A World of Three Zeros by Muhammad Yunus – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Muhammad Yunis, who created microcredit, invented social business and earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in alleviating poverty, is one of today’s most trenchant social critics. Now, he declares, it’s time to admit that the capitalist engine is broken – and in its place establish a new economic system that unleashes altruism as a creative force that is just as powerful as self-interest.

Is this a pipe dream? Not at all. In the last decade, thousands of people and organizations have embraces Yunus’s vision of a new form of capitalism, launching innovative social businesses designed to serve human needs rather than accumulate wealth. These businesses are bringing solar energy to millions; financing female-owned businesses; providing mobility, shelter and other services to the rural poor; and creating a global support network to help young entrepreneurs launch their start-ups.

In A World of Three Zeros, Yunus describes the ingenious financial tools now funding social businesses, and sketches the legal and regulatory changes needed to jumpstart the next wave of socially driven innovations. In the process, he invites young people, businesses and political leaders, and ordinary citizens to join the movement, and help to create the better world we all dream of.’

A World of Three Zeros is describing to the readers the importance of achieving three zeroes, that is, zero unemployment, zero poverty and zero net carbon emissions. This is a book written by Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate for peace – in recognition of his use of microfinance to help fight poverty in his country – Bangladesh. It needs to be kept in mind that the book was published in 2017, before the pandemic and also much before he became the de facto head of government of Bangladesh, in 2024.

This book is split into four parts: with the author first explaining the challenges in the current world. He tries to make the point that extreme poverty is a problem and it is global – and draws the comparison that the poorest in Mississippi in the US does not face challenges very different from those who are the poorest in a developing economy like Bangladesh. He then describes the three zeros that he wishes to achieve – of eliminating poverty, unemployment and bringing down net carbon emissions to zero. Regarding environment, right-wing rhetoric has successfully played the false narrative that economic development and environmental concerns are contradictory but the author elaborates how zero net carbon emission goals can drive towards zero unemployment and zero poverty. He then talks of the powers in the world that can influence, and potential stepping stones for the future.

In this book, he brings about an important topic and rising poverty and inequality is certainly an important topic to be addressed. I also liked how he tried to give examples, from his own success stories – of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh – and the not-for-profit businesses he set up across Bangladesh that helped lift millions out of poverty. The point that he brings about that most rich executives do not want extreme poverty to exist either and are very supportive of collaborations with him – like Danone establishing a not-for-profit dairy facility in Bangladesh.

That said, the book is not devoid of self-promotion – every single example that he gave was about himself and something that he had done. He would introduce a problem and immediately break into long paragraphs on how “Yunus Social Business”(YSB) solved a lot of these problems or how Grameen America helped people in the marginalised states of US such as Nebraska or Louisiana. Reading this book gives the impression that he has solved every problem in Bangladesh through his schemes and that it is a paradise on earth right now.

His evaluation of corporates being allies is also one of false optimism that I felt – given his partners included billionaires like Richard Branson – known for vanity projects such as launching himself into space or having complex tax structures thereby paying less than the average employee of his companies. It was also ironic how he spoke of his meeting with the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo – who promised Paris Olympics 2024 to be the first Social Business Olympics and there would be promotion of local business – I am from Paris and I attended events in the Olympics – while it was successfully organised, it was also the most corporate event – given the partners were multinationals like Coca Cola or Visa (where MasterCard payments did not work – so inclusive!).

There was also heavy criticism of the Bangladeshi government by the author in the book, about how they blocked several of his ideas and even took over the administration of the bank he founded. However, now he is the government of Bangladesh, and it would be interesting to see to what extent he is able to act on the ideas he has suggested in this book.

To conclude, I would say this is a book that raises an important topic for discussion, and he described the problem very well. Having said that, less self-promotion could have made the book seem more genuine. Moreover, having worked for so long – he has very favourable view of the corporate executives, that not talking of corporate greed was a missed opportunity. On that note, I would award the book a rating of six on ten – promising but could have gone further.

Rating – 6/10

Have a nice day
Anirudh

Paradise by Abdulrazak Gurnah – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Born in East Africa, Yusuf has few qualms about the journey he is to make. It never occurs to him to ask why he is accompanying Uncle Aziz or why the trip has been organised so suddenly, and he does not think to ask when he will be returning. But the truth is that his 'uncle' is a rich and powerful merchant and Yusuf has been pawned to him to pay his father's debts.

Paradise is a rich tapestry of myth, dreams and Biblical and Koranic tradition, the story of a young boy's coming of age against the backdrop of an Africa increasingly corrupted by colonialism and violence.’

Afin de lire en français,cliquez ici

Paradise is a novel written by the British Tanzanian author Abdulrazak Gurnah, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 2021. The story follows the journey of Yusuf, a young boy, who is sent on unpaid labour by his father, to settle his debts from his sinking hotel business in Zanzibar.

The story is set in the early 20^th century, a few decades after the scramble for Africa. Yusuf travels from Zanzibar across east Africa, largely in present-day Tanzania, with Aziz, the man to whom he had been sold by his father. Given the setting, there was the colonial aspect that the regions they were travelling in was under German control and a war in Europe between Britain and Germany seemed imminent (which I understood as the lead up to the First World War).

