This article is no attempt to analyse the various poll manifestoes. It tries only to show up the confusion among the political parties on the basic economic issues of globalisation and liberalisation. The comparison with China is unavoidable as it is needed to highlight India’s failure to capitalise on its dedication to democratic values, freedom of speech and the availability of a vast and growing reservoir of skilled and unskilled manpower. In the even, a closed society with a baggage of human rights violations was allowed to steal a, arch over an open system. The late M.N.Roy, one of the most stimulating political minds India has ever produced, used to ridicule people trying to embellish the word socialism with a prefix or suffix. He was referring to such fashionable phrases as democratic socialism, in his view, ceases to be socialism if it is so bedecked.

The same argument holds good in the matter of globalisation and liberalisation. These are concepts with distinct connotations. Talk of investing them with a human face or infusing them with a spirit of nationalism betray a lack of understanding of their real thrust or represent a veiled endeavour to take the public for a ride.

The resurgent market forces are like a bulldozer, levelling everything before them. No national government can think of changing their course. All they can do is to re-align the productive forces to gain maximum mileage out of them. That being the case, none of the three manifestoes - of the BJP, the Congress(I) and the United Front - holds a ray of hope.

Even the No.1 industrial power in the world, the United States, is writhing under the onslaught of market forces. Corporations there, some of them with an annual turnover two or three times the size of India’s budget, are doing every impossible things in the rule book to ensure survival.

The market value of all the companies listed on Wall Street totals around $10,000 billion. In comparison, the figure for India is much lower with $128 billion and for China, just a notch higher, at $195 billion.

In the circumstance, what can India do on its own? The quick-fix remedies being offered by the political parties should be suspect. The BJP, for instance, offers the Indian industries a grace period of seven years or even ten to get ready for globalisation. Its package will remain incomplete unless it also explains what it is planning to do. Light should be also shed on what industry on its part can do even with the full backing of the government.

The answer is that neither can do anything. Any step taken by the government to beef up Indian industry disregarding world market forces will lead only to its weakening. As it is, the Indian economy suffers from the high cost structure foisted on it in the name of planning can self-sufficiency. The lack of quality consciousness is a by-product.

If there is way out, no political party has so far articulated it. The nation is at a cross-roads. It is at this stage one thinks of Gandhiji and his line of reasoning. Gandhiji’s 50th death anniversary came and went. There were the customary references to his life and nobility. Photographs were splashed on front pages. But none spared a moment to think of his possible reaction if placed in a similar situation. 

Gandhiji was no social scientist. He left no legacy of thought or even codified his impressions. Only casual remarks. Even so, he towers over generations of leaders in his understanding of the Indian people and their psyche. That is one reason why he wanted the village, and not the urban industry, to remain the focus of development.

A few days before his assassination, Gandhiji gave an interview to the youthful Ceylonese journalist, Varindra Vittachi. Many countries in Asia and Africa were coming out of foreign rule then and Vittachi wanted a message from Gandhiji to them. In brief, he asked Gandhiji what the newly independent nations (the phrases, developed, developing and least developed were not in vogue) should to gain strength. After a long pause the Mahatma replied: "They should learn to cut down their wants".

Writing in Newsweek several years later Vittachi pointed out that the only country that followed Gandhiji’s precept was China. By that time China had overtaken India in terms of economic growth, infrastructure development and key industrial production.

How? The playing field was level when both started off in the late forties. In fact, China then was a shade behind India. Down the road, the score became uneven. Just one example is sufficient to drive home the priorities each one had set at the formative stage of their development.

In his famous book "New Dimensions of Peace", Mr.Chester Bowles, former US Ambassador to India, gives a contemporary view of the state of affairs in the two countries. India became independent and communists came to power in China not long before he visited the two countries.

In China, Mr.Bowles noted that, among cabinet ministers, only the Prime Minister, Chou-en-Lai, was allowed the use of a state car. General Chu-the, the defence minister (who had distributed his enormous landed property among tenants and freed his concubines before joining the communist party) ran his ministry from his residence. All others were being brought to their offices in a military truck.
In India, Mr.Bowles wrote of a senior Congress leader, also a dedicated Gandhian and chief minister state, telling him about the "loss of values" within months of the country throwing off its foreign yoke.

That set the trend. Take for instance, savings. Estimates vary, but the level of savings is almost the same in the two countries. Where do they disappear in India? Speculative transactions and concealed wealth absorb the bulk of the savings. Black money has been estimated at a 57.8 per cent of the GDP. To that extent development efforts suffer.

In sharp contrast, China never had to announce amnesty schemes periodically to help out tax evaders. The recent VDIS shows the depths to which the land of Gandhiji has sunk.

The 1988 index of Economic Freedom places India on the top of the list for black market activity. China is not mentioned there. In the matter of efficiency in energy use, family planning (one-child norm) and export trade, China is well ahead of India.

This is not to say that China has no problems. It has not graduated, as yet, from a developing to a developed country. And its problems are as gargantuan as India’s. its GDP growth is dwindling to eight per cent or even six. A banking crisis much bigger that the type seen in South-East Asia is also in the offing. But, the lead it has established in critical areas has invested Beijing with an aura of great influence. As its foreign exchange earnings are fully accounted for, its foreign currency reserves at $145 billion ($230 billion including Hong Kong’s) tend to give China great bargaining power. The annual foreign direct investment flow into India at $2 billion is less than a fifth of China’s. It is not surprising, therefore, that a visit by the Chinese Head of State to the US attracts high voltage attention, interest and coverage across the world. So unlike the low-candle-power receptions given to India prime minister.

A further recognition of China as a better area for investment is also provided by the increased flow of foreign funds to that country. The rich OECD countries offered development assistance to the tune of $68 billion to the developing nations in 1994. It is 13 per cent more than what they gave in 1990. China moved to the top of the list with $3.2 billion. In 1990, its rank was 3. India at the same time moved down to 5th rank from 3rd, though the funds it received rose by 65 per cent to $2.3 billion.

Before we conclude, let us try to demolish some of the theories trotted out by the government - we say governments - their spokesmen and economists to explain India’s poor record vis-à-vis China. One theory is that things would have been better but for the Chinese aggression of 1962 that upset all calculations of economic development. There is some substance in their argument, though it does not hold much water on close analysis. India’s expenditure on defence has indeed, gone up substantially since 1962. But China’s case was worse. From the very beginning China had to keep itself battle-ready to stave off the threat from countries no less than the United States and the Soviet Union. 

China’s general government consumption (what includes defence spending) was as high as 15 per cent of the GDP in 1980 before coming down to 13 per cent in 1994. India’s 10 per cent, went up to 11 per cent during the period.

Another theory pertains to the polity. It is contended that the achievements of the two countries are not strictly comparable because China’s is a totalitarian regime, not responsive to public opinion and welfare. In a democratic set-up like India, the government is not free to make concentrated efforts and show results. It has to measure every step for fear of public criticism. But, pray, where is it stated that scarce resources cannot be used effectively under democratically - elected governments? Most of the world’s industrial powers have a government duly elected by the people. In the case of India, democratic society has degenerated into a licence for corruption, black-market and misappropriation.

Top