Sunday, July 26, 2009

"hindu rate of growth" is racist

jul 25th, 2009


paul beckett
bureau chief
wsj, delhi

dear sir:

i read your well-written article on the sad lack of charitable giving in india.

i believe there are a couple of reasons for this shortfall, in addition to the fact that tax codes do not encourage philanthropy in india (it is likely that americans would also be less generous if there were no tax benefits -- note that as a nation, the US is far more stingy in its charitable funding abroad than most other rich countries).

one is the continuing legacy of a stalinist state: wherein a "shortage economy" is the norm. this also explains corruption, of course, as well as the senseless mayhem on indian roads -- people are, as it were, worrying the road will disappear, so they attempt to grab as much of it as possible. this is a rational reaction to a shortage economy, as is the great difficulty people have in queuing up at railway booking counters -- they are afraid things will run out before they get to the head of the queue.

since these are all remnants of the nehruvian mindset, you should be talking about the "nehruvian rate of growth", the much-loved 2-3% growth that nehru let us all 'enjoy' till recently. after all, nehru is gone and his rate of growth is also gone. this is additional reason for you to use this accurate term. after all, the hindus are still around, aren't they? so how could it be the "hindu rate of growth"? this was a racist and insulting term coined by a communist, raj krishna, for whom this is his 15-min -- and sole -- claim to fame.

as a paper that does not believe in equal-opportunity denigration of religions, you should stop using this horrible term forthwith. after all, i have read your paper for decades, and i have never seen you refer to pakistan's or somalia's growth rate as the "islamic rate of growth", or rwanda's or haiti's as "the christian rate of growth".

and we have good reason to believe (see angus maddison) that the historical and actual "hindu rate of growth" was the highest in the world -- after all, india was the richest country in the world till around 1700. in addition, let me point out that hindus (and buddhists) were highly philanthropic. the temples at tanjavur or sanchi, the remaining sculptures at hampi, the shelters for travelers constructed by asoka, the great universities at nalanda and taxila, the gau-shalas or shelters for cows -- all these bear inscriptions pointing to a tradition of giving not only by kings but also by rich citizens. the colonial loot of india by the british impoverished the society (the loot was of the order of $10 trillion in today's money), and the dirigiste stalinist state after independence actively prevented people from making money. after all, the state provides no social security, and it is up to individuals to hoard enough so that their children will be provided for.

therefore, it is unfair of you to ridicule the citizenry. the fault remains with the government and with the erstwhile thieves. india believed in butter, not guns. elementary mistake, because thugs with guns took all the butter away.

once again, let me request you to abjure the offensive phrase "hindu rate of growth" in your writing. it is demeaning, it is not historically accurate, and it is racist.

thank you

rajeev srinivasan
management consultant and op-ed writer (, new indian express, the pioneer, mint)


M. Patil said...

you must post your response as a comment to the article.


Ghost Writer said...

if that pervert Rajinder Sachar is to be heard - the Muslim have not grown at all. So it is logical to conclude that the 'hindu rate' has in fact been much higher than the national rate.

in fact any discussion on the hindu rate must account for the drag that the mohammedan section places on the economy. they do not grow and have the first right on all resources

vagabond said...

Well writted Rajeev.

Anonymous said...

Excellent response but probably WSJ will not find it 'suitable' to publish.

The Hindus who give do so silently since many believe that giving and then declaring or boasting about it reduces the merit and is against dharma.

They also do not get the benefit of the Indian and hence the world media.

Bill Gates is perhaps a suitable person, known for his philanthropy but the fact that he got the award also reflects the mentality of the government. To date since 1986, only two Indians have been given the award. One is Dr M. S. Swaminathan, Agricultural Scientist (1999) and the other is obviously the only 'worthwhile' Indian to have lived after Indira Gandhi and that is Mr Rajiv Gandhi.

Shahryar said...

I guess all the charitable institutions (medical, educational, etc.) run by Sai Organization are funded by non-Hindu philanthropists!

AGworld said...

WSJ will pay attention very quickly if some pain is felt.

Unknown said...

prof. rajkrishna coined the term to ridicule indian economic growth during the first 3 decades. there is nothing racist about it some of us are very touchy when foreigners-even deshis- are critical about our deeds and misdeeds after independence. we do not like straight talk. we lack discipline, commitment and honesty to achieve great heights. if slogans and lies were substitute for good and honest governance w. bengal would have been the most prosperous state in asia.

exosing christianity's true agenda said...