I enjoyed the author’s description of the rich landscape and the diverse culture; showing how during that time, it was a mix of Arabs, Europeans and Indians living alongside the native population. Different interactions between the characters also bring out the prejudices each group had for the other, throughout the novel.

One relationship I appreciated in the novel was the friendship that was formed between Yusuf and Khalil, the latter too who was brought in by Aziz under a similar debt settlement arrangement. Thus, Khalil was like the “caring older sibling” of Yusuf, and both of them had a longing for home once this ordeal was over but also knew that there was probably very little to return to – a feeling of helplessness that could be seen very well.

While the setting and the diversity was interesting, I also felt like reading multiple different stories forced in together, with just a few core characters in common in each of those stories. After a point, it became very difficult to keep track of all these different characters, and many who do not ever appear again after being all important at one part of the novel – which is understandable in a novel that focuses on a journey, but difficult for a reader like myself.

I also could not help but notice how invisible women seemed to be in the novel. This was not because I was expecting strong female protagonists or feminist characters; even traditional mothers, devoted wives, daughters or older women could have added to the sense of the communities Yusuf encounters. Given how much the novel focuses on different cultures, families and social relationships, I found the relative absence of women somewhat surprising. It felt as though an important part of the social world was missing.

To summarise, I felt that it had a good setting that helped me explore and understand a culture, given previously I had not read any literature from this region. The impact of colonialism on these societies was also brought out in a subtle manner that I appreciated. Having said that, somewhere on the way, the author had lost focus on the plot, and I did not feel like I was reading a fulfilling story. I still had a decent reading experience, but it is unlikely for it to be a memorable book on my bookshelf in the long run. On that note, I award the novel a rating of six on ten.

Rating - 6/10

Have a nice day
Anirudh

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt – Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up:

‘Why can it sometimes feel as though half the population is living in a different moral universe? Why do ideas such as 'fairness' and 'freedom' mean such different things to different people? Why is it so hard to see things from another viewpoint? Why do we come to blows over politics and religion? Jonathan THaidt reveals that we often find it hard to get along because our minds are hardwired to be moralistic, judgemental and self-righteous. He explores how morality evolved to enable us to form communities, and how moral values are not just about justice and equality - for some people authority, sanctity or loyalty matter more. Morality binds and blinds, but, using his own research, Haidt proves it is possible to liberate ourselves from the disputes that divide good people.’

The Righteous Mind is a book written by the American psychologist Jonathan Haidt back in 2012, where the author tries to explore why people have been driven to profoundly dislike each other over political views.

The author splits the book into three parts – the first part on intuitions and strategic reasoning, then in the next part exploring how morality has more to it than harm and fairness and later on the binds and blinds of morality. He starts by explaining several classic moral dilemmas and goes on to explain how morality Is relative as he brings out his experiences during his visit to Orissa (present day Odisha), a coastal state in Eastern India. He shows how for the same question that was asked, Americans reacted very differently to people from Odisha.

He then goes on to explain the origins of conservative thoughts while identifying himself as a liberal. I understood early on that his intended audience were American liberals to whom he explains that the conservatives too believe that they are ‘righteous’ and it is just that the two sides have different core values; and this difference does not necessarily make the other side evil.

The only thing I appreciated about the book was the author’s intention, to thell his ‘political side’ to reach out to the other side. This was a noble intention in 2012 as politics in US had still not entered the ‘post truth’ era. Having said that, every point he said about US conservatives is no longer relevant in the Trump era.

This book suffered from excessive simplification. I myself am of Indian origin (though with no connection to the state of Odisha which was the author’s example), and the author visited one state in a large country with diverse cultures, and drew sweeping conclusions based on one sample. I could have understood if he said that in the specific place he visited, people found certain behaviours acceptable, that was not acceptable in his American milieu. Instead the language he used was “to Indians, this is acceptable” even though there are several factors at play – be it level of education or the socioeconomic status.

The generalisations do not end there – to him there are only two sides in a political discussion – liberals and conservatives. That is not true in most of the world, and not in the US either – under his own classification, Bill Clinton and Bernie Sanders would be classified as people with the same political views; and primaries in the US would be largely redundant. The category is too broad and the book maybe appealing to those who are reading about politics for the first time, but for others, these generalisations would be frustrating.

On trying to understand and engage with the other side, I agree that there could be genuine discussion on tax policy, the extent of the welfare state, the role of police, border control, etc. one cannot be oblivious to the need for boundaries when it comes to racism and bigotry. When Trump, on live TV claims that a certain group of immigrants were eating the “pets of Americans”, which was a pure racist diatribe and when there are ‘conservatives’ who defend that, there is no point understanding where they are coming from – simply put, they are not righteous.

I got the impression that the author was speaking from a high horse of trying to be the “enlightened centrist” (yes, I am using this as a pejorative). He claims that there are extremes on both sides but whom he calls as “radical left” in the US talk of health care for all, whereas the “extremes” on the right talk of mass deportation, denaturlisation / remigration, religion-based laws (such as on abortion) – the two so-called extremes are not the same.

