Problems of rupee , Dr Yunus and Amartya
Palash Biswas
(Palash Biswas, C/O Mrs arati Roy, Gosto Kana, Sodepur, Kolkata- 700110. Phone: 91-33-25659551)
Mohmmad Yunus, the Nobel Peace laureate from Bangladesh and the Indian NRI economist Dr Amarty sen visited Kolkata and adopted stances with different diameter. Both these internationally famous economists and so called experts of Asian economy are the staunc supporters of Globalisation and they happen to be the most vocal spokespersons of corporate, nazi, brahminical imperialism. Yunus has pleaded for single paasport and single currency for South Asian countries. We know that open market knows no bounderies. But this south Asia may not be a global unit as advocated by Yunus just the nationalities here have nothing common in between except fiercemost hatred based on Manusmirti. All coomunities following different caste, creed, language , culture and even religion are dominated by overwhelming Hindutva brahminical culture. Social forces which has taken over statepower with different identities in different geopolitics have enslaved the majority population directly related to indigineus production system.European community has not to face the civil war of nationalities so fiercely as we face.
Is Globalisation possible in such circumstances? Two US-based human rights watchdogs have accused India of failing to uphold its international obligations to ensure that fundamental rights of Dalits are safeguarded."As a result more than 165 million Dalits are condemned to a lifetime of abuse because of their caste," the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and Human Rights Watch claimed in a report in New York.
"Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has rightly compared untouchability to apartheid, and he should now turn his words into action to protect the rights of Dalits," said Professor Smita Narula, faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law, and co-author of the report.
"The Indian government can no longer deny its collusion in maintaining a system of entrenched social and economic segregation," she said.
The 113-page report, 'Hidden Apartheid: Caste Discrimination against India's Untouchables,' was produced as a 'shadow report' in response to India's submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which monitors implementation of the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
The committee will review India's compliance with the convention during hearings in Geneva on February 23 and 26.
"India needs to mobilise the entire government and make good on its paper commitments to end caste abuses. Otherwise, it risks pariah status for its homegrown brand of apartheid," said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
In kolkata, Yunus supported the SEZ drive by the communist government and later backtracked as saying that he was unaware of ground realities in West Bengal. He said that in fact he was reacting on EPZ, the Bangladesh phenemenon.
dr Amartya Sen openly supports the capitalist ways of Buddhadev and has always advocated for SEZ. In Kolkata, he refuses to comment and pleads that it needs further studies and investigation.
Funny!
Is Professor Yunus is so ignorant that he can not distinguish between SEZ and EPZ?
Is this man is worthy to be believed when he wants suggestions to enter politics?
Bangladesh's Nobel peace laureate Mohammad Yunus on Sunday in an open letter sought people's opinion about his joining the politics.
"If people want I will join politics. This is the prime time for joining. But I must need people's opinion about my joining politics," Yunus, founder of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank told reporters at the airport before leaving for India to receive the prize of Best Bangli given by private television channel of West Bengal, the northeastern state of India.
He said the current caretaker government has taken many steps, which have brought changes in politics. He said if the people give opinion in his favor, he will form a political party.
He said people will be able to give their opinion through letter, phone or fax. He said he will do politics with honest people, but will not do it with those persons who polluted the politics.
"The time to do politics has become rife," he said, "We could not see much success from the politics of past. Everybody should try to go ahead covering the loss by past politics."
Last week for the first time the Nobel laureate said he was mentally ready to do politics and float a political party if people wanted.
Bangladesh people en masse requested him to be the President or Prime Minister, he simply refused saying that Politics is the root of corruption. He never allowed government interference in Grameen bank activities on this very ground.
After a disturbing turmoil, Bangladesh seems to go ahead for fair and free elections to chose a democratic government. At this juncture the politics hating Economist, a nobel peace laureate pleads for suggestions from India, is the issue so simple. As we witnessed how US, UN, Doners and European community interfered in bangladesh recently.
Is professor Yunus the third party chosen to defend US interests in South Asia as he seems to be the fittest personality of repute and secular image without any interference or objections from India. Is the changing sances are definite preplanned ploys to confuse the South Block in New Delhi.
