Indian election is quickly turning into a battle between democracy and development. Underlying this tension, there is a thesis that democracy is only a luxury and can wait. Despite India's pride in being a democracy, this idea is as old as the country itself. Many people thought it was madness to have democracy in India, a poor and illiterate country at the time of Independence, in the first place. The privileged, the upper caste Hindus, the landlords, the princes, the educated, almost always thought this was a disaster. Indira Gandhi's brief adventure in authoritarianism was cheered on by many of these people: This was perhaps the reason why she was so wrong-footed eventually - everyone around her told her that this was great idea until the voters threw her out. Wealthy Indians nowadays point to China's development and blame their own democracy for failing to catch up, and this has become well accepted among the rich, powerful and the non-residents. Middle Class Indians therefore desire a 'strong leader', who can ride roughshod over democracy. The talk now is of the 'Gujrat model of development', which means better roads and e-Governance, though the assembly only met a few days every year and all dissent is ruthlessly suppressed.
One could attempt to justify democracy morally. The strong state that the middle classes advocate may not look that appetising if they try the famous test proposed by John Rawls: How would it look if you are on the losing side? But if we set aside the moral question for a moment, because all morality in India now is treated as a left-liberal dogma (something that the left-liberals should be happy about), and deal solely in the realm of the practical, the arguments against democracy looks fatally flawed.
This logic that development brings democracy, which is now lapped up by National Chauvinists who argue that democracy matters less in an underdeveloped country. Though they profess to hate everything European and stand for truly Indian identity, this 'development first' is indeed a very Western idea. Worse, this is a Western neo-imperialist idea, entertained by those who would privately rather believe that India should not be exist as an independent country at all. If anything, that a poor country can indeed boldly experiment with democracy while it attempts to bring about development is a very original Indian idea, which lies at the very heart of the modern Indian state. And, I shall argue, despite all the disappointments we may have had, this idea that democracy can precede development was remarkably prescient and is still very relevant.
The problem of development, as modern Political Scientists show, does not come from democracy; it rather comes from the lack of it. To understand its reason, we should look closely at the nature of Capitalist development itself. Why is it that this has proved to be a more durable model despite the great initial achievements of the command economies such as the USSR? Surely, those economies built the appropriate legal structure, and a very effective mechanism of power, to focus solely on 'development'. However, the development as we know it, the ability to develop technologies, to continuously strive for productivity, to take risks and start enterprises to solve existing and future challenges, goes hand in hand with one of Capitalism's least liked features, the 'creative destruction', the itinerant liquidation of the structures of powers and creation of new hierarchies in its place. So, it is not just the socialism that the rich and the powerful should be afraid of: Capitalist development should be at least as disconcerting.
A reading of history shows that countries developed as that country's elite had been defeated and was forced to give up their privileges. This is why revolutions and civil wars, tragic as they are, often brought about 'development'. One could argue that one reason for China's progress and USSR's demise may have the former's 'Cultural Revolution' which destroyed the elite: USSR indeed had the same through Stalin's purges a few generations earlier. Now, democracy can run this process without so much blood-letting, and indeed proved to be a good system in resolving disputes. So, one way to foster development is to situate it on the basis of an effective democracy, one that greases the wheels of creative destruction by denying the powerful a chance to block progress, without wrecking everything and setting the economies back through bloody revolutions.
Indeed, the Indian version is slightly different from USSR: The idea is not about creating a command state producing by everything itself, but rather a state which stands behind its business classes and let them do whatever they wish. This state makes sure all the legislations and institutions are business-friendly - Banks lend them money easily, they can acquire any land as they like, they can hire and fire people without bothering about unions - in short, a Capitalist paradise. However, building this, which sounds a lot like Dubai rather than England, or USA, or Japan, countries that could build sustained long term development models, does not guarantee development or widespread prosperity. It only means that some rich people will have more opportunities to get rich. This will, however, not mean better education, more innovative products, better aware consumers with more rights, more new businesses, better jobs, enhanced disposable income and growth of demand, because all those things depend on things that this model will effectively stop: competitiveness, productivity growth, innovation, efficiency, enterprise.
My argument is only democracy can ensure, bloodlessly, that the economy remains dynamic. This does not mean that India does not need institutional reforms: It sure does, and those need to happen immediately. But there is less discussion about the failings of, say, the Courts system, than the need for a different political system: Indeed, the elite in India does not want the courts to function better, more efficiently and hold them accountable. A democratically elected government which throws its weight behind the reforms of the judiciary will do more to unlock 'development' than one which merely believes building roads by awarding contracts to friendly industrialists will do so.
So, in the end, my contention is a positive one: That democracy and development do hand in hand in India. As for China, it is a different cultural and historical model, and besides, who could say whether China wouldn't have developed faster had it been democratic. Democracy is not a mistake, and we shouldn't treat it as one.
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
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,
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
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
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
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
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
Meritocracy is a convenient lie, as Socrates foretold, and it is the ballast of the social system we have built. The story goes like this. Once upon a time, we had kings and queens and their families and nobles, who got the best meat and the best mate, and everyone lived happily. But then the things fell apart as luxury corrupted the nobles and feebled the spirits of their offsprings - and the peasants and the artisans came claiming their fair share. So we had the age of revolutions in Europe and North America, when we created a new, fairer social system, under a 'natural aristocracy of men', where destiny was no longer shaped by birth but by intelligence and hard work, and anyone could make it in life. And, everyone again lived happily ever after. Of course, this did not really happen. Slavery persisted, at least for a long time. The 'fair' system mostly excluded the real peasants and workers and once they have done their duty dying for various revolutions, they were s
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.