I found this interesting passage in the midst of a piece on Raghuram Rajan’s exit (Emphasis mine):
It is not just that it is beyond the remit of a central bank governor to speak outside the narrow topic of monetary and financial economics, and that too only as it concerns RBI business—it is that Rajan more or less directly criticized the government for which he was working. No democratically elected government will stand for such criticism from a technocrat within the bastion, as it were, beyond a certain point.
The piece says that Rajan’s stewardship of the RBI has been able, and he therefore deserved an extension of tenure — thus reducing the entire argument to this one central fact: Rajan spoke up for his beliefs, and therefore he had to go.
I’ll leave you to ponder this question: How do you reconcile the notion of democracy with intolerance to criticism?
More, from his website from when he was CM:
The decision to allow Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi brand retail sector by the Congress-led UPA has been strongly opposed by Shri Narendra Modi. The Chief Minister has termed this move as anti-people.
Shri Modi said that allowing FDI in multi brand retail would mean immense harm to small shopkeepers, hit the domestic manufacturing sector and create joblessness. The Chief Minister added that this would also mean cheap good produced outside being dumped into our nation.
Since yesterday, Shri Modi has strongly opposed the diesel price hike and the decision to rationalize LPG cylinders per household. Infact, on the same day the UPA announced these regressive decisions, Shri Modi announced 100% relief on loans and 50% relief on electricity bills for farmers. This decision by Shri Modi has been hailed all over.
We all know how the diesel price thing is working out; here’s the latest on FDI.
PS: This is not to suggest that FDI is necessarily a bad thing, but merely to underline the point that so much of what the BJP opposed (even to the extent of disrupting Parliament and forcing a vote) is exactly what it stands for now. Makes you think a bit about propaganda, obstructionism, all of that…
“Donald Trump misunderstands — or, more likely, simply opposes — the role a free press plays in a democratic society. Reporters are supposed to hold public figures accountable. Any American political candidate who attacks the press for doing its job is campaigning in the wrong country. In the United States, under our Constitution, a free press is a check on politicians of all parties.”
This brilliant rant by the editors of The York Dispatch is worth reading for its own sake — and because the central message is equally true of our times, our world.
Subramanian Swamy has been accused of many things, but ‘grace’ has never made that list, so his valedictory post (and related snark that peppers his timeline, sandwiched between humble-brag retweets of laudatory messages from his fan club, and of news reports crediting him with having added ‘another scalp’ to his bag, is only par for his course.
Here’s what comes next: Continue reading