Interview with S. Gurumurthy Part 1: The Rise and Fall of Western Development Models

Summary

In this enlightening discussion, Shri Gurumurthyji, a renowned scholar of Indian culture and economics, explores the distinct characteristics of Indian economic thought. He contrasts Western economic models rooted in individualism and rationalism with the collective and relational approach of Indian traditions. Gurumurthyji challenges the one-size-fits-all development model, advocating for a culturally aligned economic paradigm that respects and integrates local values and practices, as evidenced by shifts in global perspectives from institutions like the G20 and the World Bank.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script discusses the influence of culture on economics, with a focus on Indian culture and its distinctiveness compared to Western models.
• 🔍 It highlights the historical development of economics as a discipline, rooted in Western sociological theories and the impact of Max Weber's 'methodological individualism'.
• 🕊️ The discussion contrasts the Western emphasis on individualism and rationalism with Eastern philosophies, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, which emphasize collective well-being and karma.
• 🏛️ The script touches on the historical transition from divine right to social contract theories in Western political thought, and how this influenced economic models.
• 🌏 It critiques the one-size-fits-all economic development model, suggesting that it does not account for the cultural diversity and specific characteristics of different nations.
• 🤔 The conversation points out that both Communism and Capitalism have been influenced by Western anthropological modernity (WAM), which seeks to contract individuals out of tradition.
• 🔄 The script mentions the recognition by global institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations that a one-size-fits-all model is not effective for economic development.
• 🌱 It emphasizes the importance of culture in development, suggesting that economic models should be aligned with a nation's cultural identity for true progress and satisfaction.
• 📉 The 2008 financial crisis is indirectly referenced as a consequence of the flawed economic models that do not consider cultural factors.
• 🌟 The G20 nations' statement in Beijing is highlighted, which acknowledges the need for each nation to develop its economic model based on its unique characteristics.
• 📈 The script concludes with a call to action for viewers to support the channel and engage in discussions about culture's role in economics through donations and subscriptions.

Q & A

What is the primary focus of the discussion with Gurumurthyji?

The primary focus of the discussion is on the distinctiveness of Indian culture and civilization in relation to economics, particularly how Indian culture affects and is affected by economic models and theories.

How does Gurumurthyji characterize the development of economics as a discipline?

Gurumurthyji characterizes the development of economics as a discipline that was initially intertwined with polity and human life, but later became an independent, standalone discipline influenced by Western sociological theories and individualism.

What is the connection between Max Weber's work and the development of economic theories?

Max Weber's work is connected to the development of economic theories through his concept of 'methodological individualism,' which posits that society should be analyzed through the lens of the individual, an idea that later influenced neo-classical economics and the concept of 'Homo Economicus.'

How did the Protestant movement influence economic thought according to the transcript?

The Protestant movement influenced economic thought by promoting individualism and enterprise, which Max Weber observed led to the development of entrepreneurs and thinkers, aligning with modern capitalism and influencing economic theories that emphasize individual rationalism and efficiency.

What is the historical context of the divine right theory in Western polity?

The divine right theory in Western polity is historically rooted in the belief that the king is a mirror reflection of God, with divine authority over people and resources, which later evolved into the principles of constitutional law and the concept of eminent domain.

How does Gurumurthyji describe the shift from the divine right theory to the social contract theory?

Gurumurthyji describes the shift as a process where the divine right theory was secularized into the social contract theory, with Hobbes proposing a Leviathan state with all powers, and Locke suggesting an elected state, but maintaining the state's authority over individuals.

What is the difference between the Western concept of state and the Indian perspective as discussed in the script?

The Western concept of state is based on the divine right theory and social contract, where the state has significant power over individuals. In contrast, the Indian perspective does not have a history of the state having absolute power over life, property, or the right to take over others' property without due process.

What role does Gurumurthyji believe Indian philosophy and culture should play in economic development?

Gurumurthyji believes that Indian philosophy and culture should not be demolished for economic development. Instead, he suggests that India should work out its own model of development consistent with its specific cultural characteristics, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all model.

