Yesterday’s Failures are Today’s Successes

#82 by silly on November 30, 2003 4:02pm PT
Dost-Mittar
``But most Indians view themselves generally in terms of their local, caste, ethnic, language and religious identities.``

But the same holds for any notion of IDENTITY and INDIVIDUALITY-
There are layers of IDENTITY- depending upon the layer of community in which you live.

THe nearest community of persons in which you live - i.e. the family of a person is what creates the primary IDENTITY.
As the layers of groups with which an indiviual gets associated increases, the more complex the notions of IDENTITY gets build up-
So, the more layers of identity gets developed at the level of your GAli, Colony, City, your imagined community of similar people (like my imagined community of musicians), the identity with layers developed by my workplace etc etc.

India is a real community of persons whose RULES OF COMMUNAL and COMMON LIVING is CONSTITUTED by the Indian Constitution and the legislations made by its parliament and NOT by some RELIGIOUS BOOK/s.

And this is what people who think of IDENTITY and NATION in terms of Religious notion of NATIONS, as it gets explicated in Books, cannot comprehend.

Ref macgupta #84

[Apparently, India averaged an agricultural growth of 0.3% per annum 1901-1950. Glowing testament to British rule.]

Chemical fertilizers and pesticides were practically unknown in India till the 1950s. Even in the West, chemical fertilizers were not possible until the synthesis of ammonia on a large scale (Haber Process - Fritz Haber got the Nobel Prize in 1918 for this) was available early in the 20th century.

The British also built the Upper Ganges Canal which partially diverted water from the Ganges near Hardwar for irrigation. The job was undertaken by the District Commissioner of the area at that time and took nearly 20 years to complete. The Government thought it was a waste of money and funded it with great reluctance but the project paid for itself through increased tax revenues.

The British also built all the canals in Punjab. Before that, Punjab was considered a jungle and land there wasn`t cultivated.

Farther south, the British built dams across several rivers and streams. The Mettur Dam was built to store seasonal flow of water and was the first modern dam across the Cauvery river.

They also built the Periyar reservoir {hey, Soysauce, this is NOT named for that idiot EV Ramaswamy Naicker whom you call Periyar (Big Man); the name of the nearest town is Periyar (Big River)}. The construction of that dam at a hilly location with no access roads and amidst malarial swamps was a most difficult undertaking. The chief engineer on the project -- a white man as was the wont in those days -- buried his daughter there when she died of illness.

The British civil servants did their job no matter what the hardships. One could argue that they were trying to maximize the revenues of the Government. But in the process, people did benefit. The civil servants did their jobs to the best of their abilities and far better than the minions of the Nawabs that they replaced.

re: Pankaj

Thanks for the reply.

Ciao

Ahmed Madani:

``In long term Nehru and wajpai will be consider as continuation of change.(all others except MRs Gandhi werre forth to fith rate primeministers) ``

You feel that way about Narsimha Rao as well? The 1991 reforms were initiated under his watch.

Ahmad Madani:

How are you getting such detailed information sitting in Pakistan? I know you value your anonymity hence the ``work in restaurant`` story but I find the depth of your knowledge about India (including the specific infrastructural issues we face) amazing. Is your educational background in macroeconomic planning or have you worked for your government by any chance?

Dost Mittar:

I enjoyed reading this. I think it is a decent effort though my insight is a bit different on the language issue..more so in the details then the general thrust.

Anil Kapuria:

I enjoyed reading your insights. Please contribute more often on Chowk.

Apparently, India averaged an agricultural growth of 0.3% per annum 1901-1950. Glowing testament to British rule.

dost-mittar #80
chowk has this tradition of using ethnic/religious/personal slurs as a substitute for hard facts. I guess I was disappointed to hear the usual derogatory comment about somebody or the other instead of learning more on the subject at hand.

