Don't raise your eyebrows or shake your head in disbelief when the next pro-reform government is guillotined by the ruthless Indian voter. No, he is not dumb, he's quite sane..... and yes, the Arun Shouries, the Chandrababu Naidus, SM Krishnas, Digvijay Singhs, all had to go......

Coz they all practised 'sound economics' - giving subsidies for the wealthy hoping they will in turn lift consumption and create employment, thereby indirectly benefiting the poor. This advocacy of trickle-down economics, accompanied by a frontal assault on government institutions and mindless celebration of the 'free market'. Everything privatised for efficiency, and reorienting the country/state to become an export-driven economy like many of the Asian tigers. Almost sounds like a Bollywood formula for success.....

Trickle-down economics - a noble-sounding name for the fraudulent economic strategy, which puts a higher priority on increasing the wealth of the already privileged than on meeting the needs of the millions, under the premise that the engine of our growth is upper-class prosperity, which is meant to pull along the remaining under-privileged carriages. The towers of smoke billowing from the engine (IT-BPO-Pharma-Automotive successes) are showcased to assure us that the power to move the whole train is mounting. However the reality is that the engine is cleverly disengaged from the bogies it is meant to pull, as a result of which it alone would run faster, leaving behind the bogies to remain where they were or to even slide down the slope in a reverse direction.

"Subsidize the powerful and wealthy" is the unuttered mantra. While the govt doesn't have money for investments to benefit the poor directly (schools, hospitals, etc.), it spends a whopping 44% of its budget for defence, in questionable deals that would offer little or no comfort to the security of the country. Unjustifiable expenditure can be found outside the realm of defence too. Water is piped into our homes at 10 percent of the cost of gathering and delivering it. Those same homes can avail of tax waivers on interest payments in their mortgage bills to the tune of Rs 150,000 each year. Yes, each year. Contrary to the conventional view about the poor, it is the upper classes who receive the largest subsidies from the government. It is a safe bet that families like yours and mine receive at least a hundred times higher subsidies from government than those living below the poverty line do. But largesse towards the literate beautiful people is considered investment in growing the economy, whereas even meagre generosity to the poor is attacked as undeserved dole. Then the case of businesses that receive govt doles (land, licenses, tax holidays etc.) on the promise of benefitting the poor / rural regions, then not honoring their part of the deal and govts being lax on them - subsidy by turning a blind eye. And then the subsidies that the businesses and politicians reap, by resorting to corruption and unfair trade practises.

Now let's see how the poor are subsidized. Along Gujarat's industrial corridor or Kerala's farmlands, for instance, improper management of chemicals used in various economic activities is poisoning the people. The continuing emphasis on large infrastructure projects has already displaced millions into the urban slums, and more such displacement is planned, nearly always without adequate scrutiny. How can the victims of such policies hope for eventual succour or prosperity? This question remains off the table.

Concluding words - "The founding myth of the dominant nations is that they achieved their industrial and technological superiority through free trade. Nations which are poor today are told that if they want to follow our path to riches, they must open their economies to foreign competition. They are being conned. Almost every rich nation has industrialised with the help of one of two mechanisms now prohibited by the global trade rules. The first is 'infant industry protection': defending new industries from foreign competition until they are big enough to compete on equal terms. The second is the theft of intellectual property. History suggests that technological development may be impossible without one or both"