What does the transcript suggest about the universality of Western economic models?

The transcript suggests that the universality of Western economic models is flawed and has been questioned by various institutions, including the G20 and the World Bank, which acknowledge that each nation must develop its own model consistent with its unique characteristics.

How does the script address the relationship between culture and economic development?

The script addresses the relationship by highlighting the recognition by global institutions like the United Nations that development models must incorporate cultural elements to be effective, reversing previous stances that promoted a one-size-fits-all approach.

What is the significance of the G20's statement in Beijing regarding economic development models?

The G20's statement in Beijing is significant because it represents a shift from the one-size-fits-all model of development, acknowledging that each nation must develop its own model based on its specific characteristics, which was a departure from previous global economic policies.

What does the script imply about the future of economic models in relation to culture?

The script implies that the future of economic models will likely see a greater integration of cultural elements, as recognized by global institutions, moving away from the idea that economic development can be divorced from cultural identity and values.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Introduction to Shri Gurumurthyji

The host introduces Shri Gurumurthyji, a distinguished guest with a vast knowledge of Indian culture, civilization, economics, and politics. They emphasize the discussion's focus on the unique aspects of Indian economics and its interplay with culture, promising insightful perspectives on the subject.

05:03

📈 Historical Context of Economics

Gurumurthyji explains the evolution of economics as a discipline, highlighting Max Weber's work on Protestant Christianity's influence on individualism and modern capitalism. He discusses how this individualism shaped Western economic theories, particularly the 'efficient market hypothesis' and 'methodological individualism,' contrasting it with the collective approach in other cultures.

10:03

⚖️ Western Polity and Constitutional Principles

The discussion covers the evolution of Western polity from the Divine Right Theory to the Social Contract Theory. It highlights how the concept of eminent domain and the state's absolute power influenced constitutional laws. Comparatively, in India, the king had no right to compulsorily acquire property, emphasizing a distinct cultural and legal approach.

15:05

🌏 Impact of Western Theories on India

Gurumurthyji discusses how Western theories, particularly those of Max Weber and Karl Marx, impacted Indian economic and social structures. He explains the push for India to adopt Western models of development, which often clashed with traditional Indian values and systems. The UN's 1951 stance on development and the influence of Western anthropological modernity are also highlighted.

20:07

📉 Capitalism, Communism, and Globalization

This section delves into the similarities between Capitalism and Communism, both rejecting traditional values and focusing on materialism. Gurumurthyji critiques these models for lacking cultural and relational aspects. He mentions the shift in global economic thinking post-2008 crisis, with institutions like the World Bank and UN recognizing the need for culturally specific development models.

25:10

🌟 Cultural Reawakening in Global Development

The final part emphasizes the growing recognition of culture in economic development. The UN's acknowledgment of the importance of cultural identity in development goals marks a significant shift. Gurumurthyji encourages viewers to support his work through donations and subscribing to his YouTube channel for more insights on these topics.

Keywords

💡Individualism

Individualism refers to the social and political ideology that emphasizes the importance and value of individual autonomy, rights, and achievements over those of the group or community. In the video, individualism is discussed as a core principle that emerged from Protestant Christianity and was later incorporated into economic theories such as 'methodological individualism' and the 'Homo Economicus' theory, which posits that individuals act rationally to maximize their own interests. The script highlights how this concept contrasts with the collectivist orientation often found in Indian culture.

💡Protestant Christianity

Protestant Christianity is a major branch of Christianity that originated during the 16th-century Reformation against the Catholic Church. In the context of the video, it is noted for its emphasis on individual interpretation of the Bible and personal relationship with God, which is said to have influenced the development of individualism and, subsequently, modern capitalism. Max Weber's work is mentioned, suggesting that Protestant societies that focus on the individual tend to produce more entrepreneurs and are more in tune with capitalism.

💡Methodological Individualism

Methodological individualism is a theoretical approach in sociology and economics that asserts that social phenomena should be understood by examining the motivations and actions of individuals. The script discusses this concept as a theoretical framework developed by Max Weber, which has significantly influenced Western economic thought. It suggests that understanding society through the lens of individual actions is a key aspect of Western economic models, in contrast to more collectivist perspectives.

