Good times? They are here now.

1. Our GDP is ~$3 trillion or ~$250 billion per month or ~$10 billion per day (25 day working month).

2. It looks likely that COVID-19 is going to be with us at least for another month. 

3. Given the restrictions already in place, and further strictures which are bound to follow, we should expect at least a 5% impairment of the GDP run rate until April end. In other words, if the expected GDP for the 6 weeks from now to April end was $375 billion on a steady state basis, it will now come in at $356 billion. Assuming that India bounces back instantly and the remaining 11 months of Fiscal 20-21 deliver $250 billion per month, India will wrap up 20-21 with a GDP of $2.99 trillion.

4. Now the Rupee slipped from 69 to the USD in April 19 to 73 to the USD right now, a 5.6% depreciation. Let's assume that it erodes only 5% during Fiscal 20-21. That will leave the Rupee at about 77 to the USD a year hence. 

5. Adjusted for this depreciated Rupee, the GDP slips to $2.84 trillion for 20-21, a hard fall of 16% in USD terms. 

6. Assuming that our Fiscal 24-25 goalpost remains unchanged at $5 trillion, India's GDP will have to grow at >15.2% in constant, or >20% at current terms for these 4 years.

7. The official growth rate right now is ~4%. It needs to quadruple to give the economy a fighting chance of making the goal. 

8. Put differently, India needs to grow her GDP as much in 3 months as it is currently doing in the year. 

9. Capital formation, particularly by the private sector, is at a standstill. Banks had little risk appetite; what little remained, has vanished post Yes Bank. The equity market is unlikely to shake off the Coronavirus before Wall Street. Don't hold your breath for animal spirits there. 

10. What is the government (and apparently, most of my putative friends on Facebook) most interested in right now? Pushing NPR/NRC/CAA through, by fair means or their means. 

An administration which has brought India such shining economic success, is building on it to deliver shining social success.

Buckle up and soak in the lovely view. 

These are the "good times", which you are going to remember, wistfully, in 2025.

Desecration of Dr. Babasaheb's political legacy

I am wracked by shame today. 

Ramdas Athavale, a minister in the Central Cabinet, leader of the eponymous splinter group of the Republican Party of India, added volumes of vomit to the overflowing bowl of embarrassment that is the zeitgeist. If you have not seen the "Go Carona" (sic) video, search it now. I will not dignify it by appending it to this post. 

Why am I ashamed? Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar evolved an independent political space for Dalits in stages: first by launching the Independent Labour Party of India, then, the Scheduled Caste Forum and finally, the Republican Party of India, which he announced in September 1956 but died before it was formally constituted. 

Why did he choose to name it "Republican Party"? I am speculating here but my hypothesis is this. For Dr. Babasaheb, the Reublic, where the Citizen was the Sovereign, where there was no greater power in the country than every last one of us, must have represented an even greater sociopolitical value than Democracy. By the nomenclature he chose, he was sending a loud and clear message: that the long oppressed Dalits were, henceforth, not merely masters of their own destinies, they were equal partners in being the sovereign rulers of India. His message to Dalits, "Educate, Agitate, Organize", critically emphasized "Organize". The organising principle was people's sovereignty and the Republican Party of India would evolve into the point of the spear. 

That incomparable legacy; of Education, Agitation, Organisation; was publicly destroyed today. By a politician who claims to inherit the great Babasaheb's mantle.

Then again, that is the price of the Faustian bargain that he made with the party which stands for "Uneducate, Oppress, Destroy".

Get-out-of-jail-free card for all the toxic isms

Racism, sexism, religious sectarianism, casteism and all assorted other isms if their ilk share a few characteristics.

Before I go there, a little rewind to the moment which triggered today's contemplation.

A bunch of us friends were witness, to a 70-something male, launch into a particularly obnoxious riff about what attracts women at different stages of their lives. This bloke, I understood from my friends, was a corporate mover/shaker in his halcyon days. He continues to serve on various company boards but otherwise lives a retired life in various resort-style homes. His authority may have been sharply diminished but the sense of entitlement and arrogance is as unpleasantly evident as his bulbous nose.

Our conversation soon moved to the wider canvas of everyday misogyny and normalisation of sexism at the Indian workplace, which stubbornly resists attempts to tame it, notwithstanding the law or public abhorrence, expressed, for instance, during the #MeToo moments of 2018. And that was when a recurrent theme popped up.

Apparently, men who have cabins or large, enclosed, offices, now rarely close their room doors when they are meeting a woman- colleague or business associate, individually. This is to prevent subsequent accusations of inappropriate behaviour behind closed doors and all the potential consequences which might follow. I objected, perhaps not too vigorously, to this train of thought but it never left my mind. A day later, I have marshalled my thoughts and, even as it reawakens the disquiet I felt yesterday about backing off too soon, it is important that I explain why I think so.

1. Women may have been a part of the workforce from time immemorial, but through those millennia, male domination of the workplace has gone on, unchecked. Even today, the gender pay gap in North America stands at 82%. Women work harder, and almost always continue to carry the bulk of the homemaking burden, to get the same place in the corporate, or even bureaucratic, hierarchy. And eventually, the glass ceiling comes calling.

2. Women will, almost without exception, experience sexual harassment at the workplace. It may be overt: demanding favours in lieu of advancement or advantage, or covert: lewd messaging, sexually explicit personal comments, or worse: non-consensual contact all the way up to its worst manifestations. If I was to hazard a guess, the reported, and hopefully, remedied, incidence is no more than a single digit percentage of what actually happens. This is after, and in spite of, laws on sexual harassment at work becoming almost a universal feature of statute books around the world.

3. Victim shaming is the first instinctive reaction, every time an incidence of a minor misdemeanour or a major infraction is reported or otherwise becomes public knowledge. You have already heard or read about all the shapes and forms which Gaslighting takes, so I don't intend to elaborate.

Which brings me to my disappointment with myself.

The very suggestion: that a woman may falsely accuse a male colleague or business associate of impropriety at the workplace, because she sees advantage in so doing, is horribly troubling.

1. Males routinely get away with their worst excesses under the catchall "boys will be boys". What makes it worse is this isn't even necessarily a blemish on a male resumé: he's just assumed to be a particularly virile, or perhaps raffish, chap. Sometimes this extends further. "Oh, if he hit on her, she must be special; he has discriminating tastes on the distaff side, you know".

2. A woman pays a very heavy price for calling out her tormentor. All efforts are made to silence her: bully, threat, bribe, legal gags. We are hearing a lot these days about the nondisclosure agreements which Bloomberg bound several of his victims under. Even if she does get her story out, her subsequent reputation is always marred by innuendo. "Takes two to tango". "Sleeping her way up the corporate ladder". These, and much viler comments adhere to her like indelible stains. If you are unfamiliar with it, this is a good time to google "Roger Ailes".

3. Subordinates seek closed-door meetings with their supervisors, or hierarchical superiors, only because they wish to discuss something which warrants confidentiality. A superior who will discriminate between his male and female subordinates in the manner of taking such a meeting, is grossly iniquitous. It reveals HIS incapacity to conduct such a conversation without risking language or action which will likely attract censure. In the meantime, the open door will effectively muzzle the woman's ability to fully discuss what she wanted to, in the first place, and grant the corporate seal of approval to hypocrisy and injustice.

What does all of this have to do with the other isms I brought up at the top? Everything.

Replace gender by race, religion, caste or sexual orientation; all the issues do not change a whit.

Victim shaming is our permanent get-out-of-jail-free card.