Micro and Macro Economics

Economics is omnipresent and form an integral part of our lives. Its name is derived from a Greek word ‘Oikonomikos’. If we break the word up, ‘Oikos’, means ‘Home’, and Nomos’, means ‘Management’. Individual in home or for that matter whole society and country has unlimited needs and wants which are ever increasing and sources that are available to satisfy them are limited. Hence economics is the study of how the available resources are managed and organized (by individual, society and country) to deal with the needs and wants. This is the core theme of Economics. Thus we need to have choice or priorities our wants based on resources. Right choices can make us prosper and wrong one can sink us in debt or plight.

As many of us have not studied the economics subject in depth so, for simplicity, article is like understanding basics of Rocket Science in class 10 and terms will also be explained wherever necessary. Further, though theory of economics says that “man behaves rationally (always looks for profit /loss)”, in reality people do have emotions, prejudice, and non economic reasons to act and behave irrationally. Further, focus of article is on two aspects. First like in science, (to maintain nature’s equilibrium and continuity, nature’s system is such that if we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon-dioxide, plants inhale carbon-dioxide and exhale oxygen) in economics also, two opposite actions must be going on or two opposite groups must exist (sale –purchase, producer-consumer, importer-exporter etc) to balance or to sustain society /country/ world. Also, we all play double role (in pairs) in economic transactions, for example if, as a factory owner we are producer of A thing, we are also consumer of B thing (produced by someone else).  Second is corollary of first, many of virtues like saving (for future) or export (by countries) attributed to single entity if adopted by all individual / countries, they are harmful/ unsustainable in absence of counter action like consumption (against saving) and import (against export) by other group .

To start with, suppose you have 100 rupees with you, the choice of using that money to pay off your bill or spend it on an outing is all an economic decision. Through our choice (of purchasing or not purchasing), we not only influence the prices of the goods and services , but also the goods that will be produced or not produced in society and  the income we earn in our business and job. In turn it decides the economic condition of the country, reflected in, interest rates, inflation (price rise over a period), export import performance and unemployment etc., which also directly affects our finances, growth, and many other areas that permit us to be self-sufficient in our lives.

As said above on the one hand individuals take economic decisions under given conditions (at Macro level) and its study is part of Micro Economics. Thus study of Microeconomics is regarding the choice and allocation of resources and prices of goods and services by individuals. Microeconomics focuses on supply and demand and other forces that determine the price levels (need not be of goods only, it is applicable to services, as well price of one currency against another currency in case of forex transactions) in the economy. On the other hand, study of aggregate behavior of individuals or policy changes that need to / are taken to change such behavior (at Micro level) is part of Macro Economics. It studies the behavior of a country (if we are discussing world economy as a whole, decision of individual countries will be studied as part of micro economics) and how its policies affect the economy as a whole. It analyzes entire industries and economies, rather than individuals or specific companies. To give example, government deciding to lower Corporate Tax, is a Macroeconomic decision ( affecting all industries) and under it how individual industry redraw their own production, sale , profit plan is Microeconomic decision. This article, (mainly) on Microeconomics (as individual constituent), v/s Macroeconomics (aggregate view or effect) is an attempts to analyze and understand these issues and its effects on us. Object of article is to correct many of misgivings we come across while discussing the topic in our groups and educate young ones about true economic process.

Having explained micro and macro economics separately, let us take a few examples to show how micro and macro economics interact, feed on each other and what seems to be good at one level is harmful at the other level. We first take interest rate. In economics, interest rate (per cent per annum) charged by lender (money giver) or paid by borrower (money taker) is nothing but time value of money. It means, if I do have opportunity (if have money) of earning profit but do not have money, I will borrow.  For example if I feel having Rs. 100 /- today (not at a later point of time), I can make Rs. 115/- at the end of year, I will be ready to borrow Rs. 100 at 10 % per annum (time value of money), which leaves me Rs. 5 (Rs. 100 plus Rs 10 interest has to be given back to lender) at the end of year. Now for me at micro level, it is my decision to borrow or not and for me rate of interest at 10 % per annum seems to be fixed. But if in whole country there are ten people like me making total demand for money at Rs. 1000/- (at 10 % interest) and suppose lender (at its disposal) have only Rs. 800, he will raise (lending) interest rate to 12 % per annum, where in only eight people feel confident to earn more than 12 % per annum and are ready to borrow. In reverse way if money available is Rs. 1200/- rate of interest will fall to 8 % so as two more people are ready to borrow. It must be remembered that at macro level everything (lending- borrowing) balance out and interest rate is not fixed. This cascading effect of rate going up/ down is macroeconomic phenomenon. It can be induced by micro constituents (as above), or policy maker to induce behavior change in micro constituents. Now a days when we hear that RBI reduced rate or should reduce rate (as part of monitory policy- policy regarding money supply and rate of interest etc decided by the Central Bank of a country), reasoning is same that money available is more and if people take more money economic activity will go up.

But, above reasoning is from producer (borrower) point of view, which does not have money and wants it at the lowest rate. But lender (Bank) too does not have its own money. In fact it borrows from public and name of this borrowing is “taking deposit” from public. Now if on the demand of producer, rate of interest is lowered, say from 10 % to 8 %, bank will have to reduce rate of interest offered to public from 8 % to 6 % (margin of 2 % for self expanses). This will have two effects. First, people will try to shift money from bank to other assets (things having future value, bank deposit is a type of financial asset, that is why to avoid this banks are asking government to reduce rate of interest on Saving Schemes being offered by it ie Govt.) and banks capacity to lend money will be reduced (This again will raise rate of interest based on demand for money by producers). Second, for large section particularly senior citizens, income from interest is the source of monthly income and their life becomes miserable with reduced income. Thus what is good for one section (producer) is not good for another section (depositor). Story does not end here. Producer will borrow in the hope of selling goods, but lower income in the hands of depositor affect his sales also and his readiness to borrow even at lowered interest rates. So vicious cycle starts and economy enters in down ward cycle and what started good at micro level becomes evil at macro level.

