Isher Judge Ahluwalia – the individual judge Isher Ahluwalia – when I first read her work, I used to think that someone from her lineage had been a judge. That reflected my ignorance of Sikh surnames. “My last name ‘Judge’, which I kept as my middle name after marriage, has nothing to do with legal or judicial lineage. It is simply an anglicization of the Punjabi name ‘Jaj’. ”That quote is from her recently published autobiography, Breaking Through, published almost on par with Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s autobiography, Backstage.
We are all destined to die. But how do you react when that certain destination is within walking distance? How do you react when death is not sudden, but makes you wait, like cancer does? It is not easy to handle that with grace and dignity. Isher was just that and was the driving force, the will, and the determinism behind the publication of both books. When I found out she was ill, I called her and her practical tone and cheerful voice were remarkable. Now that a prominent economist and Padma Bhushan winner is gone, what will we remember her for? Her work on industrial growth and productivity and urban infrastructure?
For all economists, that kind of work has a limited lifespan and is eventually relegated to bibliographies in scholarly articles, unless you are (post-Nobel) Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow, or Milton Friedman. Isher’s enduring legacy, unless criticized by successors, is the building of the institution known as ICRIER or Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (as Director and Chairman), at a time when older research institutions entered a relative decline.
There have been other pairs of economists, but none as powerful and influential as Isher and Montek. I named Isher first, because even though Montek was the person he was, Isher was never overshadowed. (Early in his career, he consciously chose to stay out of government, because Montek was already in government and did not want a lower rank than his.) Especially during the UPA years, and his proximity to Dr. Manmohan Singh was no secret. – appeared on all the power lists published by any newspaper or magazine.
For me, I have personal and professional memories about Isher and we passed through portals of identical educational institutions for a while (Presidency College, Kolkata and Delhi School of Economics). So vast was Isher’s network, and so pervasive his charm, that he personally knew every economist you could name, in India and abroad.
Now that the inevitable has happened, I have non-professional memories to treasure. I forgot what the occasion was: Montek was speaking and he was sitting on the dais. Isher was sitting in the front row. My wife and I were in the audience. Some uncomfortable question has been asked. After the event ended, my wife commented, “Did you notice Montek look at Isher when he asked the question? It only happens between husband and wife. “I confessed that I had not noticed the imperceptible look.
During the UPA years, they had invited us to a reception / dinner at their home, where there was a large crowd. Having recently resigned from the Rajiv Gandhi Institute, I felt a bit of discomfort and tension. If the tension, real or imagined, was relieved, it was because of Isher’s words of welcome and smile.
Years later, when I was in government, my wife invited them to dinner and a few months after this, before Isher’s disease was diagnosed, Isher reciprocated. Another round of tension, real or imagined, was eased by two women. Economists don’t always talk about grim science. We chatted on various topics, Guru Gobind Singh and “Chandi”, Calcutta (Isher and my wife went to the same school) and cooking. When Montek’s book was released (by then his illness was known), Isher called me and asked me to be a panelist. Agreeing to speak at that event was like being thrown into a lion’s den. The one who should ask was Isher, it was impossible to refuse.
It was the first time I met her after the cancer struck and the deterioration was evident. Regardless of your own individual professional contributions, and they are important, even to influence policy, it is impossible to think of Montek without Isher. That kind of blending and resonance occurs between husband and wife, but not invariably.
My enduring memory will remain the charm and grace of Isher, aging gracefully even before the disease struck. Economics is a profession and beyond the profession, there is the individual. This is partly reflected in the two memoirs, in Isher’s rather than Montek’s.
Montek, Aman, Pavan and ICRIER will undoubtedly do things in his memory. But it will probably be Isher as economist and director (in two capacities) of ICRIER, not the individual.
.
