Between the ‘in the name of the poor’ ideology and populism, give me political opportunism any day.
When economists are foxed, they resort to a well-known defence: everything depends on everything else, so one cannot identify what caused what; hence, one has an identification problem. What has plagued economists worries political scientists now, as they try and decipher the political goings-on at 10 Janpath and the Congress party.
Under the leadership of Ms Sonia Gandhi, the UPA government has undertaken several political initiatives. Some quickly come to mind: the extra-constitutional Bihar bungle where a UPA governor, Mr Buta Singh, disallowed a constitutionally held election; the extra-legal freeing up of frozen funds of a friend of the Congress party, Mr Quattorochi; the extra-international law violation by the Congress party and its foreign minister, Mr Natwar Singh, as alleged by the UN-sponsored Mr Volcker’s report on the food for oil scam; the near extra-constitutional (?) introduction of an Ordinance to “pardon” Ms Sonia Gandhi (and several members of Parliament) in the office-for-profit imbroglio.
None of these initiatives was pleasant, and in terms of numbers, they far exceed, especially given the short period of two years, anything that a non-Congress government has ever done, at the Centre or in the states. The identification problem here: several. First, did Ms Gandhi know about these activities? If not, why? How can she be the pre-eminent leader of the oldest political party in India, a party not known for inner democracy, and not know of the major political acts of her government? If she did know, can we presume that she agreed? And if she did agree, did she authorise these acts undertaken by her government? Greater chance of pigs flying than ….
There are two major social engineering initiatives of the UPA government: guaranteed employment for the poor and the downtrodden, and the expansion of quotas to the poor and the backward. The first is proudly claimed (by both Ms Gandhi and the UPA) to be the “flagship” of the soul of this government. No identification problem here. Though it should be noted that at the time of introduction of the law in December 2004, the UPA government had just published the result that employment growth in India (under the NDA rule) between 2000 and 2003 had been a very high 2.9 per cent per annum; and almost triple the anemic employment growth rate experienced between 1993 and 1999. In 2003, the unemployment rate was also among the lowest ever recorded in India. But the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA felt compelled to introduce this “much-needed” Act to help the “poor”, even though there really wasn’t any economic need. So there is an identification problem after all: Was the Act introduced for social justice, or to increase corruption and benefit the not so poor?
Also worth noting is that versions of the employment guarantee scheme have been in existence since 1972; so there have been nearly ten governments that could have introduced this populist law in Parliament and have been assured that it would pass, and that they would get political credit for it. Can you imagine Indian politicians voting against populism, let alone responsible lawmakers? But no government did; that took leadership.
Just recently, Sonia Gandhi’s minister for education, Mr Arjun Singh, proudly announced that higher education quotas would now be extended to the backward castes (not necessarily the backward classes). This, possibly extra-constitutional policy, came as a shock to many, including ministers in the UPA government. Since the partial implementation of the Mandal Commission report in 1990, there have been four governments that could have extended Mandal but refused to do so. Again, they would have got Parliament to agree. But they didn’t. Possibly because they did not want to sacrifice long-term national interests for highly uncertain short-term political gains.
The key question, of course, is where Ms Gandhi stands on Mandalisation. Is her stand based on ideology or opportunism? Several state elections are happening: identification problem—social justice or crass politics? Ideology or votes? The co-incidence of political populism and elections suggests that it is good old-fashioned Congress politics win at any cost. I disagree—I believe it is ideology.
Ms Gandhi openly admits to admiring the style and politics of Mrs Indira Gandhi—and the senior Mrs G was the classic leftist ideologue. It is worth recalling that the Communist Party of India supported Mrs G in the imposition of the Emergency just like they would have gone along a few weeks back on the office of profit Ordinance. The senior Mrs G invented populism—how different are Garibi hatao slogans from employment guarantee schemes or education quotas? Ironically, and somewhat surprisingly, what Rajiv Gandhi said in 1989 amounted to lambasting both the poverty schemes of his mother (by asserting that only 15 per cent of garibi hatao schemes ever reached the poor) and the quota schemes of his wife (in 2006). In 1990, he strongly objected to the implementation of the Mandal announcement, even in its then limited form.
So we are left with zero identification problems. If there is disagreement and tension within the Congress party, the fights should be seen as those between the senior-most leader Ms Gandhi and her leftist followers, and the liberal, progressive, and modern elements. Given her pre-eminent position, Mrs Sonia Gandhi is likely to win her battles—which is why I would much rather have preferred that she was acting out of crass opportunism. That can be defeated. Alas, ideology is a lot more dangerous, and destructive for the economy and the polity. Remember Mrs Indira Gandhi.