Similar is explanation for Inflation. In simple terms 4 % inflation, in economy means, on an average there is price rise of 4 % in goods and services over a period of one year. Here, two things must be remembered, first falling inflation does not mean prices are falling; it only means there rate of increase is falling. Second, what we hear is general average inflation, and economies consist of thousands of type of   goods and services whose price movement may be different from average inflation. We have just witnessed how prices of Onion have shoot to roof by 700 % within a year. What decides the price of a goods and services? Much like interest rate, it is equilibrium point between what has been offered for sale by trader/producer and how much money consumer does have/ready to pay for it. Goods/ services available for sale are known as supply and Goods/ services likely to be absorbed in economy are known as demand. In economics, Supply and Demand has special meaning. Supply means goods brought in the market at given price and not the stock of goods with the producer/trader. Similarly, for consumer, desire (what he dreams to have) and need (what he supposed to have) are not demand, which means consumer have capacity and willingness to part with money at the given price. So, Supply and demand are function of price. With this explanation in mind, one perception is that present slowdown in Indian Economy is caused by weak demand.

Now let us take example of Onion. Suppose market does have 10 kg onion. Now if consumer is ready to pay Rs. 100 for it, rate will be Rs. 10 per kg. So money and Onion is exchanged fully. Now, if market does have only 5 kg. Rate will shoot up to Rs. 20 per kg. To reduce rate, either supply should be improved or consumer should change preference/ habit in such way that only Rs. 50 (society/ home withdraws rupees 50 meant for Onion and spend it on something else, may be a suitable substitute of Onion)   is available for Onion, this will reduce price to Rs. 10 per kg.  Thus price can go up/ down by way of reduction/increase of goods/ services (supply side) or by way of increase and reduction of money for purchase of goods. That is why when (macro economically) money in circulation increases in the market without actually increase in available physical goods inflation shoots up.

This brings us to most debatable question in Economics, does low inflation and consequent low interest rate era is good for economy? Low inflation leads to low interest rates (they are both two side of a same phenomenon, one reflect demand for goods another for money), which adversely affect depositors (a section of society). Now if, inflation is low and interest rate is above it,( at micro level) it affects decision making process of consumer as well as producer. Let us say I have a Rs. 100/-. Inflation is 5 % and interest rate is 7 %. Now unless I need a item of Rs. 100 very urgently (question of life sustainability), I will deposit money in bank for a year, so I will have rupees 107 /- at the end of year and still I can purchase required item in rupees 105/- at the end of year and save rupees 2/-. So under low inflation condition, generally purchases, like Car, Houses etc are put-off. Producer/ trader of goods also will not produce or store anything beyond what is must for operation. Because any unsold stock bears more cost in terms of interest (and storage etc) than profit in terms of price rise. Thus overall economic activity slows down.

Another function of inflation is, (due to changes in prices,) what is in demand (price rise) and what is not (stable or falling price) gets quickly transmitted. It (inflation) also creates imbalances in market, shortage of A (price rise) stimulates, economic activity for A, surplus of A creates shortage of B and so on, in short what we call progress is nothing but jumping from one problem to another. We may blame, inflation, but it is how country moves up, especially developing country like us. (For example, more cars necessitating wider roads, in turn wider roads pushing more cars on the road). Else we could stagnant at low level of equilibrium, where no one has incentive to produce and consume more. 

Next in discussion is export (goods and services going out of country) and import (goods and services coming in the country), which can also be explained like interest rate and inflation based on demand and supply. But, here more complication arises due to different currencies of exporting- importing country and power of sovereign countries to impose various restrictions on movement of goods and services in and out of country, distorting the demand supply equation. In export- import business, for import you have to first purchase currency of exporting country (to pay for your import, Rupee has no value there) and on export you have to sale currency (received out of export from importing country). Thus we have a separate market for currency (like goods), and rate of each currency against other currency is determined exactly like goods, based on demand and supply of currencies.

To give one example of each, thus even if exporter of USA is selling item A in one dollar (not changing the price), for Indian importer it cost Rs. 70 (if 1USD=Rs 70) and Rs. 72 (if 1USD=Rs 72). Further, even if New-Zealand producer is ready to sale milk at Rs.25 per litre to Indian Consumer, Government is not allowing import of Milk to protect domestic producer. That is why India withdrew from China led the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) stating the deal’s potential impact on the livelihoods of its most vulnerable citizens. It was political decision to protect producer as against benefitting consumer. Decision could have been to join group and prepare our producer to compete with exporter by improved efficiencies.

Now, is it possible for “A” country to do only export and not to import anything? Individually possible but for all countries not possible, as mathematically, total export in the world must be equal to total import in the world. Further, world like a society is also run based on “take and give” principal and so, other country “B” can also adopt such policy and affect or paralyze export of country “A” (in to “B”) (Internal example: States like MP and Maharashtra has declared reservation in Job for local and if other states also follow, gain of MP and Maharashtra will be nullified and whole Indian economy will suffer.) Economically also, there are two aspects. First, unless A country imports something from country B, country B will not have currency of country A, to pay for imports (A’s export to B) and country A will also not have any use of currency of country B. Second, each country has “Natural Advantages”, to produce certain type of goods and services at least cost. Producing those goods and services in home country may not be possible at all or possible at higher cost (To give internal example, it is like Tamilnadu state trying to avoid import of Apple from Kashmir and try to produce the same inside the state). Import substitution may be good for self pride or security reason but not always economically profitable.

To conclude, while these two (Micro/ Macro) branches of economics appear to be different, they are actually interdependent and complement one another since there are many overlapping issues between the two fields. Micro and Macro Economics are not contradictory in nature, in fact, they are complementary. As every coin has two aspects- micro and macroeconomics are also the two aspects of the same coin, where one's demerit is others merit and in this way they cover the whole economy. Increased inflation (a macroeconomic effect) would increase the prices of raw materials required by the companies to manufacture products which would in turn also affect the price for the final product charged to the public. Microeconomics and Macroeconomics are both exploring the same things but from different viewpoints. When we talk about macroeconomics while studying the constituents of output in nations economy we also have to understand the demand of single households and firms, which are micro economic concepts. Similarly when we study the investment policies of businesses- a microeconomic concept we cannot do it without learning about the effect of macroeconomic trends in economic growth, taxation policies etc.

