In Spite of the Gods - The Strange Rise of Modern India (Edward Luce, 2007)

(356 pp)

Author was South Asia bureau chief for the Financial Times (something I've never seen) between 2001 and 2006; he married into an Indian family.  The book is described as a helpful introduction for a "generalist" reader - which seems accurate - very accessible.  How accurate are the author's viewpoints?  I don't really know, but he seems rather measured in what he says.

Talks a lot about problems, but overall seems quite "taken" with India, and optimistic on balance.

Includes some discussion of "the present" i.e. the few years prior to publication in 2007 - useful though these parts of course have more of a shelf life.

Lots to digest; here are a few areas where I think I learned a little more (not in order of importance):

1.  I keep seeing references to "corruption" in Indian politics - the author certainly sees plenty - in some ways reminding of the way the US fritters government revenues, except the percentage being diverted seems quite a bit higher, and the needs are greater (so the waste hurts more).  Agriculture programs hijacked for benefit of a few big farmers (like US).

2.  Government jobs viewed as highly desirable; temptations when obtain them.

3.  Formation of voting coalitions - issues like caste and religion.  Politicians chase votes and emphasize divisions (caste and religion)  . . . the identity politics are somewhat reminiscent of US . . . Brits encouraged the differences (intentionally and otherwise) way back when but Congress party pursued more of a "unity" viewpoint.  Historically a significant amount of blurring occurred between say Hindu/Muslim notwithstanding the tensions; but author sees this as breaking down, cites as an example that in recent years Muslims becoming more likely to wear "Muslim" clothes at all times, not (for example) saris . . . identity politics do create unnecessary divisions, just like here.  Ugh.

4.  Caste - too complex for me to understand - author thinks it is somewhat weakening in cities, especially in the south; quite strong elsewhere.  Reserved jobs for Other Backward Classes, etc.  Need to learn more about this.

5.  Religious personal law continues alongside civil law (Islamic triple taliq in the news recently) - how to create commonality if this continues?  A 1947 compromise that will be hard to change.

6.  Hindu nationalism rising when this was written; BJP not in power when book published, but is now (Ram Temple symbolic like Trump's border wall perhaps?)  This seems really complicated, perhaps (hopefully?) it's more about chasing votes than actually implementing policy? State level politics very important, coalitions differ from national level.

7.  Background information on the License Raj, 1991 dismantling, etc.  The economy has responded; still lots of (too much) regulatory overlay.  Courts super-slow.

8.  Government workers essentially unfireable - worse even than in the US (which is saying a lot) - discouraging, this is a huge problem with so many governments.  Apparently private workers have similar protections in India - which sounds appealing - until you realize this discourages employers from hiring folks at all (too risky if they can't be fired).

9.  Continuing political emphasis on villages - yet might be like rural Iowa in the end, a dead-end?  Don't know.

10.  Advances in south India (Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu) - which makes sense for several reasons - I had always assumed more action in the north since that's where the Brits (and Mughuls) seems to concentrate, and where the more familiar cities are located.  Wrong again.

11.  Partition; relationship with Pakistan.

12.  China!

The Brain Defense - Murder in Manhattan and the Dawn of Neuroscience in America's Courtrooms (Kevin Davis, 2017)

(295 pp)

Book club selection (via Nick; session held 28 August 2017).

Title is pretty descriptive of content - author looks initially at the Weinstein case - seemingly aberrant behavior, defendant has a very large tumor, evidence of this is ruled admissible in part.  Discussion about (questionable) evidentiary value of the neuroscience, and the cottage industry that has grown up involving expert witnesses and defense lawyers.

What to do if the judge or jury is convinced that the defendant cannot control his/her behavior because of brain issues?  Much of this is playing out in a binary setting (guilty or not) that doesn't accommodate nuance.

Author pursues perhaps too many major threads here - juveniles, veterans, NFL players, etc.  The purpose of sentencing - rehabilitation, deterrence, etc.

At book's end, author provides what seems a useful summary - very cautionary about probative value, he concludes we know something but not enough.  So continued reliance on normal evidence seems wise!

More generally - this brings to mind the problematic invocation of "science" to support desired judicial outcomes, broad policy preferences, etc. - this problem seems worse than ever.

The book triggered more discussion than usual, which is good.

Paris 1919 - Six Months That Changed The World (Margaret MacMillan, 2001)

(624 pages)

Interesting and useful review of the Paris peace conference following World War I.  Many, many threads that lead to conflicts in the run-up to WW2 and in numerous cases thereafter.  Easy to criticize what happened here, but the book gives a good idea of the difficulties the participants faced.

Of all the ideas - the main thought for me - and one that strikes me more strongly than ever - the profound perniciousness of Wilson's ballyhooed notion of "self-determination" as promoted in his "Fourteen Points."  Plenty of folks recognized the danger even then.  What did it ever mean?  That any group that can somehow identify as ethnic, or "a people" - should get its own territorial state?  That any such majority in a given territory decides (and too bad for the minority)?  The concept was hopeless yet stirred up nationalist/ethnic hopes - and hatreds - around the world.  Of course not the only contributing factor to this trend - but I think a major one.

[A thought experiment (if off-topic a bit):  had the war affected US territories - should Arizona and California be returned to Mexico? to Spain?  to Native Americans?  Take a vote based on whoever currently resided there?  Include folks who had been relocated out?  Etc.]

Far better if politicians had devoted their energies to exhorting citizens to accept territorial designations, and then get along with each other within them.  That would have left plenty enough problems to work out - but would have set a better tone than the nationalist/ethnic battling and cleansing that rather naturally followed throughout the balance of the 20th century (and to this day).  One example among so many:  sounds like the Kurds had never thought of themselves as a people, or wanting a territory - until 1919; remains an issue in 2017.

A classic example of territorial confusion:  how to handle a situation like Poland?  What about the Balkans?  Way too much movement of way too many peoples over way too many centuries for "self-determination" to have any practical use as a guiding principle.  A political slogan for which anyone could fill in the desired meaning (see "sustainability," "diversity," "New Deal", "Fair Deal", "Hope and Change," "MAGA" etc.)

By coincidence, today I saw that yet another paper on this theme was recently published, per this link.  Wilson's slogan, and mischief, not likely to be undone.

The second major thought - the overwhelming difficulties facing the big three negotiators (or four, given that Italy was a token presence).  Setting borders around the world - literally.  With only so much knowledge.  And only so much time (the big three had pretty demanding day jobs!)  And domestic political constraints.  And exhausted victor countries/lack of resources to enforce anything.  Hard enough in western Europe - but consider eastern and central Europe; the Middle East; Africa; Balkans - impossible complexity, few good answers.  US had some resources but withdrew from the stage.

Wilson always seems profoundly annoying - the archetype progressive - an arrogant know-it-all, busy-body, telling everyone else how they should behave.

German provisions harsh; if not a major cause of the events leading up to WW2, the treaty certainly provided a major excuse/talking point for Hitler-types.

So many decisions that reverberate in international disputes to this day.