Yunus and Amartya are associated with the United economy of South Asia on which years back Dr ambedkar wrote his doctoral thesis - The Problems of Indian Rupee.
Two top leaders of the BNP and Awami League yesterday welcomed Nobel Laureate Prof Dr Mohammad Yunus' plan to join politics asking him to prove his creativity in the challenging field.
Politicians' failure to govern the country effectively and lead the nation towards development and prosperity might have encouraged the globally reputed economist to join politics and take leadership, they observed.However, they said politics was not a field like that of the economics, which could be won individually though individual genius, it is a complicated area and basically involves contacts with the people. The two top leaders, whose respective parties recently fought bitterly against each other, as those did during the last 17 years after the restoration of democracy in 1990, said this while talking to journalists yesterday.
Welcoming Dr Yunus in politics, BNP Standing Committee member Barrister Moudud Ahmed said, " We will happy to see him in politics and prove his genius in the world's most complicated and challenging area." He said the Nobel Peace Prize winner must know that politics was not like that of economics it had a number of challenges and risks, including massive contacts with the people and against numerous odds and obstacles.
Awami League (AL) Presidium member Tofail Ahmed said his party was ready to see Dr Yunus in politics. But, he will have to wait till withdrawal of the sanction imposed on politics under the emergency, he added. "Let him test sour realities of politics by joining the fray and experience by himself as to why and how politicians failed to run the country effectively towards the desired development and prosperity" he said.Tofail, one of the top AL strategists, said the politicians' did not always enjoy the glamour of politics but also suffer from miseries of failures and oppressions of the rival regimes.
Where from the Rupee comes?
where to the Rupee goes?
This is the basic dilemma. here you pronounce the soliloquy - TO BE OR NOT TO BE.
Colonial Rulers used to transfered the Rupee to London. The situation is not changed at all as the annihilition of Rural India, The civil war in resistance and The capitalists way deal with these basic questions where from the Rupee comes as well as, Where to the rupee goes.
Ditto to dr Amartya Sen we have to say it needs more studies and more investigations to comment on. But Dr Ambedkar tried to answer this question decads ago and that is quite relevent today. Neither the polity nor the society has changed a bit despite the presumed superpower status and the globalisation itself.
Weel, Challenging West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's contention that 96 per cent farmers had voluntarily given their farmland for the Tata Motors' plant at Singur, Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Monday demanded that the government should take the people's mandate for land acquisition in the state."The government should take the mandate of the people in the state whether they want to give their land for industry or not," Banerjee demanded at a public meeting here in South 24 Parganas referring to land acquisition at Singur and Nandigram.
She said the farmers had not given consent for 400 acres out of the 997 acres required by the Tata's small car project at Singur.Referring to the Chief Minister's fresh offer of talks, Banerjee said that no discussion was possible with the government keeping Singur aside. She said the government would have to return the land taken away 'forcibly' there.
On The Other hand,In a jolt for the West Bengal government, the Calcutta High Court today quashed prohibitory orders imposed at Singur, which witnessed protests over the acquistion of land for a Tata Motors' car plant, and observed that they amounted to an abuse of power.Acting on a writ challenging them, Justice Dipankar Datta quashed the orders under Section 144 of CrPC that were imposed at Singur on February 4 and set to expire tonight. The court said the orders were predetermined and passed by abusing power. There was no ingredient for invoking Section 144 of CrPc and the rights of the petitioners had been infringed on under Article 19 of the Constitution. The petition was filed by Ganesh Chakraborty and others of the Singur unit of the Trinamool Congress-led Save Farmland Committee. The prohibitory orders banned the holding of rallies and meetings in Singur, which has witnessed violent protests in recent weeks against the acquisition of land for the Tata Motors' project. An unfazed state government said it would seek legal opinion about the necessity of reimposing prohibitoryy orders in Singur in light of the court's order. Home Secretary P R Roy justified the orders and said there had been no abuse of power.
Mamta declared in Bhangar, "Our stand does not change every day. For us Singur is not a closed chapter."She wanted to know if farmers had voluntarily given their land, why did the government reimpose prohibitory orders at Singur to prevent the people from going there and why was bhoomi puja performed secretly for the Tata project with the area under section 144 CrPC.
