Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow:

To equate 'capitalism' with 'greed' is a mistake. We tend to confuse self-interest in the marketplace with selfishness or greed. At the heart of capitalism is the idea of exchange between ordinary, self-interested human beings, who seek to advance their interests peacefully in the marketplace. Adam Smith called this 'rational self-interest'. It is the same motive that gets one to jump out of bed in the morning or makes one carry an umbrella if it rains--nothing selfish about that. To be human is to be self-interested, and this is what exchange in the marketplace entails.

Greed or selfishness, on the other hand, is an excess of self-interest and often transgresses on the rights of others. It is present in all of us, but we find it easier to see it in others and difficult to see it in ourselves. Greed can motivate theft, entail himsa--hurting another whose opposite, ahimsa, is a virtue that Mahatma Gandhi extolled. But the other side of greed is ambition, a positive thing, and when rightly directed, is life-affirming. Herein lies the conundrum of human existence: that the same inner forces that result in a vice can just as easily become virtues that can motivate the well-being of our species.

Those who believe that capitalism has been forced on us by the imperial West are also wrong. Friedrich Hayek, the Noble laureate, called the market a spontaneous order--it is natural for human beings to exchange goods and services, and this is how every society evolved money, laws, conventions and morals to guide behavior in the marketplace. These are natural products of human endeavor. Competing and cooperating in the marketplace existed in India before the West was imperial or modern.

Whether we like it or not, India is headed in the direction of some sort of democratic capitalism. After two decades of reforms, hardly anyone in India wants state ownership of production, where the absence of competition corrodes the character even more, as we know too well from the dark days of the 'license raj'. Our animus against capitalism has diminished after communism's fall as people increasingly believe that markets do deliver greater prosperity, but most think that capitalism is not a moral system. They continue to believe that morality must depend on religion.

Although the market is neither moral nor immoral, human self-interest usually brings about good behavior in the marketplace. A seller who does not treat his customers with fairness and civility will lose market share. A company that markets defective products will lose customers. A firm that does not promote the most deserving employees will lose talent to its competitors. A buyer who does not respect the market price will not survive. Lying and cheating will ruin a firm's image, making it untouchable to creditors and suppliers. Hence, free markets offer powerful incentives for ethical conduct, but they must be backed by state institutions that enforce contracts and punish criminal behavior. If the market has an inbuilt morality, why are there so many crooks in the marketplace? The answer is that there are crooked people in every society, and this is why we need effective regulators, policeman and judges. We should design our institutions to catch crooks and not harass innocent people as we do so often.

The other cause of our grief is to mistake being 'pro-market' with being 'pro-business'. To be 'pro-market' is to believe in competitive markets, which help to keep prices low and gradually raise the quality of products. The competition also means that some businesses will die because they are poorly managed and cannot compete. Kingfisher Airlines and Air India should be allowed to die and not be bailed out by the government. Thus, being pro-market leads to 'rules-based capitalism'. 'Pro-business' often leads to 'crony capitalism'. Not to have explained this difference has been the great mistake of our reformers and this has led to the false impression that the reforms only make the rich richer. Crony capitalism exists in India today because of the lack of reforms in the sector such as mining and real estate. To get rid of crony capitalism, we need more rather than less reform.

The doom-mongers, who claim that we are now resigned to live in an age of decaying moral standards, are also wrong. Yes, the new Indian middle class is permissive and indulges enthusiastically in harmless pleasures. Yes, it is materialistic, consumerist and capitalistic. But these impulses are not to be mistaken for greed. Only when one's pleasure hurts another does it become a matter of the law and then, of course, it must be punished. The shared imagination of the new India, with its harmless pleasure and victimless vice, should not be condemned. Think of ours as a society in transition. Mass wealth is profoundly disturbing but once there is enough, India might again return to its old character of renunciation.

Instead of religious rules, young Indians are motivated by duties to fellow human beings rather than to gods. Those who accuse them of shallow materialism ignore the injustices that prevailed when religion held a monopoly on morality. They overlook real ethical progress with regard to sexual and caste equality that our secular society has begun to deliver. So, the next time Kejriwal makes an expose and the TV screams 'greed' do not fall into the trap of believing capitalist culture is morally sick or that we should return to a moral order rooted in socialism or religion.