World is in Danger- 2

Introduction. Latest Headlines on effects of climate change has warned that much of Mumbai would be under water due to sea-level rise by 2050. (But Indian Scientists have refuted such claims.). Further, more than 11,000 scientists, (in the journal Bio-Science,) have warned of "untold suffering" due to global warming and that “Earth is facing a climate emergency".  It said if the Paris treaty's goal is to be achieved emission of (warm causing) gases must be reduced by 50 % by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. However, another team said Paris carbon-cutting pledges itself are "too little, too late". Yet another report says, sea water warming and level rising is long term phenomenon and even if, emission is stopped, sea level will continue to rise for another hundred years. Contradicting all, one study declared, Earth’s cycles consist of both, cold glacial periods (ice ages) and warmer interglacial periods (present period) when the ice thaws and sea levels rise and the same (sea level rise) will continue in spite what human beings do.  Meanwhile US President has walked out of Paris treaty saying, treaty is unjust towards USA and puts heavy burden on it. Hearing/ Reading all these contradictory things, one gets confused and is unable to decide what / who is right. Whether, phenomenon is cyclic or structural, manmade or natural, reversible or irreversible, what about development v/s nature, developed country v/s developing country and so on. So let us understand different point of view one by one.

Inadequacy of science. The Physics explains that gases CO2 (and fossil-fuel burning is increasing CO2) in the atmosphere trap heat received from the sun and so the climate system has changed. Is it so simple? No.  Reason, we are having atmosphere, oceans, icecaps, seasons, and flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative (absorption, reflection and re-radiation of sun ray) physics based on which above calculations are based. Modeling the Earth's climate is one of the most complicated tasks and creates the largest uncertainties. Even supposing models have been very effective in predicting climate change, they have not been as effective in predicting its impact on ecosystem[s] and human society, which is not a pure science. So, major effort should be made to monitor climate change as well as its impact on ecosystem[s].

Changed and failed Theories. Further, for a common man question is if a tiny (It is measured in parts per million and is in range of 200 to 400 ppm in earth atmosphere) concentrations of carbon dioxide can cause enough heat to create a global warming impact on Earth, why is Mars with 95% carbon dioxide cold?  Can this theory be wrong? Earlier also science has discarded many old theories. Galileo changed Earth centric universe. Einstein changed Newton’s Classical Physics. And now CERN researchers have found neutrinos travelling faster than light that have proved Einstein theory wrong. Darwin’s life theory is also under clout when scientist found life could have originated in deep-sea hydrothermal vents and not in warm shallow pools of water (as Darwin stated). In socio political theories too Malthus predicted (mathematically) population explosion to be followed by calamities, but proved wrong due to new scientific invention like Birth Control devices etc. Further, what could be side effects (ageing population, slowing of economy etc.) of controlling population was not understood and within 50 years China had to reverse one child policy adopted in 1970s

In view of above, argument is that even if, predictor is sincere and correct about impending danger like,  Antarctic ice melting etc, that doesn’t mean rising CO2 is the CAUSE of it (nor is “human activity” the “cause” of rising CO2 levels, since nobody is taking actual MEASUREMENTS of all of the CO2 sources and sinks). Correlation does not equal causation – one of the most basic foundations of ACTUAL “science.” Computer modeling of the climate is at best a speculative hypothesis of what might happen. It is not science in itself. Science is about observation and experiment. If observation bears out the hypothesis then and only then it is science. Further, now quantum physics ( i.e. science) tells that absolute objectivity is not possible in describing observed phenomenon( ie for a single event two, observer can have two different conclusion) So, What will happen if tomorrow it is proved that carbon emission is/was not cause of global warming or for that matter warming has improved certain things on our planet (about Ozone hole written down below).

Effect of Human Intervention. Thus, Science itself has not uttered last word about nature and seems does not understand nature’s cycle fully. Further side effects of human intervention have not been properly evaluated. Thus, though science has improved our life, but many of today’s problems are due to shortsightedness in achieving so called progress. Thus industrial revolution is cause of today’s CO2 emission. Chemical fertilizer has destroyed the natural soil. Invention of plastic is cause of much solid waste and sea pollution. Similarly, it is highly probable that, today’s heavy dependence on Electromagnetic Waves (for communication etc) may give rise to some future physical or mental disease in mankind. Near home, consecutive actions in Punjab  starting from 1970s - encouragement for paddy crop, mechanization (leading to stubble in field after harvesting) and stubble burning, and a ban on early sowing ( before monsoon, to conserve water) led to late harvesting when wind direction is towards Delhi-  is cause of smoke problem in Delhi. But even in this season with (temporary) change of wind direction and daily rainfall , the share of stubble burning in air pollution in Delhi is only 2%, (in PM2.5 Air quality Index) on some day. This shows how one by one well intended human intervention leads to new unintended problems. This also indicates, nature is still more powerful (ultimately wind direction is deciding level of pollution) than human in control of pollution and climate. Further it points that media and public outcry over any problem can be biased  ( calling it problem of Delhi though problem is of North India)and tends to highlight external cause then internal one.

Failed predictions. Now we analyze earlier predictions about climate change and find that none of prediction on climate and environmental disaster since the 1970s has come true.  Illustrative brief list is. 1970: Ice age by 2000( Boston Globe, April 16, 1970). 1970: ‘America subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.’ (Redlands Daily Facts, October 6, 1970) 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’. But no such ‘great peril to life’ has been observed as the so-called ‘ozone hole’ remains: 1988: Maldives completely under water in 30 years. (Agence France Press, September 26, 1988). 2002: Famine in 10 years. ( The Guardian, December 23, 2002). 2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020. (The Guardian, February 21, 2004). 2008: Arctic will be ice-free by 2018. (Associated Press, June 24, 2008). 2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet. (The Independent, July 9, 2009). 2009: UK prime minister says 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’. (The Independent: October 20, 2009.) Further, after Oil crisis, in 1973, the ‘experts’ predicted there was less than 20 years oil left in the world and that in the year 2000 all computers would stop working and so on.