"The Chief Minister is saying that farmland will not be acquired forcibly at Nandigram. He is making a false statement," she said claimimg that the land acquisition notice at Nandigram had not been withdrawn yet.
Warning the government against acquiring land without the consent of farmers, the Trinamool supremo said that Bhattacharjee could not do whatever he liked simply because he was in power. He should make a categorical announcement that land would not be 'acquired forcibly'.
Banerjee said that when she withdrew her hunger strike against 'forcible' land acquisition after 25 days in December, the government had promised that it would hold discussions with her on the Tata project at Singur."But instead the government imposed prohibitory orders at Singur and issued notification for land acquisition at Nandigram. Is it called discussion?"
She said that there was no conflict between agriculture and industry, but the state government was creating it. "We are not against industry, but if the government thinks it will acquire land forcibly, we will not allow it," she said.
The state government, she claimed, had taken land from minorities at Rajarhat for a new township. "Now they are jobless."
Faced with energetic and widespread popular protests against special economic zones (SEZs), India has decided to go slow on this particular model of industrialization based on creating export-oriented tax-free enclaves. India's federal government recently announced a suspension of all land acquisition for establishing new SEZs until a new policy on the rehabilitation of displaced people is announced. This followed an intervention by Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress party, which leads the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Gandhi expressed her concern at the large-scale uprooting ofpeople from agricultural lands and the loss of livelihoods. Popular discontent caused by displacement, many Congress leaders fear, will adversely affect the party's chances in upcoming elections in a number of states including Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat.
No less important than this temporary (and probably tactical) move is the announcement by the Marxist chief minister of West Bengal, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, that no SEZs will be set up in the state unless his allies in all the four parties that comprise the ruling Left Front grant their full consent.
Bhattacharya, who represents the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said: "I will do nothing in violation of what our four left parties decide on SEZs. If necessary, I will step back."
Party general secretary Prakash Karat has since asserted that the SEZ process would be kept in abeyance until the CPM politburo discusses the matter next week and sorts out differences with the other Left Front constituents. The leaders of these, the Communist Party of India, the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the Forward Bloc, oppose the very concept of SEZs as vehicles of industrialization.
Until this week, Bhattacharya was a staunch supporter of SEZs. His government had earmarked as much as 56,660 hectares of land for acquisition from farmers on which to create these zones.
Bhattacharya's announcement is widely seen as an acknowledgement of the growing unpopularity of SEZs. West Bengal witnessed pitched battles over the past two months at Nandigram and Singur, 40-60 kilometers from Kolkata.
Nandigram is the site of a proposed 4,050-hectare SEZ to be developed by Indonesia's Selim Group. Singur is where the Tata business group is planning to build a car factory on 403.5 hectares of land. On January 6 and 7, six people died in violence at Nandigram. Villagers in the area have erected roadblocks to prevent officials from entering and conducting operations leading to land acquisition. So fierce was the protest that the Left Front government declared in the second week of January that there would be no land acquisition at Nandigram until the project is properly evaluated. Acquisition and fencing of land, however, are continuing in Singur.
"The fact that Bhattacharya has offered to step back signifies a major change in the West Bengal CPM's thinking on the issue," said Tanika Sarkar, a professor of modern Indian history at Jawaharlal Nehru University, who recently visited West Bengal as part of a citizens' fact-finding team to inquire into displacement and violence. "The CPM's retreat represents a major victory for the people. Hopefully, this will lead to rethinking in the state party on the idea of industrialization at any cost."
West Bengal is not the only, or the leading, state where SEZs are being built. The Indian government has approved 237 SEZs with 34,509 hectares of land. While 63 are already under construction, another 165 SEZs have been approved "in principle", for which nearly 15,000 hectares are to be acquired.
Applications for 300 more SEZs are pending. Most of the big ones among these are in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat and Punjab.
"What distinguishes West Bengal is the ferocity of protests against forcible land acquisition and the fact that the CPM's own grassroots leaders are deeply divided," argued Ranabir Samaddar, a social scientist attached to the Calcutta Research Group. "The very cadres whom the CPM had educated on land rights and trained in agitational methods are now leading the protests against it."
The Left Front has been continuously in power in West Bengal for three decades, considered a world record. A key to its success is the "Operation Barga" land reform, under which sharecroppers won the right to three-fourths of the produce of the land that they worked, while the absentee rentier-owner received the rest.