💡Homo Economicus

Homo Economicus is a term used in economics to describe the standard model of a rational individual who makes economic decisions by comparing marginal benefits and costs. In the video, it is mentioned as a theoretical construct that underlies the 'efficient market hypothesis' and neo-classical economics, which assume that individuals act in their own self-interest and possess complete information when making economic decisions.

💡Divine Right Theory

Divine Right Theory is a political and religious doctrine that asserts that kings and queens derive their authority directly from God, and therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions by earthly powers. In the script, it is discussed as the original basis for Western polity, where the king was seen as a mirror reflection of God with absolute rights over people and resources. This concept is contrasted with Indian traditions where kings were expected to follow Dharma and were not considered absolute rulers.

💡Social Contract Theory

Social Contract Theory is a philosophical concept that suggests that individuals voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in exchange for protection and order provided by the state. The video references this theory as a secularization of the Divine Right Theory, proposed by philosophers like Hobbes and Locke, which posits that the state's authority comes from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine authority.

💡Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain refers to the power of the state to take private property for public use, subject to payment of just compensation. In the script, it is discussed in the context of constitutional law, where it is rooted in the Divine Right Theory and contrasts with the Indian tradition where the king did not have the right to forcibly acquire property from individuals, reflecting a fundamental difference in the relationship between the state and individuals.

💡Karma and Rebirth

Karma and Rebirth are concepts in Hinduism and Buddhism that suggest an individual's actions in their current life will affect their fate in future lives. The video mentions these concepts as being in contrast to the individualistic and materialistic focus of Western economic models. Max Weber's argument is cited, which posits that societies influenced by these beliefs, such as India and China, would struggle to develop a capitalist ethos due to the lack of emphasis on individual initiative.

💡Globalization

Globalization is the process of increased interconnectedness and interdependence among countries, facilitated by advances in communication, transportation, and economic policies. In the video, it is discussed as a result of the spread of Western economic and political ideologies, but also as a phenomenon that has been critiqued for its one-size-fits-all approach to development, which does not account for cultural differences among nations.

💡One-Size-Fits-All Model

The One-Size-Fits-All Model refers to the idea that a single economic or political system can be universally applied to all countries, regardless of their unique cultural, social, and historical contexts. The script discusses the rejection of this model by international organizations like the G20 and the World Bank, which have acknowledged that development strategies must be tailored to the specific characteristics and needs of each nation.

💡Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than be judged against the criteria of another culture. The video emphasizes the importance of considering cultural differences when discussing economic models, as highlighted by the United Nations' shift towards advocating for development with culture and the recognition of the importance of national identity in economic policy.

Highlights

Gurumurthyji's multifaceted expertise in economics, politics, culture, and civilization.

The influence of culture on economics and vice versa, particularly in the Indian context.

Max Weber's theory of 'methodological individualism' and its roots in Protestant Christianity.

The contrast between Western and Indian economic models, highlighting the individualistic approach of the West.

The historical development of the Western economic paradigm and its connection to the Protestant Reformation.

The critique of the one-size-fits-all economic model and the call for nation-specific development strategies.

The impact of the divine right theory and its evolution into modern statecraft and its influence on economic thought.

The distinction between the Western concept of eminent domain and the traditional Indian respect for private property rights.

The philosophical underpinnings of the Indian economic model, rooted in Dharma and community, versus the Western focus on individualism.

The role of the state in the economic models of Hobbes and Locke, and how they differ from the Indian perspective.

The transformation of the divine right theory into the social contract theory and its implications for economic development.

The debate on the compatibility of Indian philosophy and the Western economic models of development.

The historical and ongoing influence of Western economic theories on global development policies.

The recognition by global institutions like the World Bank and the United Nations that a universal economic model is not effective.

The importance of culture in economic development and the acknowledgment of its role by international bodies.

The shift in global economic thought towards incorporating cultural elements into development strategies.

The call for a reevaluation of economic models in light of cultural differences and the need for diverse approaches to development.