In 1970 scientist warned of global cooling but now they warn of warming. We must remember there’s environmental science, and then there’s environmentalism. Environmentalism has more in common with scientology than science. General preface to any prediction is “if present trends continue”. The issue, however, is that present trends do not continue. They change dramatically for a number of reasons within 10 -15years. Innovation happens, leading to change in Consumer behavior (due to price signals) toward quantum and type of energy consumed as well as on side effects generation (pollution etc).

Changes brought by science. Every year brings new inventions. If we were to try to name the greatest invention in human history, it would be hard to beat the stone chopping tool and the hand ax. They marked the crucial turning point when human being realized the ability to produce things and began to see the world as malleable to their needs. I am sure from that age onward nature v/s development debate must be eternally going on. Beginning of Agriculture practices led to destruction of large area under forest. In last two centuries invention of electricity and the internal combustion engine greatly changed our lives and now Computers (more efficient quantum computer is on the horizon), Digital Camera, TV, Smartphone, TCP/IP, WWW all are changing our lives, energy needs and material consumption un-imagined 50 years back. Particularly Photovoltaic Solar Energy and LED lights are redefining pattern and need of our energy. Further there has been invention of a battery that can run for 320 kilometers on a single charge for about 10 minutes only giving boost to e-vehicles. In medicine, Birth-control devices, vaccinations, Non-invasive laser surgery, Coronary Bypass Surgery, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), etc has changed birth and death rates beyond imagination.

 It is well known that CO2 is pollutant but less known fact is CO2 is also useful feedstock, an input into variety of industrial processes from plastics to concrete. So a team of researchers has devised a method where in, Carbon of CO2 (due to fossil fuel burning) is captured and oxygen returned back to the atmosphere. Other researchers have come up with a system to remove carbon-dioxide (even at low 400 ppm concentration) efficiently from the air. Now idea is- use more, emit less -and it is giving rise to whole new field in science and technology- carbon capture and utilization (CCU) processes- CO2u( utilization), CO2p (reduction in CO2 emission/production), CO2r (removal of CO2 from atmosphere), CO2s (storage of CO2)

This is how science and technology progresses and change- human organization, energy needs, opens up new sources of energy and so on. Under the circumstances it is hard to predict what will happen 30-50 year hence, and more foolish to believe such predictions.

Adaption by System and self healing by nature. As said earlier, adaptation by the system does also happen simultaneously. The diversity that we find today in flora and fauna all over the world is because of adaption done by system over millions of year and this will continue in future also. Take example of adaption of life in most poisonous gas for life, Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S). It is a potent toxicant interfering with oxidative phosphorylation ( a process) in mitochondria (part of a cell) and creating extreme adverse conditions in aquatic ecosystems. The mechanistic basis of adaptation to perpetual exposure to H₂S remains poorly understood, but it is seen to be working. Scientist investigated evolutionarily independent lineages of live bearing fishes that have colonized and adapted to springs rich in H₂S and compared their genome-wide gene expression patterns with closely related lineages from adjacent, non-sulfide streams. Overall, results suggest that modification of processes associated with H₂S detoxification and toxicity complement each other to mediate elevated H₂S tolerance in sulfide spring fishes.  Further, according to new research, Sea levels rose 10 meters, (melting ice was main reason) above present levels during Earth’s last warm period 125,000 years ago in the last interglacial period  and we survived that period. Another example of how nature works/ interacts, (at some point in the next few days), the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic will close (good sign and without human effort) completely as a result of warmer temperatures in the stratosphere (effect of CO2 emission).

While global energy, poverty and food insecurity remain a pressing challenge, due to innovation, legislation and adaption, the problems are getting much better, not worse all over the world.  For example in 1999 more than 15,000 people were killed in Orissa due to Super cyclone, but when similar intensity cyclone Fani hit this year death toll were less than 10. In fact we should be thankful for economic liberties that provide people with the means to protect the environment. As a country grows economically, it increases the financial ability of its citizens and businesses to care for the environment and reduce pollutants emitted from industrial growth. Countries with greater economic freedoms have cleaner environments and greater environmental sustainability. So development should be seen as complement to fight against climate change  and not otherwise.

Resist Changes. Unfortunately, above facts has been used by many to belittle environmentalist and overlook dangers of climate change. They label, environmentalist leftists and opponent of their own political thinking (implying there is some conspiracy in it, to halt progress), or lobbyist to boost business of industries engaged in clean environment (To some extent it is true, by invoking and playing with fear emotion about pollution,   industry of clean water has been created and same is going to happen with air also.). Selectively picking statements (and out of context) on scientific uncertainty to contend that “no one bothers to check that predictions are wrong all the time". They say, over the last 5 million years the world has cooled, warmed up, cooled and warmed when humans were not burning coal. Further, they claim humans have polluted the world but not to the degree the ‘experts’ want us to believe. Lastly, they tell people, even if problem is real; the solutions are so drastic that they could send us back to the Stone Age.   

Effect on Society. But reality is, rising temperatures, spread of crop disease and extreme weather events is leading to degradation of local ecosystem and has made harvests at many places unviable and people are migrating from there. In this scenario millions of people are forced to choose between insecure livelihoods and the unauthorized migration.  In the absence of coordinated action by global community there is fear of “climate apartheid.” Further, warming has enhanced economic growth in cooler, wealthier countries while dampening economic growth in hotter, poorer countries, resulting in increase in economic inequality.  . Climate change has also adversely impacted food security and emissions are “a clear and present danger to health security”. (The health benefits of addressing climate change “far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals). Warming oceans, melting ice, and rising sea levels are affecting everything from coral reefs to the nearly 10 percent of the global population living in low-lying coastal areas. Within those groups (living in warm and coastal area etc), damage to subgroup of vulnerable populations is disproportionately high Animal and plant species on Earth are threatened with extinction. This threat is more (due to the intensive use of fertilizers and chemicals in food production) for Bees, Butterfly etc. (like small creature for whom conservation program are not in place but) which help in pollination, making possible flowers, trees, and agriculture on earth. Further, a new global assessment shows that human impacts have greatly reduced plant-fungus symbioses (known as mycorrhiza), which play a key role in sequestering (storing) carbon in soils. To close the paragraph remembering that uncertainty, about change, can work both ways and we could be underestimating future changes.

