風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
《龜速的轉變：印度未來的挑戰與希望》
The Turn of the Tortoise book review – Understand India: Peel an onion
T.N. Ninan
TN Ninan 從《商業標準》董事長兼董事職位退休 T.N. Ninan
T.N. Ninan 是《商業標準》有限公司的董事長。在執掌多家出版物的二十五年間，他曾擔任《商業標準》（自1996年起，他也是該雜誌的出版人）、《經濟時報》和《商業世界》的主編。他還曾擔任《今日印度》的執行主編。
自2010年1月起，他開始擔任非執行職務。他曾任印度編輯協會主席、印度工業聯合會（CII）媒體委員會主席、環境傳播協會（出版《腳踏實地》雜誌）主席以及貿易委員會委員。
他曾任Shri Ram學校董事會成員、印度-德國谘詢小組成員以及阿斯彭研究所印度分所理事。他榮獲多項獎項，包括B.D. Goenka新聞傑出成就獎。賈瓦哈拉爾·尼赫魯紀念基金會授予他2013年和2014年的尼赫魯獎學金。他於1972年獲得馬德拉斯大學經濟學碩士學位。
《龜速的轉變：印度未來的挑戰與希望》
作者：T·N·尼南，作家兼記者。 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turn_of_the_Tortoise
本書分析了印度的經濟、政治趨勢、中印關係、中產階級規模以及平民黨等問題。
在《印度斯坦時報》上，Gaurav Choudhury 評價本書“富有洞察力”，並稱其“提供了一個有用的分析框架，有助於理解影響印度經濟、政治和社會的多種變量”。[2]經濟學家兼作家蘇吉特·巴拉博士[3]在《金融快報》上也稱讚該書“資料翔實、研究透徹、文筆流暢”。
《烏龜的轉彎》書評——了解印度：剝洋蔥
https://www.financialexpress.com/jobs-career/the-turn-of-the-tortoise-book-review-understand-india-peel-an-onion/156400/
尼南很好地揭示了過去65年來印度政策的愚蠢之處，但其背後的“原因”值得深入探究。
蘇吉特·巴拉 2015年10月25日
尼南·尼南的著作《烏龜的轉彎》是一本資料翔實、研究透徹、文筆流暢的著作。十多年來，他以富有洞察力和發人深省的專欄《周末沉思》為世人帶來愉悅和啟迪，人們對他抱有很高的期望。
這本書的封底寫道：“人們說印度是未來的國家——而且將一直如此。” 我對印度的描述與此並無太大不同，那就是“許多人因為押注印度會做正確的事情而被埋葬在地下六英尺深的地方”。印度的故事與讓選民和政客們心煩意亂的洋蔥故事並無太大不同。剝開一個洋蔥皮，你會流淚。當你再剝一層皮，你就會接近核心——你會再次流淚。尼南非常出色地揭示了過去65年來印度政策的愚蠢之處。我幾乎同意他所記錄和闡述的所有內容。但如果兩位經濟學家（坦白說：他是一位非常好的朋友）的觀點完全一致，那將是極其無聊的。
2004-2014年間，對索尼婭·甘地意識形態的討論（以及曼莫漢·辛格經濟意識形態的缺失）有助於解釋，在印度遭受破壞的過程中，洋蔥是如何不斷生長的——如今，通貨膨脹率極高，腐敗現象更是猖獗。
本書探討了前環境部長賈拉姆·拉梅什（Jairam Ramesh）阻止項目實施的記錄，並暗示他一視同仁地針對國大黨和人民黨政客及其不環保的項目。真的嗎？如果能提供更多這方麵的資料，將會非常有用，信息量也很大。但書中得到的隻是國大黨議員納文·金達爾（Naveen Jindal）的項目未獲批準。
“意識形態”這個詞在書中並不常見，但它應該出現。例如，尼赫魯的教育政策究竟是建設卓越的殿堂，而不是廣泛普及教育，其背後究竟有何深意？大多數發展中國家（當然也包括所有成功的國家）首先強調的是小學和中學教育，然後才轉向極少數精英認為有益的免費大學教育。
或者以農業為例——這是唯一一個未受經濟改革影響的行業。事實上，就像洋蔥一樣，每一屆繼任政府都隻會讓情況變得更糟，索尼婭·甘地的錯誤政策更是雪上加霜，她通過大幅提高糧食采購價格來收買農村選票，最終獲得了273個席位。2006年至2013年的八年間，印度的平均通貨膨脹率為8.6%，而此前八年的平均通貨膨脹率為5.2%。如果尼南的書能詳細探討這項政策的政治經濟學及其愚蠢之處，內容會更加豐富。索尼婭·甘地和她的顧問們究竟是怎麽想的？他們是否曾預料到，最終他們獲得的不是273個席位，而是44個？如果沒有索尼婭·甘地的領導，烏龜的命運會不會來得更快？
尼南在書末（第289頁）正確地指出：“一個基本但未被充分重視的問題，仍然是不願讓市場力量以競爭的方式決定價格”。世界上有70多億人口，印度有10多億。我們每個人身上都流淌著紅色血液；但為什麽在過去68年的大部分時間裏，印度政策製定者的血管裏流淌著被汙染的藍色血液？尼南應該在備受期待的續集中解答這個問題。
蘇爾吉特·S·巴拉是《印度快報》特約編輯，也是總部位於紐約的政策谘詢機構“觀察組”的高級印度分析師。
《烏龜轉向》評論：印度如何迷失方向
https://www.hindustantimes.com/books/the-turn-of-tortoise-review-how-india-lost-its-way/story-p549p2PXIQ0anZmTFx7OSP.html