I did some more research on the author himself after having read the book and much as he claims to be a “centrist”, he seems to have joined the right wing culture war bandwagon when it comes to transphobia, being a member of an “anti-woke” board (whatever that term means) in the University of Austin – which by no stretch of imagination is that of a centrist or liberal, but a typical conservative in present day US. That also explains why he was willing to extend such a long rope to conservatives.

To conclude, this book engaged in over-simplication, and trying to understand the other side is a noble pursuit, but not at the cost of condoning bigotry. Sometimes, doing “both sides” is not the best option and there has to be bias in favour of the truth, especially in the era that we are living in. The book and the author’s views are incompatible for the the times we live in and I award it a three on ten.

Rating – 3/10

Have a nice day

Win Every Argument by Mehdi Hasan - Book Review

 

Publisher’s write-up: 

‘Arguments are everywhere—and everyone wants to win. In fact, every single person on the face of the planet has, at some point in their lives, tried to win an argument.

Whether it is in the comments section on Facebook, or in the marble hallways of Congress, or at the Thanksgiving dinner table. We cannot escape the human urge, need, and desire to argue.

Mehdi Hasan believes that anyone can win an argument. As a journalist, anchor, and interviewer who has clashed with politicians, generals, spies, and celebrities from across the world, Hasan will reveal his tricks of the trade—16 different ways to get the upper hand in a debate, from the Rule of 3 to Judo Moves.

The book will also be chock-full of vivid examples and behind-the-scenes anecdotes from Hasan’s own debates, which have ranged from the Oxford Union in England to Kiev in Ukraine, as well as from U.S. presidential debates and scenes from movies and TV shows like Star Trek and A Few Good Men. Win Every Argument will unpack words of wisdom from everyone from the ancient philosopher Aristotle to the WWE wrestler Ronda Rousey.'

Whether you are a student making a presentation or a lawyer trying to convince the court, this book will teach you how to sharpen your speaking skills to make the winning case.’ 

Win Every Argument is a book written by Mehdi Hasan, a journalist known for his combative interviews and debates. In this book, he tries to reveal the secrets of his trade - as to how to be an effective debater and win arguments on contentious topics.  

The book his split into various chapters, explaining various parts of an argument - how it has been important since time immemorial (with anecdotes from Greek and Roman times), the importance of understanding the audience, anticipating the arguments of the opponent in advance and the importance of "effective storytelling". The author cites various examples from his own journalistic career with prominent media organisations on how he used these techniques effectively, against prominent politicians and ideologues.  

The book is useful in certain limited contexts - especially in public speaking, when there is an audience involved, or for political discussions. The techniques that he mentions may not help winning an argument with your friend or your partner (some techniques such as anticipating the other person's arguments may be useful). The author also took the approach of winning the argument at all costs, challenging many traditional views on debates, wherein the author justifies the use of ad hominem attacks; and illustrates how, when used correctly, it could be effective. Using appropriate "quotes" depending on the audience is also an advice that I found very useful, as many fall into the trap of quoting their favourite politician / writer / philosopher and when the listener has / is likely to have a poor opinion on that person; and thus using one’s favourite quote may not be persuasive and could even be detrimental. 

I must disclose something about myself here, I have followed the works of the author almost since the beginning of their career in late 2000s (ever since I was a teenager) and have admired his debating techniques. I am also largely aligned with his politics given I identify myself with the left. So, this was a book that I wanted to like.  

Having said that, I was disappointed with the book. I was surprised to the extent to which the author was conceited, absolutely convinced that he nailed it in every argument that he had been in. A part of the problem is specific to me or anyone else who has been following his works regularly - a lot of debating points / arguments that he cites as examples are those that we have already seen on TV / YouTube and thus, felt repetitive. I would reiterate on the point of him being conceited as a couple of arguments that he cites in the book as to how he "absolutely won the audience" were arguments that I found were weak when I watched his show in the past and thus, was surprised to know that he was convinced of their merits. And I am coming as someone who agrees with his position on most of the contentious subjects and if that is the impact he has on me, I wonder what would have been the impact on those who completely disagree with him.  

An example for the above paragraph would be his Oxford Union speech where he passionately defended Islam, which I felt was a very good speech, and was convincing (personally, I am an atheist, so he was not preaching to the choir in my case). However, what surprised me was that the "best point" from the speech that he recalls is how he countered his opponent over the enormous gap in time over founding of the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the advent of Islam - where I felt the author was pedantic and was a cheap debating point that added no value to the argument. This is one prominent example that I am citing in the review but there were several more.  

On the whole, I would say that this is a decent book as a starter for someone who is not used to political debates / public speaking. However, barring a few, I did not have a lot of takeaways from this book and being a non-fiction book, I expected a lot to learn from this book and that was missing here. It is unfortunate that I did not like this book and it certainly does not help much with winning arguments. I award this book with a rating of four on ten.  

Rating - 4/10 

Have a nice day

Anirudh