Main Polluters and who should coordinate? We have discussed models, changes by science etc, and (uneven) effects on society and so on. Now who contributes to problem and how to improve. Just over half of greenhouse gas emissions come from four nations. At 29 percent of the global total, China has said it will lower carbon intensity and peak emissions by about 2030. The US, accounting for 13.1 percent of the total, has turned its back on the Paris deal. India, which is ramping up both renewable energy and carbon-intensive coal-fired power, accounts for seven percent, and Russia -- which has made no pledge at all -- added 4.6 percent. The emissions of the world's poorest nations have been and continue to be negligible, but steps must be taken today to shape their energy consumption pattern so that they should not become dependent on cheap fossil fuel energy (Halting development is no choice). The most complicated political questions is who should step up to deal with the harms of climate change, considering that wealthier countries pollute more but are often shielded from the worst effects. How can responsibility be assigned, and more importantly, what is to be done? Under the Paris treaty, developing nations are to receive $100 billion annually from next year to help curb climate change and cope with its impacts. But whether they will receive it? Ultimately, it is debate between development and nature. We all are supposed to commit national resources on a problem which do not recognize national boundary for which there are no clear answers. It is not a philosophical question about earth and humanity (they will adapt and survive) it is political and economic question of each once place there in.

India. Coming to specific question about India, the policy has to shift decisively from whether to do, to how to do so, but as part of development challenge. We need to do five things. First, to recognize the interplay between climate and development (sector wise), Second, identify clear areas where there are synergies, and where trade-offs exist, between two. Third, look beyond short term to longer term strategic visions of India’s development pathway. Fourth, build strong institution, Climate Change Advisory Board etc.(like Security Advisory Board) to direct and coordinate efforts. Lastly, but most important (as climate change is not bound by national boundary) is climate diplomacy, as a deeply vulnerable country, India has to push vigorously for more and more effective, global  coordinated action on reducing emissions.

Conclusion. While the exact contours of the future are hard to predict, there is little doubt that climate change carries huge, negative implications for India and World. So far we have focused on our immediate development concerns — poverty, jobs and livelihoods, access to energy services etc —but it is increasingly clear that climate is crucial to development. There is no longer a pathway to development neglecting climate challenge.

In the past, climate science reports had an implicit future tense, as in, “It’s a problem for your grandchildren”. Now, we are left with a sense of urgency, about immediate and forthcoming climate dangers. The first step in this is to accept the warnings and create conditions for innovative solutions to be found. By pushing the myth that we can continue to act as usual and innovations will magically happen in the future to bail us out, a great disservice is being done, especially to today’s children. They are being burdened with the responsibility of not only dealing with the changing climate, but also innovating and fixing it. We are taking a loan and expecting our children to pay it off. That is an inter-generational Ponzi scheme. Children themselves are aware of it and so Greta Thunberg, a teenager from Sweden, became one of the youngest crusaders against practices adversely affecting climate change.  

That is hope for us and shame on us.

Article 370 and 35A

As an Indian (v/s Pakistani) I am delighted on de-operationalsing of article 370 in J&K, but as a citizen (v/s State), such action (by state) invokes fear in me. What has been written is a purely philosophical and theoretical thought, fully devoid of any political, military or diplomatic consideration on which such decision has been taken. Writing is also only a perception, not judgmental,  nor declaring support or opposition to move by government.

First let us accept article 370 has not been removed, what has been done is to abrogate special power to Kashmir granted under article 370. Though no one in future will dare to reverse it but theoretically things can be undone. Article 370 was inserted in the Constitution's twenty-first part that proclaimed it to be "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provision". Article 370 provided for a special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and Clause 3 of Article 370 empowers the President to declare the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under the Article inoperative anytime.  Earlier special status was granted to it through the Presidential Order of 1954.The government has only revoked the special status to Jammu and Kashmir through Presidential Order of 2019. Article 370 stays very much as part of the Constitution and cannot be repealed or abrogated without a constitutional amendment in accordance with Article 368.

The decision is a brazen negation of our solemn historical obligation to the people of Kashmir codified in the Instrument of Accession and a “constitutional monstrosity.” I believed that Clause (3) of Article 370 cannot be used to emasculate the core of the constitutional guarantee and, such an interpretation is, therefore, a legal impossibility. Further, sovereign guarantee (written/ oral) is supposed to be highest in contract, but if the same is not to be honored (and there apparently to be no remedy available against it, as it is available when two private parties breach the contract.) by state what a great plight of affected citizens. Now onwards, in future, should citizen have faith in state promises and agree to do or not to do certain things? What is the guarantee that promises made today will be honored in future? However, it is not that it has happened first time; Indira Gandhi did the same in case of Privy Purse (abolished pocket money promised to ex- kings and princess at the time of merger with India) and removal of fundamental right of property (of every citizen) from constitution.

Act is being celebrated like full integration of Kashmir in India, but same celebration was done when, following Dehli agreement, article 35 A was inserted in constitution in 1954 (today it was considered a road block to integration) and it was then believed that barring what restrictions are there by way of 35A, Kashmir is now fully integrated with India.  (Remember King Hari Singh then had sought continuation of special privileges for his people on the lines of a 1927 law that denied outsiders the right to own property in the state. Article 35A, making a distinction between the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir and the outsiders, will also cease to have any effect. However, it remains part of the Constitution as annexure of the Constitution.) Further this process of integration with India (or in the eyes of Kashmiri, encroaching on their rights) was a continuous process since 1950 (in 1960, Power of Election Commission and Supreme Court extended to JK, in 1964 post of Prime Minister and Sadar-e –Riyasat gone and CM and Governor came into existence and so on) and nothing path breaking has been done.

