New perspective on the Great Calcutta killings of 1946

Calcutta (as the city was then called) descended into an orgy of what has been perceived as communal riots in 1946. The killings were seen as an important factor that made Partition inevitable- it seemed to suggest that Hindus and Muslims would find it difficult to live together in one country.

It was fascinating, therefore, to get a quite different perspective on the killings in a book on the subject reviewed recently in EPW. The author contests the idea that the killings were primarily communal in nature. Rather, he's inclined to give more weight to the famine of 1943 inflicted - that's the right word, as it was entirely avoidable in terms of the supply of and demand for foodgrains- on the city by the British.

The author of the book, the reviewer points out, is of the view that the scorched earth policy pursued by the British following the threatened invasion of Bengal by Japan in World War II was by far the more important factor in fuelling the rights. The British emptied the rural areas of foodgrain stocks to prevent these from falling into Japanese hands. They also destroyed transportation by boats by impounding the boats, again to prevent these from falling into Japanese hands. Both these resulted in an artificial scarcity of foodgrains in the countryside. ( I have read elsewhere that inflated estimates of food output caused the British to export large amounts to support the war in other parts of the world).

Calcutta was treated differently because it was the epicentre of the war effort in the region. Workers had to be fed in order to maintain production for the war, so ration shops were set up to ensure availability of food. The two factors together- scarcity of food in the countryside and relative abundance in Calcutta- caused people to flock to Calcutta putting enormous pressure on those staying in the city for long. It was the battle for territory between those resident in Calcutta for long and the migrants that primarily resulted in riots, the author contends, the riots were not communal in origin.

This communal single-mindedness that Das speaks of in the Great Calcutta Killings, Mukherjee shows, is simply not borne out by the historical record. Instead, the violence was chaotic and driven by a range of factors. First, the fact that British targets came under attack in the bedlam has fallen through the cracks in this rush to prise a communal angle from the violence. On Chowringhee, the Main Street of White Calcutta, several European shops and business were plundered, as was an Enfield motorcycle showroom on Park Street. The Statesman House, which housed the main newspaper of White Calcutta, also came under attack but was saved by prompt police action. In Dharamtolla, a Bata showroom, a Czech company, was similarly saved from the mob by the police.

Does widespread looting—of European and Indian targets—fit the mould of the crowds having a sense of “moral duty”? Again, here the looting has been explained in terms of Hindus looting Muslim shops and vice versa—a theory little backed up by data. In the chaos, very little of who attacked whom was actually recorded. Driven by a concurrent cloth famine, cloth merchants were targeted. And of course, the authorities were wary of food stocks being ransacked, so the civil supplies department was heavily guarded. Given this data, Das’ dismissal of the riot having an economic component falls under heavy strain.

This indeed casts new light not just on the Great Killings but on the Partition that followed. The author also suggests that Bengal PM Suhrawardy has been unfairly maligned. Britian's role in bringing about the Partition of India is far greater than one had thought.

This communal single-mindedness that Das speaks of in the Great Calcutta Killings, Mukherjee shows, is simply not borne out by the historical record. Instead, the violence was chaotic and driven by a range of factors. First, the fact that British targets came under attack in the bedlam has fallen through the cracks in this rush to prise a communal angle from the violence. On Chowringhee, the Main Street of White Calcutta, several European shops and business were plundered, as was an Enfield motorcycle showroom on Park Street. The Statesman House, which housed the main newspaper of White Calcutta, also came under attack but was saved by prompt police action. In Dharamtolla, a Bata showroom, a Czech company, was similarly saved from the mob by the police.
Does widespread looting—of European and Indian targets—fit the mould of the crowds having a sense of “moral duty”? Again, here the looting has been explained in terms of Hindus looting Muslim shops and vice versa—a theory little backed up by data. In the chaos, very little of who attacked whom was actually recorded. Driven by a concurrent cloth famine, cloth merchants were targeted. And of course, the authorities were wary of food stocks being ransacked, so the civil supplies department was heavily guarded. Given this data, Das’ dismissal of the riot having an economic component falls under heavy strain.
- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/8/book-reviews/revisiting-our-narratives-great-calcutta-killings.html#sthash.1VAOCo0Y.dpuf

This communal single-mindedness that Das speaks of in the Great Calcutta Killings, Mukherjee shows, is simply not borne out by the historical record. Instead, the violence was chaotic and driven by a range of factors. First, the fact that British targets came under attack in the bedlam has fallen through the cracks in this rush to prise a communal angle from the violence. On Chowringhee, the Main Street of White Calcutta, several European shops and business were plundered, as was an Enfield motorcycle showroom on Park Street. The Statesman House, which housed the main newspaper of White Calcutta, also came under attack but was saved by prompt police action. In Dharamtolla, a Bata showroom, a Czech company, was similarly saved from the mob by the police.
Does widespread looting—of European and Indian targets—fit the mould of the crowds having a sense of “moral duty”? Again, here the looting has been explained in terms of Hindus looting Muslim shops and vice versa—a theory little backed up by data. In the chaos, very little of who attacked whom was actually recorded. Driven by a concurrent cloth famine, cloth merchants were targeted. And of course, the authorities were wary of food stocks being ransacked, so the civil supplies department was heavily guarded. Given this data, Das’ dismissal of the riot having an economic component falls under heavy strain.
- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/8/book-reviews/revisiting-our-narratives-great-calcutta-killings.html#sthash.1VAOCo0Y.dpuf

