Heisenbergs See-Saw

Werner Heisenberg, the German Nobel prize-winning physicist enunciated the famous principle that, as between the velocity and the position of a particle, the more you know about one, the less you will know about the other.

Generalising from this, probably much to the fury of physicists, I suppose one could say that as between any two things, the better the one of them gets, the worse the other will get.

Consider, for instance, politics and economics, the terrible Siamese twins of twentieth century statecraft. The last 50 years clearly establish that when one prospers, the other languishes.

Defining prosperity in the case of politics as the stability of governments and probity in public life, and in economics as quick growth and sensible policies, the period 1947-97 provides a first class example of the Generalised Heisenberg Principle.

These conditions, I should mention, are of the necessary and sufficient type. That is, no one condition is sufficient by itself and both are necessary together.

Thus, in politics, stability of governments isnt enough by itself; it must be accompanied by probity in public life. Otherwise, where India is concerned, you get a 1971-77 type or even worse, 1991-96 type distortion.

Likewise in economics. It is not enough to get quick growth, it must be accompanied by sensible policies. Otherwise, you get a distortion of the 1985-90 type or of the 1957-62 type.

Between 1947 and 1991, Indian politics went generally right but the economics was all wrong. Since 1991, the economics has gone generally right but the politics is a mess.

Heisenbergs Theorem also implies that if the velocity of a particle is completely determined, nothing whatsoever will be known of its position and vice versa. But that degree of determination doesnt happen in real life.

Be thankful for that, for if the Indian economy began to grow at 10 per cent or more, and was a model of sensible policy as well, it would imply total political chaos. (This has in fact happened before between 1720 and 1760 and again between 1785 and 1820. There was political chaos, but the economy seems to have done splendidly. I daresay if data were available for earlier periods, the same relationship would emerge).

India, incidentally, is not the only country to face this problem. The UK, USA, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, even Greece have faced it. Ask John Major, to name just one witness. Closer home, Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh can be summoned to the box.

One inference from this could be that strong governments feel more compelled to interfere and intervene and thus pave the way for an economic mess. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Helmut Kohl and others are excellent examples of this. And Tony Blair should provide further confirmation soon enough.

In India, this principle appears to operate at the state level also. West Bengal has great political stability and larger-than-the-national-average probity in public life. But its economic performance is awful. Ditto for Madhya Pradesh. On the opposite end are Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. Great economic performance but horrible politics.

And exceptions which prove the rule?

Bihar, of course. And Russia as well.