A Critique Of India’s Usual Critics

The intelligentsia must recognise that political preferences influence their analysis more than they admit

- Krishnamurthy Subramanian

Optimism is a rare trait, especially amongst the ‘intelligentsia’. This is acutely the case with sections of the Indian intelligentsia, which forever ignore the many positives and only zoom on selectively sampled negatives.

Indian intelligentsia must recognise that ordinary non-Indians, even parliamentarians and business leaders, rely on the opinions of credible experts to learn about India. They inevitably turn to academics employed in globally reputed universities and organisations for impartial advice.

Given that this responsibility is entrusted to Indian intelligentsia, have they fulfilled it? To most, it is stunningly obvious that politics often masquerades as ‘expert’ commentary provided by Indian intelligentsia.

As a recent example of politics masquerading as expert commentary, take the claim that Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is because of their persecution of Tamils decades back. Start with some key facts. First, worker remittances and tourism together account for almost 30% of Sri Lanka’s GDP and contribute the most to their foreign exchange reserves. Second, in 2018, tourism provided $4.4 billion in earnings while remittances equalled $7 billion. Third, Sri Lankan foreign debt obligations for this year are about $7 billion.

Economists are taught to use the ‘what if scenario’ to infer causality. What if Covid had not happened? Neither the nosedive in tourism revenues nor only $1.5 billion of inward remittances for the half-year ending June would have manifested.