《印度斯坦時報》|作者：Gaurav Choudhury，新德裏
2015年10月31日
在《烏龜的轉變》一書中，TN Ninan 闡釋了影響該國經濟、政治和社會的變量。
說印度獨立後的經濟史豐富多彩，這絕不是誇大其詞。美國官方文件中有一些引人入勝的見解，他們認為韓國是一個“爛攤子”，而印度獨立時期的經濟體正處於“起飛”的邊緣。
我的天哪！NDTV 總編輯 Sreenivasan Jain、《商業標準報》TN Ninan 主席以及前聯邦部長 Arun Shourie 出席了 Ninan 新書《烏龜的轉變》的發布會。舒裏在活動中評論說，用“國大黨加一頭牛”來形容現任政府的政策，此言一出，引發了熱議。（企鵝出版社）
顯然，人們對印度經濟潛力寄予厚望，不僅來自印度內部，也來自世界。除其他因素外，這種樂觀的假設基於兩個無形的基本前提：印度早期擁有非常開明的領導層；其次，對民主的堅定承諾。
1947年是印度實現突破的一年，這不僅因為印度成為了一個自由國家，還因為印度國內經濟實現了更上一層樓。印度的國內生產總值（GDP）增長率從每年約1-1.5%上升到3-3.5%。在當前形勢下，這種擴張速度的飛躍或許並不引人注目，但它確實表明，除了內在的政治優勢之外，獨立也促進了某種程度的經濟複蘇。
然而，隨著失望情緒的湧現，這種興奮感迅速消退。印度的經濟增長率非但沒有像許多人預期的那樣騰飛，直到20世紀70年代中期才開始下降——考慮到獨立時的希望，這簡直是令人沮喪的成績。印度為何以及如何迷失了方向？
諷刺的是，強製實行製衡的民主結構往往阻礙了經濟擴張的野心和潛力。正如傑出記者、《商業標準報》前編輯在《烏龜的轉彎》一書中所說：“如果要同時追求多個目標，就必須做出妥協。”
針對主要目標所做的努力……結果是，所有目標均未令人滿意地實現。”
在中國，搖搖欲墜的政策可以迅速調整，使其與既定目標保持一致。但印度的情況並非如此。由於缺乏兩黨政治支持，許多關鍵的政策改革陷入了看似無休止的爭論之中。商品及服務稅（GST）就是一個例子。印度兩大主要政黨——印度人民黨（BJP）和國大黨——都一致認為有必要構建一個全國統一市場，消除各邦之間的財政壁壘，並用單一稅製取代繁雜的累退性地方稅。然而，雙方都試圖阻止對方在議會獲得通過。印度民主結構固有的特殊性——立法、行政和司法三權分立——也可能減慢決策速度。
其結果是，印度成了地球上最後一個主要的貧窮國家，“一隻加拉帕戈斯群島大小的烏龜，被快速增長的亞洲和其他地區中大多數規模較小、發展速度更快的國家甩在了後麵”。印度如今是世界上增長最快的主要經濟體，同時也是最貧窮的大型經濟體，在占世界GDP 90%的40個大型經濟體中，人均收入最低。
自1991年印度推行改革以來，近四分之一個世紀以來，印度的營商環境依然艱難。從能源短缺和土地問題，到模糊的稅法和繁瑣的勞動法規，一係列障礙阻礙了大規模投資進入印度，而印度本應是最具吸引力的市場之一。
正如尼南指出的，自1991年以來，曆屆政府都試圖改革印度複雜的要素市場。第二代改革（有時被籠統地稱為第二代改革）與1991年那套主要集中在產品市場的主導性政策體係截然不同。
當時，政府更容易放棄四十多年來建立的、教科書式的幼稚產業保護政策，寄希望於本土企業最終能夠成熟，能夠與全球企業並肩作戰。同行。
最終，對本土生產商的產能限製被取消，關稅降低，航空和電信等服務型行業向私人開放。競爭提高了標準，降低了關稅，為消費者提供了更廣泛的選擇，帶來了更多的投資，並使公共壟斷企業受到市場紀律的嚴酷考驗。
然而，這還隻是比較容易的部分。正如尼南指出的，幾乎沒有改革的是四個要素市場：土地、勞動力、資本和企業家精神。在過去的18個月裏，全世界一直好奇地注視著印度政策實驗室裏醞釀的種種，尋找納倫德拉·莫迪領導的政府（該政府以壓倒性優勢贏得大選，承諾將迎來好日子）計劃如何加快複雜要素市場的改革。
去年，在印度頂級億萬富翁的歡呼聲中，標誌性的“印度製造”運動啟動，誓言要將印度打造成製造業強國。普遍的觀點是，大型跨國公司正在尋求替代印度這個亞洲巨頭的途徑。隨著印度成本的上升，一些企業將傾向於遷往印度。這一論點仍有待實證檢驗。正如尼南所警告的那樣，“大多數尋求中國替代品的生產商並沒有將目光投向印度……幾乎所有東亞國家都提供了更寬鬆的工作環境”。
尼南對三大潛在趨勢的分析頗具洞察力。首先，印度正處於“規模”爆炸式增長的邊緣。如果經濟以年均7%的速度增長，各種商品和服務的市場都將呈現爆炸式增長。其次，是時候認識到政府正在悄然退出。目前已有43%的學童就讀於公立學校。這並不是一個令人欣喜的數據，因為它反映了政府的失敗。第三，經濟權力的主體正在悄然從新德裏轉移到各邦首府。對於政策製定者、專業經濟學家以及非專業人士來說，尼南的著作提供了一個實用的分析框架，幫助他們理解影響印度經濟、政治和社會的多重變量。
《轉折點》烏龜
TN·尼南
企鵝出版社
烏龜：印度未來的挑戰與希望
T.N. 尼南
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27069021-the-turn-of-the-tortoise
人們常說印度是未來的國家，而且未來仍將如此。
在《烏龜的轉折》一書中，傑出的記者 T.N. 尼南以他獨有的方式探討了一係列當代問題——探討了經濟失去動力的原因、政治領域的新興趨勢、中國對印度的影響以及國家與公民之間的關係。他探討了製造業能否成為一個成功的典範、新中產階級的規模有多大、