The challenge to the Western economic paradigm posed by the unique characteristics of Indian culture and economic thought.

Transcripts

Namaste! Today I have an amazing guest, with a whole lot to say,

a dear friend, Shri Gurumurthyji. -Namaskar! -Namaste!

I have known Gurumurthyji for a long time, followed him, followed his work.

And all of you, most of you probably know about him. By profession, officially a CA, but actually a passionate,

discussant of Economy, Pro Politics, Culture, Civilizations, many, many areas.

He's a great economist, and I have no claim to being an expert in Economics,

but where we have a common interest is culture,

and how culture plays a role, in different aspects of life, including Economics.

So, my discussion is going to focus on Indian culture, civilization,

distinctiveness, vis-a-vis others, like the West, And how it relates to economics.

How the culture affects economics, how the economics affects culture.

And we'll talk about his perspective on what's distinct about an Indian model of economics,

his diagnosis of what is right in the economy what is wrong in the economy, what we are to do now,

So, it's going to be a very interesting show full of good insights, which I can promise you. So, let's start.

- So, Gurumurthyji, as an observer and scholar of Indian culture

and also economics, how would you characterize sort of the distinct

signature qualities of Indian economics, that you would say 'these are the important points'?

Actually, economics as a discipline, an independent standalone discipline is a much later development.

Economics was one dimension of polity.

One dimension of human life. But somewhere

towards the end of the 19th century

sociological theorization developed in the West

which tended to move towards acute and automizing individualism.

This theory was rooted in Max Weber's work

and this is again rooted in Protestant Christianity.

The tussle between the State and the Church,

also led to a tussle between the Church and the followers of the Church,

through the Protestant movement. And Max Weber said that on an empirical study

he found that Protestant society

which focused on the individual not on the collective church.

it is able to throw up individual thinkers

it was able to throw up entrepreneurs

so he found on a comparative study of the Catholic and Protestant societies

that the Protestant societies surged forward

like America, Canada, New Zealand, England, Australia

and comparatively all the Catholic societies lagged behind

though there was virtually no other great differences

between the two in terms of infrastructure or knowledge or whatever.

So, he theorized that Protestant Christianity

which promotes individualism and enterprise is more in tune with modern Capitalism.

So, in a capitalist society, protestant societies will emerge

are those with those characteristics will emerge as the winner.

He extended it to say that this individualism will

accentuate more and more and more. So, the individualism as a movement,

which evolved out of Protestant christianity,

it transcended sociology into Economics. via Max Weber.

Max Weber theorized it later as 'methodological individualism'

though he did not use the words but what he said was later on given a name 'methodological individualism'

that you deconstruct the society through an individual and you can't identify an individual through the society there is no collective identity.

This is alone a chart of the Western approach

When this movement picked up

the Homo Economicus theory, that Rationalism will define

the movement of an individual So, this automization process will be

the process of rational approach to life Rationalism became the basis

and rational economic theory evolved out of it

'efficient market hypothesis': everything is rooted in this

so, this became the foundation of what is known as the neo-classical economics.

where they said everybody is ultimately a materialist individual

and this was assisted on the other side

by the Western movement of the polity and statecraft

Western polity originally rested on the Divine Right Theory

where the king is supposed to be the very mirror reflection of God.

and so God had the world dedicated to him.

and the King had the rule over people, resources everything dedicated to him, like in the Bible

everything belongs to God here on the earth, everything belongs to the King

- So he is a representative of God in a sense. - Representative, mirror-reflection of God.

So, he had the divine right to do everything. in this three thing flew out

One, 'the king can do no wrong' principle. Two, that everything belongs to the king

and so he has only given you the right to temporary use

you can use it, but if he wants he can resume it back

This is called the principle of eminent domain in constitutional law.

The third thing is: he had control over you life also

only he has given you the lease of life but if he wants he can take the life back

These three principles inform the constitutional law even today.

so much so, during The Emergency in India, when Narendra argued

that during The Emergency there is no fundamental right to live.

- Oh, boy, wow! - Yes!