FYI, there is this report on poverty in India 1974-2002 which bears out your point wrt poverty at least.
http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACR801.pdf

If you go to page 3, it has a poverty graph which shows that poverty increased from 1952-1965. Poverty began to decrease substantially only after 1974.

Dost-Mittar
``But most Indians view themselves generally in terms of their local, caste, ethnic, language and religious identities.``

I totally disagree with you. I donot know why you made that generalization. I am from south but i never considered myself first as telugu and then indian. I always considered myself first as Indian and then Hindu. When there were cyclones in Orissa, Earthquake/riots in Gujarat and when the soldiers were fighting on the Kargil Heights, me and my friends we all felt the pain of fellow Indian and donated/collected funds to help the affected people. We did this as Indians never as southeis. My friends include Telugu`s, kannada`s, Tamils, Keralites and Gujaratis. I always take pride in the achievements of any Indian not just people who are from Andhra. I can say the same about most of my friends. India is not a nation state it a civilizational state. You cannot expect the kind of cohession you see in a nation state. People in a nation state can have a single identity not in countries like India. There is nothing wrong in having multiple identities. It doesn`t make them any less Indian and it doesn`t mean their primary identity is not Indian.

PM

``it could be argued that the socialist measures taken during that period (say `70-`90) were in fact the launching pad needed for India from which to catch the winds of this latest storm of globalization. ``

One who grew up in India during 80s and 90s would not agree with you. I know from my own experience that nothing is more disastrous than governmental interference in any endeavour, especially economic. With government comes the corrupt, unaccountable and inept bureaucracy. This govt induced endemic corruption kills any enterpreneurship of its citizens. You have to live in a socialist society to realize how utterly dehumanizing and hopeless the system is.


``You Indians want non-socialist, small-government, laizzez fair economics? Look immediately West and be caredul what you wish for! ``

This is exactly what I want - laissez faire and free enterprise. I am a minimalist when it comes to govt. role in economic activities. I belive in the innate superiority of market mechanisms over state-managed economy.

sadna#75:
``Do you have any figures for this? ``
Not at my fingertips but I have seen relevant figures.

The statistics you present are comparing the present with the situation at independence, not at the end of 70s. But I know that these statistics registered significant improvements even during that period. The question is not of absolute but of relative improvement. We improved but not as much as our other Asian competitors. To illustrate by an example from a totally different field, our hockey game might have improved since 50s but we used to get an olympic gold medal in hockey before and we dont do now because others have improved more than we have.

``Why drag Hindus` religious practices into this? ``
Sorry for the offense. I was somehow under the impression that hindus are more thick-skinned about these things. Perhaps, I was mistaken.

Veeresh:
``I could name more, but keep to these five on additional grounds of (a) non-monopoly and (b) in the face of open competition, including foreign in some cases.``
I agree. If these two conditions are satisfied and the govt. is dealing with the enterprise at an arm`s length ensuring a level playing field with the private sector entities, a public sector enterprise can be successful. But why waste precious public resources on activities which private sector could do anyway, when there is a crying need for resources in creating social and economic infrastructure that nobody else would?

sridar:
``When the British came to trade with India, India was still a prosperous nation. When they left, India was down in the dumps, accounting for less than 1 % of world trade.``
There is no doubt that the British exploited and impoverished India. But it is also true that they created some infrastructure first to meet the needs of their vast Raj and later perhaps also from a sense of the white man`s burden. Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that at the time of departure, they had left India with the basics of a modern infrastructure required for development.

``India in 1947 did not even produce a needle.``
This was a favourite statement of congress politicians at almost every election meeting durinng the 60s and 70s. I do not know whether or not it produced needle in 1947, but it certainly produced a lot of other things. India had a flourishing and indigenous textile and jute industry and the level of imports was not more than 1-2% of GDP. In fact, India even produced steel at that time and had its own airlines, both in the private sector, a feat accomplished by very few countries back then.

