Missing In Action (Pranay Kotasthane and RSJ)

I received this book as Rakhi gift in 2023. Due to work and other commitments, I could finish it only now. A brilliant brilliant book!! 

I already got an interesting teaser-trailer, even before laying my hands on the book, when the authors (Pranay Kotasthane and RSJ) appeared in 'The Seen and The Unseen' podcast. Pranay and RSJ both have deep wisdom, a dispassionate attitude and a lucid writing-style.

As I went through the book, I could classify my thoughts about the book in four groups:

1. Highlights: I learnt many entertaining and educative facts, two of which stood out. 
2. Doubts: In couple of places, I had doubts where I could not exactly understand the meaning of the words/context. 
3. Feedback: I guess there are a couple of places where there is a scope for improving the clarity. 
4. Disagreements: There are a few disagreements as well. 

I wish to detail all the four points in this book review.

Highlights:

The book in its entirety can be considered as highlight. So many concepts, studies, incidents… Two stood out for me.

1. The interesting story of Naya Daur and how the movie ran against the Nehruvian ideal of reforming the ills of the society with top-down government diktats. I am now looking forward to watch Naya Daur.
2. The fascinating story of an exchange economy (based on cigarettes as currency) popping-up spontaneously in a PoW jail, was both informative and entertaining. I had read references of this cigarette-based-jail-currency in quite a few policy related blog/podcasts. But now, I know the exact story that unfolded. 

Doubts:

1. On page 27 there is a statement citing Political Economy. The exact sentence being “The other problem is the political economy of India’s sedition law”. What exactly does the term political-economy mean? Does it mean political expediency? Does it mean serving one's narrow selfish gains while following the letter of the law, but breaking the spirit-of-law?
2. On page 38, there is a mention of saving forests by community initiatives in Elinor Ostrom’s work. But I just can’t understand how society can save/maintain forests without use of force. And use of lawful force can only be done with the involvement of government. So how can forest-conservation be done by society alone? I would love to get some details here.  

Feedback:

1. From page# ix to xx, the authors intended to list eight myths of public policy. But on page xvii, in the topic titled Belief7, the authors have listed the correct PoV rather than the myth. I guess the Belief7 should have been titled “There ARE good and bad policies” rather than “There’s no good and bad policies; Only better or worse outcomes”.  I guess, by mistake, the authors wrote the truth instead of the myth.
2. Confusing numbering: On page 242, the sudden mention of option 1, 2 and 3 threw me off balance. It took an extra reading of page 240 and 241 to figure out the three options. The options (and their numbering) have been written implicitly. I would have preferred a more explicit numbering/indication at the places where the options are described.  

Disagreements:

1. On page 42 and 57, education and healthcare have been positioned as government responsibility. I disagree with this line of thought. Despite the huge positive externalities created by educated and healthy citizens, I do NOT consider individual healthcare and education as a government’s tax funded responsibility. I have detailed thoughts on this at  https://oshantomon.blogspot.com/2023/12/education-healthcare-and-free-markets.html?m=1  .
2. In Chapter-24, the authors attempted to explain two contradictory thoughts about India’s approach to secularism. It seems the authors wished to treat both approaches in a non-partisan manner. But I suspect that Nehruvian-secularism angle received slightly more preferential treatment. Many people think that India, wrongly, deviated to a path of appeasing-pseudo secularism under Nehru after independence. I would have liked some more text about this appeasement-critical PoV as well.  

Net net, reading this book was a joy, the couple of difference of opinions notwithstanding. I strongly recommend this book.