When the judges asked, is it all fundamental rights are suspended

because fourteen high courts decided that the Habeas Corpus petition should be admitted

because suddenly a man has disappeared from your family

The wife or the son says, go on, let us take this to find out

So, they allowed the Habeas Corpus petition, the Supreme Court, the matter went to the Supreme court.

So, it is the right to life. Then judges asked, do you, there's no right to life, during emergency,

He said it may shock your conscious if a police inspector takes a pistol and shoots on somebody

you will have no other remedy than to look at it.

- My God. - This rests on this principle.

You know, prior to the British arrival in India the principle of eminent domain was not applicable

because the king had no right to take over others' property.

It is in Magna Carta, this was modified into "pay the compensation and take the property."

But in India, by paying compensation also

you cannot take over another person's property, this was the position, that is where they had to enact

the Land Acquisition Act in India. Before that kings could not take over

with people's land, compulsorily, they had to go through the Panchayat and actually buy the land. this is settled.

Supreme Council has said, in India the king had no right to acquire the property compulsorily.

The question of right to life was a divine right,

and so there was no question of anybody taking away your right to life. So, these are two different paradigms.

- Yes, very clear and very well stated. Very clearly stated.

So, the constitutional paradigm, and economic paradigm aligned and rested on the individual.

So, how the democratic movement changed the divine right theory?

into what is known as "Social Contract" theory, by Hobbes?

Hobbes said we are basically an anarchic kind of people, we cannot live together, we will only kill each other.

so we need a Leviathan state to make us behave,

and so the State has all the powers, all the rights.

So, he secularized the divine right theory.

- Into state. - Into state.

Only one modification was brought over by Locke, he said that has to be an elected state.

Once we elect the state, the state has the same power.

It can declare emergency, it can acquire our property, it can...

So, the character of the state did not change. it is only that the people give consent every five years

to the state to do the things which are divine right, King could do. So, this is one paradigm.

But in India, this was not there, so after the emergency,

- Because a king had to obey, the king had to follow his Dharma. - Absolutely. Because no one was absolute.

So, in India, following our way of looking at things,

after The Emergency, the government said

that the state has no right to touch the life of an individual. this is our original vision.

Why am I mentioning this is, so Max Weber and the entire

economics, relationship between the state and the individual

were shaped basically by the Christian discipline.

- So God as authoritarian, absolute, to king becoming the absolute,

to a State becoming the absolute especially democratically elected,

this is the ruler-ruled relationship which has been consistent, quite different from ours.

- Correct. So what happened? Christianity basically destroyed

all of the relationship and substituted the Church in place of everything.

So, it really prepared the ground for Max Weber's theorization.

- Actually, even for Karl Marx, because Bertrand Russell argues that

this Marxism is also Christianity substituting state for Church.

-Absolutely. See, substitution of State for the Church was the function

of the secular socialist movement. -Yes. Now come to Max Weber.

So, Max Weber said that unless a society

conforms to this individualism, it will never develop.

This, he coupled it with the book on the religion of Hinduism and Buddhism

where he said, two societies will never come up

under modern capitalist conditions, that is China and India, because of Buddhism and Hinduism,

which believe in karma and rebirth, which has no role for an individual's advancement.

There is no individual initiative left, so there is no question of entrepreneurship developing, there's no question

of market economy developing in these two societies.

This became the basis of the Indian thinking.

That you have to demolish the Indian philosophy,

way of life, in order to automize your society, produce dominant individualism,

conforming to the Weberian model, or Marxian model. Then only you can develop.

This was the educational model in economics, in sociology, in politics

in public discourse. All these things were pushed. Don't think it was only a colonial moment.

In the year 1951, the United Nations issued a document

"Measures for the Development of Underdeveloped Economies"

in which they said, you cannot develop just like that.

It calls for lot of sacrifices. The sacrifice you are to make is,

you have to give up your philosophy, you have to give up your way of life,

you have to give up your caste, community, all relationships.

This was a mandate given by the United Nations.

