As we enter the second half-century of our independence, is there a single achievement of the first fifty years that one can be proud of? Some may of course point to the continuation of parliamentary democracy as a major achievement. The form is certainly in place. But the substance? Consider the nomination of his uneducated wife by a discredited chief minister as his successor; consider, again, the fact that the salvation of the oldest political party lies, according to its president, in the entry into active politics of the Italian widow of one of its previous presidents; consider the complete lack of intraparty debate in all parties (with the exception perhaps of the CPI M); consider that all senior and most junior politicians "" hundreds of them "" require 24 hour armed protection from the citizens of this country; consider also the demands for banning books if they criticise our heroes; consider, lastly, the fascination with changing names. Do not many of these point to our being at heart a feudal and not democratic society; being intolerant of views different than ours; being far more concerned with form than substance?
To be sure, of course, considerable progress has been made in removal of poverty for certain segments. Retired presidents get house renovation allowances of Rs40 lakhs, retired prime ministers and senior politicians in office, get the perquisite of free medical care in the best of hospitals abroad (no swadeshi spirit comes in the way); 12 (or is it 19?) highly qualified doctors are on call 24 hours a day should anything happen to the prime minister. Indeed, government owned accommodation is so plentiful in Delhi that, not knowing what better to do with it, we are in the process of post facto regularisation of all out-of turn allotments. We are also proud of our prime minister "" only the best is good enough for him. He must have a 747 aircraft to travel abroad even if this disrupts the national carrier's schedules, and makes intending tourists avoid India, even as the heads of government of far richer countries travel on commercial flights. The government is so rich that it can implement in toto all the pay rises recommended by the Pay Commission, without taking any measures to improve productivity, included in the same Report. There is of course some confusion on the point of the pay revision, it was first conceded, and then withheld when the employees wanted more, and is now supposed to be under consideration and has neither been conceded nor withheld.
With so much of affluence, why should we worry that with each passing year we are falling more and more behind in the Asian league? Indeed, why should we compare ourselves with anybody, we being so unique? India, after all, is 'different' from everybody else. What if the Koreans who had lower per capita incomes than ours 50 years back now boast 30 times ours? What if the Indonesians, the Thais, the Malays, the Chinese are racing ahead? After all we have our own unique and ancient spiritual heritage. Poverty is one of our cherished values "" would the Mahatma have been anywhere near as influential in a different garb? So is self-sacrifice. We sacrifice primary schools for our children, to maintain, at considerable public cost, world class temples of learning like the IITs and IIMs as a social service to the US. We sacrifice the provision of drinking water and sanitation to our villages so that our politicians can get the best facilities in the world. Not that we neglect our poor "" indeed we have any number of antipoverty programs for them named after various members of the dynasty, as if the family, not the taxpayer, is bearing the cost. What if one of the family members believed that only 15 per cent of the money reaches the poor! After all we are great followers of the Bhagwad Geeta "" do your duty (spend the money) without expecting any results (the money should help the poor). Nor do we neglect others in our emphasis on the poor "" three quarters of the money we spend on subsidies (15 per cent of GDP!) officially goes to the non-poor, who are relatively better off.
Our concern for the workers is as much as our concern for the poor, if in a different sense. Here we believe in Marx who stated that all laws are meant to protect property. Our labour laws do so "" they protect existing employment. No matter that they do so at the cost of creating new jobs! The law of comparative advantage is a western-imposed myth. Kautilya's Arthashastra does not refer to it. Why should we create conditions for labour intensive employment, in toy manufacturing industry, for example, as China is doing on a massive scale?
If our liberalisation leads to huge investments of a capital-hungry economy in, say, oil refineries, where we have no comparative advantage, so be it. Our concern for the worker was best exemplified recently by our national carrier when it threw off a fare-paying passenger to accommodate the aircraft commander's wife in first class. The civil aviation minister, who is committed to keeping anybody knowing the airlines business outside our skies, was not even annoyed: after all, we are a peace-loving nation, notwithstanding the four external and umpteen internal wars we have fought during the 50 years of independence.
We do not like western consumerism. It goes against our values, and we are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that our restrictions on consumer goods import continue. What if this contravenes the WTO rules? What if we need imports to reduce pressure on the exchange rate? No matter "" mundane economics should not be allowed to pollute our value system or 'sovereignty'. Worst comes to worst we can always go back to import controls and hike duties.
Cry, the beloved country on completing 50 years of independence!