Dear Farzana:
I am glad that you picked up on something which others have not in the discussion, the concept of ``Indian``. I agree with you that there are many Indias including one of non-resident Indians and of chowkies. But most Indians view themselves generally in terms of their local, caste, ethnic, language and religious identities. The group that I describe, which one might call the ``nouveau Indian`` however does think of himself/herself as primarily Indian. At the risk of raising my friend nasah`s ire, it may be compared to an earlier, nobler generation of pan-Indians who banded together to fight for the liberation of the country.

``They want to go for `higher studies` overseas and find work there.``
If the news reports are to believed, more of them are now staying back and some firms are in fact recruiting in North America to take people back to India. I believe that most people want to stay in the surroundings they grew up in (including villagers) unless they can significantly improve their or their children`s living standards. If new graduates can do that in India, they will stay there, or so I would like to think.

``on my travels I have often ended up picking up clothes, artifacts that I realise later have a `Made in India` label. And these superior goods are fighting for space along with cheap Chinese items. ``
This is the result of having to compete in the global market place. Not too long ago, the only Indian garments sold here were produced in cottage industries and generally in ethnic stores. One would buy a kurta pajama whose buttons would come off after the first wash and seams will come off at unseamly places after the secon wash.

anil#48:
Thanks for the info.
I am not surprised at the conclusion of the HBS report. Even if a lopsided investment in higher education were justified on economic grounds, which it was not, it could not have been justified on equity grounds by any egalitarian society, let alone one wedded to socialism.

I cannot respond to your remarks regarding capital being used more efficiently in India than in China without further studies. It is quite possible it was so in the private sector where it was quite costly but I doubt it if it was so in the economy as a whole if public sector was also included in the calculations.

When I said labour intensive industries, not investing the capital required to update machinery and equipment to be globally competitive. I was thinking more in terms of capital intensive versus labour intensive industries. If you notice, even now the growth in India is taking place in labour intensive service producing industries, albeit the labour is not of the cheap, unskilled type.

//..on my travels I have often ended up picking up clothes, artifacts that I realise later have a `Made in India` label. And these superior goods are fighting for space along with cheap Chinese items...//

Sure - but in terms of numbers they are just a drop in the ocean of chinese goods dominating floorspace in supermarkets all over the world. In terms manufacturing - India is way behind China and other nations, many thanks to the ``Small Scale Industries`` policy.

//...I would say there are several Indias and instead of trying to force them to mesh, there should be an attempt to accept the differences...//

Who is forcing anybody to ``mesh``? If there is any ``meshing`` happening - then it is automatic because may be that is the way people want to move - with less contradictions and more focus. Lessening the differences is a good thing. Cohesion is a good thing. No country has progressed where different entities pulling it in all different directions.

dost-mittar #62
``The bottom line is: when Nehru took unfettered reins of govts - both centre and states and with virtually no opposition - India was at near the top of the Asian league, when he left, it was at near bottom not only in economic but in most social and infrastructure indicators. ``

Do you have any figures for this?

After scratching around, here are a few human development indicator comparisons:

At Independence average life expectancy was 32. Now its above 60.

Literacy rate was 14% at independence, now it is 65% .

Infant mortality was 200 per thousand at independence, its 66 now(over a larger population, we were 400 million in 1947).

There were 28 medical colleges in 1950, now there are 106.There were 19 universities in 1947 now there are 219.

You will find more figures of comparison with 1947 here:
http://pib.nic.in/archive/50yrs/50featr/ind50.html

``Only a nation that believes in devis and devtas even after they fail to deliver would worship such a man. ``

Most of the Communists were atheists but worship Lenin, Stalin, Mao despite their each causing deaths of 10s of millions. The Christian or the Muslim world of believers is not free of blind support for the worst of their leaders. Why drag Hindus` religious practices into this?

And I have never come across a single Indian who wants to worship Nehru, nor do I worship him or any of our leaders. I think he got a lot of things wrong, even badly wrong. I thought we were having a free exchange of views here. Maybe I was mistaken.