誰才是真正的平民？現在是否有可能終結極端貧困？最後，究竟是什麽讓我們夜不能寐？
這本內容廣泛的著作試圖通過數據和分析，了解印度的現狀、它為何會發展成如今的樣子，以及未來十年可能的發展方向。對於任何對印度及其未來感興趣的人來說，這都是一本必讀且富有啟發性的書籍。
其他國家/地區的熱門評論
https://www.amazon.ca/Turn-Tortoise-T-N-Ninan/dp/0143427644
2024年1月2日在美國評論
作者經常得出結論，當政客和官僚們的行為損害了印度經濟和整個社會時，他們肯定是缺乏見識的。他認為，正是因為自由市場的概念對印度精英階層來說如此陌生，所以自由市場才在印度不存在。他或許可以考慮讀讀貝茨的巨著《熱帶非洲的市場與國家》。自古以來，精英們樂於縮小蛋糕的總體規模，隻要這意味著他們自己的份額能更大。作者常常將知識匱乏視為根本原因，而實際上問題在於缺乏動員國家和社會為共同目標奮鬥的能力。
鑒於印度中央集權的曆史並不長，印度的“功課”是如何實現工業化的。印度河流域文明以其極其複雜的水資源管理係統而聞名，但卻沒有留下多少複雜的政府結構的痕跡。印度繁榮的關鍵或許在於弄清楚他們是如何在一個軟弱的國家裏完成工作的。以“按購買力平價計算，印度是第三大經濟體”（在這種語境下，購買力平價毫無意義）這種不顧一切的自我吹噓，對印度沒有任何幫助。
2015年10月16日印度評論
對於任何有興趣了解印度經濟現狀以及我們當前政策關注點未來影響的人來說，這都是必讀之作。本書以資深記者的熱情和活力撰寫，充分展現了他對所討論內容的理解，並輔以充分的引文和比較分析。對於那些譴責國家發展狀況以及過度沙文主義的人來說，這本書將令人大開眼界。重要的是，作者對經濟問題的深刻見解超越了單純的數據處理和分析。
2015 年 11 月 22 日，印度評論
我曾是尼南在《商業標準報》專欄的忠實讀者，所以一直熱切地期待著尼南的新書。
這本書的前兩章略顯拖遝，但尼南開始獨立思考，記錄了印度的經濟困境，以及印度何時何地出現了問題，以及問題的原因。尼南直言不諱地評價了印度這樣一個多元化國家的經濟狀況，而印度的經濟狀況至今仍在艱難前行。
這本書真實地反映了印度的經濟問題及其迄今為止，尤其是過去十年的發展曆程。一如既往，尼南對印度經濟的評價是公正誠實的，不帶有任何政治立場。此外，這本書還將幫助讀者對印度經濟形成一個平衡的看法，這與政客們指責對手應對印度經濟出現的所有問題的看法相反。
Writer T.N. Ninan
T.N. Ninan
T.N. Ninan is the Chairman of Business Standard Ltd. During a quarter century at the helm of different publications, he has been the editor of Business Standard (where he was also the publisher from 1996), the Economic Times, and Business World. He was also the executive editor at India Today.
From January 2010, he moved into non-executive roles. He has been President of the Editors Guild of India, Chairman of the Media Committee of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Chairman of the Society for Environmental Communication (which publishes ‘Down to Earth’ magazine), and a member of the Board of Trade.
He has served on the Board of the Shri Ram School, and is a member of the Indo-German Consultative Group as well as a Trustee of Aspen Institute India. He is a recipient of many awards including the B.D. Goenka award for excellence in journalism. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund awarded him a Nehru Fellowship for 2013 and 2014. He has received his M.A. in economics from the University of Madras in 1972.
The Turn of the Tortoise: The Challenge and Promise of India's Future
by T N Ninan, a writer and journalist. 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turn_of_the_Tortoise
