This week on Hafta, Newslaundry’s Abhinandan Sekhri, Manisha Pande, Raman Kirpal, Jayashree Arunachalam and Anand Vardhan are joined by writer and podcaster Amit Varma.
The panel first discusses pre-Holi communal concerns, including a Sambhal cop saying Muslims should stay inside this Holi if they don’t want to be smeared with colour. Jayashree says communal provocations during Holi have become normal: “We have this delusional idea of Hindus and Muslims holding hands and celebrating Holi. But that is not the country we live in now.”
Anand explains the history of Bhojpuri Holi songs and the evolution of vulgarity. “The sexualised space has been taken into account by the pop music industry for its titillation value…These songs were not always vulgar, some even represented female desire.”
The panel then moves on to the controversies around the recently concluded Champions Trophy. Abhinandan says, “There was nothing offensive about the Indian team not wanting to go to Pakistan due to security issues. Look at what has happened with the Balochistan train hijack this week.”
Amit explains the tariff wars with the US: “Of all that Trump is doing, tariffs are the most bizarre. They are a disaster, period, and this has been the economic consensus for the last 200 years.”
This and a lot more. Tune in!
We have a page for subscribers to send letters to our shows. If you want to write to Hafta, click here.
Check out the Newslaundry store and flaunt your love for independent media.
Download the Newslaundry app.
Contribute to our latest NL Sena here.
Song: होली में गोड लागे देवरा
Timecodes
00:00:00 – Introductions and announcements
00:03:22 – Headlines
00:19:33 - Holi and communal narratives
00:26:41 - Holi and vulgar songs
00:42:52 - Introduction to tariff wars
00:45:37 - Champions Trophy and cricket controversies
01:01:08 - Tariff wars
01:39:38 - Amit’s recommendations
01:42:17 - Panel recommendations
References
NL Sena - The impunity of India’s police
The Seen and the Unseen | Amit Varma
Everything is Everything | Amit Varma
Life Lessons | Online course by Amit Varma
Recommendations
Amit
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Jayashree
Manisha
Can Kara Save The Washington Post From Jeff Bezos?
Anand
Manu Joseph: Our politics is usually shaped by the people we dislike
Manu Joseph: America and the bearable loneliness of losing the West
Manu Joseph: How entertainment got boring in the age of streaming
Raman
Abhinandan
Why Trump’s Tariffs Won’t Work | The Ezra Klein Show
Check out previous Hafta recommendations, references, songs and letters
Produced and recorded by Priyali Dhingra, Hassan Bilal and Anil Kumar.
This episode is outside of the paywall for now. Before it goes behind the paywall, why not subscribe? Get brand-new episodes of all our podcasts every week, while also doing your bit to support independent media. Click here to subscribe.
Manisha: [00:00:00] This is a Newslaundry Podcast and you're listening to NL Hafta. Angreze apna lagaan
Anand: aur Newslaundry apna hafta kabhi nai shodte. Happy Holi!
Manisha: Happy belated
Anand: Holi yet, but by the time you hear it, Holi would have happened. So, Happy Holi!
Raman: Happy Holi.
Anand: So, before we go on to the headlines, we'd just like to tell you, since it's going to be Holi on Friday, we're recording this. Two days before we normally record Hafta, it's the 12th of March, Wednesday, 4.
15 in the afternoon. So, there may have been certain things that occur after this, which is why we haven't discussed on Hafta because they haven't happened yet.
Manisha: We are not Andhrayami.
Anand: Well, I
Manisha: Doordarshi. We
Anand: are also Doordarshi and I'll prove to you [00:01:00] once you give us the headlines which Jayshree will do. We will be having Amit Verma on the podcast, the host of The Seen and Unseen, one of India's most popular podcasts.
Uh, so we shall do the full introduction when he does join us in about 45 minutes time. But before the headlines, I'd like to remind everybody we have a new project up, which is a news laundry news minute, the impunity of India's police project. We will be traveling to at least five states. If not more, Basant Kumar, Prateek Goyal, Maria Raju, Anisha Seth, Jhanvi, Haritha, Manav.
Kora Abraham and Nidarshana Raju and Jisha Surya along with producers once. Priyali and Parikshit, tell us who.
Raman: And there will be more reporters, eventually. So,
Anand: it's going to be a big project, there's going to be a series of reports, because the police is the most frequent engagement with the normal citizen.
Uh, so we have [00:02:00] to really look at this theme, because the frequency with which police atrocities happen. In my view and probably of the editors as well, it is not reported as often as it should be with the robustness and digging that require, that is required. So this QR code is flashing in front of you somewhere to scan it.
and contribute to this project.
Manisha: In fact, there's an incident in Alwar that has made quite a bit of news over the past few days, where it's been alleged that an infant, 25
Raman: day old baby was,
Manisha: yeah, during a raid and the child died.
Anand: And if that cop gets away with it, I mean, it's, and in fact, these days on Insta, there's so many people who give you tips on what to do if a cop starts shoving you around and all of them start off with.
No matter what the provocation, don't hit back, because the moment you do that, you're in the wrong. Then they say section 160, you do this, do Insta, I'm
Manisha: very curious about your algorithms. Because I don't see this on Insta. You're clearly looking for like, what to [00:03:00] do if police accosts me. You know, he hates
Raman: policing.
So, so, uh, maybe my profile
Anand: is that of a criminal, but in the studio. Anand Vardhan, Manisha Pandey.
Jayashree: Hello.
Anand: Joining us from Chennai is Jayashree Arunachalam.
Jayashree: Hello. Hello.
Anand: Raman Kirpal.
Jayashree: Hello.
Anand: And like I said, Amazon will be joining us shortly. The QR code will flash every now and then. Do scan it or click on the link below and contribute to this project.
But let's get the headlines. First.
Jayashree: Yes. So here are the headlines for the week. Days after Donald Trump announced India has agreed to cut their tariffs way down, the union government has said India has made no such commitments and has sought time until September to address the matter. Also Trump's decision to impose sweeping tariffs on steel and aluminum imports officially took effect today.
He also said reciprocal tariffs will be imposed on India, China, and other countries from April 2nd.
Anand: Although I think all tariff related [00:04:00] headlines, we should change minute to minute because Yeah, there's no like certainty on Yeah, he one day decides then say, okay, actually, fuck it. Let's not do this. No, and
Jayashree: also you wonder how a country is expected to respond when this man is so chaotic.
Like, you know that he's not following some sort of rational plot. A report by a Swiss air quality monitoring company called IQ Air has named Delhi as the most polluted capital city in the world in 2024. It also said 13 of the world's 20 most polluted cities in 2024 were in India. Topping the list, which might surprise people is Birnihath town in Meghalaya.
Abhinandan: So I
Manisha: didn't know this, but did you know about this Ramdev versus Brian Johnson on Twitter?
Abhinandan: Yeah,
Manisha: I didn't follow it. Well, apparently it's the same video where he's running with the horse, right? And he said, you live long or whatever. And Brian Johnson commented under that. The air quality in Hava is really bad, so you're not gonna live long.
So blocked him. . So
Anand: the millionaire who wants to live forever, who is, who
Manisha: also is a bit bizarre, but he's right about the air. It's terrible.
Anand: He's 30. He's the one
Manisha: who walked out of the [00:05:00] podcast. Yeah, because
Anand: although in, I, I must say he looks over 50, so it's not working. He's
Manisha: not 30, dude is 50. He's not 50 old.
He's old. He's old.
Anand: I'll just check, but he's not 50, but he looks over 50. So I don't know.
Jayashree: I don't think he's in his thirties.
Anand: He is 47.
Jayashree: 47. He's basically 50. So
Anand: yeah, I'd say he definitely looks older than his age. So I don't know what his treatment is doing for him.
Jayashree: The inside of his body is 18 year old outside.
No one cares about. Anyway, India was crowned 2025 champions trophy winners on Sunday in Dubai. The four wicket win over New Zealand. How exciting. However, the serial writing match. Did you
Raman: watch it?
Jayashree: I watched bits. So I will confess that cricket is the only sport that I follow a bit only because of my father who made me watch it during the 90s and all through the 2000s.
Almost. I watched it. It was fun. [00:06:00] So yes, but there were many controversies. One, that the championship was tilted in India's favor. One, they said all of India's matches were held in Dubai instead of the host country Pakistan. This is due to ongoing border tensions. Meanwhile, opposition players were flying back and forth specifically to play against India and Dubai.
Jay Shah, who is the head of the ICC, he presented the trophy to Team India, but no representative from the Pakistan Cricket Board, which is the host country, was present at the final award ceremony.
Anand: And one controversy that you missed, which I will discuss when you discuss this whole cricket tournament, is that Shama Moham of yes, the Congress party called Rohit Shama Fat.
And it was the main debating point that night on every channel. Uh, but then once
Manisha: we won, and Rohit played very well,
Anand: I, I just wanna say I'm Team Shama and I'll tell you why. Love it. Exciting
Jayashree: now, clashes of Exci. Okay. It's also Connection Champions Trophy is a bunch of other headlines. One. Clashes erupted in Madhya Pradesh's Mao on Sunday, after India won.
A group celebrating the win reportedly waved [00:07:00] saffron flags and shouted religious slogans outside a masjid. Thirteen people have been arrested. And in Devas, videos emerged of the police publicly parading nine men with their heads shaven. They allegedly created a ruckus during the cricket celebrations.
Anand: So this is how policing happens in our country, which is why journalism and reporting on this is important. Cops cannot do this. It is not legal. I want to know what punishment was given to those cops. I mean, If a bunch of people caught and shaved the heads of five cops and paraded them because they did something wrong, they'd probably be in bloody jail for years.
Cops get away with fucking everything.
Jayashree: Yeah. In Maharashtra, Minister Nitesh Rane has announced an initiative to certify Jhatka meat shops that will be run exclusively by Hindus. He said this Malhar certification initiative will help Hindus identify mutton shops owned by Hindus. And they will sell, of course, unadulterated meat.
Of course. What
Raman: a progress.
Anand: Nitesh Rane, of course, he's covered himself in glory in the past also with the kind of things he's done. What I found
Manisha: really [00:08:00] You know, disgusting about this whole thing was that, okay, you want to eat Jhatka mutton, you want certification for that, that's also fine. But when he's giving a bite on news channels, he's in the same breath says that this is for Hindus who want Jhatka, the meat will be Jhatka, it will not have spit in it, as if it's a Pratha, that all Muslim shops with halal are just, it's a thing that they spit and give you food.
And the reporter is just nodding his head to this, it's become so common to just say something like this and just let it pass.
Jayashree: My grandmother, on her whatsapp group, got this message about Hindu Urban Club. Uh, where it's like urban club, so they'll do like, you know, there'll be a beautician, and there's a tailor, they'll do home renovations, whatever, but they will certify that only Hindu people will come, and they'll give you proof for it, and in the message for it, it says, promise of no spitting, no jihad.
It's crazy
Manisha: how the spitting thing has just spread as something very normal. You have BJP spokesperson on television who very, one of them, Radhika, her [00:09:00] name is, I'm forgetting her last name, but Kumbh was celebrated without any spitting in the food. I was like, as if everyone else is celebrating the festivals.
You should go and see the photographs of the
Anand: Kumbh that they didn't show. It was bloody. So filthy. It was shit. Like as far as I could see along those banks. Anyway.
Jayashree: Meanwhile, didn't Modi also give Ganga Jal to in Mauritius where he went? My old
Raman: colleague, uh, Molshiri, uh, in Indian Express, she did a very good story on this.
The amount of garbage and sewage that they had left behind.
Jayashree: Right. So in a bunch of headlines on Holi's communal colours. BJP MLA in Bihar, Haribhushan Thakur Bachhol, has asked Muslims to stay indoors on Holi if they object to being smeared with colors. He also slammed the mayor of Darbhanga, her name is Anjum Ara, after she appealed to city residents to stop Holi from 12.
30 to 2. As she said, Jumma time cannot be extended, so there should be a two Holi. And in Uttar [00:10:00] Pradesh, a police official has said Muslims should stay indoors if they cannot accept Holi colours as the festival comes once a year, but Friday prayers comes 52 times a year. This is the Circle Officer, Anuj Chaudhary.