This communal single-mindedness that Das speaks of in the Great Calcutta Killings, Mukherjee shows, is simply not borne out by the historical record. Instead, the violence was chaotic and driven by a range of factors. First, the fact that British targets came under attack in the bedlam has fallen through the cracks in this rush to prise a communal angle from the violence. On Chowringhee, the Main Street of White Calcutta, several European shops and business were plundered, as was an Enfield motorcycle showroom on Park Street. The Statesman House, which housed the main newspaper of White Calcutta, also came under attack but was saved by prompt police action. In Dharamtolla, a Bata showroom, a Czech company, was similarly saved from the mob by the police.
Does widespread looting—of European and Indian targets—fit the mould of the crowds having a sense of “moral duty”? Again, here the looting has been explained in terms of Hindus looting Muslim shops and vice versa—a theory little backed up by data. In the chaos, very little of who attacked whom was actually recorded. Driven by a concurrent cloth famine, cloth merchants were targeted. And of course, the authorities were wary of food stocks being ransacked, so the civil supplies department was heavily guarded. Given this data, Das’ dismissal of the riot having an economic component falls under heavy strain.
- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/8/book-reviews/revisiting-our-narratives-great-calcutta-killings.html#sthash.1VAOCo0Y.dpuf

This communal single-mindedness that Das speaks of in the Great Calcutta Killings, Mukherjee shows, is simply not borne out by the historical record. Instead, the violence was chaotic and driven by a range of factors. First, the fact that British targets came under attack in the bedlam has fallen through the cracks in this rush to prise a communal angle from the violence. On Chowringhee, the Main Street of White Calcutta, several European shops and business were plundered, as was an Enfield motorcycle showroom on Park Street. The Statesman House, which housed the main newspaper of White Calcutta, also came under attack but was saved by prompt police action. In Dharamtolla, a Bata showroom, a Czech company, was similarly saved from the mob by the police.
Does widespread looting—of European and Indian targets—fit the mould of the crowds having a sense of “moral duty”? Again, here the looting has been explained in terms of Hindus looting Muslim shops and vice versa—a theory little backed up by data. In the chaos, very little of who attacked whom was actually recorded. Driven by a concurrent cloth famine, cloth merchants were targeted. And of course, the authorities were wary of food stocks being ransacked, so the civil supplies department was heavily guarded. Given this data, Das’ dismissal of the riot having an economic component falls under heavy strain.
- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/8/book-reviews/revisiting-our-narratives-great-calcutta-killings.html#sthash.1VAOCo0Y.dpuf

Indian army's deployment in Kashmir

About a third of the Indian army - or nearly half a million men- is bogged down in Kashmir. The army sees this as helpful to keeping the forces combat ready. An article in EPW points out, however, that there are significant negatives to the army's deployment in Kashmir.

One, army excesses sully the army's name.

Two, the infantry gains in importance at the expense of other arms- witness the supercession by General Rawat of seniors with a distinguished record in other arms (although this may not be the only reason for the supercession).

Three, the need to contain China, given that a significant chunk of the army is tied up in Kashmir, has necessitated creation of fresh divisions. This, in turn, has led to revenue expenditure eating into capital expenditure and coming in the way of the army being able to implement its Cold Start doctrine- a quick, short war on the Western front- in retaliation for cross-border terrorism practised by Pakistan.

Four, the expansion of the office cadre has been fuelled mainly by recruits from UP, Uttarakhand and Haryana. This has implications for the overall composition of the army. The article also mentions that these are areas in which aggressive nationalism has wide acceptance and those joining the army would not be exempt from these influences. This could have implications for the army' s overall philosophy.

Army deployment in Kashmir, the author argues, has thus had a corrosive act on the army. But the big question which such analysts are not able to address suitably is: can we afford to pull the army out of Kashmir given that we have not been able to make much headway either with the people of Kashmir or with Pakistan?

North Korean flash point

North Korea was flagged among the foreign policy priorities for President Trump. The advice was well-placed. Tensions in the Korean peninsula have been rising, with North Korea testing long-range missiles and the US responding with a sophisticated air defence system for South Korea.

Among the options being considered is all-out war, aimed at taking out North Korea's nuclear armoury. The argument is that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is crazy. As an article in the FT points out, he's a rational leader focused on survival. It's the war option that is crazy:

The North Korean nuclear and missile programmes are widely dispersed, including underground and underwater. It is unlikely that the whole programme could be destroyed in a single wave of strikes, which would immediately raise the prospect of nuclear retaliation by the North. Even if the US was miraculously able to take out the whole nuclear programme in one swoop, the North Koreans still have formidable conventional artillery. They could launch devastating barrages aimed at Seoul, the South Korean capital, a city of 10m people 35 miles from the North Korean border. Japan would also be vulnerable to missile strikes, as would US bases in the region. 

