A Shameless Polemic Against the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty

hossp

You make a flawed assumption that the Indians on this board are die-hard BJP ites. I will be sureprised if that is the truth. Then you attempt to analyze the reasons behind it. I request that you restate the topic of analysis.

Jay:

The governments job is to provide infrastructure and institutions. Latin American countries failed because they did not evolve institutions. Since Pakistan is your favorite whipping boy, let us examine the failures of Pakistan itself. It was the absence of structure and stability that is the bane of Pakistan and not the opening of markets.

Sunlight Various posts,

I agree with gist of all your post but I think you missed the point completely when responding to my friends post.
Here is a little from you to just refresh the context but I am discussing all your posts.

“Further because it is now family driven they do not have any social security - what ever little they would have been entitled if they had gone to work to a factory. No medical, no pension no pf.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This made me laugh - since when have such workers got social security or pension?”

I don’t see any problem with emotions, how can we from the subcontinent ignore emotions, as we are the products of emotions. Sometimes emotions show that how much you care, so don’t laugh at them. :)

Anyways, what you missed that he pointed out certain conditions that are part of the new Indian economy. In this particular instance he mentioned that outsourcing in India is hurting the Indian labor and something needs to be done about it.

One argument to reply that would have been that all capitalists’ economies have gone thru the sweatshop experiences before they turned the corner. The Europe and the US some 150-200 years ago-I would remind you of textile workers in England in the 18th and 19th centuries- New York in 19th century etc. Recently the economies in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and China (still going thru this) have experience the sweatshop phenomenon and have turned the leaf. The point is whether India can do it or not? I hope to see your post on this issue. When I reproduced that post all I was trying to do was to ask my friends to concentrate on the issues rather than persons.
I think that’s is happening and your contribution is valuable.

“If our traditional morals cannot withstand the assault from the West, then the traditional morals deserve to die.”
Couldn’t agree more!!!!!

Your post #58 Indira Gandhi- I am not discounting Mrs. Gandhi’s contributions, I merely pointed out in a shortened version, that by being a status quo Queen, she just stymied the progress for a long period and failed to see the emerging economic realities in India and all over the world. It would be best to keep this discussion to current or situation in the last 10-15 years rather than going too far back in the history, as that would just distract us from the current economic revolution that is taking place in India. We can use that as reference but discussing that all by itself would require lot of energy and historical research.:)

We will be discussing Rajiv a little bit later, in detail.
Look forward to see more of your posts.

Re:nazarhayatkhan#56
Khan sahib,
It is interesting to see your strong support for secular parties. Are you related to the famous Hayat and Tiwana families in West Punjab, who used to run the Unionist Party prior to 1947 ? I was just curious given your strong secular sentiments.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Concemnation of nehru,

There are a lot of new generation indians like stuka and sridhar who believe that opening up of the economy is the panasia. They do not recognise that competotion and capitalism in a society immediately after independance when the social institutions are not in place can only lead to corruption and chaos.

It is pathetic that this new born economic theorists can only cite singapore and korea. How about the latin american countries that were guided so closely the US. Look at the state of argentina, venezula, brazil and argentina. These are the classic exmples of capitalistic failures. May the stukas can find the death squads of brazil as capitalistic response to poverty.

The foundations of economic failure of pakistan was laid by ayub and his dependance on americans and the failure to develop a system of paks own. It is the immature capitalism that has put the industry in the control of 7 families in pakistan and the land in the hjnds of another 7.
The foundations of a capitalist system, the acuumulation of capital, both human and finacial was achieved by the nehru days. One can ilagine the impact of consumerism in india of the 60s, it wouls have decimated capital accumulation, something that happened in pakistan.
If I remeber correctly, the saving rate in india is 24 percent, that of pakistan is less than 10 and of the US is less than 1 percent.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

hossp (#57 and various).

