leaders. He then asked us whether we wanted to join the strike. Getting a negative response from the students, he then announced that the following day the college would be closed after lunch break.
Later in 2009, when the college was celebrating its 150th anniversary, the Belgian father recalled the tough time they had to face at the height of political instability in the state.
He told The Telegraph: "I remember the ’60s and ’70s when the whole city was in turmoil with the Naxalite movement but St. Xavier’s escaped from it entirely. There were some attempts in the ’60s to bring in a college union based on politics but it met with resistance from the students who thought it would divide them."
Father Huart was always very proud of the college and his students. When I was doing my Economics Honours he used to teach us Political Theory. Once he asked me to leave the class as I was busy doing things for our picnic to Nurpur the next day rather than paying attention to his lecture. He asked me not to return without seeing him. But when I met him after the class and apologised in Bengali, following an advice from a senior, he excused me. As I was talking to him, I could see a copy of the well known Bengali magazine 'Desh' on his table. He later confided his passion for Bengali.
He was a true custodian of his students, now a rare breed in the world of education across Bengal. Following threats from the leaders of the warring students' unions, Father Huart could have easily sought help from the Park Street Police Station, which was literally across the road. Instead he chose to take things on his own stride and did what he felt was best for the college and its students.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Monday
Margaret Thatcher's legacy
Hagiology is in our genes. Even the most impolite of persons is described as very well mannered in death.
Many are describing Margaret Thatcher as the 'Iron Lady' who saved Britain from the brink of disaster by privatising, I would argue the society. Most of them haven't seen the Thatcher years, I haven't either. But I have at least witnessed some of the impact Thatcherism had on contemporary Britain.
The place which saw the first industrial revolution is now bereft of any industry. The same applies with agriculture. If Thatcher had converted the country into a shop, being a grocer's daughter herself, her Labour protege Tony Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown transformed Britain into a land of city-centric speculation.
Gambling often pays more than productive activities, but that is a matter of chance. Blair made hay when the sun shone and now the British people are paying the price.
Thatcher years were marked by large scale privatisation. This may seem sound business to an MBA or a business analyst, but a country is a tad different from business. The privatisation of British Telecom, British Airways or BP might seem good business but only the profit motive might make the stakeholders of these blue chip companies extremely reckless. Then they might only be guided by profit maximisation and dispose the companies off failing to do so. In that case the biggest looser would be the country and it's people. Yet David Cameron describes Thatcher as a lion-hearted patriot.
Public sector is not without inefficiency but resorting to privatisation as a way of ensuring efficiency only highlights the failings of the government. It is extremely risky to privatise certain things, as there is more to society and ethical sustainability than profiteering. Some call it commanding heights, others describe them as core infrastructure. Leaving them to the market is compromising with national interest and aspirations of the hardworking people.
These days people talk more in favour of privatisation not only because government is inefficient, which no one would deny, but also for the simple reason that privatisation dominates the popular intellectual discourse. This is the fall out of the Washington Consensus and its architects can thank Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for that.
The legacy of Thatcher and Reagan would be the age when government is less important and a society that is far more insecure.
Friedrich August Hayek has finally taken his revenge over John Maynard Keynes.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Many are describing Margaret Thatcher as the 'Iron Lady' who saved Britain from the brink of disaster by privatising, I would argue the society. Most of them haven't seen the Thatcher years, I haven't either. But I have at least witnessed some of the impact Thatcherism had on contemporary Britain.
The place which saw the first industrial revolution is now bereft of any industry. The same applies with agriculture. If Thatcher had converted the country into a shop, being a grocer's daughter herself, her Labour protege Tony Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown transformed Britain into a land of city-centric speculation.
Gambling often pays more than productive activities, but that is a matter of chance. Blair made hay when the sun shone and now the British people are paying the price.
Thatcher years were marked by large scale privatisation. This may seem sound business to an MBA or a business analyst, but a country is a tad different from business. The privatisation of British Telecom, British Airways or BP might seem good business but only the profit motive might make the stakeholders of these blue chip companies extremely reckless. Then they might only be guided by profit maximisation and dispose the companies off failing to do so. In that case the biggest looser would be the country and it's people. Yet David Cameron describes Thatcher as a lion-hearted patriot.
Public sector is not without inefficiency but resorting to privatisation as a way of ensuring efficiency only highlights the failings of the government. It is extremely risky to privatise certain things, as there is more to society and ethical sustainability than profiteering. Some call it commanding heights, others describe them as core infrastructure. Leaving them to the market is compromising with national interest and aspirations of the hardworking people.
These days people talk more in favour of privatisation not only because government is inefficient, which no one would deny, but also for the simple reason that privatisation dominates the popular intellectual discourse. This is the fall out of the Washington Consensus and its architects can thank Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for that.
The legacy of Thatcher and Reagan would be the age when government is less important and a society that is far more insecure.
Friedrich August Hayek has finally taken his revenge over John Maynard Keynes.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)