Yes, and the Chief Minister, Adityanath, endorsed this amidst applause at the India Today Conclave.
Sambhal CO Anuj Chaudhary: Holi ka din hai, Jumma saal mein 52 aata hai. Holi saal mein ek baar aata hai. Muslim samudaya ke logon ke jis kisi ko lagta hai, bhaiy aapko Holi ke rang se
Yogi Adityanath: If someone is familiar with color, it will be good. And the police officer explained the same thing. And it's okay, our police officer is now a [00:11:00] wrestler. Arjun Aewaldi is now an Olympian, a former Olympian. So now it's a matter of wrestlers. So if he speaks like a wrestler, some people feel bad. But it is true and that truth should be accepted.
India Day
Anand: Conclave has a really fantastic and fine audience. They are always applauding at the right time with The usual suspects and they're grinning like jackasses as if for what a wonderful thing has been said. No one has the guts to ask a counter question. It is a you want to see a what is a disgrace to journalism?
Just see the nitty gritty conclave.
Manisha: Correct. Meanwhile in news on communal harmony PM Modi gave a really beautiful speech at Jasne Khustro, which is a Sufi festival. Jasne
Anand: Khustro, hmm. It's well restarted after a long time. It used to be an annual event, I have. Yeah, I remember
Manisha: attending it very early on in Delhi.
It's a very beautiful festival also. It's really beautiful. Celebrating, uh, Sufi music. And Modi apparently gave a, he was a chief guest.
Anand: He was a chief guest, but that no one showed. I
Raman: say it's a blow cold blow hot [00:12:00] approach of this government.
Jayashree: Right. So after Prime Minister Modi inaugurated Vantara, which is the animal rescue rehabilitation center in Gujarat run by the Ambani's, a wildlife protection forum in South Africa has urged India's environment ministry to investigate the export of several wild animals to the center.
And this
Manisha: report was carried in two papers and they put it down.
Anand: Oh, really?
Manisha: Deccan Herald and Telegraph, no?
Anand: Yes. Hmm. Okay.
Jayashree: Uh, 35 year old journalist was shot dead in Uttar Pradesh's Sitapur district by unidentified assailants on Saturday. Uh, Raghavendra Bajpai was a local correspondent with Dainik
Abhinandan: Jagran.
Anand: And in fact, as we're recording this, there has been, uh, she's been detained or arrested, uh, the Details are still to emerge, uh, a journalist who is, apparently a phone was taken. We're just getting details of that. You'll have a detailed report on that as well in Telangana, right?
Abhinandan: Yeah.
Manisha: Uh, he, his family says that his last reports were on illegalities around paddy [00:13:00] procurement and some of the guys have been questioned in it also.
The legpals who are in charge of basically looking, looking at records.
Jayashree: Yes. So in parliament, Tamil Nadu has gone to war with education minister Dharmendra Pradhan. He accused the state of doing a U turn on its stance on the PM Sri scheme and the NEP. DMK MP Kanimori then moved a privilege motion against Pradhan for misleading Parliament, also for referring to Tamilians as uncivilised, dishonest and undemocratic.
The Speaker said he shouldn't have used those words. Did he actually say that?
Manisha: He said this in as many words that they're uncivilized civilized. You know, I
Anand: think he was referring to the government government is not. So his thing is that he says
Jayashree: that Tamil Nadu had said last year that we are going to.
agree to the PMC scheme and to the NEP. So then Stalin tweeted out the documentation which is in July last year. Tamil Nadu sent a thing saying we do not accept the terms of this whatever and then Pradhan's office sent its reply acknowledging it in August. So they're [00:14:00] like, you are misleading parliament because you We did not mislead you.
So
Raman: CBI, uh, Congress chief also said something. Anyway, Prime Minister Narendra
Jayashree: Modi attended national day parade in Mauritius as the chief guest. He also received the nation's highest honor. It is the grand commander of the order of the star and key of the Indian ocean.
Anand: And just so you know, Manisha and I were watching television in the afternoon.
All the English channels for sure, probably the Hindi ones also, were showing the Mauritius. National day live only because Modiji is there. Nothing is happening in our country are 326 million hectares of India. Nothing of consequences happening. All the channels are only showing Modi taking salami of what I may uncharitably call a parade, which NCC or a local school [00:15:00] will do a better job.
Manisha: No, parade was fine. Dude, the band was marching. Like, how was the band
Anand: marching? I didn't even know they were marching. I thought they were just walking.
Jayashree: Don't say things about our
Anand: neighbours. I'm just saying.
Jayashree: It's not Mauritius's fault that it's fine. Dude, it's
Anand: like live coverage of Mauritius National Day.
Not just for two minutes, for fucking an hour, man. Yeah, the coverage is a
Manisha: bit problematic, but I think the March is okay. Many
Anand: people have linked his, Morris's visit to Bihar elections because Because of the Bihar election. You spoke in Bhojpuri there also. No, Bhojpuri is the major language there, but, uh, and all the, just like Trinidad, many migrants centuries ago shifted, uh, as migrant labor, and they are now powerful and control the government.
Hmm. And. and of a particular caste in Bihar. And it has also, um, means, uh, Which caste? Bhumiyars. So, other castes are also, but Bhumiyars are more powerful and are in government there [00:16:00] for long. So, it has also distorted the dowry market in Bihar. So, many Mauritian, influential and very rich families in Mauritius want to get their daughters married to.
Someone in Bihar of that caste. So because, uh, they want, uh, uh, their daughter to be married within the caste and in Bihar. So,
Raman: so,
Anand: so it has put pressure on the same caste group in Bihar. There
was a time where a lot of newspapers would sustain a significant chunk of their revenue through. matrimonials, which they still do.
Now, if we can specialize in putting Mauritian, I take, I withdraw all that I said about the marching band of Mauritius. It was too good. It would put the Chinese and the German marching band to shame. If we could open a page on news laundry. specifically for Mauritian Bhumihars and set them up and five, we can [00:17:00] charge.
I'm only seeing it from the point of view of how can we benefit from this.
I
Jayashree: know someone, I know
Anand: someone who 1956, they Had this arrangement of the whole village going into air conditioned coach In a village. Villagers, they had not seen even a long distance train They were straight put into an air conditioned coach Then they were taken to Mauritius to attend the wedding and they were so it's an old tradition
Okay So we've been actually for the longest time trying to figure out a show for Anand and Various ideas have been thrown around here.
In fact, we're still developing it Anand, I have a wicked plan brewing in my head. We will discuss it later.
Jayashree: Congrats, Anand. Next headline is in Maharashtra. The Mahayati Alliance, which had promised 2100 rupees per month under a new scheme for women, has only transferred 1500 for Feb and March. The government hasn't announced when these, the increased assistance will be implemented.
This is really [00:18:00] shady, honestly. Yeah, because
Anand: apparently it will take the deficit up from 2004 or something. So it's becoming unwieldy. But yeah, we had promised. The
Raman: reality has come. In
Jayashree: Manipur, days after about a thousand weapons were surrendered, clashes erupted in Kangpok P district. One person was killed, 15 were seriously injured.
I think about 27 security personnel were also injured in the violence.
Manisha: Yeah, there's that crazy video of somebody shot from inside the vehicle of the security forces where they're getting pelted with stones, like left, right and center.
Jayashree: On Tuesday, Airtel has announced an agreement with Elon Musk's SpaceX to bring Starlink's high internet speed.
In high speed internet services to its customers in India. A day later, ER's Rival Geo also announced a similar deal with SpaceX.
Anand: Sorry, JHI. I think you read that headline wrong. It says, on Tuesday, er announced an agreement with Elon Musk's SpaceX to bring Starlings high-speed internet service to its customers in India.
Uh, shortly after that, AB tweet.[00:19:00]
Shortly after that, Airtel's rival Jio followed up with the same and announced a similar deal with SpaceX. I'm not saying that my tweet did it, but I'm just saying I did tweet that.
Raman: No, no, how I see it is SpaceX must have done with both, but Airtel was the first one to come out with the news.
Jayashree: In Pakistan, the train, uh, separatists hijacked the Jaffar Express, a passenger train carrying around 500 people in Balochistan on Tuesday.
27 militants have been killed so far at the time of recording and 155 passengers have been rescued. And what about, uh,
Manisha: the military? How many casualties there?
Anand: We don't know yet.
Abhinandan & Raman: Yeah.
Anand: So let's first talk briefly about Holi since it has Wholly, many of our audience would've just celebrated this entire narrative that, yeah, I think that was an unnecessary call by whichever bureaucrat said that for two hours, [00:20:00] stop celebrating.
Holy bureaucrat. Mayor. Mayor.
Manisha: She's the mayor Circle officer. No, he
Anand: is talking about the mayor.
Manisha: Are you talking about the milk?
Anand: So, I mean,
an how, I mean. People have been playing Holi forever. No one has said stop Holi because Namaz is happening. Stop Namaz. The point is that, why say this at all? Those who want to celebrate, celebrate.
Like for example, I take, I take a walk every, with my white kurta, pajama. There are these kids, opposite house, they'll try to throw balloons at me. Now, okay, if kids they try, they miss, sometimes they get somewhere close. This is Holi, if I don't want to play, I'll hide, I won't go for a fucking walk. No one has to make an announcement, go, don't go for walks, if you're Muslim, if you're wearing white kurta pajama, if you have a cold.
Jayashree: I can, I just think it's My, my issue with that is though, I mean, okay, yes, it is an unnecessary thing to say, I agree, but I feel like so many other people are saying wildly unnecessary things anyway, [00:21:00] saying Muslims should hide indoors and all. But that has just become sort of, well, that is the nature of discourse, which is how it should be.
So if one person says something that contradicts it, I don't see why it should become like, well, we should condemn that, but then we'll also talk about how Yeah, the people are saying terrible things.
Anand: But this is, I mean, you are nuisances about this this time, right? So it started off with
Manisha: this Choudhury fellow who's a pehlwan and now a circle officer.
He gave this bite and I think he's a bit of a media hungry guy. Because he came and he said that, you know, Holi comes once, Jumma, Namaz can happen so many times. So now, uh, they should respect and stay indoors and not come out. And we will see, we'll keep the
Anand: Prashasan. But who told him Muslims don't play Holi?
Manisha: Usually, at least in Uttar Pradesh, whenever there's Holi and there is, and this is not the Jummah has happened with Holi, there are clashes. There will be some communal tension around why did you come to the masjid, play, throw colours. In fact, the earliest recorded clashes from 1800s, I think the British time say, where some [00:22:00] procession will pass through a mosque, somebody will throw colour somewhere, some You know, all of you will get upset and there's a clash and earlier, I think they were more dominance exercises where two communities will try and exercise dominance over an area that this is a Muslim area.
So you can't be here. Or this is a Hindu area. So we'll play here. But now it's come to a point where there's like what happened with the cricket match after India won in Mau. There's a procession that goes to Mau in the, in this area, which is, you know, majority Muslim, they go outside a mosque. The allegation is that they threw a firecracker inside.
There are chants of Jai Shri Ram. So over the last five years, we've seen too much of this procession and in the name of festival celebration, go and provoke. And I think the fear with this Holi coinciding with Ramzan and Jumma ka Namaz, there is a fear that it'll escalate into some sort of a tension. So I think he was talking in that sense.
Reporters would have asked him, but police guy cannot say you stay at home. You say we will ensure that the [00:23:00] rule, you know, there's law and order. We make sure that, and usually what happens in areas, peace committees meet from Hindus and Muslims and they'll decide on their own. that, okay, we will not do this or you will not do that.
You don't play music here. We don't go there to whatever. And that's it. And that's how you, you don't give an announcement and say that you stay at home if you don't like colors,
Anand: because by that logic, the national commission of women should make an announcement. Women should just stay at home in North India during Holi, because the amount of, you know, groping and the most vile conduct I have seen in my life Dehradun has always been on Holi.
So then maybe the national commission of women also say women stay at home. You know,
Manisha: it's, and I think people get it like you intention matters. If accidentally some color falls on someone who's not celebrating Holi, then I'm going to lose it. Deal with it. But if you're going to go and go in someone's face and deliberately try and make them play Holi, then obviously they'll
Anand: be hurt.