You are partly right/correct. However there is another dynamic here. The BJP as a party is slowly moving towards the centre and making the congress espouse more a more leftish policies - more like a loony-left party which will not connect with the Indians - only with the fringe like pro_fool_budweiser (a columnist in The News), Arundhati`` I_am_not_a_citizen_of_india_still_will_live_of_it`` Roy.

Anyway here is an interesting article which you might like to peruse at you liesure

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040308&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1

Powerpoint Pashas by SABA NAQVI BHAUMIK

some quotes:

(a)Arun Jaitley is in. Narendra Modi is out. Ayodhya has become mythical. Electricity, water and roads are the raging issues. Is the party changing its colours?

(a)The idea is to take the Resurgent India, Shining India themes to the next level of aggrandisement. If India Shining showcased the past ``achievements`` of the BJP-led NDA government, the ``superpower`` catchline holds out promise for the future.

(b)Ever since the BJP came to power, the party of trishul-wielding sadhus, sants and masjid-wreckers has undergone a quiet transformation. Today many would identify the BJP with the moderation of Atal Behari Vajpayee. It is also a party increasingly associated with modernity, with articulate middle-class icons like Arun Jaitley and Pramod Mahajan, the political managers par excellence. Election 2004 marks an important generational change in the BJP, with the nuts and bolts of the campaign handed over to the second generation.

(c)More than anything else, it is the party`s effort to shift from the extreme right to a little more towards the centre of an urbanised Indian politics that lies at the core of this transformation. As Arun Jaitley puts it, ``The idea is to reposition the rival. The BJP already occupied the Hindutva right-wing space. Now we are increasingly claiming the centrist agenda. The only space left for the Congress is to be pushed towards the left agenda, which can only be fringe and marginal in India.``

(d)BJP national executive member Seshadri Chari is candid: ``If you study the BJP`s growth, you will find after the Ram temple agitation there were only two instances when the Hindutva agenda clicked electorally.

(e)It was after the 1993 defeat in the Uttar Pradesh assembly poll that the party realised stridency could fetch it no further electoral returns.

(f)[bold]The economic agenda of the leaders of the New BJP also makes them different from the swadeshi-touting leaders of the old Jana Sangh and early BJP. With exceptions like Murli Manohar Joshi, most prominent leaders in the BJP remain committed to economic liberalisation.They can best be described as right-wing free marketeers. ``Most of us believe in less, not more government, in the economic sphere,`` says Jaitley.[/bold]

Stuka,

Moeen Q did not start opening up the Pakistan economy that I was referring to. Pakistan became pretty much a consumer economy during the first Bhutto period. During the early 70s Pakistanis started going overseas for jobs and that started an inflow of cash and the consumer spending with it, that still goes on unabated. Public sector spending in Bhutto era reached highest levels also. Bhutto opened up new jobs in public sector and that too helped the consumer economy but as I said earlier there was no structure available to take advantage of that and now it is just a burden on the public exchequer. Anyways, we are not interested in Pakistan right now. Rest of your post about Moeen Q is accurate.

I agree with your assessment of BJP. But the phenomenon that BJP has become in India does require some better understanding. By the nature of its politics, BJP is loosely a right of the center party but its stated politics in the last ten years or so does place the BJP in a regressive mold. Still, its current popularity is among the most liberal and secular young crowd in India. So much so that some of them are questioning their own secularism to conform to BJP style. BJP does not shy away from its support for saffrons’ or the extreme right wing, yet it is able to convince many here on this board as well as all across India and a major portion of the NRI, that it is the party that can lead the progress India is making.

BJP has never espoused any major economic platform and as you mentioned it basically continued with what it inherited.
Here is how I think:
BJP is more of a right wing party but on account of coalition that it has built, it is now a right of the center party. BJP espouses no huge economic program and it is not offering a new social agenda. Still, the BJP is the party of choice for a majority of upwardly mobile and educated middle class. I think there are certain contradictions in this situation. True, that congress or other parties have failed to provide alternate and TINA factor applies here but IMO, this does not explain the whole scenario.