Second, we are celebrating now “One India One Constitution” but such variation is available to many other states also under article 371. Sikkim has different power (RBI do not have power over Bank of Sikkim). In Nagaland, even some districts too have autonomous councils. Further Nagas are demanding, separate Flag and Constitution as per or under Naga accord of 2015 (Not made public). Goa still continues with Uniform Civil Code (enacted by Portugal’s). Many Hilly state or area and Tribal areas do have 35A like restriction about sale and purchase of land. Indians require special “permit” to enter many states and parts of territory. So why pick only Kashmir for abrogation of article 370, probably because it gets support from Pakistan and population is Muslim.  Further, will above things/ privileges will stay or will also be abolished? 

Third point, while popular national sentiment leans in favor of the decision for its utility as an integrating force, and we all (outside JK) are celebrating abrogation of article 370, but think about the method used for it, the constitutional legitimacy of the process is in question. Replacing Assembly by Governor (by amending article 367) to know will of power (as required under 370) is fraught with danger, it is precedent and centre can apply this method to any other state also. Further article 2 of constitution, which enables reorganization of state and used till date to upgrade union territory to a full state (India being a union of states under the Constitution) has been used and interpreted to make a full state as union territory. End of federalism. (We are seeing this trend in many bills passed, like new Motor Vehicle act, which may be well intentioned but a draconian law, fortunately many state are opposing or diluting the act). God forbid if such situation be fall on our state, what will be our reaction?   By invoking Article 370(3), the government has cleverly bypassed the amendment route. The process of amending the constitution is meant to be difficult to ensure the country is not run by the whims and fancies of one individual. Indians are rejoicing today because those whims and fancies are in line with an overwhelming majority of voters, but if the Supreme Court allows the government to set this precedent, they will soon come to regret it. India cannot dream of becoming a mature democracy unless constitutional morality is etched into the national psyche. It might be sleepwalking into authoritarianism again, but the world is watching.

Another aspect, of historical importance, by the principle on which partition was done, should J& K (Muslim Majority state) be with India at all?  We blame Nehru, for Kashmir problem, but why not credit him for taking JK on Indian side, in spite of being Muslim State and well connected ( geographically, and reason for cease fire in 1948) with Pakistan ?  Making article 370 a temporary one, can we assume it was Marketing tool used by Nehru to trap Kashmiri on our side. Similarly, overlooking parliamentary system of joint responsibility, we credit Sardar Patel for all good and blame Nehru for Kashmir, is it justified? We also wrongly compare Hyderabad (encircled by India from all side) situation with border state JK situation. Can we compare today’s powerful India with newly independent, weak broken and partitioned India of 1947, wherein newly created UN (post world war)having hope of resolving world disputes peacefully. First time, only by 1971, at the time Bangla Desh war, India could exercise its sovereign will and stood against world pressure. Next ideally, post partition; both should have lived like two brothers after family partition. India need not (interfered in Pak affairs and) have created Bangla Desh etc. Both have become a joke in world community, like two quarrelling family in a colony.  This is also diverting attention from real issues of citizen and putting heavy burden on economy by way of security spending.  It is surprising/ shocking that, most of the problem that existed in world in 1950’s has been solved except that of India-Pakistan.

We also take pride that whole world is supporting us. Is it real? Is it support for India or they do not wish to speak their mind under economic consideration, so as not to lose India’s vast market.  Further,  some say it is internal matter of India, some say it is bilateral matter of India. USA is ready to mediate in it and China supporting India. Turkey and Malaysia is also supporting Pakistan. US senate committee and UK PM expressing, concern over situation prevailing in JK. Will this step, will have unintended effect of making a bilateral issue (as per Shimla Agreement, excluding international groups) to an international issue? (We are inviting foreign MPs to visit JK to explain our position) Further, what is price of international support, by way of relaxation in trade policy or defense purchase and so on? A poor citizen will never come to know. 

We also proclaim and hope that such action will restore peace in area, same hope we entertained after Bangla Desh creation but it gave rise to hatred against India in Pakistan among new generation. Like that time, through this new flash point we have given legitimacy to Pakistan and Kashmir terrorist (to fight against India on the pretext of India having broken promise to Kashmiri people) and can increase conflict in the area. Earlier we had a few terrorist to deal with now we will have to deal general public of JK (which is aggrieved by this decision and feels humiliated).

Above narration were, center ( Govt) v/s state ( Govt) and India v/s world and so on. Now, again come to the question of citizen v/s State (power). Our constitution says it is “by people, for people, of people”, but slowly it is being converted as “by state, for state, of state” (You can replace state with any ruling party). Just see how over the years AADHAR has been converted from a welfare enabler provision to a surveillance tool. This honesty / transparency is being expected only from citizens. State continues to opaque and becoming more opaque- (amendment to RTI act (curtailing power of citizen to know state’s activity), amendment to FCRA (exempting political parties from any scrutiny about donation from abroad) and launch of electoral bond (the identity of donor cannot be ascertained now) both protecting political parties from expected transparency. What should be private is made public and what has to be public affair is made secretive or pushed under carpet. LONG Live Democracy.

Apart from democracy, what about economy? With present order’s over emphasis on non economic issues ( like 370, Ram Mandir, NRC and UCC and so on),  and security, where in expenses ( on law and order and security) will go up, what will be fate of economy and economic progress ? As a Citizen I am concerned. While Congress after 70 years rule became too cautious and static, BJP on the other hand due to lack of experience (or being passionate on the above issues) taking steps without understanding full consequences. Just remember side effects of Demonatiasation and GST,where in, intended result not achieved but unintended has happened. Same is happening in Assam over NRC also. We are forgetting that it is our economic power which has prevented other countries to speak against us on our move in Kashmir.  But now shall we miss the bus to become great power, like many earlier- USSR, Brazil, Turkey etc. just because of a misstep. It will be irony of history that the steps taken to show India as strong nation make it weak.   

Lastly but not the least, to conclude, if we feel Kashmiris are Indian we should have empathy for their plight and hardship for last three months. Else, if we are celebrating the act, we are only victor of their land. 