Last time wasn't there video that went viral, although to the credit of UP government, they took action against, um, [00:24:00] there was this girl, Muslim girl on a bike. forcibly throwing color and stuff on her and of course that video went viral and apparently that guy was finally arrested. It was on UP only. But uh, yeah, I get what you're saying.
The problem
Manisha: is with this guy, the circle officer, who shouldn't have just said that you stay at home because then what does it mean? Like why should someone stay home? But also
Jayashree: I feel like this provocation has become so normal that we have this sort of Delulu idea of What we read in our textbooks, you know, India, universe, unity and diversity, Muslim friends and Hindu friends will hold hands and celebrate together.
But that is not the country that you're living in now. And wasn't there that entire thing in that Haridwar University where They said they were having an instar party and then they stormed the college and they said you have no right to form Islamic Jihad in Haridwar and I mean, I'm saying it has become so normal.
And so every day that who is surprised that this cop is saying this and he's saying what most people probably think. So it's become sort of very hard to reconcile. I think it
Raman: will be worth watching, you know, how [00:25:00] Bollywood celebrates. I remember all days when Raj Kapoor, his studio, we are all Muslims, whether Muslims or not.
No, Muslims
Manisha: do celebrate Holi. Lots of them do. But lots of them don't also. But you don't have to go and make someone celebrate when they don't want to. Yeah, of course.
Raman: But Bollywood
Manisha: It's not just Muslims, yeah. A lot of Hindus also don't want color on them, so they don't get out. I don't
Anand: know what happened.
I don't know what the scene in the South is now. But a really close friend of mine, who's He's a very well respected lawyer now. When he was, I think he was the second or third batch of the National Law School Bangalore. During he's from UP, during Holi, they had a little pond or something there. He was playing Holi like.
So the friend, it's not like the others were not happy playing, but he plonked a girl into the pond and his parents are cold. Yeah, we don't play. What is this, you know, rowdy, barbaric festivals. We don't do it. He was almost thrown to college. And he was like, Hey, [00:26:00] she hasn't complained. No one has complained.
But because it went around, Oh, you know, he threw so hard. How dare they play Holy. If you don't play Holy, get out of college. This happened. And I'm talking about 1992. 2 93. Oh.
Manisha: Meanwhile, the Raan Education Minister has sent a notice to the school, which is a convent, I think, where it's a simple notice went out that don't bring color, and which is very normal because kids tend to go really crazy with colors.
So just to maintain cleanliness and discipline. You say you celebrate outside. I in school. Remember, it used to be always outside the school that you could throw color and do, now there's an inquiry. In nineties, no, in,
Raman: in nineties, I had a South Indian, uh, neighbor and they used to just lock their house. We used to lock their house from outside.
So that nobody comes to, because they don't want to celebrate, so they've always asked us to just lock it and, uh, open it at three o'clock, four o'clock in the evening.
Anand: So UP there's this tradition of Bura Na Mano Holi Hai and Banaras apparently it had started off, you know, the DM is called and the choices of galis are given.
Of course [00:27:00] on Holi, no one minds. That's it. But in also a lot of vulgar songs, which is, uh, you know, Anandwadhyan. The expertise of
Manisha: Anandwadhyan. No,
Anand: I remember that because he had Since
Manisha: yesterday we've been asking him, can you write from this vulgar song? Yeah, no,
Anand: because I think on Hafta we discussed once he explained the socio political, uh, you know, context behind a lot of these bhauji songs and, you know, you know, Bihar being unnecessarily earning notoriety on account of that kind of music, but on What is holy there like and what is the double meaning, you know, even there, there's a guy who runs a really interesting comedy channel where he's, his avatar is that of a Bhojpuri star.
And every day he brings in Bhojji.
He's
like, science fiction banayenge. Haan, Moon pe jayenge, wahan Bhojji aayegi. He's from TVF. Haan, TVF. What do they call the belly button? He was
also in
What do they call belly button? Dhodi.[00:28:00]
science fiction. What? That's it. These are called, Biharis will bring Bhojji and Dhori into everything. That's the concept. That
is an exaggeration, but anyway, so, um,
really, that's what you observed on Hafta all these years, Anant? But what is it about? What is it? So
you didn't call me to comment on the earlier discussion.
You can, you can. Okay. So. I first listened to Mr. Anuj Chaudhary long back when Susheel Kumar won an Olympic medal and he was called to a TV studio to, because apparently he was his training mate in one of the Akharas, Anuj Chaudhary, the police officer. So he gave a very detailed interview about Susheel, how he used to train.
So that was my first encounter with. And this police officer. He's pretty young then, huh? Yeah. And then, I'm talking of Tokyo Olympics, long back. Must have been his 20s or something back [00:29:00] then. So he, but he had got into the police through a sports quota then, so, so, so that was my first encounter. You can see it.
So those were technical explanations of wrestling, what is Sucile's strength and this. So that, uh, one thing is that what he said, uh, He tried to somehow salvage it towards the end of the bite that, uh, we also ask people not to throw, uh, colors unnecessarily on people. And this, he tried to salvage it, but, uh, the first two, three sentences were disastrous.
So and so that carried, that carried. And the, the longer version is a bit face saving one. He, he. Um, so what do, what, uh, um, should be disturbing is not the newsy day where the classes actually. Can happen or, [00:30:00] but, uh, For police officers and bureaucracy, the greater challenge is both news and non news day, the mundane and the extraordinary.
So, what he does on mundane days. So, what is the conduct? And that is what What, uh, bureaucracy is about police, policing is about what you do on Monday in this non news days. So we, we may, uh, say keep our eyes off on Monday in days, but he is involved in everything. So he, he would be also attending to say, uh, very say petty crime of theft also.
So what he does then. Uh, that, that is the larger messaging I get from it. That, uh, and that is what bureaucracy is all about. Bo doing boring things, very, very, and media makes the most of what they can because the cells, so bureaucracy is doing the [00:31:00] boring things, not the newsy things. Extraordinarily not, not the newsy things, extraordinarily so, uh, that is one thing, uh, but.
But, uh, say some, uh, like police forces have this task force where they hire criminals from a rival gang to finish off the, um, the other gang. So senior police officers have written about it. That's not a, say, a very rule book, but they do it and governments know it. Uh, so, uh, The suggestion he was giving was illegal and out of box, but my point is that whether it was a, say, a tension diffusing measure or not.
Like this, we were talking about district council meetings and this lady, Muslim lady who suggested that there should be two hour slot when Holi should not be played. So, so she actually [00:32:00] worked out from. A D, the district magistrate was holding a meeting in the Banga where he was saying that, and the Banga city far populous than the city.
We are talking about sambul. It has a very s sizeable presence of Muslims. So he was saying sensible things that no one should be forced to play on this, these things and this. So, uh. I think this was her out
of box
contribution because she also wants to pander to a constituency. So that is, uh, third thing, which is the boring thing.
I theoretically, I think we are in a phase which, uh, to put it more academically, uh, Arthur Schopenhauer said that, uh, hedgehog dilemma has a hawk who want to live at a moderate distance because their spines are prickly. So if you come [00:33:00] too close to us, we will prickle you because some people are very prickly.
And if, uh, but we have to coexist in suppose in winter. We want warmth. So we have to coexist. But in order to coexist, we have to take into account the mutual harm that we can do each other. So, so, uh, so, uh, the theory of moderate distance and that Sigmund Freud has also used in, in, uh, um, Explaining individuals in communities.
So, I think the current situation is somehow developing in that direction.
Abhinandan & Raman: Okay.
Anand: So, no comment on that. But this
Manisha: out of the box thing, this is, even the, when, uh, the UP administration decided that during the Kavar Yatra, we will label all shops with the name, whether it's a Muslim. That was also supposedly their out of the box solution too.
Covers come, they order food, then they start making a ruckus that Muslim gave me a food made [00:34:00] up. So in their head they thought that to avoid anyone complaining that a Muslim gave me food or a Muslim did something to me, we'll just clearly write. And so now it's up to the cupboard that whether you want to eat from a Hindu so,
Anand: or if you wanna be in the shop.
But then, but
Manisha: then it never ends. No. The point is that you can never satisfy someone by. Now coming to these. Okay.
Anand: Okay. Complete your point. Yes.
Manisha: No, no. I was saying that it, it never ends. No,
Anand: because I'm coming to my specialization. Yes. So, uh, you missed one thing, the Braj holi is also, can also get vulgar.
Yeah, the Lath. Yes. Not just vulgar, violent also. How violent is I think
it's violent with design, na, with Lathis. That is ritual. In Uttarakhand,
Raman: there is one place where they stone, women stone. So,
Anand: uh, I'll get, but, uh, I think there is a different, uh, see Holi in Bihar and Eastern UP. I am not talking about all UP because [00:35:00] only till say Ghazipur and to an extent Banaras, uh, not all Banaras and Azamgarh, these have some elements which can, which They can share with a particular part of Bihar.
Otherwise up is a different, uh, ball game altogether. Bihar is different. So, uh, we have extended wholly, so we, we, it doesn't end at 3:00 PM and in Delhi we have swaps open at 6:00 PM Hmm, no. So in, uh, that. In daytime it's the dirty holy with all these colors and this all that and even paint and there and all throwing in say nalas and all that and in evening they will bath.
And they will bath and they will, uh, have a new clothes and have abir. And abir is played throughout the evening and night. Abir? Abir, [00:36:00] abir. Okay. The gulal, what do you know. So that's clean holy. That's clean holy, but, uh, it's also where you eat and go to each other's home or do holy Milan and all kinds of things.
And those who are, um, Weird in their head, they consume bhang and something like that. Those who are weird in their head. So, uh, so, uh, but, uh, so this is one thing, but on two, uh, two particular sexualized relationships that are targeted during Holi, one is, of course, the bhauji bhaavi one. And, uh, uh, one is sali.
So these two, um, but, uh, it is not that all holy songs are vulgar. So, so in fact, they are trained singers in villages who, who are called to sing Jogira. And they, and they are clean [00:37:00] songs. Mm. And, and there is a tradition of also singing Holy, who is, the whole genre is called Holy. Yeah. So they're clean songs.
It, it, uh, now, uh, what has happened at the sexualized space has been taken, uh, in, into account by the pop industry for its stipulation value and, uh, ation value in ways like now see, uh. They, they were banter songs over centuries. They grew because, uh, they were, was the only relationship in, uh, that, uh, newlywed women found, uh, in her household who was subservient to her.
So, so. So, she was very comfortable with her. Also, some forms of female desire. It's not only the male side. Of course, the all, uh, grouping and all, um, licentious and [00:38:00] licentious, uh, stuff is there. But also, There are songs which express female desire also. Hmm. Uh, uh, so, uh, a day off for say, some promiscuous fantasies.
Abhinandan & Raman: Hmm.
Anand: So, uh, those were always not vulgarly worded, but now they are very, very, say worded in a way which leaves nothing to imagination.
Abhinandan & Raman: Mm-hmm.
Anand: So, uh, this has all been the. uh, say handiwork of a pop industry which is pandering to the baser instincts of the youth. Also, uh, what has happened is that The decline of, uh, uh, you see the, in, it's not only in there, in Haryanvi songs, you see.
Yeah, even Punjabi songs. So Surinder Kaur's, today Yo Yo Honey Singh is the household name, Surinder Kaur is not. And Honey Singh, the first time he went for a, two lines of Bhojpuri lyric, he, [00:39:00] he, Took out the most, uh, say Ronji, his latest hit, his comeback hit is, uh, has two lines of Bhojpuri. Which are those?
I will not say. So, so, uh. So recently this Gopal. His recent. Anand,
the breadth, width and depth of your knowledge disturbs
me sometimes. So, uh, uh, so what, so his, his song is his latest, his is Maniac. So in Maniac, what, what he and the model he has used is Isha Gupta, the Bo Actress. So see lip syncing to a song which was sung by someone who, uh, claims that he is spotted on Instagram.