...  the better route, in the long run, would be to search for a deal that freezes the country’s nuclear programme, in return for economic assistance and a guarantee that the US will not seek to overthrow the regime. 

And what if such a 'grand bargain' can't be struck? Well, it would be best for the US to live with a nuclear North Korea, as it has lived with a nuclear Russia. The alternatives are too horrifying to contemplate. 

Demonetisation and other forecasts: the pundits got it wrong

Well, it doesn't look as though the Indian economy has collapsed after demonetisation. The impact on GDP growth for 2016-17, as estimated by the CSO and the RBI, is less than 50 basis points. We will, of course, know for sure after the Q4 numbers are out.

Demonetisation is one of many glaring instances of pundits having got things wrong. Some of the others are: the potential impact of Raghuram Rajan now staying on as RBI governor, Brexit and Trump's victory.

More in my BS column, Lean times for pundits.

The article is behind a pay wall, so the full article is reproduced below:

Following the demonetisation move last November, the pundits -- academics, economists, media commentators and others -- were quick to pronounce judgment: Narendra Modi had blundered. 

The withdrawal of high-denomination currency notes, they said, had caused enormous economic hardship. The prime minister should have known better. He should have consulted experts before embarking on such a radical measure. Mr Modi would pay the price in the state elections that were to follow.

It’s now clear that the pundits got it wrong. Demonetisation did not work against the BJP in the recent polls and may have even contributed to its huge victory in UP.

Some pundits argue that it was the political narrative of demonetisation that mattered, not the economic content. Demonetisation did cause hardship to the poor. But they didn’t mind because they could see that the rich would suffer more.   

One can go along with this view if the hardship amounted to putting up with long lines in banks. But not if the hardship meant a sharp slowdown in economic growth and losses in jobs and incomes. When people lose their jobs in an economic slowdown, they don’t go out and celebrate because multi-millionaires have lost even more on the stock exchange! 

The truth is simple enough but the pundits don’t seem to get it. Demonetisation has not derailed growth as much as they had predicted. Two agencies respected for their independence and professionalism, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), have estimated the impact of demonetisation on the gross domestic product (GDP) growth for 2016-17.  

Using the Gross Value Added (GVA) approach, the RBI estimates the impact on the GDP growth at 33 basis points in its monetary policy statement of February 8. Again, going by GVA, the CSO estimates the impact at 30 basis points in its second advance estimates released on February 28.  

Economists may have difficulty in accepting these numbers but bankers seem to think they reflect the ground reality. Bankers did not see any significant increase in stress in their loan book in respect of large corporates and small and medium enterprises. They say that some stress was evident only in respect of micro-enterprises. Repayments of agricultural and micro-finance loans were surprisingly resilient. 

Many of those who had warned that the third quarter (Q3) numbers for 2016-17 would show up the impact of demonetisation have since changed their tune. Wait for the Q4 numbers, they say.  We’ll know soon. In the meantime, we have the recent election results to go by. Voters don’t seem to have found the short-term costs of demonetisation very steep. And they believe the PM when he says it will deliver long-term gains.

This is not the only glaring instance in recent times of the pundits having got things badly wrong. In June 2016, when Raghuram Rajan announced that he would not seek a second term as RBI governor, the Modi government drew a barrage of negative comment. The pundits warned that India’s image abroad would be badly dented, foreign investors would flee, the combination of Brexit and Rexit could cause a currency crisis, the RBI’s autonomy was in peril… some of us may have been pardoned for supposing that the end of the world was in sight. None of these dire outcomes has materialised.  

Our pundits are in good company. Following the British vote on Brexit, many foreign commentators predicted a sharp slowdown for the British economy and enormous uncertainty for the world economy. Among the doomsayers was Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England (BoE).

Ahead of the vote on Brexit, the BoE issued warnings about the potential effects of a vote for Brexit. After the vote, it moved to cut interest rates and boost stimulus measures to contain the adverse impact. Mr Carney has since revised his forecast for 2017 upwards. The world economy is also doing better than was forecast in 2016. Nobody talks about the impact of Brexit any more.

Then, we have the Donald Trump phenomenon. The liberal media in the US did its damndest to stop Mr Trump in his tracks in the run-up to elections. They forecast ruin for the US economy and the world at large given his hostility to some aspects of globalisation. Paul Krugman famously wrote that the stock market would “never” recover from a Trump victory. The Dow Jones Index went on to touch an all-time high after Mr Trump won. 

In all these cases, the pundits got it wrong because many were hopelessly prejudiced. They did not like Mr Modi, so they were quick to fault demonetisation and the exit of Mr Rajan. They did not want to see the European Union unravelling, so they viewed Brexit as a disaster for the UK. They hated Mr Trump as an individual (and favoured Hillary Clinton), so they predicted a setback to the US economy. By forsaking objectivity in assessing policy outcomes, the pundits have ended up undermining their own credibility and standing.

India's twin balance sheet problem

High corporate debt and a high level of bad loans at banks are stifling private investment and growth. How did the twin balance sheet problem come about, how has its impact been relatively muted compared to that in other countries and how do we get out of it? The latest Economic Survey has a chapter on it. My analysis and comments in EPW.