Opposite is Complementary.

Though universe at highest level is un-manifested, invisible and indescribable and all is one. Its manifested i.e. visible or felt part does exhibit diversity. For simplicity we can say, manifested universe have two different traits and we label them opposite of each other. In physical sciences, it is automatic and instantaneous. Thus when we pass on a current in an iron ring, South and North Pole of magnetism is created. Stable atoms also do have equal positive and negative charge. In social sciences too, such opposite is imminent though for some reason, may not be equal all the time.  In management analysis we do SWOT analysis, with presumption that, with Strength there must be some Weakness and with available Opportunity there must be some Threat lying there. It must be again emphasized that Divine is beyond positives and negatives, and they are merely a play and display of the relative and creation of our mind.

Question is different phenomenon are opposite or complement of each other? Does photon theory and wave theory of light are opposing each other or complement each other to explain all properties of light? Red and Violet colour are opposite or complement to make complete colour white? Einstein proved Newton ( law of motion) wrong or extended it for specific situation? Now Einstein, who said nothing can travel faster than light speed, also seems to be wrong after NASA’s Hubble telescope have spotted thousands of objects travelling over five times this speed in a distant galaxy. In life science, we (animal) inhale oxygen and plants inhale carbon dioxide, so, are we opposite of each other, or complement to each other?  In the summer season we wish rain, and in rainy season we wait for sun to shine. Thus we need both seasons to make vegetative growth possible. Conclusion is all manifested have complementary nature. It is nature’s diversity that gives us large number of different flora and fauna and makes life beautiful and enriched.

In above examples we easily accepted that opposites are actually complementary as they are from nature and science that does not involve false superiority of one over other in mankind’s eye. But when our own (of individual, nation) pride and passion involved in two different concept, theories, culture, political system etc, we label them as opposite instead of complements. Ours is correct, other’s is wrong. To be more precise, human mind (in such situations) does highlight contrast and overlook similarity. It also creates opposition or enemy where there is no one and so on. Similarly, a single situation does have two perceptions. Take adverse situation in life, one way is to perceive it as glorifying our qualities and helping our qualities to come up, other way is to perceive them as though they put obstacles in our way. In Ramayan, Ravana and all those characters, which appear to be negative (opposing Ram) on one side, are in fact there to glorify the positive (Ram). Take City lights on the eve of the new moon. They cannot vanish the night, but the night is giving a chance to all these millions of lights to shine. Thus in one way night is glorifying the lights and the other way to look at it is that the lights are fighting the night. It is just how we see things.

Before we go further, let us discuss Man and Woman relationship (familiar to all of us) to have more clarity. Are they opposite or complement of each other? Because we have different sex organs, many of us feel that men and women are opposites. But even with these organs, they do have sex with each other and produce offspring. Further their talents, gifts, and strength are joined to produce a mutual power (greater than one plus one) for growth and development. This harmony can only occur between two complementary beings, not opposites. If we are truly opposite sexes, then we could never love one another, agree, procreate, and perhaps never be truly compatible. So, try to think about your spouse as your complement and not your opposite in marriage. I am certain it will revolutionize your married life. Niels Bohr’s maxim contraria sunt complementa indicated his strong suspicion that the complementarity interpretation of quantum mechanics might someday be expanded into a generalized principle. It now appears that such a principle has been found in metastability which appears at the scale of living things. Metastability has been proposed as a principle of brain~behavior, and is captured in the extended or ‘broken-symmetry’ version of the HKB model of coordination dynamics. The metastable regime of coordination dynamics reconciles the tendency of specialized brain regions to express autonomy (segregation) and their simultaneous tendency to work together as a synergetic whole (integration). There is growing evidence from recent studies in the brain and behavioral sciences that the complementary nature of integrating and segregating tendencies is essential to the way human brain~minds work.

My friend told me for the first ten years of his married life he was cursing GOD that his wife is not like him. But now for last thirty years he is thanking GOD that wife is not like him. This friend can be my neighbor, you or even I.

Having discussed in general, now I, based on dictionary, would define opposite as "the inability to agree or relate in any fashion," and complementary as "born to interact, relate, and empower each other. “Complementary" is used to describe separate elements that together equal perfection, make a whole, or are supplementary or reciprocal. This adjective can be used to refer to people, other animals, objects, or concepts. Keywords: Binding problem, brain~behavior, complementary pairs, coordination dynamics, Niels Bohr, generalized complementarity principle, metastability, metastable regime, mind~brain, multistability, nonlinear dynamics, relative phase, tendencies, the squiggle symbol (~)

Now, reality is that all (manmade) arrangements, brings with them some positives and some negatives and so no single social (it includes, political and any other group) arrangement or law is so comprehensive or exhaustive that it covers all mankind, all the time guide them and fulfill all the needs and desire. To do so it needs interaction with other arrangement. Also THE arrangement continues as long as its followers are in majority or powerful in some way. Further, as discussed below under Maslow, a  psychologist, law the followers (of the arrangement) themselves, (having fulfilled some need with the present arrangement seek something new which existing system is not able to fulfill) discard it, so from its inception it also brings in seeds of its own destruction. Examples of above points are- status of woman started falling and child marriage started in our golden period of History ie. Gupta dynasty period. Further, though, British rule snatched our independence, it gave relief from inertia of late Mughal period. We entered in it (British rule) as small-small princely states and came out as Big one (except Pakistan part) India.  History is filled with example how alternate Viceroy adopted liberal-hard, and neutral-expansionist agenda under British rule over India. Our first five year plan- agriculture oriented, gave way to industry oriented second five year plan and so on. That is why Tennyson wrote-The old order changeth, yielding place to new. And God fulfills Himself in many ways. Lest one good Custom should corrupt the world

Now let us see how these interaction affect the whole decision making process. For example, if I alone purchase a T shirt, I will purchase plain white T shirt, but wife says, white will soon lose shine and you should purchase some dark shed. Does she opposing me or complementing my idea to enhance total value of my purchase? Further, if son joins us, his view will be still different. Though their advices seem to obstructing and delaying my decision of purchasing a T shirt, in reality by giving due weights to each one’s advice, I will be adding value to my purchase. This idea can be extended to social group, political parties, village, state and nation. It must be remembered that the final things (decisions) are created (reached) through the interaction (mere presence is not sufficient) of those processes, which are complements to one another in some way.