I like the lettre but I would really try not using the "R" word. Whenever you accuse someone of racism this is always from a position of weakness. It's like saying "please don't pick on me even though you are more powerful than me". The thing that really bothers me is that why aren't there any Hindus in the BBC writing about the child sexual exploits of christist priests?!?! Why are there no Hindus in BBC writing about the failure of anglo-saxon capitalism and how the anglos always seem to get a break from the govt despite any of their failures and how Indians do NOT get bailed out if we make mistakes?

nizhal yoddha said...

raj krishna was a first-class jerk. why didn't he call it the "indian rate of growth"? or the "socialist rate of growth"? or the "congress rate of growth"? because it was nehru/socialists/kkkangress who did us in.

racism or bigotry is the targeting of a group based on characteristics like race or religion.

racism is racism even if it is from a communist you approve of.

it has nothing to do fair criticism.

Anonymous said...

So can we call the current recession/depression as "Christian Recession" as it's lead by USA dragging the world down!

Unknown said...

some commentators while advertising their rabidly pro Hindu utterances actually make themselves poor specimen of the species. they should read Gita to make themselves genuine Hindus. apparently Al-Qaeda has follow the lessons of Gita.

Julian said...

monu why don't you tell us how that was "hindu growth rate"?

you are just another "liberal" clown or related to that commie retard raj krishna.

It has been said already which your thick skull doesn't seem to allow you to understand, the poor growth rate was due to commie policies.

funny trying to link someone writing a letter pointing out blatant garbage against Hindus to Al Qaeda, typical gutless indian "liberal" ...

Unknown said...

harish is needlessly agitated and is foulmouthed. india's rate of growth was measly due to reasons to be found in the attitude and behaviour of the educated elite or the so called "bhadralogs". they formulated and executed policies disregarding ground realities and country's strategic interests. these people were arrogant and thought very highly of themselve and believed that the world thinks and behave according to their kind.

Unknown said...

harish may further note that how our 'bhadralogs' were aping the england and english left though englad's days of glory were over.they had low opinion of the USA perhaps because US population were not pucca sahibs and were inferior. similiar racial hatred were meted out to the anglo indian community. but the chinese knew what was the real Mccoy and followed USA and everyone can see the result.

Unknown said...

further harish may recall how Nehru and many of his cabinet colleagues used to wear achkan or similar dress in public. now one may know these are not easy to wear and not comfortable in our climate but still they clung to the habit. similarly they clung to economic policies despite unease. Nehru looked worn out by 1960. prof. rajkrishna ridiculed this mindset. nehru was a proud indian and hindu. one may read his discovery of india.

nizhal yoddha said...

now that i have picked myself off the floor after ROTFL, and wiped the tears off my face, i wonder: is monu "professor" raj krishna's son-in-law?

more likely, he is exhibit A for arjun singh's project: a terminally toxified guy who fancies himself to be a 'liberal''secular''progressive'.

i don't quite know where to start, monu has left so many openings!

nehru's outfits? hahahahahaha. the ones that show off the chicken legs and the pot-belly? of course he chose them because they were mohammedan outfits.

nehru's book? it is *because* we read it that we realized what a third-rate intelligence he had.

nehru a hindu? not even his worst enemies accused him of that. sardar patel said it best: "nehru is the only nationalist mohammedan in india."

your logic is so pretzel-like! if it is the 'bhadralok' rate of growth, why didn't your father-in-law call it 'bhadralok rate of growth'? almost all bradralok are communists.

poor monu. you are such a pathetic ignoramus! but your self-righteousness and self-importance are way up there. do you wonder why you don't have any friends and no girls will go out with you? [well, even before raj krishna's daughter married you? :-)]

Julian said...

Rajeev has said most of what needs to be said.

You are deluded if you think Nehru was a "proud" Hindu, all his comments & actions belie such a claim.

He proclaimed that he was accidentally born a Hindu but was at heart an Englishman, said Hindus are the most intolerant community besides the Jews, told Danielou that all he admired in Hindu civilization is what he (i.e Nehru) was trying to destroy.

The Bhadralok as pointed out by Rajeev were communists so there is no way for you to dodge the fact that the pathetic growth rate was due to communist policies & had nothing to do with any intrinsic character of the Hindus.

Inquiring Mind said...

Infact, it is to be called as "Nehru Rate of Growth" or "Congress rate of growth", as they have been ruling india for most of the years after independance.

Btw, if there had been Hindu Rate of Growth, India would have been richest nation today.. (ofcourse, if we consider swiss money, and upon a condition 1rs = 1 dollar, we are richest :) )

We can also see, how a hindu rate of growth under BJP is far better than a Papoon's rate of growth under the UPA since 5 years before..

Unknown said...

the Asian Development Bank has used the "Hindu Rate of Growth" expression in one of its recently- issued reports about how India can become a developed economy by 2039...most of the contributors are Indians, Hindus to boot ...and they still chose to use this deeply offensive term ...what a bizarre bunch of self-loathing brainwashed babus !