Every economics, modern history book and article I read on India has a reference to Nehruvian socialism and its evils and the 'Hindu rate of growth'. I do not agree that Nehruvian socialism and protectionism was bad and has only harmed India and I do not really understand the truth behind the phrase because for 18 centuries India was the leading economy of the world and it was largely made of Hindus (Period of Guptas was called the Golden age of India). I am not trying to glorify a religion or spew forth propaganda but merely pointing at how short our memory is and how misnomers are the norm. One could say that Mughal period was one of Indian renaissance, I would hardly call it that because all the structures mughals built were palaces and graves for themselves like absolute rulers still do and they encouraged arts and crafts for their own pleasure(a) and mughal empire was city-centric with very little connection to the people with the king being a distant reality as his connection with most of the people was merely collecting revenues.
I would like to point out the benefits of socialism that was established by Nehru by looking at the reasons for India's recent growth-
1) Large number of educated individuals- this was the result of the strong base for education that was set-up which resulted in increase in literacy and also created a large number of professionals
2) Indian enterprises- Although protectionism did fuel corruption, inefficiency and easy going attitude it did allow the nation to create some wealth in public sector and also a few in the private sector. Although the ones in private sector had a tough struggle, Infosys, Patni, TCS etc were founded in the pre- reform India.
We are also a secular democracy which has reasonable stability when compared with almost all other nations that were freed from colonial rule and a perfunctory glance across the border would suffice to convince even the biggest cynics of India that we have been lucky and that is due to-
1) Secular Democracy- We are not a struggling democracy (atleast we established democracy and now are attempting to root out old malaises) or an autocratic nation. In spite of issues, we do have an elected government
2) Judiciary- Our judiciary has been the protector of our rights even when government has been trying its utmost to curtail them and has delivered landmark verdicts on tax laws to property disputes
We are not a banana republic or an autocracy or anti-secular nation simply because we chose to protect and cement the ideals on which our country was founded and close the nation so that these foundations will not be washed away by the tides created by cold war and other conflicts that was raging the world over, before they can solidify. If we had left our nation open for foreign investments immediately, we would have seen a continuation of economic exploitation and slavery that was the hallmark of colonial rule.
There has to be questions asked of modern rate of growth too as we find that 47% of households do not have toilets and 30% of the population that numbers 36crore people are defined as poor under a ridiculous poverty line. We have an enormous middle class that are patronised by the current spurt of growth who have a stake in maintaining the status quo(a number greater than the population of US), we have a large number of poor who are used for human labour- statements like labourers are not available in construction industry and their wages have gone up due to MGNREGA clearly show this exploitive attitude since MGNREGA doesn't even provide minimum wages in most places- and a small section of rich and powerful who decide what happens in this country.
Whether or not situation has improved is a pertinent question and so this must be answered before derogatory use of 'Nehruvian' socialism and 'Hindu rate of growth' since such remarks forget the fact that our current growth is making the rich richer and has made a middle class that buffer the rich from the poor and is making the poor poorer. This growth is benefiting some section of society and hence cannot be considered to be in the interest of the nation and rather than focussing on numbers alone, we must find a balance between greater aspirations of the rich and middle class and the survival needs of the poor. We might have something fruitful to learn from old ridiculed policies, not their entire implementations but some of its intentions and ideals.
Nehruvian socialism should have been seen as the means to get to a stable position, a time during which India consolidated its position on a strong foundation, strengthened our nation's unity and shored up our defences but it became the absolute end and saw it as our duty and purpose to establish a socialist paternal state driving even the thought of what should have been the real goals out of the picture.
(a) - Public Administration in India, S.R.Maheshwari, Ch.2, The Mughal Administration
No comments:
Post a Comment