New Indian Problem: A Strong Rupee
By Kevin Murphy International Herald Tribune
After years of worrying that its currency would steadily depreciate against most others, India has a new but perhaps more welcome problem: The rupee may now be appreciating too quickly for its own good.Positive results from its economic reform efforts, strong exports and a flood of foreign investment have helped boost India's foreign reserves to nearly $18 billion, not counting $4 billion in gold reserves.The growing hoard marks a dramatic turnaround since June 1991, when India's foreign reserves had dwindled to $1.6 billion, alarming the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
.
The crisis prodded India onto a path of reforms aimed at cutting its deficit, lowering barriers to foreign trade and investment, and dismantling the so-called license raj, under which businesses had to seek permission from New Delhi bureaucrats to make any major move.
.
Now that the economy is improving and the reserves are piling up, banks, boardrooms and broadsheets across the country are passionately discussing the management of these reserves.
.
For every voice congratulating India on the change in its fortunes, another insists something must be done about it.
.
In an economy seeking to expand exports and fight inflation, Finance Minister Manmohan Singh and Chakraborty Rangarajan, head of the Reserve Bank of India's, face difficult policy choices.
.
As the foreign exchange pours in, some analysts say the Reserve Bank has two clear options: It could stop buying dollars at the current rate and watch the rupee appreciate, with potentially harmful impact on exports; or it could continue buying dollars to maintain the current exchange rate and risk stoking inflation by putting more money into the domestic economy.
.
Others argue that the issue is less straightforward.
.
"Money supply growth has not been the major factor in inflation," Mahesh Vyas, executive director of the Center for Monitoring the Indian Economy, said. "Mismanagement of essential commodity supplies and their pricing has."
.
A wide range of price supports and subsidies still exists as a legacy of close government involvement in the agricultural sector, which employs the vast majority of working Indians.
..
While the central bank envisions a continued active role in keeping the rupee at its current level of about 31 to the U.S. dollar, Mr. Rangarajan said better fiscal discipline by the Indian government had reduced its demands for credit from his bank, easing strains on the country's money supply.
.
The Reserve Bank says the government is borrowing from it at a rate of only 3 percent to 5 percent of its total borrowings last year, which means the Indian budget deficit's contribution to money supply growth is limited.
.
Analysts said that increased revenue, despite recent tax cuts, may be brightening the government's fiscal picture, which is positive news for overall economic growth.
.
Positive results from its economic reform efforts, strong exports and a flood of foreign investment have helped boost India's foreign reserves to nearly $18 billion, not counting $4 billion in gold reserves.The growing hoard marks a dramatic turnaround since June 1991, when India's foreign reserves had dwindled to $1.6 billion, alarming the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.The crisis prodded India onto a path of reforms aimed at cutting its deficit, lowering barriers to foreign trade and investment, and dismantling the so-called license raj, under which businesses had to seek permission from New Delhi bureaucrats to make any major move.
.
Now that the economy is improving and the reserves are piling up, banks, boardrooms and broadsheets across the country are passionately discussing the management of these reserves.For every voice congratulating India on the change in its fortunes, another insists something must be done about it.
..
Muhammad Yunus
KOLKATA: Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus on Monday refused to be drawn into the political debate raging in West Bengal on acquisition of agricultural land for industry. He, however, reiterated that "theoretically there could be no two ways on the need for industry coming up on agricultural land."
"When it comes to any specific situation — which land for which industry — I am not in a position to comment," he said, adding that he had not realised earlier how prickly the issue was in West Bengal.
Speaking to newspersons soon after his arrival here on Sunday, Dr. Yunus said agricultural land was required for growth of industry without which economic development would suffer.
He also suggested that it was necessary to set up special economic zones for development.
"I think I have landed myself in trouble with my comments yesterday. I hope the Opposition parties do not get me wrong... I am not aware of the actual ground realities [regarding the matter] here," Dr. Yunus said.
What is imperative, however, was that, "when it comes to acquisition of land for industry it should be ensured that land is not taken [from the peasants] forcibly," he said. "That would be unjustifiable." "The peasants should be provided with the right alternative. It needs to be recognised that they are also participating in the development process...This can be done," he said.