I think the BJP somewhere along the line has made a huge connection with Indian common folks and the middle class. I think that connection helps explain the hope Indians have in BJP. It does not appear to be just ABVcentric. It seems that Indians especially the so-called yuppies and the well grounded middle class are looking up to BJP to continue the march of progress.

Looking at all the ideological difficulties that the BJP has, we may have to think as to where and at what point the BJP made this connection. It was certainly not the case when BJP first came to power. This is some thing that happened while the BJP was already in power as the first BJP rode into power on different shoulders.

I think I have some more ideas and I will explore them in my next post.

#38 by hossp:
The Second Phase: Indra Gandhi-twice. She was born into power. She never struggled for her political ideals. She relied on Nehru name. She was status quo. She also helped develop pride in India. Since she was not a product of the people she lost sight of democracy at her first major challenge.
+++++++++++++++++++
Minor correction: Indira Gandhi had a major achievement to her credit - the Green Revolution. It may be hard for people to believe it now, but in the 1960s scholars in the West were predicting that there would be massive famines in India in the 1970s. One scholar went so far as to predict that the number of people in India would be reduced by 50% from 1965 to 1975 due to famine. In fact, during British Rule, the population of India did reduce from 1850 to 1900 due to famines.

In the 1960s, high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat were developed by international research organizations. The agriculture minister, C. Subramaniam, wanted to introduce Indian varieties of these seeds, as well as replace the Soviet style collective farming with American style capitalistic agriculture. Because of this, he was bitterly opposed by Leftists both within and outside the Congress Party. However, Mrs. Gandhi, to her credit, opposed the Leftists (who were her only supporters) and fully backed C. Subramaniam.

The result was a dramatic transformation of Indian agriculture, and a country which had been wracked with periodic famines up to 1947 (with for example 6 million people dying in the ``1946 man-made Bengal famine`` - more than the number of Jews killed by Hitler) suddenly became a food surplus country; and today has ambitions to become one of the major food-exporting countries of the world.

The White Revolution - the dramatic increase in milk production leading to India becoming the world`s largest producer of milk - also occurred during Mrs. Gandhi`s time but she was less directly responsible for it. At one time, one had to queue up to get milk.

#33 by jang:They also saw the unionized labor as lazy, unproductive, politically hyperactive and earning more than their parents due to bonus and overtime, and have little sympathy for it. So while you will see them grateful to Nehru for creating jobs for their parents via the public sector employment, they have no sympathy with any of the working masses. OTOH they are believer in the trickle down effect,
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Not true. Indians are out of sympathy with Leftist policies since they have been tried for 50 years with no effect. They also see unions as just another vested interest; most unions are controlled by gangsters who simply use Leftist rhetoric as a means to come to power.

People do not believe in the trickle down effect. What people believe is that the government should (i) slash wasteful subsidies and create better infrastructure (e.g., because fertilizers, water, power etc used by farmers is so heavily subsidized, there is no money left over to build irrigation canals; only 40% of land in India is irrigated) (ii) liberalize the economy (for example, I recently read that it takes 85 days to set up an industry in India while it takes 50 days in China). The infrastructure spending will also have the beneficial side effect of increasing employment. If the government does this, there will be rapid economic growth which will take care of all sections of society.

#16 by hossp:
Here is a post from an Indian friend on another board. Can we discuss this instead of Sonia?
++++++++++++++
Most of the post seems highly emotional and non-factual.

Instead of constructing sheds/factories and getting people to work, they are sending work home. Now families work from home and fulfill production targets.
++++++++++++++++++
What is wrong with this - what is great about working in a shed instead of at home?

These targets keep growing and rates keep falling. So to earn the same amount they have to work double or triple times the previous.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This seems most unlikely - I would demand some facts to prove it.

It is the `law of diminishing returns ` working with a vengeance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clearly your friend does not know what the law of diminishing returns is.

Further because it is now family driven they do not have any social security - what ever little they would have been entitled if they had gone to work to a factory. No medical, no pension no pf.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This made me laugh - since when have such workers got social security or pension?

