Home

Identity Construction

Political Economy

Orientalism

Language

Borders

Religion

Annotated Bibliography

back to political economy

Paper for independent study, Spring 2005

            Indian tour books and travel writings describe a land of contrasts. It boasts rolling countryside and booming cities. This description also works in the economic landscape of the nation. Fabulous portrayals of an up and coming industry shower the international journal The Economist, while the Indian Economic and Political Weekly tells the story of poverty and inequality. Both of these journals represent a true India; the first describes a small group of well to dos that lucked out in the family they were born into, and the EPW discusses everyone else. When India won independence, Britain left several mementos for Indians to recount the years under colonial rule. First, it left its language to bond together the educated elite. Second, the British left distinct categories of people based on religion, location, class, etc. The combination of a language necessary for social advancement and a category of the socially advanced created a ruling elite that professed, “the road to the India top is ‘westernization' (Stern, 70). Do all Indians hold the opportunity and motivation to rally behind this slogan?

            We associate independence movements with ideal images of grassroots community action that bonds to defeat oppressive foreign powers. How true does this picture reflect the Indian independence movement led by Ghandi, Nehru and the powerful growing Indian bourgeoisie? Ghandi and Nehru led a movement towards a harmony that British colonial rule had eliminated when it categorized Indian diversity. These two charismatic leaders imparted their ideology to the Indian educated middle class. As leaders in the freedom movement, this educated elite established their preeminence in post-Independence politics. The framework stressed social and political sensitivity and commitment to ethics (and specifically aiding the poor) and optimism for an industrialized and rational modern secular India (Varma 32).

            The freedom movement professed a revolutionary ideology for equal opportunity in the new independent state, yet the English modes of production and governance remained embedded in the independent political landscape. British rulers left, but the Indian middle class formed pockets of English society after attending English schools and using English as the language of politics. The middle class remained so tightly bound to the English parliamentary system that had originally provided it power that the middle class “could not so easily wrench itself away from the ideological umbilical cord with the ‘mother’ country” (Varma 21). The homogeneity of Indian politicians distanced them and their decisions from the Indian masses that they represented. How could a freedom movement that spoke out adamantly in support of the people of India remain so faithful to Britain?

            Post-Independence politicians wore two distinct masks for public performance and private actions. Nehru’s experiment with Socialism offered a façade of political support for the poor, while the ruling class quietly pursued their own interests. Congress eventually fragmented and politicians began played a corrupt game of survival, achieving the title “Aya and Gaya Rams, birds of passage, bereft of all principles and commitment” (Varma 73).

            Corruption in politics has become accepted as a social norm. In Show Business the fictive son Ashok asks his politician father where to put the black money he constantly accrues as a successful actor. His father first condemns the idea of black money as “the curse of our country. If the money that is lost every year to the parallel economy could be plowed back into the official one, half our problems of underdevelopment could be solved” (Tharoor 141). Yet he then goes on to offer advice, “I am not a fool, Ashok, I know there is black money in politics…ever since we idealistically abolished company contributions to political parties, businessmen have found this other way of financing their preferred candidates” (Tharoor 144). When idealism obstructs personal success it seems that it no longer attracts adherents.

            Under Socialism’s idyllic dedication to social equity, the urban elite produced an economic agenda to advantage its own urban interests. Although 80% of Indians received their income from agriculture, the first three 5-year plans after Independence devoted a mere 15% of outlay from industry to farming (Varma 54). Overlooking the incredible agricultural possibilities, the urban bourgeoisie counted on industry to boost the post-colonial economy.

            The government has continued to overlook farmers’ rights even as it attempts to compensate for its neglect. A National Rehabilitation Policy has set up a system for the government to reimburse the displaced agriculturalists who have lost land for the government to build infrastructure and corporate wealth. The government has promised to reimburse farmers who lose 100% of their lands; however this measure excludes hordes of farmers who have lost large fragments but not all of their land. Tardy and forgotten reimbursement has provoked discussion about farmers’ rights to occupy government lands, but no official measures had passed by early July 2004. Under the guise of Socialism for all, the urban politicians tend to forget the rural majority.

            Even in the rural economic arena, the unjust patron-client relationship has persisted in different manifestations since the pre-colonial era. A larger base of control over village law represented in the panchayati raj system replaced the central colonial Raj (Stern 104). The historical patron-client relationship could not die so easily. Even when the government produced universal guidelines in 1992 attempting to open up membership past the landed elite class, “panchayati raj contributed to the under-representation and disaggregation of the interests of lower-class village households" (Stern 99). Does this pervasive disparity demonstrate inequality as inherent in Indian society or is this new manifestation a different entity?