Hmm. So there is this girl, Ragni ker. Who was singing on harmonium. So, uh, and she sings randomly. So she is Honey Sings Worse, is that I didn't want to get, uh, her [00:40:00] to get concerts. So what I did, I sent my engineer to, uh, her place and I was instructing him on phone and he recorded her voice to these, uh, men's third lyrics.
Uh, so. Means it's a very raunchy lyric. He just extracted the commercially viable thing from Hoseberry. The sexualization of the, um, regional pop is not that it has come out of, uh, say, nothing, but, uh, because, uh, There was a kind of, uh, say, um, a Bel turn way of revising a day in Sens ways. Hmm. But, uh, these, uh, say market getting agents of the pop industry they have now, uh, turned it into a very, say, you can kind, mm.
[00:41:00] prunient, uh, instincts of youth. So they have tapped into that. So.
Right. So, but just, you know, I'll move on to the next subject briefly. I want to talk about cricket and move on to tariffs, but, um, just saying that this whole accusation that this is vulgar is not just on Bhojpuri music. It's true for Punjabi music only, but Jat don't care, as the song goes, Punjabis don't give a fuck.
Manisha: Some of the wedding songs are very raunchy, the Punjabi, I was very shocked.
Anand: But also, one thing is that, uh, the regional pop is on high. Bollywood music has disappeared. Exactly. It's all, all means. Bollywood uses Punjabi songs to get No, no. What Bollywood is recycling? 10 years ago some song came which was a third rate song even for its own time.
But they are recycling it because Bollywood music has [00:42:00] declined and it, it, uh, obviously there was without internet there was a space for the regional music. But with internet and with social media it has now Completely overshadowed Bollywood music.
Right. So, Jayshree, you don't play Holi in Tamil Nadu in Chennai, right?
So,
Jayashree: I mean, I have during college. So it was great. I mean, I have nothing to contribute to the greater conversation, but the best holy party I've ever done was on a beach, because then you get really like colored and whatever, and then you run into the sea. So it was good. I have nothing else to add. What
Manisha: about vulgar Tamil songs?
I mean,
Jayashree: Tamil songs are wildly vulgar, but they'll write it in very poetic sort of ways. Like, oh, the leaf is trembling, but the leaf is actually referring to, you know, a woman's body parts and also it's But like as a child, you're singing it like with great gusto. And then you get a little older and you're like, Oh shit.
What was my mother thinking?
Anand: And Amit, what about you? [00:43:00] Happy Holi to you as well.
Amit: It is today Holi. I didn't realize. No, it is day after tomorrow. But day after tomorrow, happy Holi to all of you. And you know, I was in the mind frame ki yaar, we're going to come into serious talk about tariffs and I'm so happy to land up in the middle of the discussion on raunchy songs and female desire and subaltern ways of.
Uh, you know, uh, rejoicing a day. So yeah, yeah.
Anand: Anand is our gem. But
Amit: for that. Taking one for the team as it were.
Anand: But Amit Verma has joined us. I'm sure all our audience already knows who Amit is. But since we have a tradition of always introducing our guests. He started screen advertising. He's a podcaster now based in Mumbai and a writer as well.
He also holds workshops on writing and I'll let him tell you about that on his own. He's been a journalist since 2001. He's written for the Wall Street Journal, Guardian, Observer, and most, if not every Indian publication. He has won the prestigious Bastiat prize, I guess I pronounced [00:44:00] that wrong, for journalism in 2007 2015.
And the first person to win it twice, and the seen and unseen in his What is his podcast, which gets 225, 000 downloads a month. Wow. That's amazing. So welcome on it. And thank you. You have that still happening is, can we put a link in the show notes?
Amit: Yeah, I do a couple of courses. One is the art of clear writing, which is a writing course.
And I've just started another course with my friend Ajay Shah, which is called life lessons. Uh, so yeah, I mean, I'll give you the links. You can put it in the show notes.
Anand: Fantastic. Now we will talk about tariffs. And right now, as we're recording this, uh, the white house press conference has been Put out on social media where the his press secretary
Jayashree: or that Carolyn,
Anand: she's holding up this placard saying these are all the countries that have unreasonable tariffs on us alcohol and India is there as well.
250 percent 150 percent so we'll talk about the reverse tariffs and [00:45:00] this, uh, you know what they're doing in Canada, right? They are basically not buying any American products. And
Manisha: some 250 percent on daily products they've announced. No, no.
Anand: What they've done is like if. Americans have boycotted on their own in the sense that if I go and there's an American, I see it's made in America, I'll put that upside down.
And also, suppose there's a shelf of, you know, X, Y, Z sauce, I'll put those upside down. So the next person who comes knows is American. So on shelves all over. Canadian stores. Canadians are just putting stuff that's made in America upside down. So the next person doesn't even look at that shelf. It's, and of course, Trump went on and said in a press conference that people are illegally boycotting stuff, including Tesla cars.
So the question is, what is a legal boycott as opposed to illegal boycotts?
Jayashree: Every week your Trump accent is getting a little worse. Worse, yeah.
Anand: But before we get on the tariffs, I want to quickly go around. Shama Mohammed said two things. One is I think it's perfectly justifiable for Indian team not to want to visit Pakistan.
I don't see it [00:46:00] as a sign of BCCI bullying. Maybe if India was a weaker force in cricket. But since we fucking own cricket, I mean look at what's happened to that train hijacked today. I would not feel safe if I was a cricketer. Thank God I'm not. I'd rather be a golfer than a cricketer. Uh, uh, but to go to Pakistan to play.
So I don't see why that is a criticism. I mean
Manisha: I think you have to have a certain Rules across all sport. No, because we did play the Davis Cup last year in Jan, the Indian tennis players went there. They said we were really treated well. So it can't be like, Oh, let the tennis guys go and play and let them be unsafe.
No, you are using it politically. You're using You don't think there's a risk? There may be but then uniform it. And tell us what the risk is exactly. What do you, like, make it known to us. It can't be just on a whim that these people can go or these can't go.
Raman: Don't
Manisha: have like separate rules for different sports.
Raman: And I think it is bullying. And if there's [00:47:00] credible
Manisha: securities then put it on the table and everyone will comply.
Raman: India playing cricket means money. If India doesn't play cricket, there is no money in cricket.
Abhinandan & Raman: Who is going to watch some shit sport anyway? So that
Raman: is why, in a way it is bullying. If you say that India will play, but it will Play in Dubai.
On its own
Anand: terms. A country has
Manisha: to have, I think, uniform norms around whether you can't have one section of people go the other section on it.
Anand: Figure out
Manisha: what your stance is.
Anand: I mean, I don't know what is the team's perspective on it. Hardik Pandya was asked this post the match and he said, this is a question about my pay grade.
So, uh, um, uh, means this is not for me to decide. Uh, risk assessment, of course, Davis Cup. tennis team cannot be compared with a cricket team because of the number of players that would be and the crowd that they will attract because [00:48:00] in Pakistan also cricket is number one sport. So, also There have been real incidents in Pakistan where Sri Lankan team was attacked and, and a lot of other countries who now visited Pakistan also had reservations for a long time.
It is only till, um, say last three, four years that they have started visiting. So, uh, and India's, um, Insecurities are not comparable to those because India can be, it's unique. Yeah, I mean, there's, there's a unique, so, so, uh, the unfair advantage, uh, that India had, uh, I can, I think it started with the English captain, former, former English captain, Michael Atherton's, uh, um, But perhaps it was a podcast on the on a Sky Sports in UK, where he said that India had an advantage because it could, uh, [00:49:00] because cricket is a sport which depends on surface also.
So it, Indian media was asking why they are not taking an extra fast baller and seamer, but India had its calculations. They took more spinners with them because of the slow track, they will be playing on the same surface and, and it. somehow got into that realm when it was advantageous for India. So, uh, um, that is a fair point that of course, uh, and India, if like other teams had to play in Pakistan in Rahulpindi, Lahore and Karachi on different surfaces, so they had their team combination, different kind of, also India could have also struggled with quality spin because we have in the longer format of the game, game recently, we, in 2024, we lost 3 0 to New Zealand.
And [00:50:00] so, uh, Uh, so all said and done, so the unfair advantage was, I think, an unintended consequence, not by design.
But it was an advantage. So the criticism that it's no advantage is also a bit too defensive. Amit, you have a view on this? You're a cricket fan, right?
Amit: Yeah, I was a professional cricket journalist for many years.
Oh dear. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I agree with you Abhilandan that I think the security fears are justified, though I agree that they need to be spelled out, but they are certainly justified. But on the other hand, I don't think that's a core reason for India not visiting Pakistan here to play cricket.
I think the core reason is that sport has been used as a tool of geopolitical posturing. And I think that that is actually a misplaced tactic in this particular case, like in a sense it's similar to what the US is trying to do with tariffs. That you're trying to play a geopolitical game with a tool that will actually not achieve all of that much, if anything, will make things worse, and you're harming your own people.
So, uh, in, in that sense, they're kind [00:51:00] of, uh, similar, uh, but I, at the same time, I don't downplay the security worries, but, but I'm just saying that, uh, you know, in terms of how you are thinking about it, the, the whole, Political angle of it, to me, is rubbish. I see. Now,
Jayashree: I have three hot takes. So, I mean, I agree with Ravan sir, I agree with Manisha that there cannot be a sort of consistent thing because Cricket is where they have all the money.
So no other country is going to be like, yes, well, we have a problem with India doing this because India brings in the money. But I think one, India is a very unsporting country. Um, I think it has very little to do with success and failure. And I think that's how it also played out with that Pakistan official not being on stage with all these team players going and hugging Jay Shah after they won.
I think like that entire standing ovation of Chennai crowd or whatever is an aberration. But we are unsporting when we win, we are unsporting when we lose. Number two is, I think, um, cricket is very massive and lucrative and whatever, but it's also, I feel like it's a niche sport, you know, that has acquired a lot of massive size because we have a [00:52:00] huge population, but it's not really a globally consequential sport like football.
And my third hot take is that I think the champions trophy is a dead tournament. I think it was brought in so that India would have one more shot to win because they lost the ICC World Cup and that's the only reason it was played.
Anand: When was it started? I don't know. No, I think
Jayashree: they they did now because they lost the last ICC thing.
So it's a bad I see.
Anand: So, um, no, I
Raman: think it's a bit of political statement also because Pakistan players are still not allowed to play IPL. Okay. Yeah. And, uh, so, so they're just taking it further. Uh, and, uh, as I said, give some money. game. And if India is not in this, then there's no money. And also, I mean, since Pakistan was the host country.
So I just failed to understand why, uh, why Pakistan wasn't present on the final day. Yeah. No, they said that the
Jayashree: official was there, but he wasn't called. [00:53:00] Then there was a thing where they didn't use the Pakistan logo on the branding. Then there was a thing where they played the Australian anthem. Like it just feels, I
Anand: don't know.
And then official, ICICI's official explanation is that PCP, PCV chairman was supposed to attend the post match ceremony, but he was unwell. So he didn't come. So in his place, the, uh, the tournament director, who is a different person who was present in Dubai, he could have, uh, been called. He could have, um, taken his place, but, uh, he, he didn't communicate.
So, uh, they put it down to some communication gap. So, uh, you see high school founders
there. Such a huge tournament. Also,
uh, the. Um, like, uh, the advantage, uh, thing though, now the, apart from finance, now, some [00:54:00] of the more, uh, say India centered commentary, uh, see it as a sign of decolonization because MCC from which ICC grew.
So it was UK controlled. So now the financial power center has shifted here. Now we are bringing you all the money. So. Uh, all sort of commentary from Australian newspapers or in, uh, England news, English newspapers, uh, in Britain, of course, English in Australia also. But, uh, so they, they are taken with a pinch of salt that they are now upset.
Also that whole thing that when
the India played the World Cup against West Indies, we were only given two passes for the Lords. Whereas anyone was a member of that cricket club was could come. Whereas Indian. So, MCC,
MCC is a very closed and very British values thing. BBC put out a survey a few years ago that what you count [00:55:00] among the signs of Britishness.
So, cricket was among them and also the MCC kind of cricket.