Some clerics and theologians argue that globalization is tantamount to an assault on religious faith, because it undermines traditional morals and supplants local values with a culture of materialism and excess common in the West.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If our traditional morals cannot withstand the assault from the West, then the traditional morals deserve to die.

Inquireer # 46, Amit # 41, Arjun_m # 25, PunjabiZulu # 23

Obviously, the Indians have a better feel of their politics than an outsider. I agree with the general theme of your observations.

Indian politics are not only moving towards a two-party system but the dynastic rule of Congress seems to be under a serious threat. This all can`t be bad.

The Pakistanis do feel a little exaggerated threat from the BJP.

But the well established democratic ethos of India, coupled with the recent economic gains, the diversity of its population and the sheer size of the country should filter out or minimize the Saffron radical touch of BJP. My two-pence opinion - it will.

Pakistan has also moved towards a two-party system - PPP (the secular) & PML (the religious right). So far both are dynastic - and a third FORCE Army is not letting them bloom. Both have a poor record on economy & corrupton.

But since PML, the religious right, has a tendency to become an unguided missile in search of Islam, my all votes in future are for PPP.

#38 by hossp:
Rajiv was inept and even lacked his mother’s charisma and stubbornness. Ran a confused and devoid of any ideas type of govt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Rajiv was inept, but he had some of the right ideas. For example, it was due to his personal intervention (in some sense) that the software industry in India started. See ``The horse that flew`` by Chidananda Rajaghatta.

The first two US software companies to start in Bangalore were HP and Texas Instruments. However, these two companies almost did not start at all. HP and TI approached the Government of India to set up development centers in Bangalore with direct satellite links to the US, so that software could be easily sent to their development centers in the US. The Defence Department refused to clear the proposal on the grounds that military secrets could also be sent over the satellite links. It took Rajiv Gandhi`s personal intervention to overrule the Defence Department. He worked out a compromise whereby a soldier was stationed in the room where the satellite link was present to make sure no defence secrets were being sent. After some time, of course, all parties realized the absurdity of the situation, and the Defence Department stopped stationing a soldier.

Rajiv Gandhi wanted to jump-start India`s growth in software and telecom. In telecom, he picked Sam Pitroda and set up CDOT to develop telecom equipment. However, in this arena, the established Western companies such as Ericsson and Alcatel quickly saw the danger and made sure they drove CDOT out of business by dumping their products at very cheap prices in the Indian market. They also may have bribed the Indian bureaucrats at the Telephone Ministry, who were at that time the only buyers for telecom equipment in India, and preferred to buy from Ericsson and Alcatel since they could get foreign trips. Rajiv Gandhi was too naive to stop all this.

#? by sunlight
Rajiv Gandhi was too naive to stop all this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An addendum to my own post - Rajiv Gandhi reminds me of some advice one of my old bosses gave me - ``If you are a boss (leader) you cannot be 100% nice and sweet all the time; sometimes you have to be a little bit of a b*****d also``. The missing word refers to an illegitimate child. Rajiv Gandhi`s problem was that he was too bhola-bhala (as one says in Hindi). A completely innocent person, he could not protect himself against the Bofors scandal in which many of the people who were making allegations against him were extremely corrupt. In Sri Lanka as well, he was deceived and discarded by both sides to the conflict.

Rajiv Gandhi had some good ideas - but he was unfortunately enough not a politician, so in the end (as in the CDOT case I mentioned earlier) he could not accomplish what he wanted.

Ashish,

Congratulations !!!

I am a congresswallah but I should admit this is probably the best article on chowk on Indian politics. Congress still has not learned the rules of the new Indian politics. India has changed and so has the politics. You can spend money but there is no guarantee that you will get elected even in rural areas, because people will take money but they will vote whom they want to vote. It is not communal anymore but about economics. In my own town there are so many non hindus organization campaignaning for BJP. This is a healthy sign.