The book analyses the economy of India, trends in politics, China-India relations, the size of the middle class and the Aam Aadmi Party amongst other issues.
In the Hindustan Times Gaurav Choudhury describes the book as "insightful" and a "useful analytical framework to understand the multiple variables that influence India's economy, polity and society".[2] Economist and author Dr Surjit Bhalla[3] in The Financial Express also praised the book as a "well-documented, thoroughly-researched and extremely well-written book"
The Turn of the Tortoise book review – Understand India: Peel an onion
Ninan illustrates the follies of Indian policy for the past 65 years well, but the "why" behind it calls for a deeper exploration
TN NINAN’S book, The Turn of the Tortoise, is a well-documented, thoroughly-researched and extremely well-written book. One would not have expected less from him, given how he has entertained, and informed us all with his insightful and thought-provoking column, Weekend Ruminations, for more than a decade.
The back cover of the book states: “It is said of India that it is the country of the future— and will remain so”. My version of the description of India, one not very different, is that “many a man has been found six feet under because he bet on India doing the right thing”. The story of India is not much different than what sends voters and politicians into a tizzy—the onion. As you peel an onion, you cry. And as you turn another peel, you are getting closer to the core—and you cry some more. What Ninan does very well is to illustrate the folly, and follies, of Indian policy for the past 65 years. I agree with almost all that he documents and illustrates. But it would be a supreme bore if two economists (full disclosure: he is a very good friend) were to just agree with each other.
So I will venture out and illustrate what I missed in Ninan’s book, and perhaps what would justify a sequel!
The canvas that Ninan has chosen is very large. There is not a single important issue that is absent. Poverty reduction, industrial policy, climate control, economic growth, the middle class, crony capitalism… The list is long; the coverage comprehensive. So what is left for the sequel? A deeper coverage of the WHY.