This was rooted in a speech which Truman had delivered a year back,

exactly in the same terms: America has the responsibility to ensure

that the world is prepared for development. And these are just at this model.

And this was common to both Communism and Capitalism. Because between Communism and Capitalism there's no great difference.

- There was also, before nations started getting independence,

there was also a whole movement, to define the qualifications,

the credentials you need to be ready for independence.

And that had to be the concept of a state as per the Western model of a state.

So, nations had to prove that "I'm ready, I'm capable of self-rule".

- Because, I'm getting into that, either I qualify or I'll be able to qualify. - And you'ill decide whether, I'm qualified or not.

- So, this whole idea of "are you fit to rule" fitness to self-rule, became an issue.

- So, the idea of state, nation, people, the relationship between the two,

all this became defined by the Western notion

of divine right theory, modified by the Social Contract Theory, modified by democraticaly elected State.

Otherwise, in substance, the idea of state remains the same. But what I'm saying, I'm more coming to Economics.

In Economics they say: you rule in whatever manner you want to rule,

but you say, no, you cannot develop unless you give up your philosophy, in stated terms.

This became common to both Communism and Capitalism because Karl Marx basically believed,

unless the Capitalist boom takes place,

wealth is built, there is a huge amount of exploitation, takes place,

there is no way Communist revolution will come. But that communist revolution never came because all

communist revolutions became social revolutions and not economic.

So, the full-blown Capitalism is what Karl Marx wanted,

and full-blown Capitalism and Communism

rested on the same approach to life: there should be no prayer, all the past is wrong.

So, we should give up our philosophy, way of life, relationships.

So, we should pursue only happiness, and money

- and whatever in life, it is purely body-related. - A material world.

There is absolutely no difference between Capitalism and Communism on this. Both have no place for religion, both have no place for spiritualism,

both have no place for morality, other than financial morality.

Both have no place for social relationship, both have no place

even for human relationship like parents, husband, wife.

In fact, Communism went to the extreme of saying women should be nationalized.

There should be no husband, a woman should become a common property of everybody.

So, this was a chaotic model which they developed.

Only thing is, Capitalism aligned to Democracy.

So, to that extent it was not as suppressive as Communism.

- Because you could, there was a way to release the pressure once in a while. - Once in a while people could say OK, get out of here.

So, except these differences, there was no difference. I used to call it, a property dispute,

I told you the other day. Communism says it should be owned by the state, Capitalism says it should owned by the individual,

the purpose for which it is to be put to use is the same.

These became the driving force between 1951 and 1989,

and both interpreted it in their favour.

The same UN formulation which was Western anthropological modernity, I call it WAM.

Because in this people are to be contracted out of tradition,

and made into pure contract-based society.

Individual contract will relate the individuals sans relationship,

social contract will relate the individual to the state,

there are only two types of contract, there's a collective contract

- there is an individual contract. There is no relationship. - Very, very interesting.

So, this went into economics through both Capitalism and Communism,

In 1989, when Communism collapsed, and Capitalism became,

without alternative, the only model for development.

Francis Fukuyama even said that, he theorized how the world

will have no conflicts hereafter because all in theories are over.

Western liberal democracy

and market capitalism have won once and for all.

End of history. And so everybody will have to join this paradigm.

But within three years he changed his mind and wrote called The Trust

Where he recalled Emile Durkheim,

who differed from both Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

He said that you have to have a relation-based society,

even in a a contract-based economy, to be efficient.

And he built a whole lot of argument within Christendom.

Because none of these people had any experience outside Christendom.

- Neither Karl Marx. - Yeah, they were just internal disputes among Christians

- Their whole idea was defined by the internal forces operating within Christianity.

- Yes, fight within Christianity. - In fact, Karl Marx never came to India. He never met any Indian. He never read any Indian literature, but he said

Indian society is a backward society, even though in economic terms

it is a good society. He wrote a couple of articles in 1853,

in New York Herald Tribune which is now the International Herald Tribune,

in which he said, the Indian society is a very peculiar society.

