Inclusive growth is good, but I do not think it is possible in India. A vision or a model will work only in pockets in India as it is vast and complex. So, in my view, you have to let all these different models to work.

Matthew Hayden called India a ‘third world’ country. Unfortunately, he is not informed enough to know that the word is obsolete from the world of business and economics already, as far as India is concerned.For that reason, his statement does not sting us as much as it would have,a testament to the fact that we do realize we have far more billionaires, wealthy corporations and er, far richer cricket board. Highest defense spending in the world, Chandrayan, nuclear weapons…

Now, what does this mean to the child getting his body disfigured to increase his market value as a beggar? How do you take him out of the street and make him a productive citizen?

Where would that money and energy come from? May be after we have accomplished many of our world conquests, we would be ashamed enough to act. May be the democracy will draw the money towards the drown-trodden, even they have voting rights. But my point is this: At least the money would be there.

You acknowledge the beggars will still probably coexist next to the world-reknowned and CEOs in a typically Indian juxtaposition in 30 years’ time too. But would we rather have this gross inequality, but globe-conquerers; or a slightly more sedentary success on teh global success, but a sharp and sustained reduction of poverty as a feature of inclusive growth?

It’s a trade-off that depends on your preferences – inclusive, but slightly slower growth; or more exclusive, but marginally higher growth?

In my view, India is not going to get there by following any one vision, like hers. It is not going to be a nation of ‘one people’. It is probably not going to be great by removing casteism or religious differences. The model of a powerful central government leading all its people to greatness is also not going to happen. It will grow economically, carrying all its imperfections along,producing world class scientists and astute managers on one hand and the blind beggars on the other.

Would it be a great nation 30 years from now? If a nation with Aircraft carriers and rockets is great, then India would be great. If a nation with mammoth multinationals is great, then India would be. If a nation with great wealth is great, then India would be.

However the slums and the beggars and poor would probably still be there.So the question is: Thirty years from today, do we want a great nation that also carry these miseries or a poor one that carry these miseries?

I think Kamdar should have waited a little longer before jumping into the doomsday (or in the mid-2000s, the gung-ho) bandwagon.

If I were to be charitable, I would say she adapts her writing to reflect her present mood. At worst, I would suspect her competence as a researcher. In either case, I won’t take her writing seriously.:)

Few years ago I read a book “Planet India” or some such thing, written by same author(I think). If I remember correctly, she was bullish about India then. Oh well, why bother.