In my opinion, the ideology of our political leaders is at the core of India’s disappointing performance. Let us not congratulate ourselves for having grown successfully and grown fast—average GDP growth rate higher than 6% for the last 35 years! However, taking solace from a higher growth rate is like the US (or Germany) congratulating themselves that they are growing faster than Greece. What matters is the distance between performance and potential—and there has been a yawning gap (six feet?)—which, hopefully, will not be a hallmark of the future.
What I missed the most: a detailed discussion of ideology and the related political economy. For example, what was (and continues to be) the ideology of the Nehru-Gandhi family, is continuing, and reaffirmed by Sonia Gandhi. Why was the ideology of two other non-dynasty Congressmen—Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh—so different?
It would have been useful to demarcate how these two were different, and possibly why the Congress party, and India, broke free from the ideology stranglehold of the dynasty. Perhaps some discussion of the ideology of Sonia Gandhi (and the absence of the economic ideology of Manmohan Singh) during 2004-14 would help explain how the onion continued to grow in the destruction of India—now with the addition of very high inflation and even higher corruption.
Ideology is a word that does not occur often in the book, but it should. For example, what was the thinking behind Nehru’s education policy of building temples of excellence rather than spreading education far and wide? Most developing countries (and certainly all the successful ones) first emphasised primary and secondary education before proceeding towards what a tiny elite found beneficial—free university education.
Or take agriculture—the only sector untouched by economic reforms. Indeed, like the onion, each succeeding government only made things worse, with Sonia Gandhi scaling the depths with her misguided policy of obtaining 273 seats via the buying of the rural vote with large increases in food procurement prices. For the eight years between 2006 and 2013, inflation in India averaged 8.6% after averaging 5.2% for the previous eight years. Ninan’s book would have been richer if the political economy, and folly, of this policy was discussed in some detail. What could possibly have been the thinking of Sonia Gandhi and her advisers? Did they ever envision that instead of 273 seats they would end up getting only 44? Would the turn of the tortoise have come sooner if the leadership of Sonia Gandhi was absent?
Ninan correctly observes near the end (p.289) that “a basic, underappreciated problem remains the unwillingness to let market forces determine prices in competitive fashion”. There are more than 7 billion people in the world, and more than a billion in India. Red blood flows through us all; but why did contaminated blue blood run in the veins of Indian policy makers for the overwhelming part of the past 68 years? That is the question that Ninan should address in a much-awaited sequel.
Surjit S Bhalla is Contributing Editor, Indian Express, and Senior India Analyst, The Observatory Group, a New York-based policy advisory group
The Turn of Tortoise review: How India lost its way
Hindustan Times | By Gaurav Choudhury, New Delhi
Oct 31, 2015
In The Turn Of The Tortoise, TN Ninan explains the variables that influence the country’s economy, polity and society.
To say that India’s post-independent economic history has been a varied experience would be an understatement. There are some fascinating insights in official documents of the United States, where they had considered South Korea as a “basket” case and had identified India as an economy that was on the verge of “take off” during the time of India’s independence.
HOLY COW! NDTV’s managing editor Sreenivasan Jain, chairman of Business Standard TN Ninan and former union minister Arun Shourie at the launch of Ninan’s book, The Turn Of The Tortoise. Shourie stirred debate by commenting at the event that the way to characterise the policies of the present government is “Congress plus a cow”.(Penguin)
Clearly, there appeared to be a lot of hope about the Indian economy’s potential, not just from within, but also from across the world. Among other factors, this optimistic hypothesis was predicated upon two intangible basic premises: India had a very enlightened early leadership and two, deep commitment to democracy.
1947 was a break-out year, not just because India became a free nation, but also because the domestic economy moved into a higher flight. From about 1-1.5% a year, India’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth moved to the 3-3.5% range. Unremarkable as it may appear in the current context, this jump in the rapidity of expansion, does indicate that apart from the innate political goodness, Independence also aided an economic turnaround of sorts.
This excitement, however, fast tapered off as disappointments set in. As opposed to taking off as many had anticipated, India’s growth rate remained stuck at the 3-3.5% range till the mid-1970s — a listless feat given the hopefulness at the time of independence. Why and how did India lose its way?