"But I will not like to intervene in the present debate on the subject revolving around which industry should come up on which land. I have only spoken on the basic principles [of the subject]," Dr. Yunus said.
Buddha sells his 'industry' dream
Sougata Mukhopadhyay
CNN-IBN
Updated Monday , February 12, 2007 at 10:56
DONOR BUDDHA: Bhattacharjee distributed land to nearly 9000 landless peasants on Sunday.
Khejuri, West Bengal: The West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee distributed land to nearly 9000 landless peasants on the outskirts of Nandigram on Sunday. But he insists the government will go ahead with its plan to set up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the area.It was a damage control exercise in CPI-M style. The Chief Minister distributed 5000 pattas or land titles among landless peasants, who live on the borders of Nandigram. This comes even as protests continue in Nandigram against the government's plans to acquire land for a proposed SEZ.
But the beneficiaries seemed pleased. “He says that the government has done a great job by donating this land amongst poor people like us,” said Manoranjan Dalpati, a landless farmer.
The Chief Minister took the opportunity to sell his dream of industrialisation to the farmers. And insists the state government will go ahead with its plans.
Social reforms in Kerala & Bengal way behind UP, MP & R’sthan
SUBHASH NARAYAN & RAJEEV JAYASWAL
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007 03:30:39 AM]
NEW DELHI: Left-ruled states Kerala and West Bengal are far behind UP, Rajasthan and Orissa in implementing social reform schemes as envisaged under `the 20-point programme’, initiated during the Indira Gandhi regime. The programme includes eradication of poverty, food security, provision of potable water and health for all. Progressive states like Kerala and prosperous states like Punjab lagged behind the so-called backward states like MP, Rajasthan and UP. While Kerala ranked 21 ,West Bengal fared even worse at 23rd rank. The report, which has evaluated the state’s performance for April-July 2006, has adjudged Uttranchal, UP and Andhra Pradesh as the best performing states. These states get the first three ranks having completed over 75% of the projects identified under the programme.
The poor performance has now caught the attention of the Centre that has organised a meeting of senior state officials in the Capital on Wednesday to discuss various issues, including better implementation of the restructured programme now named Twenty-Point Programme 2006 (TPP-2006).
“Monitoring of the re-structured programme will start from April 1, 2007. It will take place at four levels — block, district, state governments and finally at the Centre. While individual ministries at the Centre would be responsible for monitoring the individual schemes, the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (MoSPI) would monitor the programme in totality,” an official in MoSPI said.
Problems Of indian Rupee By Ambedkar
PREFACE TO THE SECOND IMPRESSION
THE PROBLEM OF THE RUPEE was first published in 1923. Ever since its publication it has had a great demand : so great that within a year or two the book went out of print. The demand for the book has continued, but unfortunately I could not bring out a second edition of the book for the reason that my change-over from economics to law and politics left me no time to undertake such a task. I have, therefore, devised another plan : it is to bring out an up-to-date edition of the History of Indian Currency and Banking in two volumes, of which The Problem of the Rupee forms volume one. Volume two will contain the History of Indian Currency and Banking from 1923 onwards. What is therefore issued to the public now is a mere reprint of The Problem of the Rupee under a different name. I am glad to say that some of my friends who are engaged in the field of teaching economics have assured me that nothing has been said or written since 1923 in the field of Indian Currency which calls for any alteration in the text of The Problem of the Rupee as it stood in 1923. I hope this reprint will satisfy the public partially if not wholly. I can give them an assurance that they will not have to wait long for volume two. I am determined to bring it out with the least possible delay.
B. R. AMBEDKAR
Rajagraha,
Bombay,
7-5-1947.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
In the following pages I have attempted an exposition of the events leading to the establishment of the exchange standard and an examination of its theoretical basis.