Raman: I just had a glimpse on the TV when it was shown live. Anyway, I just went for a movie because cinema tickets were very cheap on that day. So, uh, 43 crore people watching the match. Wow. 43, 44. But
Anand: sir, yeah, but the World Cup final is watched by over 2 billion, yeah.
I mean, it's not even a, I mean, it's not even close. But, uh, just one last hot take, because before we move on to tariffs. You know, Shama Mohammed said that, I don't know, she tweeted something about Rohit Sharma's weight. And then, of course, it became. Primetime news of being a politician, of course, but just saying, I've said this a few times on Hafta, for which we got a lot of hate mail that I don't think what she said was wrong.
It's just, you tell me, does Rohit Sharma look like an athlete? You tell me, tell me any, any quote unquote sport in the world where the [00:56:00] best, the best, whoever's considered the best at that. He
Manisha: played really well by the way.
Anand: No, I'm sure he did. I mean, some of the snooker players, they play really well.
They're 180 pounds. They're not sportsmen. They're really good at a game. But he's not that. Darts. No, I'm not saying. but he's able
Jayashree: to play at his weight. No, absolutely. I'm not saying he's not. And there's
Anand: technique. I'm just saying that as an observation, it is not wrong. And, and the thing is, here's the thing.
Inzamama Ul Haq was called Alu, Alu, Alu. Whenever he entered a stadium and Indians were there. Dilip Mendis, you remember his body? Uh, Rana Tunga, you remember his body? Sri Rangana. Uh, I mean, the guy, I mean, what I'm saying is that it is. It just proves my point that it is a game which does not require the level of athleticism that, strictly speaking, a sport does.
Raman: No, no,
Anand: no. Which is fine.
Jayashree: We should let the former writing journalist take it. But also, I think the issue that we should be pushing back on is like, why is she just randomly saying he's fat? Like Who, where is this opinion coming from? Because he's a sportsman. What science is based [00:57:00] on is nothing. People,
Anand: they said that about Gaza all the time, commentators, because in his, the latter part of his career, Paul Gascoigne, the football star, he had put on weight and commentators say Gaza needs to lose weight.
They said about Wayne Rooney, because he's a bloody sportsman. You got to look like a sportsman. As a politician, it was a dumb thing to do, but it's not an inaccurate or an incorrect observation. That's all I'm saying. Let the former cricket journalist take
Manisha: this.
Anand: Or do you want to sit this one out, Amit?
Amit: No, no, no.
What I would just say is that the two cases are slightly different. Like, number one, as you correctly pointed out, you don't need to have a super fit body to play cricket. Like, India is not a sporting nation. You know, the reason we do so well in cricket is that fundamentally it's a game of skill, batting especially.
You don't have to be at peak athletic fitness and all of the people you Uh, Fatshem, Ranatunga, Mendis, Inzamam, they are all some of the greats of the game, right? Yeah, they're the best. And that's not the [00:58:00] case in football. So what happened in Gaza and Rooney's case is, Gaza and Rooney kind of fell off a cliff in terms of form.
They were playing well below their best. And it is at that point that their weight was, you know, used as a supplementary insult that, hey, you can't play, you fat ass. Right. In this case, I don't think that's the case. In this case, I don't think Rohit has fallen off a cliff or anything like that. So the only criteria should really be, uh, you know, how well he's playing on the field, which doesn't depend on his weight really, uh, but you know, having said that somebody wants to comment on his weight, that's their prerogative.
So that, that's fine, but it is not relevant to the sport. It's not, it's not an intelligent comment. It's just, you know, it's their,
Manisha: okay.
Anand: No, no. And it's, I think, uh, um, it is, uh, very much, uh, dependent on what role you have in cricket. So, uh, a batsman can be a bit less fit, but if he's fitter, it will only benefit him.
[00:59:00] Uh, a fitter Rohit Sharma will be better performing still as a batsman because, uh, He has, uh, he's primarily gifted with a good hand eye coordination and a sense of timing, uh, gets into position to balls easily in batting, reading line and length, hand eye coordination, getting into position. These are very valuable traits that he has, but if he was fitter, he could have played longer innings, more patient innings.
And, uh, like a fast baller. Um, all of the players you named were not that fit, none of them were as a fastballer. Yeah, exactly. So, uh, was a fastballer. But if you have to play long innings, more pace and this and the cricket and the fitness standards have in cricket have gone up. Now you have yo yo test to clear to get into.
Yeah, but that is true on everything. So, so, so, so have, have gone up also, [01:00:00] uh, uh, what he was doing and Was such a easy skill set and he is getting a hundred careers for that, then I would be doing the easy thing. Mm-hmm. So, so of course it's a higher skill set that is, uh, and uh, uh, in the next Olympics you have cricket as I spoke in Olympics.
So, uh, and, and, uh. It's a sport game. Uh, this, this, this, this is an, uh, different kinds of athleticism. If you want to put up a very stupendous fiddling performance, you have to be as fit as a footballer. So, uh, yes, I mean, because not even close, but anyway, I mean, if you, if you, uh, like when you may need the agility, but you don't need the fitness of a football,
you have to run.
12 kilometers in 90 minutes, sprint, stop, walk, jog, sprint, stop, walk. I can guarantee you, not even 20 percent of Indian [01:01:00] cricketers will survive half a semi professional football game. So it's on the same. And secondly, I think this thing that it's easy to do, that is not even the question. You think darts is easy?
You think scoring a perfect score of darts is easy? It is impossibly difficult. Have you seen the guys who win dark tournaments and bars? But now let's get to the entire debate about tariffs, which changes hour to hour. But before I do that, here's a QR code again. We would like you to contribute to this project.
This is the impunity of India's police. We will have at least a dozen reporters and producers traveling in it to at least five states to bring you the series. Pay to keep news free because we do not either depend on Sarkari ads. Or ads, hum kar dikhate hain. Quite a cool ad by the way, Adani, have you seen it?
Hum kar dikhate hain. I
Manisha: saw it.
Anand: So, but no, none of those ads you'll see on, on News Laundry. Um, here's the QR code. The link is in the show notes below contribute, keep [01:02:00] us going. So set the context for a summit and tell me what you think will happen to India. Uh, you President Trump very casually said, you know, we've told India also we'll be imposing tariffs, et cetera, et cetera.
Then the poor MEA had to say, no, no, no such thing has been communicated. No tariffs have been imposed yet or agreed upon. Then today the price press secretary of white house said, these people are imposing that we will impose tariffs Canada. He said we will impose 50%. And then he said, no, we will not.
Canada said it doesn't matter whether he says yes or no, we are not removing ours. Tariff wars necessarily lead to a disaster because that seems to be the general consensus of economists. However, I will take that as a pinch of, with a pinch of salt because 20 years ago, the general consensus of economists was that globalization is a net net win for everybody and it emerged it was not.
And there were political consequences in different countries in different ways and for different [01:03:00] reasons. Uh, but this one logic, which I see a lot of, um, commentators saying, which I think is true, but conveniently, you know, limited in its interpretation, that tariffs are not paid for by the other country.
Like Trump says, your own consumers will pay for tariffs. But I think the whole point is that if that product is more expensive, the demand for that will go down. So locally made produce or products will get more sales. I think that is the point. Who pays for it, right, uh, which is kind of shifting goalposts.
So now you give us what you make of this.
Amit: Yeah. So let me, uh, let me make, let me break down my, uh, sort of giving context into three broad areas. Uh, area number one is that. I just find that of all the things that Trump is doing, tariffs is the one that is truly bizarre because for everything else, whether it is a isolationism or the small government or whatever, you can be for it, you can be against it, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides.
There are [01:04:00] simply unreasonable arguments on both sides of tariffs. Tariffs are a disaster, period. And this has been the economic consensus for 200 years. Uh, there are two broad arguments that Trump makes in favor of tariffs. The first one, is that, um, uh, is a whole mercantilist one, that the state will raise money in this way, so we'll have to charge less taxes.
This was an argument that was in vogue in the 17th and 18th centuries, and it kind of went out of vogue because it was clearly nonsense. But I'll break them down and tell you why they are nonsense. The second argument is the one that was first stated by Alexander Hamilton, and then in the early part of the 19th century, it was popular, which is the argument that you are making, that our local industries will benefit.
If we can protect them, because we are, the term Hamilton used was infant industries. So there are infant industries, we want them to grow. Same argument that Nehru used with import substitution or Modi does now with make in India. Right. Right. So that, that is the argument there. And every economist since from Adam Smith to Ricardo to Karl Marx to [01:05:00] Keynes to Hayek to Friedman to Krugman, whether they are left, whether they are right.
agrees that they simply don't work, the thinking has gone wrong, and even the world kind of shifted stance on this. Like, the US was big on tariffs till the middle of the 20th century. Then in 1930, when the Great Depression hit, they came out with something called the Smoot Hawley tariffs. Uh, you know, and the, and the rest of the world responded to these high tariffs with reciprocal tariffs.
The Great Depression got much worse. Uh, it had a terrible impact on the global economy, and by the end of World War II, the U. S. pretty much realized and the Western world realized that, hey, tariffs are a disaster. So, whereas tariffs on industries stood at about 40 to 45 percent at the end of World War II, by the end of the century, they had reached closer to 5 percent.
They were really low. Uh, I'll come back to India's history later. Now, if I may, let me give a quick 101 on why tariffs are such a disaster, and for that I'll invoke a thought experiment. Let us say that there is a product, a widget, which a local manufacturer can make [01:06:00] for a 110 rupees, but a Chinese guy can send me for a hundred rupees.
So the local manufacturers will now come together, they'll form a trade association, they'll go to the minister, they'll say ki tariff lagao, local industry hurt ho raha hai, we have to encourage our industry. And then the government puts a tariff of 20 rupees on the Chinese thing, so that is now 120. And therefore, the local guy at 110 gets all the business and does well, right?
So your immediate scene effect is that local industry is doing well. But the unseen effect is that the consumer who would have paid 100 rupees for something is actually paying 110 rupees. So every consumer is paying 10 rupees extra. which would otherwise have stayed with him or gone back into the economy, generated jobs, generated industry, et cetera, et cetera.
But instead of that, it's gone to that one interest group. You know, I like to say that all interventions in free markets are a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, right? From the poor to the rich. And the first example, I always use as tariffs, 10 rupees from a whole bunch of poor and you passed [01:07:00] it on to one rich interest group that is out there.
So this is The first of two really bad impacts. The first of two really bad impacts is that you've hurt your own consumer. It effectively becomes a tax on the poor and it goes to, um, you know, help the interest group, which may be an Adani Ambani, which could be a trade association or whatever. And it doesn't make sense.
Everybody's worse off. The second impact is actually on the local guys. You're hurting the local guys also, and you're hurting them in two ways. One way is that when you have tariffs on goods from abroad, you also have tariffs on their inputs. And therefore, their prices go up even further, instead of 110, it might cost 115, because some of his inputs have tariffs on them, and he has to pay for them.
But the second deeper way is that how do companies become world class, we want our companies to be world class, right? That happens with competition, the more people you're competing with, the more you have to lift your game. So if you're actually competing with all the players around the world, from Scandinavia, from us from [01:08:00] China.
You have to adopt best practices. You have to look for efficiencies. You have to significantly up your game, right? And this helps in exports also, because then you go out in the world market and you're competing. But all of this knowledge, all of this upgrading doesn't happen in a protected market. where the incentives are different and you don't have to compete in this manner.
So local companies in the long run also hurt out. So it's just a huge negative sum game. Uh, and as far as, you know, countries enriching themselves is concerned, the thing is we don't function in a vacuum. What we're doing is number one, your consumer is. paying the extra cost is not the foreigner. And secondly, your consumer would have done something with the money, it would have gone out into the economy, it would have gone out, you know, it would have created jobs, it would have done all of that, that hasn't happened.
And that is something that is not seen. And secondly, the mistake, a lot of these people make, The mistake that people made in the 17th and 18th centuries, the mercantilist way of thinking, the mistake that Trump is making, is he's [01:09:00] thinking of trade as being something that happens between countries and is zero sum, right?
And none of those two conditions hold true. Trade does not happen between countries. Trade happens between individuals. Individuals from India will trade with, should trade with individuals from Pakistan, individuals with China, and all trades happen to mutual benefit. It's a positive sum game. You know, one of the most absurd terms that has become politicized is trade deficit.