In spite of above benefits of interaction, we are stuck with old Aristotelian Law, which states every proposition must be either true or false ( support/oppose), which has been inappropriately extended to complex systems ( as above) in a form which could be called the "Exclusivity of Opposites". According to this principle, complex systems are classified into opposing groups on the basis of only one (and generally not even the most important) of their characteristics. Thus there can be opposing groups, based on relatively trivial differences, consisting of men and women, blacks and whites, disabled and able bodied, etc. From here it is only a small step to racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and dictatorship of the proletariat, fundamentalism, feminism, affirmative action, aggressive trade unionism and scores of further such problems plaguing mankind.

However, the commonality between the interacting entities is obviously much more important than their differences. For example, men and women share millions of bodily processes of which only a handful are different.  And creativity occurs only through the interaction between all the (different) processes. The differences simply catalyze the process of creation; remember similarities do not add any value to the product. Thus Synergy of Complements is the creative collaboration between two complex systems or processes which have many common, but also some opposing characteristics.  These two systems should not be regarded as opposites, as it is generally the case, but rather as complements to one another. 

Above Complex system can be best understood with Fuzzy logic which is a sort of computer logic that is different from Boolean algebra which allows like Aristole logic, true or false or on and off values. Fuzzy logic allows all things in between (of true and false) and has lead to many of the technological developments that we enjoy today. Hector Sabelli who formulated a Process Theory (PT) recognizes that the essence of life is action and acceptance of, change and uncertainty being part of the world around us. He said having two opposing elements help to maintain and, at the same time, to vary processes. Newton also stated that [in the process of keeping something in equilibrium] "for every action, there must be a reaction" and "a body will remain at rest or in motion in a straight line at a constant speed until unbalanced external forces act upon it." These are in fact process laws and make sense only when one is talking of processes, as the state of rest in the universe can only be maintained by processes.

Having discussed in general and theory behind it, let us analyze the positive and negatives of an observed trait “being decisive” in public life/ policy making (hence forth policy maker for any level). Decisiveness is a condition that is produced primarily by policy maker who have great certitude. This refers to those people who operate primarily on the basis of passions, belief and faith rather than the intellect. They feel strongly about something at a deep level and find it difficult to see the other point of view.   Now every policy maker is faced with a choice, to choose option A over option B, but do not always know what will happen, and have limited capacity (due to own bias and inclination etc) to examine what the probabilities of outcome. Policy maker should also try to see how his action will affect others and how they will in turn react. This is more complex and, particularly on issues like war and the economy. The dictionary tells us that decisiveness is someone “showing the ability to take decisions quickly and firmly". Firmly, in this case, means overruling the objections or concerns of those whose counsel is caution? So who is decisive and strong policy maker? It is the ability to make choice (when outcome is unclear) that others in the same position hesitate to do. Our understanding of why something is decided by the decisive policy maker must accommodate why it was left undecided or decided differently by someone else. Thus cautious person and person having different view will not serve under such policy maker; he will be surrounded by people who will not oppose them. A lack of appreciation or hostility and criticism towards different/ opposite view (which is in fact is complementary and can enrich his own view) reflects great insecurity, can lead to mistakes in policymaking and may hamper realization of desired goals. He will then live in a pleasant make-believe environment, until the harsh truth can no longer be denied. Point is in policy making differences should be accepted and be utilized to stimulate creativity but de-emphasised as they tend to distract attention from the common processes. Unattended, large scale conflict (opposition) can have detrimental consequences and should be avoided at all costs. From this point of view, being “decisive” is not all positive quality. What at first appears to be strength and determination then comes across a little as recklessness and what was painted as softness and indecisiveness can then be viewed as caution.

Further policy maker should take in to account Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” that demonstrates the human needs in the shape of a pyramid. The base of the motivational order begins with the life-sustaining physiological needs like, food, water shelter and sex (for survival of species), which must be met to survive. The next level comprises of needs for security and safety, to live without stress and worry. The third level is social needs that include the need for sense of belonging and love. Further up the pyramid is a person’s need for self-esteem and social recognition and accomplishment. The need for self-actualization is at the very top of the pyramid.

Maslow believed that needs played a major role in motivating behavior (for a political policy maker it means voting for him), and higher needs don’t seem as urgent and aren’t persuaded when lower needs are not met.  He classified the first four levels of the pyramid, as deficiency needs (also called D-needs) as these needs are caused due to deprivation. Likewise, highest level of the pyramid is growth needs (also called B-needs). Growth needs do not arise because of deprivation, but rather from a desire to grow. The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person and are dynamic for a person from time to time. In one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in inventions. Similarly a single person may feel different need at different times, in office good boss and at home good parent/ spouse

Based on two points discussed- First, no human being, no social system is complete. Second, whatever and however great its achievement, participant / beneficiary will always fill lack of something and strive for change ( Maslow). Conclusion is  if any system or social order wishes to extend its shelf life for policy making,( having explained complementary nature of opposite),  it is always better to co opt opposite view rather than crush it.

But alas, the concept of opposites (and crushing it) is deeply engrained in our society. Right from the beginning of our life, we classify things into opposite pairs. We start conscious life by realizing the difference between me and not-me. Instead of teaching our children about opposites, we should teach them about complements and synergy. We should teach that men and women, day and night, black and white, people speaking our language and those who do not, etc. are complements and not opposites.

Can we approach issues this way? Such an approach will be an antidote to the hopeless strife we have been experiencing and continue to experience in our world. Through it we might appreciate that the world cannot be divided into two camps, one of which is right and the other wrong. We shall be able to understand and appreciate those who might look and think different from us, but share the great majority of our own concerns for love, peace, justice and beauty. As a final word we must add that the Synergy of Complements is an inclusive principle: it does accept opposition, turning it to own advantage.