In endeavouring to treat the historical side of the matter, I have carefully avoided repeating what has already been said by others. For instance, in treating of the actual working of the exchange standard, I have contented myself with a general treatment just sufficiently detailed to enable the reader to follow the criticism I have offered. If more details are desired they are given in all their amplitude in other treatises. To have reproduced them would have been a work of supererogation; besides it would have only obscured the general trend of my argument. But in other respects, I have been obliged to take a wider historical sweep than has been done by other writers. The existing treatises on Indian currency do not give any idea, at least an adequate idea, of the circumstances which led to the reforms of 1893. I think that a treatment of the early history is quite essential to furnish the reader with a perspective in order to enable him to judge for himself the issues involved in the currency crisis and also of the solutions offered. In view of this, I have gone into that most neglected period of Indian currency extending from 1800 to 1893. Not only have other writers begun abruptly the story of the exchange standard, but they have popularised the notion that the exchange standard is the standard originally contemplated by the Government of India. I find that this is a gross error. Indeed, the most interesting point about Indian currency is the way in which the gold standard came to be transformed into a gold exchange standard. Some old, but by now forgotten, facts had therefore, to be recounted to expose this error.
On the theoretical side, there is no book but that of Professor Keynes which makes any attempt to examine its scientific basis.
But the conclusions he has arrived at are in sharp conflict with those of mine. Our differences extended to almost every proposition he has advanced in favour of the exchange standard. This difference proceeds from the fundamental fact, which seems to be quite overlooked by Professor Keynes, that nothing will stabilise the rupee unless we stabilise its general purchasing power. That the exchange standard does not do. That standard concerns itself only with symptoms and does not go to the disease : indeed, on my showing, if anything, it aggravates the disease.
When I come to the remedy, I again find myself in conflict with the majority of those who like myself are opposed to the exchange standard. It is said that the best way to stabilise the rupee is to provide for effective convertibility into gold. I do not deny that this is one way of doing it. But, I think, a far better way would be to have an inconvertible rupee with a fixed limit of issue. Indeed, if I had any say in the matter, I would propose that the Government of India should melt the rupees, sell them as bullion and use the proceeds for revenue purposes and fill the void by an inconvertible paper. But that may be too radical a proposal, and I do not therefore press for it, although I regard it as essentially sound. in any case, the vita! point is to close the Mints, not merely to the public, as they have been, but to the Government as well. Once that is done, I venture to say that the Indian currency, based on gold as legal tender with a rupee currency fixed in issue, will conform to the principles embodied in the English currency system.
It will be noticed that I do not propose to go back to the recommendations of the Fowler Committee. All those, who have regretted the transformation of the Indian currency from a gold standard to a gold exchange standard, have held that everything would have been all right if the Government had carried out in toto the recommendations of that Committee. I do not share that view. On the other hand, I find that the Indian currency underwent that transformation because the Government carried out those recommendations. While some people regard that Report as classical for its wisdom, I regard it as classical for its nonsense. For I find that it was this Committee which, while recommending a gold standard, also recommended and thereby perpetuated the folly of the Herschell Committee, that Government should coin rupees on its own account according to that most naive of currency principles, the requirements of the public, without realising that the latter recommendation was destructive of the former. Indeed, as I argue, the principles of the Fowler Committee must be given up, if we are to place the Indian currency on a stable basis.
I am conscious of the somewhat lengthy discussions on currency principles into which I have entered in treating the subject. My justification of this procedure is two-fold. First of all, as I have differed so widely from other writers on Indian currency, I have deemed it necessary to substantiate my view-point, even at the cost of being charged with over-elaboration. But it is my second justification, which affords me a greater excuse. It consists in the fact that I have written primarily for the benefit of the Indian public, and as their grasp of currency principles does not seem to be as good as one would wish it to be, an over-statement, it will be agreed, is better than an understatement of the argument on which I have based my conclusions.
Up to 1913, the Gold Exchange Standard was not the avowed goal of the Government of India in the matter of Indian Currency, and although the Chamberlain Commission appointed in that year had reported in favour of its continuance, the Government of India had promised not to carry its recommendations into practice till the war was over and an opportunity had been given to the public to criticize them. When, however, the Exchange Standard was shaken to its foundations during the late war, the Government of India went back on its word and restricted, notwithstanding repeated protests, the terms of reference to the Smith Committee to recommending such measures as were calculated to ensure the stability of the Exchange Standard, as though that standard had been accepted as the last word in the matter of Indian Currency. Now that the measures of the Smith Committee have not ensured the stability of the Exchange Standard, it is given to understand that the Government, as well as the public, desire to place the Indian Cur