People speak of trade deficit as if it is a problem. It is not a problem. There is a great piece by Tim Harford written some 20 years ago called my trade deficit with my babysitter. Where the point he made was that we have a babysitter who comes home and I pay her money. She gives me services, but she never pays me anything.
So technically I have a trade deficit with her. Is it a bad thing? It isn't a bad thing because both people are benefiting. If you think about it, news laundry has employees, you pay all your employees, I would hope you pay all your employees. So you have a trade deficit with all of your employees, because you are paying them and they are not paying you.
Nevertheless, you are all happy. [01:10:00] Because, you know, every mutually beneficial trade leaves both parties better off. That's the definition. But you know, so instead of thinking about it as a positive sum game between individuals where it doesn't matter what a trade deficit is. If you think about it in a very simplistic way that two nations are trading and it is a zero sum game, the way Trump seems to think it's just very fallacious.
It's very flawed. And, uh, you know, finally coming to the India question. You know, tariffs are never good, like for the reasons I outlined, you know, the term reciprocal tariffs firstly doesn't make sense to me. You know, Friedman once made a point about the US, which is absolutely true, is that regardless of what other countries do, all US tariffs should be zero, because your own people are benefit, benefiting.
Reciprocal tariffs are akin to, in the words of the economist, Joan Robinson, akin to throwing rocks on your own shore. Because some other country has a rocky coastline. It just doesn't make sense. It is it is suicidal. So that's sort of the key [01:11:00] point to note as far as far as how India will do when Trump, you know, did his last round of tariffs in 2018.
India came off pretty badly, because first of all, there were 25 percent tariffs on steel. What happened there was now our Our steel exports weren't too much about some 700 million or something, but they went down by 46 million. And then Europe, because of what America did, had to impose further restrictions on Indian steel because they feared a glut of steel coming from everywhere in the world because of what the US had done.
And at a smaller level,
Anand: that's already kicked off with Europe kind of. It's,
Amit: it's, it's already kicked off the one way in which tariffs could actually, the one way in which Trump's actions could be awesome for India, which is an unintended consequence is that Trump is basically now taking the macho move that if you have tariffs on me, I will have tariffs on you.
Now, uh, Modi G is not going to fight with Trump on this. So he might well find a face saving way to give in and say, we won't have tariffs either. If that happens, that is awesome for all us people. It is awesome for the poor of [01:12:00] India. It is awesome for everybody. Because tariffs hurt us. And therefore, if, if our tariffs go down because of pressure from there, uh, that is great, but it is an unintended consequence of what is otherwise a completely disastrous policy.
It makes absolutely no sense. And I am completely baffled by it because we may disagree with a lot of things Trump does, and we may agree with some of it, but all of it has reasonable arguments on all sides and there are debates and all that. This has nothing reasonable on the side of tariffs. It's completely harebrained.
Every economist agrees with this. This is not one of those consensus things that changes every 20 years for 250 years from Adam Smith onwards Everyone's agreed Karl Marx agreed Gaines agreed, you know, so that there's just no debate of it and I you know It's just baffling to me But we can make the most of it.
Hopefully, if we get rid of our tariffs, because, you know, our government job is to do what's best for our people. Our governments have never done that when it comes to tariffs, like our history with tariffs is we started off really bad, because of, [01:13:00] you know, narrow going for import substitution, the whole infant industry argument, tariffs used to be in the hundreds of percents as high as 300 percent at One time in the 1970s, when essentially we were a closed economy, 95 percent of the economy was catered to by local producers only.
Now, after 1991, that really changed, things got far, far better and so on and so forth. But our tariffs in many areas are still higher than they should be, like in my opinion, anything more than zero is higher than it should be, but they are higher, they are way higher than world standards. You are a complete free
Anand: market share, but, uh, you know, I'd like to go around the panel to know their views because I have.
Few observations, which I will just make once I've been around. Jeshree, you have a view on this?
Jayashree: Um, I think fundamentally, um, so see the thing is over here that Trump sees himself as a victim, right? Whereas the rest of the world see themselves as victims of the U. S., whether it's the weaponization of the dollar, whether it's their control over global banking and [01:14:00] financial systems, or if it's like military interventions and so on.
And the most important thing is that American and Indian economies are not equal. America's per capita income is what, like, 85, 000 or whatever and India's is like 2, 500. So these are not two equal things. For me, the most important thing though is that, um, Trump says he's doing this because he wants to encourage American manufacturing, right?
Like that is the entire thing that we will make America great again by manufacturing at home. The thing is the capital has full freedom, but labor does not. Capital goes anywhere it wants, seeking cheap labor. Labor has no option to go anywhere because labor is pretty much geographically isolated, which is a terrible system.
And it is why where capital goes in search for those lowest, most exploitative wages. So the U. S. Which is a very rich country cannot afford to pay Indian wages or Chinese wages at home.
Abhinandan: So
Jayashree: even with new tariffs, I don't see this flipping that equation Might be like a marginal category, but it's like playing whack a mole, right?
Like, so global supply chains, I feel have become very nimble. People move from country to country looking for the most [01:15:00] optimal costing solution. So if you have a tariff on goods from China or Canada, it doesn't change that equation, right? It doesn't mean the best alternative is that. You produce in America, then you might go to Vietnam, you produce in Vietnam, you can't go to Vietnam, and you impose a tariff, you then go to Bangladesh, you produce in Bangladesh, it's, American consumers at the end of the day are still sort of battling higher prices in the short term, manufacturing, I feel is unlikely to fundamentally change or scale up.
And those jobs are not coming back either. So it just seems profoundly stupid. So I feel like both Amit and I agree that it's stupid, but coming at it from very different
Anand: directions. Anand. You have a take on this?
No, I have a very clear set take on it that time will tell. So, um, no, it's, uh, uh, I think, uh, the Republican Party's, uh, one of the ways of seeing it as conservatives was that it's market conservatism.
That has been [01:16:00] upended now. Yeah, all the
classical conservative points of view, fiscal responsibility, all that shit shat is all out of the window. Now Trump's party is not a classic conservative party.
I think the reasoning behind it is not very difficult that, uh, uh, in Trump's world view, market is domestic market, not international market.
So he's, uh, he's still say, uh, a market fundamentalist, but But what is only American market or American market friendly. So the post Second World War, and of course, before that also is, uh, Amit pointed out that, uh, this, uh, means, uh, world trade consensus and that, that has been, uh, um, I think, uh, Radicalized in his worldview in a way where one way, what would be [01:17:00] that, I think I am foreseeing it because that he would say that the job is done, now we are for a course correction, and now we are restoring something, which, so already he's going down that route.
So, so, uh, that is in one of the way in which you, uh. backtrack on certain policies where you are not seen as eating the humble pie. So, uh, that, that, that is one of. He changes it all
the time. In fact, he was there all the time. Manisha, you have. Any take on the tariff was
Manisha: same as Anand want to wait and watch, but if they go, I guess they will benefit consumers like us.
Like you said, you know, this lady came up with a placard saying that these are the countries that charge on whiskeys or bourbon or whatever. And yeah, consumers like me will be able to get a cheaper Apple products and stuff like that. But what, I mean, I get Amit's point that you have to be able to compete with the world and in some sense.
Indian [01:18:00] market is flooded by Chinese goods. So we have kind of, no matter how protectionist we've been or whatever, we have lost. the game to a lot of Chinese goods that have come in. But I also feel that there's a reason why you would have had that attitude, right? You can't have an MSME somewhere in Ludhiana competing with an, you know, a company in America.
We're not equal. No, we didn't start equal. So there is some sense to protecting your own industry. But yeah, it can't be ad hoc and it can't be forever, I guess. Yeah, I mean,
Anand: one is negotiating plan, you know, we'll go back. But where does this
Manisha: end also? Won't it, can, will we really be in a world with no tariffs?
I think we'll end up with bilateral negotiations. We'll go back to the same thing. Of
Anand: course, it'll end. I think it'll finally end up where it was before. Yeah. So
Manisha: we'll have a period of uncertainty to only go back to what existed before.
Amit: One additional point, you know, responding to what Manisha said about, uh, uh, you can't put, you know, you can't expect an MSME in Ludhiana to compete with the best American firms.
But the point is a one. sector in which we didn't have tariffs, in which we didn't have protectionism was IT [01:19:00] services. And in IT, we've done perfectly well, we've built world class companies. Some could argue that there isn't enough first order innovation happening here, etc, etc, which is legit, and which will change and which is changing gradually.
But the point is, in the one industry, we didn't try to try to protect simply because we were blindsided by it. And we didn't know that it was actually coming. We've done extremely well. So I wouldn't underestimate, uh, you know, Indian ingenuity and Indian entrepreneurship. Uh, you know, we have a lot of natural advantages here, uh, like cheap labor, for example, which is one of the things that work for IT services, which we could use to compete with anywhere in the world.
And again, if you look at some of our steel companies or some of what is happening, you know, the best domestic businesses can compete. But it's just a question of what are the incentives. If your incentives are that you form and uh, um, you know, a local interest group and you go to your local politician and then you have, you protect your marketplace because you don't want to compete, then obviously you're going to have to try less and you're not going to reach those standards.
But if you're competing with the globe, you are going to lift the game. So, you know, that's a limited response I'd sort of have [01:20:00] to that point.
Anand: So there are three or four things that I've pointed out. One is, Amit, you said, you know, I guess everybody's happy since. Newslaundry pays them and it's a deficit.
I'm not sure everybody's happy. I could happily do with free labor. But a couple of things I think are, to me, they're not as obvious. Um, one is, I mean, if like you give the example of tech, although, you know, the call center bit after the initial boom in the late 2000s, it's completely stopped because there was a pushback from America or the Western countries.
because they felt that they were being misled, et cetera, et cetera. So there are other things other than just the pure balance sheet cost benefit analysis. Secondly, um, something like Had Coke and Pepsi existed in India, Parley would, in my view, never have happened. I mean, I'm not saying I'm a pro tariff guy, but I, [01:21:00] to me, it's not that black and white.
The auto industry, I think, one of the reasons, and correct me if I'm wrong, you probably may have read a little more about Pakistan's economic history. The reason Pakistan does not have an auto industry at all is Nehru said, No, we will only manufacture here. So these are two examples. And I remember when Coke and Pepsi came here, uh, and you know, Mr.
Chauhan, I think at that time sold probably 40 crore to Pepsi. That was a huge princely sum at that time. Or when McDonald's came here and Lalit Nirula and Deepak Nirula, Sold LA because they could not compete at McDonald's. Uh, is that, I mean, that, that is what I remember. I was in, I think I was in News Track back then.
Uh, Pepsi came before Coke. Pepsi was allowed entry before Coke was, uh, when, when the liberalization happened. Coke Rein entered later, but, but it was, yeah. But the first one comes was Pepsi. Pepsi in 90. And, and I remember we were told, and we tried to, you know, get to the borrowed, [01:22:00] they had the kind of money.
to buy out all the thumbs ups from the metros, pour them down the drain so that if you went to get a thumbs up, you didn't have a choice. There was only Pepsi. Now, no Indian company could afford to do that. That's a part of marketing and sales cost. Uh, and the second thing which makes it unequal is, and this I've experienced personally, when we used to go shoot, uh, ad films and marketing films for infrastructure companies like NACAP and Bechtel.
Um, They said there's certain countries where you cannot compete with the Chinese infrastructure company because they don't have anything called human rights. The guys working on their sites are prisoners. If they complete the job, they will get free. If they don't, they will be buried there. You know, the former Soviet Republic had a lot of pipelines that were laid after it scattered.
Many of those projects came to Indian companies, which also have pretty low labor rights. And a lot of them went to China because they don't have none. [01:23:00] You know, there are many things that don't shop on balance sheets. That do show up in the final sum. And lastly, just want to give the example and I'd recommend this podcast, which I think I've recommended to Hafta listeners ages ago, uh, the Luddites, uh, of UK, uh, it was a fictitious person, this Ludd after whom this anti machine mechanization movement was.