It has some kind of a common identity and there are several kings and all that,

but everybody builds common infrastructure waterways, roadways, people move

from one place to the other, but the economy is rooted

as small village republics, and every village republic is self-sufficient,

and they are able to produce and consume it within themselves, so, the exploitation is less.

But for two thousand years the society hasn't changed at all. So, this society will never be prepared for revolution.

And they are semi-barbaric because they are worshiping monkeys and cow.

- And so the British are doing the right thing. - So he supported colonialism.

- British are doing the right thing by demolishing the society and economy. - They're preparing them for revolution.

He even quoted Goethe to say that painful destruction, but there's pleasure in this destruction also.

Other than saying it that between Colonialism and Communism, there was no difference.

Between Capitalism and Communism there is no difference because all are moving towards a destination which is biblical.

- The Communist utopia is similar to that.

- And Hegel's idea of a perfect society, -It's similar to this.

- It's similar to this. In fact, both Capitalism and Communism drew inspiration out of Hegel. - Hegel, yes.

Now coming to that, all this resulted in Globalization.

But Francis Fukuyama warned that there's something wrong in this economics.

It is only 80% right. There is a 20% missing element. That is culture.

He put it beautifully. He wrote the first book in 1992, he wrote the second book in 1994.

So, The Economist magazine wrote on the second book:

'he wrote the first book as End of History, the second book is the end of Economics.'

You see the threat they see in culture? if you look at culture, it's end of economics.

But Fukuyama is right, because the subsequent developments proved

that you cannot have one-size-fits-all model for development,

which is what Communism said, which is what Capitalism said, which is what Karl Marx said, which is what Max Weber said,

because they all theorized only the Christian society. Even within the Christian society they could not bring it about.

- They tried to universalize it to all humans. - Universalize it. But the one thing in the West is, they also know

where they are going wrong, but they’ll never admit they're going wrong.

So, in the year 2005, there was a stunning development.

The G20 nations, finance ministers and central bank governors met,

And they issued a statement in Beijing, that this one-size-fits-all model for development is not working.

Each nation will have to work out its own model of development,

consistent with its specific characteristics.

- I tell you, nobody even noticed it at all. And such a powerful forum as G20. - Yes, that's a huge statement to make.

Well before 2008 crisis, the western economists, institutions

market operators knew that 2008 crisis,

but the moment they mentioned it the crisis would be there on hand. So, they wanted to postpone it as long as possible.

Then, in 2008 the World Bank who had just been canvassing for the last 50 years

for this one-size-fits-all model, in fact, they used the word one-size-fits-all model, it won't work.

World Bank said, we've learned in the hard way in our working in the last several decades,

that this one-size-fits-all model is not working. For an institution like us to say it, is very painful.

But still we say, it is not working. Not a single article was written in India about this by any Economist.

- Because we were too much invested in that model. - Except me. I only kept writing about it.

I said, the world is no giving up, the West is giving up that its the model for all. They are giving it up.

Begin thinking about it. No one even noticed it.

The 2008 crisis did shake up. Because this World Bank statement

was made in June 2008. In 2008, October, November, this crisis came.

Even then, nobody noticed it. But in 2010

the United Nations said that what we have done is wrong,

this one-size-fits-all model is no good, we should drop it. Completely reversing 1951's statement.

In 2013 in the general assembly debate of United Nations, you must see that debate, country after country,

saying, what is our identity without our culture?

Without our traditions, without our value systems?

So, we cannot have an economic model nor development nor satisfaction

- Nor happiness, without that being linked to our culture. - Wonderful.

So, the United Nations they said the Millennium Goal, they said it is development with culture.

This still to inform the national debates anywhere in the world, but this is the position.

To help me, you can go to the subscribe button on my YouTube

and subscribe. We need more subscribers there. Secondly, I get lots of emails on people saying how do we donate, how can we help you

You go to rajivmalhotra.com or you go to infinityfoundation.com

and you can hit the donate button if you are in a foreign country like in the US or somewhere, you can donate in dollars

There are different ways mentioned, if you want to donate in Rupees there is a column called Infinity Foundation India, and you click there

and there are instructions on how you can donate in India.