Banking On Basic Truths

Five decades ago, India made a tryst with destiny. The most important ingredient of that tryst, taken from Mahatma Gandhi's well-known Talisman, was simple: when you wish to know if anything you want to do is good or not, imagine the face of the poorest man in the land and ask yourself whether your proposed act will be of any gain to him.... Parliament endorsed the Talisman when the Lok Sabha declared: "The basic criterion for determining the lines of advance must not be private profit but social gain, and that the pattern of development and structure of socio-economic relations should be so planned that they result not only in appreciable increase in national income and employment but also in greater equality in incomes and wealth." Neither Parliament itself nor any political party has said anything opposed to this dictum so far. Private profit may have since entered our calculations more but social gain has never been jettisoned.

To me this is not a mere cliche, howsoever mixed may have been the actual achievement. It is the essence of our tryst with destiny. When you call anything basic, you mean that it is unchangeable, as such. All that one can do is to try different methods and modes to reach that objective.

And when I said that the intent of the liberalisation programme in 1991 was entirely in line with the Talisman, there was no need whatever of any eyebrows going up. It was a case of clear conceptualisation and equally clear projection.

It may be of interest to the Indian people to know what the World Bank has said now. After over 50 years, the World Bank has admitted that many of its past policies were misguided. The bank's annual World Development Report painted a bleak picture of the developing world which has fallen even further behind rich nations. It also said in many ways the bank had failed in its mission to improve conditions of poverty, disease and poor education in the developing world and admitted that it cannot carry the burden alone if its ideas are to work. It also said "trickle-down economics"—the practice of cutting taxes for the rich hoping it would benefit the poorer in society—does not work. (We in India have said it time and time again, based on our own experience of our own stratified society.) But whatever policies were used over the past 50 years, one thing is certain: poverty continues to rise.

About India, another report reveals some astounding data. Although relative differentials exist, absolute deprivation is high in most parts of rural India. For example, about half the population of rural India is illiterate and suffers from 'capability poverty', about 40 per cent have extremely low incomes.

The report exhorts that a determined, concerned and sustained effort to eliminate poverty and social disability is necessary in India. The belief that a relative cost recovery is needed to sustain many social service investments is a reality. However, over 50 per cent of India's population is still vulnerable and cannot afford the cost of education and healthcare. Public action, therefore, is needed to restructure and eliminate the current anomalies in the dispensation of social services so as to target them to the most needy and at the same time recover costs from the better-off by allowing the private sector to cater to the needs of the latter.

Whatever may be said about recovery, our age-old tradition of the free school and free medicine—such as the country could afford—has now been more than vindicated. The materialist trend that was scoffing at the 'free' idea now seems debunked, when applied to poor people in India, as per these high-brow reports. While on this subject, it may be useful to recall that the public sector was not essentially meant to grab profits when it was started in the '50s. It was an extension of compassionate social values, as adumbrated by our saints and leaders over many centuries past. The idea of making profits for its own consolidation emerged, as of necessity, gradually towards the end of the '50s, if my recollection is correct.

The report suggests synergistic efforts to invest in the rural and agricultural sectors so as to enhance rural incomes and also to generate broadbased employment opportunities along with guaranteed real wages. It concludes saying that the challenge for India in the next century is to improve the levels of living and concurrently reduce relative deprivation within a limited time.

I wish to remind the authors of these reports that India's development philosophy and plans were predicated precisely on these ideas—right from the word go. We seem to be getting our own ideas back as original advice now. So be it. We do not claim that first authorship; but it is a good thing to know that we have at last been found right (without saying so) by those whose opinion counts.

The brighter scenario, however, is also evident. Our own undeniable experience is that the middle class in India—that is, the class which can be expected to fend for itself, by and large—is constantly growing. There is optimism in the air. Liberalisation is like another new-found freedom. It is a wonderful tool. It has opened many doors and the Indian innovator has now got numerous openings. He has suddenly grown wings and is flying high. His self-confidence is a sight to see. A few things that have not yet begun happening need to happen now. They are: applied research to meet our own problems based in our own assets; and a distinction between satisfaction of legitimate needs on the one hand and mindless consumerism on the other. So let there be no meaningless conclusion that liberalisation itself is bad, simply because many more good things are still to happen. However, let us also clearly understand that liberalisation is at the crossroads, from where it needs to be steered carefully and with imagination so as to yield the bountiful results it is capable of.

The contours and purposes of liberalisation started in 1991 stand fully vindicated. 'Caution' is the watchword. On his visit to India some time back, the Singapore PM also said something very definite about the vagaries of indiscriminate capital movement all over the world. Very wisely, he declared that he wants Singapore to be a global hub of knowledge-based industries. Now, India can also derive the maximum advantage, from her proven prowess, in this field. But can India, with her vast size and unending problems of poverty, afford to remain confined to knowledge-based industries alone?

Can our knowledge of how many steel plants we need bring us even one scrap of steel? Quantifying poverty seems rather superfluous where poverty in its massive dimensions is there for anyone to see, except for those who don't want to see it. India is the land of the Vedas and Upanishads, she never lacked knowledge and insight—whether memorised or computerised. Thousands of saints, savants, leaders, preachers, poets and experts have declared what needs to be done.The process is continuing unceasingly. But the mechanics of implementation is what seems to be faltering. A slogan has to be converted into an idea, the idea into thesis, the thesis into a programme, the programme into implementational components, the components have to be related to human beings in a system called the administration.

While this is the long journey, with all its hazards and uncertainties, not to speak of human frailties, we still seem to be teetering on the fringe of slogans. When the Singapore PM hinted at erratic capital movement, he was also politely warning us not to fall in the debt trap by short-term borrowings for unproductive purposes. Centuries ago, we had the Charvakas who merrily said, rinam krithva ghritam bibet (make debts and enjoy yourself)! The reason they cited was: Bhasmeebhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam kithah (Once your body is consigned to the funeral pyre, where is it going to come back from)? The Indian society definitely rejected this philosophy even in case of the individual. And when it comes to a state or the nation, this reckless outlook is still more disastrous, since the state and the nation will last for ever, unlike the individual. So between the Charvakas and the Indian elephant, caution is the only sensible bridge.

I can only hope that eyes will open in time.