India's election in 2014 is going to be a defining one. Whoever wins, and whoever becomes India's leader afterwards, it is going to be a definitive break with the Post-Independence Republican experiment. And, though it is far from certain that Gujrat's Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, will finally prevail, powered by a carefully orchestrated campaign by the American firm APCO Worldwide, his prominence is symptomatic and an indicator of things to come: Hence, the title of this post.
There are lots of things in balance. The balance between the rich and the poor, the young and the old, the city and the village, the English Speaking and the non-English Speaking, the Big City and the Small City, the metropolis and the regions, the Majority and the Minority, all the balances that the constitution makers had to grapple with, during the founding days of the republic, are up for grabs again. The foundational principles, yet again, need to be interrogated.
However, we are perhaps over-emphasising the break represented by this election, and it is perhaps right to see this in the context of the developments of the last two decades. The controversial, arrogant figure of Narendra Modi may well represent the spirit of this new India, but it had a long transition - better represented by the fading, ineffectual outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Dr Singh, as Finance Minister in the early 90s, was a key figure in unleashing globalisation into India, and then as a two-term Prime Minister in the last decade, oversaw the consequent ripping off of India, destruction of its republican institutions and values and reconstitution of a self-obsessed, get rich quick society: India has come to embody corrupt globalisation and disintegration of institutions more acutely than most other societies, explored in detail in this essay in The Economist, with the percentage of Indians who have paid a bribe now exceeding Nigerians and Indonesians with similar experience, and the recent Billion Dollar scams made the Bofors controversy, which brought down a previous Indian government, look puny with its $50 million haul. Mr Modi is merely the best representative and a symbol of the political culture of this broken society.
Seen in this context, Mr Modi will be a continuation of Dr Singh's legacy, may be its highest manifestation. He is possibly the best man to create the Disneyland of Capitalism that Indian middle class dreams for: The land where the rich operates with license to do anything they like, the majority can enforce their will without accountability, and better roads and easy mortgages wipe out the need for compassion for the less fortunate and every other social obligation that we may have. The institutions like the rights of the minorities, the democracy, all the unnecessary checks and balances the constitution makers put in place to maintain the balance between the diverse citizenry of India, and which are indeed a serious roadblock in the path to 'progress', can go, should go and will go under Mr Modi's administration. This is the promise he is running on.
Where Dr Singh and Mr Modi differ, however, is what they provide in place of the things they wreck. India's multicultural, diverse, democratic identity is not just an idealistic construct: It was meant to be a pragmatic one, fit for poor country, where everyone is in the minority. All these divisions were carefully plastered over in a very modern idea of India, constructed to provide the sense of identity that Indians may not readily have, and to hold the nation together, may be even to build the nation. Dr Singh's globalisation gamble, which put the modern bond traders and emerging market investors in the pole position, chipped away this social compact block by block, putting the priorities of money (and short term gains and bonuses) ahead of the balance and cohesion of the nation state. And, indeed, with everyone looking after their own, the nation state has come to a breaking point (with insurgencies in Central India and elsewhere challenging the viability of Indian state outside its cities). Dr Singh, and his Congress party, was unwilling and unable to provide an alternative narrative of the nation to go with their policies: This is where Mr Modi has something to offer.
It will not be out of place to sum up Mr Modi's doctrine of identity, presented hand in hand with his 'development agenda' using the following words:
"1. (The New Concept of India) wants (Indians) to be active and to engage in action with all their energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves them to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it. As for the individual, so for the nation, and so for (the world). Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (artistic, religious, scientific) and the outstanding importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, by which man subjugates nature and creates the human world (economic, political, ethical, and intellectual).
2. Anti-individualistic, the conception (of New India) stresses the importance of (India) and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of (India), which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to (Nehruvian) liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when (India) became the expression of the conscience and will of the people.
3. No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside (India). (The New India) is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. (The New Idea of India) is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of (India), (this new idea) recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of (India)."
There will be more, but these words are certainly true to the spirit of Mr Modi's "India First" message. Indeed, as everyone would be able to figure out, these words are not really Mr Modi's, but excerpts of Benito Mussolini's 1932 'Doctrine of Fascism' where I inserted the 'India' and 'the idea of India' words. But a close reading of the whole document (read here) indeed renders, in my mind, a clear pointer to Mr Modi's idea of India, which can at once maintain a national identity while allowing capitalist 'development', of the kind Dr Singh presided upon.
Surely, the battle for India is on, and it is early to declare that this one idea of India has decisively won. Rather, my point is to say that Mr Modi is not really a break from the past, but just its continuation, in its most virulent form. His visions represent a departure from the founding ideas of India, for sure, but he is merely giving expression to the path we are already set in. In short, his is not any revolution, but the degeneration of the kind we are used to, perhaps its highest and last stage.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.