            Hope emerges in the grassroots movements and coalitions of landed and landless farmers cooperating to make the politicians listen. “Farmers’ movements” grew in the 1980s as both middle and lower class farmers in mainly Shetkari Sangathana, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh rallied against “exploitative urban India” (Gill). After barely affecting political corruption as it related to agricultural policies, farmers’ movements began to fragment and farmers lost inspiration. Yet towards the end of the 1990s the movements revitalized and collaborated for a “timely intervention of FCI for market clearance of paddy procurement”(“The Insidious charms, 7). Farmers have also united to rely on co-op for monetary loans, rather than following the “distressing cycle” of conventional loans. Instead of paying high rates to an exterior loan agency that requires high fees, co-ops offer local farmers a fair rate that helps reduce the burden of debt bondage. Socially of course this also implies strengthening the personal network of middle and lower class farmers in a united fight against the urban center of control.

            Contrasting the dreary images of rural despair, international journals depict Urban India with glittering examples of the fierce IT firms ready to pounce onto the international economic scene. This picture portrays a mere fragment of urban India. As apparent as inequality exists in rural India, an incredible dichotomy between poverty and wealth preside in urban India as well. In 2002 6.4% of urban Indians earned over $7,500 while 73% earned less than $2,000(Mehta).

            With deep historical and contemporary caste and religious bigotry in Indian society, most of the poor are Dalits or Muslims. In the early 1990s Prime Minister VP Singh introduced 27% employment reservations for ‘backward classes’ in Central Government jobs in the Mandal Commission (Varma 115, The name ‘backward class’ is a part of Indian vocabulary, but can it escape the derogatory connotation that resides in the word ‘backward’?) The public responded in an uproar. Just as the US debates affirmative action’s relevance and possible harm, Indian employers question whether reservations are necessary and helpful. The presence of this dialogue implies that caste and religious affiliations remain social indicators, for otherwise it would have left the political stage. As India modernizes, “it is an important social goal that the occupational structure of the economy does not represent a caste system"(Varma 62).

            Reservations might offer more job opportunities to ‘backward’ classes, castes or religions, but universal primary education would create a new equal generation. After Independence, the English-educated Indian elite adopted the education system and language they had learned, but without a strong initiative to teach and not just train. The poor quality of public primary education produced a new generation of “half-castes…insecure in English and neglectful of their own mother tongue" (“The Tiger in Front,” 6).  The early Indian Congress government put money into higher education where their children would learn how to become leaders, but neglected primary education to benefit all children.

            As the middle class (gradually) becomes an international economic competitor, it will decide if universal primary education standards will be economically advantageous. As Asian Demographics’ Mr. Laurent says “an educated child does not want to plant rice,” but does India want the children to look much further ("The Tiger in Front" 6). The Economist argues that educating girls (who currently are only 45% literate) benefits everyone as they will provide “better health and education and longer lives for the whole family; more productive workers; a boost to industrialization and urbanization" (“The place to be," 11). Clearly if Indian politicians want a sustainable and just economic boom, they should begin by enhancing primary education for all.

Yet in Capitalism everyone cannot succeed. Since India’s economic boom in call centers does not provide much intellectual stimulation, would higher-educated students be satisfied in these positions? A base knowledge of English and training is necessary, but could an improvement to universal primary education create a population of overly successful students? Just as “the Y2K crisis pushed the grungiest IT work onto India’s best software engineers,” would idealistic students reduce themselves to the tedious labor involved (“The place to be,” 11). If a basic primary education could produce English-proficient workers, would the government have any incentive to demand higher standards?

Since Independence the decision of where to put money has been on the doorstep of the Indian English-educated intelligentsia. Not surprisingly, they have prioritized their interests and remained blind to those outside their realm. The Indian corporate world is booming, but when the overwhelming majority of the population does not fit into that world, how much longer can this dichotomy last? Even as the government promises to neutralize opportunities through job reservations and land rehabilitation programs, nothing changes. Ghandi and Nehru professed an ideology that supported equality, but is that picture possible in India’s fight to the corporate top? Is idealism enough to generate equality?

back to top

Stern, Robert W. Changing India, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York; 2003.

Varma, Pavan. The Great Indian Middle Class. Penguin Books, New York: 1998.  

Tharoor, Shashi. Show Business. New York, Arcade Publishing: 1992.

Palit, Chittaroopa. “Short-changing the Displaced: National Rehabilitation Policy,” Economic and Political Weeky. vXXXIX n27 July 3-9, 2004

Gill, Sucha Singh. “Farmers’ Movement: Continuity and Change,” Economic and Political Weekly, vXXXIX n27 July 3-9, 2004

“The Insidious charms of foreign investment,” Survey of India and China, The Economist, March 5, 2005, p7

Mehta, Pratap Bhanu. “Affirmative Action without Reservation,” EPW  July 3-9, 2004

“The Tiger in Front,” Survey of India and China, the Economist March 5, 2005.

“The place to be,” Survey of Outsourcing, the Economist Nov 13, 2004, p 11