Ironically, the democratic structure that enforces checks and balances often militated against the economy’s expansionist ambition and potential. As distinguished journalist and former editor of Business Standard, says in The Turn of The Tortoise, “if multiple objectives are to be pursued simultaneously, compromises have to be made on the main objective…the result has been that none of the objectives was achieved to any degree of satisfaction.”
In China faltering policies can be quickly adjusted to bring them in line with the stated goals. That’s not quite the case with India, where the absence of bi-partisan political support has resulted in many critical policy reforms remaining jammed in seemingly endless debates. The goods and services tax (GST) is a case in point. Both the major political parties — the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress — agree on the need to stitch a common national market, dismantle fiscal barriers among states and replace a welter of regressive local levies with a single tax. Yet, each party tries to stop the other from getting is passed in Parliament. The inherent peculiarities in India’s democratic structure — the separation of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary — can also decelerate decision-making.
The result is that India is the last major poor country on earth, “the Galapagos-size tortoise that has been left behind by mostly smaller, speedier countries of Rapid Growth Asia and other regions.” India is today the world’s fastest growing major economy and, also the poorest large economy, with lowest per capita income among the 40 large economies accounting for 90% of the world GDP.
Nearly a quarter of a century after India introduced reforms in 1991, it still remains a difficult place to do business in. From energy shortages and land problems to vague tax laws and multiple labour regulations, a raft of obstacles have kept large-scale investments from coming to India, which should have been counted among the most attractive markets.
As Ninan points out since 1991, successive governments have attempted to reform India’s complex factor markets. The second generation reforms, as these are sometimes broadly clubbed as, are distinct from the overriding policy matrix of 1991, which primarily concentrated on product markets.
It was relatively easier to turn the clock back on the text-book infant industry protection that the state had created for more than four decades, hoping that the local businesses would eventually mature capable of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with global peers.
Eventually, capacity curbs on local producers were lifted, tariffs were brought down and the service-oriented sectors such as aviation and telecommunication were opened for private participation. Competition raised standards, brought down tariffs, offered consumers a wider choices, fetched greater investment and subjected public monopolies to the ruthlessness of market discipline.
This, however, was the easier part. What mostly went unreformed, as Ninan points out, were four factor markets: land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. Over the last 18 months the world has been peering curiously at the stuff bubbling in India’s policy laboratory, looking for signs on how the Narendra Modi-led government, which won a landslide poll promising to usher in good days, plans to hasten reforms in complex factor markets.
The signature “Make in India” campaign, launched last year cheered by the country’s top billionaires, vows to turn India into a manufacturing powerhouse.The prevailing strand of thought is that big transnational corporations, seeking an alternative to the Asian giant as costs there rise, will be tempted to move to India. This thesis remains to be tested empirically. As Ninan warns “most producers looking for alternatives to China are not looking at India…almost all countries in East Asia offer easier working environments”.
Ninan’s analysis about three underlying mega trends are insightful. First, India is on the verge of a “scale” explosion. If the economy grows at an annual average of seven per cent, the markets for all manner of goods and services will explode. Second, it is about time to recognise the quiet, withdrawal of the state. Already 43% of schoolchildren go to public schools. This isn’t quite a flattering statistic as it mirrors the state’s failure. Third, the mass of economic power is quietly shifting from New Delhi to the state capitals. For policy makers, professional economists and the non-initiated, Ninan’s volume offers a useful analytical framework to understand the multiple variables that influence India’s economy, polity and society.
The Turn Of The Tortoise
TN Ninan
Penguin
Tortoise: The Challenge and Promise of India's Future
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27069021-the-turn-of-the-tortoise
In The Turn of the Tortoise, the distinguished journalist T.N. Ninan addresses a range of contemporary questions as only he can—looking at why the economy lost steam, the emerging trends in politics, the Chinese shadow over India, and the relationship between the state and the citizen. He asks whether manufacturing can be made a success story, what is the size of the neo-middle class, who really is the aam aadmi, and if it is possible to put an end to extreme poverty now. And, finally—what are the fears that should keep us awake at night?
This wide-ranging book is an attempt to understand, through data and analyses, where India stands today, why it has emerged the way it has, and what the next ten years might bring. For anyone interested in India and its future, this is essential and enlightening reading.
Top reviews from other countries
https://www.amazon.ca/Turn-Tortoise-T-N-Ninan/dp/0143427644?
Reviewed in the United States on January 2, 2024
