Total Pageviews

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

A Conversation With: Journalist and Author Fareed Zakaria

Fareed Zakaria in this April 26, 2011 file photo.Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images for Time Fareed Zakaria in this April 26, 2011 file photo.

Fareed Zakaria is a prolific Indian-American journalist, author and commentator. He is an editor-at-large of Time magazine, hosts a show on CNN, has written three books, and is a regular contributor to various journals and papers, including the prominent journal Foreign Affairs, which he edited from 1992 to 2000.

Mr. Zakaria was recently in Mumbai to film a documentary on India’s politics and economy for CNN. He took time out from filming to meet with India Ink at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel in southern Mumbai to discuss a wide range of topics, from America’s domestic problems to India€™s place in the world â€" as well as what a Mumbai native like him makes of this rapidly transforming mega-city.

Q.

You recently wrote that India is going through its own version of the Arab Spring. Can you explain

A.

The average person in the Arab world was stuck in a system that simply was not performing and delivering.

Now it is true that India is very different. India has been a democracy for 65 years. Sixty percent of the Indian electorate is women, and yet when you look at how women fare in any international ranking, India fares poorly. So clearly there is some problem that democracy has not solved for the emancipation and empowerment of women.

It derives from the fact that much of the oppression we see in India comes from society and not the state. In India the oppression you find is social oppression, because of caste or religion or ethnicity, and most acutely in terms of gender.

!

You are finally beginning to see these forces of oppression challenged, for three reasons. The first is democracy, which has certainly enabled people. The second is capitalism, which produces this great churn where anyone can succeed. The third is technology. I’ve been struck by the degree to which, just like in the Arab Spring, the media has been able to publicize this issue of women’s rights.

The urban issue has become a national issue. This is a reflection of the rise of a much bigger middle class. Urban India has generally been seen as a place where politicians extract resources. Rural India is the place where they get the votes. That’s changing.

Q.

Given the recent tensions along the Line of Control and the public anger within India, what should the government of India’s response be

A.

Manmohan Singh has been quite shrewd to diffuse the public pressure. The real story between India and Pakistan over the last five years has ben one of remarkable improvement in relationship, particularly in relation to trade and travel. These kinds of skirmishes have gone on since 1947. I would hope this doesn’t derail what is a promising shift.

Q.

Has the Indian media been saber-rattling for a war with Pakistan, perhaps to increase viewers, in your opinion What role should the media play in such a situation

A.

It’s mainly a problem with television. India has 325 television channels. You have 40 news channels in Hindi alone. So these people are in a desperate search for market share and the result is a bias towards sensationalism.

The print media was saying ‘We’ve got to be careful.’ The television media- I’ve talked to some of the people involved and they themselves felt that the coverage was getting too jingoistic. It is interesting to see this distinction between print and television media here which is now very dramatic.

Q.

I! n the cur! rent issue of Foreign Affairs, you wrote about a new crisis of democracy in the United States. What do you mean

A.

It is a crisis of democracy because the nature of the problem is one that is inherent in democracy, and therefore one that India faces as well: How do you impose short-term pain for long-term gain

This is the great challenge for the United States economy. There are things the United States has to do, whether it’s a cumbersome tax code or reform of entitlements in pension and health care. Instead, we privilege present consumption over investments for the long term.

India has a similar problem. It is hard to stop subsidizing power or giving people rice and instead divert those resources either towards putting your fiscal house in order or making long-term investments in infrastructure and education that will have huge payoffs 20 years down the road. America’s fundamental challenge is: ‘How does it do this’

Q.

How ca India restore its growth story

A.

All India needs to do is make a few key decisions. For instance, if India could genuinely open up agriculture, retail and the supply chains relating to that, you would bring down food inflation. People don’t realize that India has some of the highest interest rates in the world. If food inflation goes down, the Reserve Bank could lower interest rates.

Businesses are borrowing money at 14 percent and they still thrive. Imagine what they could do if rates were four points lower.

Then there’s the obvious thing that India has to build infrastructure. To be fair to the reformers in India, they’ve done a lot. Most of the economy is fairly open. So what you have are a few remaining obstacles, and they are very large and hard to do politically.

Q.

India has been shaken by a series of recent corruption scandals and then the recent Delhi gang rape. How does India restore its image overseas

A..

It’s simple: growth. Has India’s image taken a beating Yes. I believe that its good that the corruption story and the rape story are coming out because this stuff always happened. Let’s not kid ourselves. What’s different now is that there’s a huge national conversation about it and there’s political action that is coming out of it.

Q.

How much importance does America place on India

A.

America would love to see it as an increasingly deep and broad strategic relationship. I think there are two problems. One is that India has not been able to perform in terms of opening up its economy in quite the ways we were hoping. Openness to foreign capital has been more hesitant and inconsistent than what was promised.

The second is that the Indian political elite remains ambivalent about a close relationship with America. There’s a suspicion of America as some kind of a global capitalist war monger. This is very unfortuate as this ideology is triumphing over India’s natural national interests. India’s interests are so clearly aligned with America’s, whether you look at Pakistan, Afghanistan, China or whether you look at the issue of democracy and human rights.

I can’t tell you how many Americans tell me that they are sure India will be the success story over China. This is the triumph of hope over facts. The Chinese economy is 3.5 times the size of India’s and still grows faster than India’s. So what it tells you is that Americans want India to succeed.

Q.

Do you think there’s any merit in the argument that the Chinese path to development is better than the Western one

A.

None whatsoever because what they have largely done is copy the Western model. What the Chinese have done is opening up to the market and in building great infrastructure. In what sense is this an Asian model or a Chinese model

Q.

You ! admitted i! n August of last year to a “terrible mistake,” in which a column you penned resembled an article in the New Yorker, and have been largely forgiven for this. Is there something about the current media environment, which emphasizes immediacy and round-the-clock coverage, that allows mistakes like that to happen more now than before

A.

It was my mistake. I don’t want to excuse it by claiming that there was some larger system.

The only point I would make and which I feel didn’t get as much focus is that I cited the book at the start of the paragraph. I hope people can see that it was unintentional as I wasn’t trying to pass it off as my own. I have been writing for 25 years and I made a mistake. I have tried to make sure that over the next 25 years I don’t make another mistake.

Q.

You’re from Mumbai. How does today’s Mumbai look to you

A.

Edith Wharton writes of New York at the turn of the century nd that the old New York she knew was a quiet, genteel place and now it’s a brash, new-money place. I feel the same way about Bombay. The city I grew up in was so quiet. If you went for a walk in the Hanging Gardens, there would be five people there, and you’d know four of them. Now you go there and you can’t find parking.

Yet I love it. The city is almost unrecognizable. The idea that Andheri is the center of the city is just unfathomable. Don’t get too nostalgic for the old days. Look at it from the point of view of the middle-class guy who never had access to much. Does he or she mind that they have to spend an hour or an hour and a half to drive from Andheri to south Mumbai No, because they now have a car and they never had a car before.

I am very optimistic about India. There’s no question India will be a middle-class country. The question is, will it go further than that and how soon

(This interview has been edited and condensed.)



No comments:

Post a Comment