The late Mr. Aneurin Bevan was perhaps the first leading figure to recognise that in seeking to achieve a rapid rate of economic growth under a system of parliamentary democracy India was attempting something no other had done ever before. And judging by his pronouncement it would appear that even he did not comprehend the magnitude of the task this country had set itself on the morrow of independence. For, it has not been trying merely to achieve economic growth in the framework of democratic institutions; it has also been pursuing several other equally big goals.
India has, for instance, been trying to become a nation without evoking the religious ethos of the majority community – that has been the true significance of the concept of secularism – and without doing violence to the personality of the various linguistic groups. There was no departure from the secular approach even at the time of armed conflicts with Pakistan in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. As for major linguistic groups, all of them have been allowed to have their own states and use their mother-tongues, if they so choose, as the media of higher education. The changeover to regional languages entails a danger. But the leadership has taken the risk rather than try to stifle regional personalities.
DEMOCRATIC
Similarly, the ruling elite has been engaged in the task of establishing a reasonably strong centre in the democratic framework, that is under a system which permits the vertical and horizontal divisions in Indian society to find expression in the country’s political life. It is a moot point whether this tolerance of the social reality on the part of the western educated elite accounts for its success in holding India together without the use of force or whether the country has been running a grave risk in allowing social divisions to affect its polity. But the fact remains that no major country similarly placed has ever undertaken such an experiment.
Above all, an ancient civilisation has, after a prolonged period of relative stagnation, been seeking to join the modern world in terms of science and technology and the value system that go with these – rationality and social equality, for instance – without either resorting to the use of force as in Russia first under Peter The Great and then under the Bolsheviks, or in Turkey under Kamal Ataturk or in China under the communists, or repudiating its past heritage.
Clearly, it would have been a miracle if an audacious experiment of this magnitude had not run into difficulties. In the nature of things it was certain to encounter heavy weather and it has been doing so since the armed conflict with China in 1962. That limited and brief war upset the delicate balance on which the Indian polity and economy rested. This country has not regained its poise ever since except briefly in 1972 in the wake of four good monsoons and the military victory over Pakistan. Unfortunately, before these psychological gains could be consolidated, India was hit by another widespread drought in the summer of 1972 – a bad spell which had been broken only this year.
This is not to suggest that India could have continued to march ahead reasonably steadily if it had managed to avoid the war with China and the consequent sharp increase in the defence budget on the one hand and the turmoil in the Congress Party on the other. The soft approach to economic development, the expansion of higher education at a rate which was well beyond the economy’s capacity to cope with and the population explosion would have posed heart-breaking problems to India’s rulers even if they had averted conflict with China. And as the country takes a pause now, these are the problems which must engage its attention.
The population explosion is doubtless the crux of the matter. India cannot hope to become a reasonably prosperous, stable and just society so long as this problem is not effectively tackled.
Despite the revolution of rising expectations, the vast majority of the population does not recognise the advantages of small families sufficiently to wish to do something in this regard. Adequate medical facilities for sterilisation and abortion are also not available, and even if they are created, it will be a long time before the popular prejudice against these practices is sufficiently weakened. Indeed, this may well explain why little has been said on this issue even once since the proclamation of emergency on June 26. The government has tried to popularise the use of contraceptives and pills. But the success of this enterprise has been limited to educated upper middle class couples and it is unlikely to make much impact on the poorer sections of the community even in the urban centres, not to speak of the rural areas.
OBSTACLES
The intractability of the population problem is, however, no reason for giving in to despair. On the contrary, it only underscores the need for trying to eliminate other obstacles in the nation’s path to progress, the chief among these being economic stagnation.
Broadly speaking, India’s has been a dual failure in this regard – the failure to push through land reforms in the countryside with sufficient vigour and the failure to encourage and stimulate savings and investment in urban centres. The irony of it is that the radicals, who have favoured land reforms, have in towns advocated policies which could not but discourage saving and investment. They have doubtless been guided by the laudable objective of promoting equality. But the result is there for everyone to see. It is equally sad to record that the industrial and commercial interests have been opposed to land reforms, little realising that these are necessary for ushering in and sustaining an industrial revolution.
The failure on the first count is widely recognised and the government is trying to tackle it in earnest. But it will have to act with much greater determination than in the past. For, landed interests are powerful, resourceful and resilient. The difficulty is further accentuated by the social reality of caste divisions and the fact that there is in any case not enough cultivable land to go round.
The second problem should, on the face of it, be easier to deal with. But in the past the laws tended to promote not savings and investment but wasteful and conspicuous consumption because while savings were subject to investigation and taxation, there was no restriction on expenditure. Also, austerity, the Indian variant of Max Weber’s Protestant ethics, was one of the casualties of the lopsided process of modernisation that swept the industrial and commercial elite in the last two decades.
DEPLORABLE
This was a deplorable development. It sharpened jealousies and social conflicts which economic growth would have anyhow produced. It legitimised the politics of populism because no democratic society could expect the workers to exercise due restraint while the managers and entrepreneurs put no curbs on their consumption. It was conspicuous consumption more than anything else which provided the basis for smuggling on a truly massive scale and encouraged black marketing and tax evasion on the one hand and bureaucratic corruption on the other.
The consequences were a low rate of savings, an increase in social tensions and a grave distortion of priorities and value. The political situation already difficult because of the poor monsoons in 1972 and 1973 and 1974 and the relentless pressure on prices became almost impossible because of agitational politics.
The competition in populism distorted even educational policy and led to reckless growth in the number of colleges and universities without adequate planning and the resources in both money and men needed to maintain worthwhile standards. After the population explosion and economic stagnation, this became the single biggest source for feeding populism and the politics of the street. Indeed, it may not be an exaggeration to say that much of the competition between rival political parties has been for the support and loyalty of the student community.
The emergency will serve a salutary purpose if it induces the country to learn to husband its resources, recognise the limitation of its resources, use them with the utmost economy and manage its affairs better than heretofore.
The Times of India, 6 August 1975