There is a near universal belief that the anger over Jessica Lall’s injustice will soon dissipate and that we will soon revert to “business as usual”. There are solid reasons for this cynical pessimism – the Indian judicial landscape is littered with backlogs, acquittals, and excuses. So why should this time be any different? It is, and I would like to document why. This time it is different due to two major reasons, due to not one but two tipping points. First, the size of the middle class has crossed a major threshold level. Second, the Jessica Lal murder, and the acquittal, was so extreme that it has pushed the middle class to shout out aloud “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore”.
There is a distinctive aspect of the Indian elite, an aspect that I have not found replicated in any part of the world. I would appreciate any corrections to this view, and/or support. This peculiarity about the Indian elite is meant to make it appear as a concerned and involved citizen, and one in support of all things good and beautiful – more green, less corruption, and growth in welfare of the poor and the poorest. This elite is oblivious to the reality that everyone is in favor of such goals – the difference between the two sets of citizens is in the set of policies they advocate.
Poverty alleviation is but a small aspect of social justice; a just society provides equal opportunity for all members of society – all religions, all castes, and both sexes. India’s record of ill-treatment starts before birth – we kill the girl child before she is born. After birth, there is at best “benign neglect” and later on, especially among poor families, the girl child is needed to work at home. As she grows up, she becomes an increasing burden, and parents worry about raising a dowry for her marriage. And the cycle continues.
There are several noteworthy contributions of Jawaharlal Nehru to India’s development – the fight for independence, the institution of democracy, the prevalence of a free press. Something that India is not indebted to Nehru is his economic policies and/or the economic legacy. India, and the world, have changed considerably since 1947. An assessment of Nehruvian economics requires us to understand whether it was appropriate in the 1950s and 1960s. I am afraid the answer is that it was not appropriate then, and is even less relevant today.
What are the goals of affirmative action policies in India, particularly in education? The question should ideally be “what should be…” but should is not part of the vocabulary of the Indian politician, who has always deemed the constitution as putty, to be converted into clay at a “political” moment’s notice. First and foremost, the stated goal of affirmative action is for the state to provide equal opportunities to all citizens. And since education is the major asset of most individuals, state support is needed to provide the opportunity for education.
There are some things I would like to understand, but am unable to. Ms. Sonia Gandhi recently resigned from her parliament seat amid much acclaim and felicitations for her “sacrifice”. But it was just yesterday when her government was planning to bring in an ordinance at the midnight hour (tried quite successfully by her mother-in-law, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, when she imposed the Emergency some thirty years ago) just to protect her from her “sacrifice”. Having resigned, she claims to have been a victim of unfair practices of the opposition! Now you see why I find it difficult to understand these exciting times.
It seems that some people just refuse to get it – that what worked in the early 20th century against the British is unlikely to be applicable a 100 years later. There is a terrorist attack in a temple in Varanasi, and Islamic terrorists are the major suspects. This attack was preceded by India voting against Iran on the nuclear issue, and India signing a nuclear agreement with the US. There are some politicians who link the vote against Iran as part of an anti-Muslim sentiment in the UPA government. There are politicians within the UPA who feel that they have to appease Muslims as “compensation”! That this is far beyond the realm of any logic is not the issue; it is a fact that some politicians think that by making religious noise, they will curry favor and attract votes. Just the same logic was used by a Muslim UP politician who issued a fatwa against the editor of a Danish newspaper for publishing religious cartoons. Why he should not be arrested for incitement to murder is a question few politicians want to deal with.
Most of the comments pertaining to Budget 2006/07 had one common relief theme – phew, the UPA government is not as populist as we all had thought. The all important fiscal deficit was down, so it certainly was the case that the government, populist warts and all, was resisting the temptation to spend its way towards a political recovery in the forthcoming elections. The fact that populism has reigned supreme for two years and yet the UPA has lost every election it has fought since it came to power should sober most politicians. But the UPA, and the Left, invariably project the image that they are different than most – they are the anointed elite, and because of this anointment, they are the privileged caretakers of the poor. Hence, the heartfelt concern, and policy, of the FM to turn back the clock on interest rate reform by regulating interest rates; but it is okay, because he is only doing it for the poor farmers. His speech also had a nice allegory of the mount, the journey, and the destination of social justice of the UPA. He said it with a sense of discovery.
What a positive yawn! If it weren’t for some wild ones in the stock market (who created some artificial volatility by dragging the index down 1 % before ending it up 1 %), one would not have known that today was India Budget day. Which is as it should be – and it shows that India, despite changing governments, is continuing with the strategy of slow and steady economic reforms. This budget has consolidation of the tax regime (good), recognition that there were some bad taxes last year ( e.g. fringe benefit and cash withdrawal taxes – very good), expenditure consolidation and greater concentration on investments (have to wait and see for the effects, but a good sign nevertheless) and an onward march towards fiscal prudence (excellent – especially since the temptation to increase spending more than growth was resisted). All in all, not a populist budget at all; rather, a boring, pedestrian budget with a vision of a new, emerging India. Right on.