But in retrospect, the Luddites were right. It took three generations to recover the jobs that they lost. Eventually, it was a win win, no doubt, but that was in the long run. And as a very famous economist said, in the long run, we're all dead. But three generations did suffer. So the Luddites opposition to that mechanization was correct from their context.
Because they suffered, their children suffered. And then, of course, later on, you know, jobs were created at an exponential pace which none of them had ever seen. But that generation did, [01:24:00] was right. So, how do you resolve these, you know, future gains to present losses, to past productivity? I mean, is it, is it a little more difficult than, you know, we might think?
Amit: Uh, great questions. I'll tackle them one by one. But first I'll start with this great quip by sa when he was on my podcasts recently, and I quoted Keynes to him and said, you know, Cain said, in the long run, we are all dead. And, uh, Ali replied, we are in the long run and Keynes is dead , which is true. But just, uh, just to go back to the Pakistan example.
See, uh, uh, I have no idea what the auto industry in Pakistan is like. I haven't studied Pakistan, but the, IM an important factor to note is that until the point Nero died, uh, until the mid sixties, even the late sixties. Pakistan was actually doing far better than India economically. And part of that is because until that point, they embrace markets and they, you know, they were proceeding a pace, they were doing really well.
And then with Alito onwards, everything went terribly, terribly, tragically downwards. Uh, so that's [01:25:00] another story as far as Indian companies not doing well, you know, I can think of CCD as an example, as a counter to Starbucks, for example, that our companies also benefit from. Markets, uh, opening up and expanding and all of the know how and knowledge that comes in.
Let me tackle the Chinese question because that is something people will bring. People will say that, hey, China because, uh, they have those unfair conditions where either they have what you call slave labor or, uh, the government subsidizes them heavily. So we can't possibly match their prices. So why should we not protect our guys?
To which the simple answer is that is awesome. It doesn't matter what they are doing. See, markets exist for consumers. I have a need, someone is fulfilling that need, I take it. Therefore, we take all the cheap Chinese goods we can take, and with the money that we save, with the value that we earn on that, that money, that value is going back out into the economy and creating jobs, which you can't account for directly because it is unseen.
Right. So you raise the point of the Luddites, you know, I'll have to listen to this podcast, but [01:26:00] the Luddites were completely wrong. And it did not take three generations. You know, throughout history, the arc of history is adjustments happen fast. Now you will remember Avinandan, when we were growing up in the late 1980s, STD booths for the whole thing, there was such an awesome technology.
There were 1 million STD booths in India. Now, in a matter of a few years, mobile telephony made them completely redundant. Right? And what happened? Visibly, you will see that those 1 million STD booths vanished. You think of maybe the 2 3 million jobs, I don't know how many jobs each STD booth would have generated, they are all gone.
But the economy booms, new value is created, they get, uh, you know, adjusted into all of that. So Ladaits have always been wrong, all new technology, and even with AI, this will happen. Though with AI, the changes will happen so fast, it's kind of hard to say. So, but the point is, you can't quantify it. You know, you can't,
you can't quantify that. You can't track all of them. You can't really do that. But if you just look at the numbers of people in India lifted out of poverty since, uh, [01:27:00] 1991, the hundreds of millions, you know that those jobs are there. You know, that technology worked, that progress worked, that market markets worked.
So all of that, but you know, to. Just sort of go back to the China question, I would say that, yeah, if cheap goods are flooding in, it really doesn't matter. If the Chinese government is subsidizing our poor consumers, that's good for them. That's, you know, they are doing that. It's okay. It's less of a burden on us.
You know, the, the point is that economies and societies Schumpeter called creative destruction. People have needs, people are trying to fulfill those needs. And in that fulfillment, there will be firms that will fail, there will be firms that will succeed, there will be firms that succeed today and fail tomorrow.
And that is fine. The ultimate quest is satisfy the needs of society. You know, I have a two mutual benefit and that is what uh, really is the key here. So if you have a narrow key, like here is a domestic industry, we must support it. These particular jobs must survive. This particular [01:28:00] person must be a lat operator, even though, you know, automation is here and is inevitable.
I think that is really short sighted thinking. It's not even in the long run or the medium term. In the short term, everyone is better off if you allow technology to come in, because otherwise you go back in and, uh, you know, Um, where do you stop? We live in a world that is powered by technology. You think of how we grew up in the eighties, man.
It's, it's, you know, most of this would not have happened if you took the Luddite approach and said, Oh, STD booth wale job jayenge, do, uh, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
Anand: But yeah, I mean, there's one example of, I mean, I agree STD booth. There was, you know, the cellular industry has created, um,
Manisha: More than yesterday, the cyber cafes, where you'd have a cyber cafe in every neighborhood.
It's completely vanished.
Anand: So, I mean, of course there are, but capacity building for a country, a society for a labor, the assumption is there will be something that will be made within that country because that money that is [01:29:00] saved, because like Jayshree pointed out, capital is extremely fluid in the sense of how it can travel across borders while labor can't.
And there are unintended consequences. I can tell you when I went to Amsterdam last, they're actually. Mullingar law that we do not want unoccupied homes by these billionaires in China and Russia and these oligarchs. And this happened in cannot place. I don't know if you remember in the, when Pizza Hut and all had come, the average shop, you know, the standard shops and cannot place the rent used to be about between one and a half and three and a half lakhs.
Pizza Hut was willing to pay six lakhs because they don't give a They could absorb losses for six years before they started making profits.
Abhinandan & Raman: It
Anand: disrupted the entire property market. No one could afford shit. That's happening in many cities in Europe because residential places are being taken over by the ill gotten wealth by Chinese and Russian billionaires.
So they're saying the property market We locals cannot afford a home here because And this is a huge problem in the U. S. [01:30:00] That our parents could afford two homes. You can't afford one. That's becoming a problem. In India, all these are consequences, not directly of, you know, uh, foreign, uh, foreign companies coming in, but in some way, all these things impact the other.
And of course, there is no perfect exam, uh, you know, uh, formula in, in economics, like there may be in physics or chemistry. But this entire narrative of globalization is being a good thing for everybody. The fact that it's been turned on its head in various countries, most of all in America. Is, is that data backed?
Is that backed because people suddenly feel poorer in America? Why has it become such a useful political tool if there is, I'm not saying there is, but if there isn't even a limited economic reality, like for example, this entire communal thing in India, I think it is despicable, but it does. Come from a limited reality of the [01:31:00] Shabano case.
It comes from a limited reality in Bombay. Uh, you know, back when Bal Thackeray decided to clean up the tracks in Mahim Junction because one train got blocked because people were eating namaz. Now, I'm not saying it was happening all over the country and the entire Indian railway system was fucked because of that.
But yes, there was a limited reality that a train was stopped because X, Y, Z. Bal Thackeray said, I'll clean up this railway track if the cops can't. In the Shabano case. So, is there some limited economic reality that Globalization is not as much of a, everybody's happy at the end of the day. Formula as was imagined, which is why this whole political movement has gained traction everywhere, including America.
Amit: So I'll, I'll come at it in two ways. Uh, way. Number one is that let us, for example, look at India. Now you can come up with all kinds of anecdotes. And, uh, what did he do and et cetera, et cetera. But I'd say ignore the anecdotes. Look at the data. What does the data tell you? The data tells you that in 1991, we opened up the economy, we embraced globalization to a limited extent, we should have done more of it.
And we lowered [01:32:00] tariffs to a limited extent, we should have done more of it. But even the limited reforms that we carried out in opening up and letting the world in and in embracing the world lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, it was overall, just a massive good for humanity. And it was overall massively good for India.
Now that data doesn't lie in that data is clear. As far as What is happening in America is concerned. I would say that what is happening in America is really a question of narrative battles in which the wrong narratives have won out because they are simpler. Now, let me explain the, when I think of Trump coming to power in 2016, that was driven largely by what was happening in middle America, where jobs had stagnated, where people realized that they don't necessarily have a better future than their parents did, et cetera, et cetera.
Right. And the two simple narratives that Trump came up with, which were both simplistic and false, when narrative number one is that jobs are going because they are being shipped overseas. Therefore, globalization bad. And narrative two immigrants are [01:33:00] coming and taking your jobs. Therefore, immigration map and eating your pets.
Now, correct now, your pets, so your pets also vanishing. So now these both these narratives are false. But they are simple, and therefore they are easy to sell, and they are convenient because each of them has an enemy, the foreigner and the immigrant. And, uh, you know, as Carl Schmitt famously said decades ago, that in politics you need an other, right?
So, uh, Trump builds these two others, he builds these bogeymen, the simple narrative sell, and, uh, uh, it sparks on, just because it's narrative sold. doesn't mean that globalization is bad. I would in fact say that globalization is great. I don't see how it cannot be great. It is great for everyone. It reduces poverty in poor countries, right?
So I would strongly argue with saying that there are negative effects to it. I think the negative effects that you are referring to is the rise of populism across the world and in Hungary What Putin is doing and [01:34:00] Trump and close a home. But why attribute that to globalization? It's, it's a separate phenomenon that has kind of happened at the same time.
And it has its own causes and is deeply multifactorial. And I think looking for a simple explanation, one magic bullet explanation would be making the same kind of mistake that Trump's 2016, when they said, Globalization bad immigrants bad. Right.
Anand: Good point. So, Anand, you have anything
to add to this?
After this Stiglitz and Friedman debate. Friedman, not Friedman. Well,
poor Stiglitz now. Is he still alive? He used to be very vocal till a few years ago. I don't hear much from him anymore.
No, I would like to say that what role this, of course, 2008, uh, um, the, um, Financial crisis, financial crisis. And what role is Two years of pandemic has [01:35:00] what it has contributed means.
The, uh, 2008 was not a Black Swan event, but we can say that pandemic was in a limited way and in India, uh, the make in India. And, uh, then in those two years you see more, uh, emphasis on self dependence. Uh. So, it was more a response to this pandemic phase then, then, and that was the global consensus then that you have to be inward looking because of the physical barriers that it was placing.
And, uh, as a famous historian said that, uh, there are Um, turning points in history when history refuses to turn. So, so when you see the editorials written during pandemic time, they seem foolish now because, because No, even 2008, I've saved many of them
where they said this is the end of [01:36:00] capitalism. It will never be the same.
The financial markets are going to be regulated unlike we've ever seen. I've saved all those because me and a friend of mine had a bet. That dude, this is to stay. I was like, boss, after in a short while, we'll be back to square one. But before we say bye to Amit, uh, you know, one last thought Amit, there was, you know, what you're saying a simple narrative.
I just heard the most devastatingly simple counter to Trump's rhetoric. And I was wondering why no other politician is using it. They said, you know, Trump says, okay, Jayshree warning, another Trump impersonation coming up. All these countries are taking advantage of us. You know, we're just subsidizing their lives or whatever the fuck he says.
He says, see post second world war, see where Japan was, see where Germany was on per capita on how much of the world trade dominated on how much of world capital dominated where most patents are issued on every [01:37:00] parameter. USA outperformed all these countries who were supposedly taking advantage of America.
So if this was their plan to take advantage, it was such a shit plan that it fucking failed because only America grew at a way, at a pace way faster than all these other economies that are taking advantage. It's such a simple data set that they can show. Second World War started taking advantage. See how America grew, see how they grew.
They did well as well. But dude, America outperformed everybody. How, how does this not sell? It's such a. It's devastatingly simple, you know, graph to show everybody.
Amit: I think when Trump says it, he's not expecting anyone to believe him and nobody does on this particular matter. So you don't even need the rebuttal because it is obvious nonsense.
But you know, one angle that we missed while talking about tariffs is that some people will say that he doesn't really mean the tariffs, that he's using it as a negotiating tool and he's going to strong arm Canada into lowering the tariffs and Mexico into lowering the tariffs and India into lowering the tariffs and I hope all of that happens.[01:38:00]
And so they put a spin on it and say, That everything that Trump does is a negotiating tool because he's doing a game theory game, like even that Middle East, that nonsense about we'll take Gaza and all that. You think he meant it? Nobody thinks he meant it. He's playing some other game in his head. Now that is a very dangerous game because you might be playing a game in your head where you expect outcomes to go along certain paths and they don't go along those paths.
But the point is, you know, if you know the game theory of that particular game of chicken, the game of chicken is, you know, in the film Rebel Without a Cause, there's a scene like that, that Two people, the deal is you're driving two cars towards a cliff and whoever stops last wins, right? And the key to winning is you have to make the other person believe that you're mad enough to actually go off the cliff.
So he will stop before you, right? And in geopolitical terms, when a chicken is played, like when, uh, when two nuclear nations played, like for example, if King, King Jong un plays the game of chicken with anyone. Knowing Kim Jong Un, they'll believe that North Korea is mad, the guy might actually do anything, so they'll take him seriously and the [01:39:00] deterrence becomes real, right?
Now Trump is that kind of guy that, if he plays a game of chicken, uh, if he's smart enough to know what that is, but if he plays a game of chicken, uh, you know, people will actually think that this guy is crazy enough. He's crazy enough to put 30 percent tariffs. He's crazy enough to do this and therefore it might work.
So this is a slightly convoluted argument that some people make. I am extremely skeptical of it because I think that this is too sophisticated, a trick for a someone like him to try and B it requires a perfect storm to actually work out. And I don't think that's going to happen. So I'm skeptical of it, but it's worth putting out that this is an argument some people have made.
But as Anand and Manisha said, perhaps the best thing to do is to just wait and watch. And, um, yeah, I mean, there's that old Chinese curse, we live in interesting times. Yes, we do. May you live in interesting times.
Anand: But thanks so much Amit for sparing so much of time for us and, uh, you can find the links to Amit's show and the tutorials.
What do you call them? Classes? Tutorials? Course? Uh, my
Amit: [01:40:00] courses. Courses. I will send them to you. The
Anand: link in the show notes. You can even register for those. And before we let you go, Amit, some recommendation that you think would enrich the lives of our viewers and listeners. Oh my God, I was
Amit: warned
Anand: about
Amit: this.
The best film I've watched in the last year is Perfect Days by Wim Wenders. I'm sure everyone's seen it by now, but it's a lovely film and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Among books, one book I keep recommending to everyone to understand both cities and economics is Order Without Design by Alain Barton. Uh, which is just a masterpiece in understanding what a city is and how it works.
And an earlier classic on that, if you haven't read it, is by one of my great heroes, Jane Jacobs. It's called The Death and Life of Great American Cities. As most of us live in cities, these are like, uh, wonderful books to read. And, uh, and seeing like a state by James C. Scott is another masterpiece, which helps demystify the workings of the state.
And, uh, it's an eyeopening book for anyone who's read it. So it's just a great book. [01:41:00]
Anand: Thanks Amit. And, uh, we look forward to listening to many more episodes of your podcast.
Amit: Thank you for having me. This was fun.
Anand: Yes. And happy Holi.
Amit: Thank you. Happy Holi.
Anand: Anyone else, before you go to the recommendations, want to.
Chip in on any of the issues we've discussed or some that we've missed out because we will not be reading any emails this week. We have 33 emails. Many have surpassed the word limit. So I think we will have to figure out a system where we read some emails every hafta and then we have maybe every fourth hafta separate email edition because we love to hear from you.
But from you know, an average of 10 12, it's become an average of 25 30. Which can take an hour itself to deal with each, but we'd like you guys
Jayashree: did letters last week. No. Oh, yeah, but there's
Anand: about 30 more have come already 33.
Jayashree: So we do good. I mean, that's a great. Yeah, exactly. But
Anand: it's just that we need to figure out another system that we can, you know, deal with these or we run them through AI and say, make each of these letters into, you know,
Jayashree: no, I'm not going to feed AI, [01:42:00] please.
Anand: Okay. So, but we'll figure that out. Manisha
Jayashree: anyway feeds it enough for like all of us, so don't encourage
Anand: her. But we will deal with all these emails. Just don't mail us this week, please, because it's Holi, everyone is in any case, and we have to deal with so many. Uh, so yeah, but before we wind up, any, anything else that we missed out on either cricket or Holi or tariffs?
Manisha: No, I think we had, no,
Anand: we covered it all.
Manisha: Very detailed conversations.
Anand: All right. So, let's get the recommendations and let's start with Jayashree.
Jayashree: Both my recommendations are like for, if you have many, many hours to spend reading, you can click on these links. So the first is a very old, it's quite, I think it's quite a renowned piece of long form journalism.
In, uh, 1989 in Florida, the bodies of three women were found floating in Tampa Bay. It was a woman and two daughters. So the stories that they were killed by a man whom they trusted to show them a good time. And their first ever visit to Florida. And the thing is, it's okay, it's 50, 000 words long. Please don't judge me.
But it's also like a really meticulous piece of reportage and [01:43:00] storytelling. So I think it's worth making your way through. Where is it? Half an hour a day and then I think you'll finish it in a few months. Where is this? It's called Angels and Demons. It was published in Tampa Bay Times. I think it won a Pulitzer.
It was published in like 97. So that's how old it is.
Manisha: Okay.
Jayashree: Um, my second is a novel. It's, um, called The Light Pirate by Lily Brooks Dalton. So at its heart, it's a story about climate change. How, it's again about Florida actually. Hurricanes have claimed Florida. The government has officially declared that Florida is dead.
It does not exist. Water has taken over the coastlines, flooding the entire state. It has been shut down. But it's also a very, like, it's a very moving, interesting book about, like, hope and resistance. And also like a little bit of magical realism. So yeah, The Light Pirate by Lily Brooks. All right.
Anand: Manisha?
Manisha: Uh, there was a really disturbing case of rape was reported from Hampi in Karnataka, where two women with three of [01:44:00] their male companions went out stargazing. The men were pushed into, yeah. So my recommendation, uh, is a profile of the boy who died, Vibhas Nayak in the Indian Express. I just think he shouldn't.
die without people acknowledging that something so simple as just going out stargazing led to
Abhinandan: something
Manisha: so gruesome. And the women were with three male companions. It was not that late. And yet, uh, it was a very disturbing case.
Anand: One was Israeli. One was Israeli. One was an American.
Jayashree: And that stupid Karnataka minister named them, you know, to the media.
And then the media. Publish their names, even though they're not allowed to, because
Manisha: India is among some of the dangerous countries for solo women travelers, and I think we should really think about this. Uh, another podcast I've just started listening is Can Kara Save the Washington Post from Jeff Bezos.
Just started listening to this. Seems interesting and promising. That's a fun name, [01:45:00] though. Yeah.
Anand: Anand. No, uh, I am recommending three pieces by Manu Joseph. Uh, I think he is doing brilliant writing lately. Okay, of late he has written three very good pieces. Also, I think, uh, Uh, I have been re evaluating his work and I think that a lot of writing that is being done today, um, none of it will survive because it either it has politics or reaction to something.
He's the only one on and there are some in regional media, I know, but in English media, who is looking at ideas, who is looking at the Larger picture, the ideas shaping human behavior, the things and after the current affairs have settled themselves. So he's not reacting to news. He's not reacting to this person or that person.
And seriously looking at [01:46:00] ideas, interplay of ideas, forces of history. And in that sense, he's a unique Indian journalist and novelist. his three last three pieces. One is why entertainment has become boring. All sorts of entertainment has become boring. He has just gone and in only in a thousand words, uh, also why West has lost appeal, why we are not emulating West as a.
Um, set of ideas or values, why it has lost its appeal attraction. Hmm. And third is that why our views are not actually our views, but, uh, it's actually a kind of reaction or something that is counter to the PE people. We oppose why people we hate. Mm. So. We are actually not having our views. We are just reacting to people, you know, like if he is believing in this thing and then I have to say, I have to say the opposite.
And I have to somehow you
Manisha: to get [01:47:00] Manu and Havta.
Anand: I think, uh, as a body of work, uh, his writings will survive all Indian journalists writing in English. I only wished he had ruler exposure to ruler India. He's a city guy. So. That way, that way, that is what limits him in reading the psyche of more and more Indians.
If he was exposed to, he has lived in Chennai, Mumbai and Gurgaon. So, but if he was, and second recommendation is, it's a, uh, um. unique kind of column that I came across by Ian Chappell, the former Australian cricketer. So his broadcasting and column writing career outlived his playing days. So he has written a column hanging his boots as a columnist.
So that this is my last column. And he has written, and it's a syndicated column in Australia, UK and in India. [01:48:00] So this is my last column. Also these ghostwriters cricketers employ for writing stuff. So Jonathan Selvaraj, who is a sports journalist. Once
Abhinandan: I
Anand: talked to him, he said that there are few cricketers who actually write.
So he said that I saw that an English cricketer, he was actually structuring sentences and this, that. So, uh, And all those in the Times of India HD and these columns appear on the same match day of cricketer who is actually playing in that game. So, so, wow. Yeah, that must be hard, no? So, no, I know it's ghost writing.
So, ghost writing. So, there are few who actually write and he has written for, for almost 40 years. So he, uh, he mentions that I went to the Australian, which is an Australian newspaper and Sydney Morning Herald. And the editor said that, uh, do you, uh, want [01:49:00] someone from our staff to write for you? Just dictate.
He said that I will send you two pieces. If you approve, I will write myself. So he approved. So he said, I wrote myself. Wow.
Manisha: At least ghostwriting reminds us a good piece in Al Jazeera also on this. Paid review. Yeah. Menace in the Indian film industry. Very good one.
Raman: Mm-hmm. I saw some of the Oscar movies, uh, last week.
You, you've seen all of them now? No, not all of them. Brutal. Just the complete unknown. The, the brutalist, uh, concl, uh, ett. And uh, the fourth is Amelia Paris. So Amelia Paris. An
Manisha: also you saw
Raman: an Yes, but that was last time I, so Amelia Paris, uh, on, uh, movie. And, uh, this Wicked is also available on Google TV.
You need to, of course, uh, rent it. And the other two I saw on the, in the cinema and real good movies, uh, [01:50:00] all four of them. One must watch.
Anand: Right. Uh, I have two recommendations. One is, uh, the 12th March episode of the Ezra Klein show, why Trump's tariffs won't work. Since you spoke about tariffs, I think he and his guests, uh, have very simply kind of explained.
the impacts of the tariffs and how they will most likely play out. Uh, so it's a very comfortable, easy listen. And the second is this series that I've started listening to. I've actually finished listening to this. Now I'm going to go to the next. It is a podcast series called Business Wars by Wondery.
And the season I heard was season 98. Fox News versus CNN and uh, it's fascinating man. It is just so fascinating. We should do a podcast like this sometime, Jayashree, because we have access. We know the real story, what happened. We have lived through this historical time in India.
Jayashree: Just need to document.
Anand: Yeah, we just need to document [01:51:00] it. And we have access to the main players. Uh, and yeah, it's, it's a, it's a fascinating list. Do
Raman: you have any parallels in India?
Anand: Oh, of course. Well, not exactly. It didn't play out exactly like this because the Numbers involved, uh, not as high, but the stories are no less dramatic.
In fact, they're more dramatic because here you had completely different pools to dip into. Everybody was dipping into the same pool. So on that note, wish you happy Holi again, remind you pay to keep news free. When the public pays, the public is served. We take no advertising. So please support journalism so we can do more and more of it.
I'd like to thank our producer Priyali and Hassan is here as well. And uh, Jayashree, Manisha, thank you Anand, thank you Raman sir. We can end with a
Manisha: song recommendation from Anand this time, since he said so many things about holy songs. A holy
Anand: bhauji song recommendation. From
Manisha: you. It can be non bhauji also.
Anand: [01:52:00] Okay, so I'm just warning everyone, this song recommendation from Anand. Now let's see what he comes up
with. I will Recommend an
obscene song,
which gets you to the court,
Yogi Adityanath: Okay.
Manisha: Thank you for your subscription. You're changing the world by changing the way news is funded. For the smoothest News Laundry experience, download the [01:53:00] News Laundry app. It is the best way to listen to our paywall podcasts. And you'll also get access to all free News Laundry shows. Keep us ad free and subscriber funded.
Help us grow. Tell people who listen to you to pay to keep news free. Subscribe to News Laundry. Keep journalism independent.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
