October 2002 Edition

Human Welfare, Economic Development and Civilized Society

Since the recent communal conflagrations in Gujarat, many concerned Indians have been extremely disturbed by the failure of the state administration to conduct itself according to the Indian constitution - i.e. without discriminating on the basis of religion. They have repeatedly attacked the state government for failing to follow the "rule of law", and have expressed considerable concern for Muslim refugees, some of who still languish in makeshift refugee camps. By and large, the English-language media has not shirked from publicizing the frustration of such Indians, who feel that the safety and well-being of India's religious minorities cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, critics of the English-language media have accused most English-speaking journalists of having a 'pseudo-secular' bias since they have rarely shown the same concern for Hindus expelled from the Srinagar valley, the vast majority of whom are yet to be rehabilitated. They also note how even though 30% of the riot-refugees in Gujarat were Hindus, this was almost never acknowledged.

They further allude to how Islamic separatist terrorists are made to seem respectable - they are referred to as "alienated from the centre", as "aggrieved parties", as being "defenders of a 'unique' Kashmiri identity" but never as communal "fascists" - a term routinely used to describe Hindutvadi supporters of the VHP or the Bajrang Dal.

While it is doubtlessly true that the mainstream Indian media has deeply-internalized double standards on the issue of secular fairness and justice, the issue of media insensitivity, and selective reporting goes much deeper. For instance, even though there were almost daily stories concerning the communal crisis in Gujarat, crimes against Dalits and Adivasis are seldom reported as frequently. A recent study (as reported in the Deccan Herald) revealed that as many as 30,000 Adivasis and Dalits died as a result of caste-related crimes in 2001. In many instances, law enforcement authorities either looked the other way, or collaborated with the perpetrators. But these violations of the Indian constitution, this breakdown in the 'rule of law' does not appear to excite the same level of outrage. Even those who claim to be "radical" or "progressive" rarely pay sufficient attention to unpunished crimes against Dalits. It is little wonder that Dalit leaders such as Mayawati and Kanshi Ram have accused the Indian political and media elite of being biased and "Manuwadi".

This raises a very troubling question. Is the Indian media only going to report about constitutional violations when they pertain to religious and communal tensions? Are they going to shut their eyes to crimes against other oppressed groups? Do other victims count for less? Shouldn't crimes that result from caste or gender differences, sexual or marriage preferences, or property conflicts, also concern us just as deeply?

Although the Indian constitution is quite specific in outlining certain types of protections, there are other areas where it is quite vague in it's support of basic human rights. It is particularly weak in defending economic rights, or the right to employment, for instance.

Homeless children, widows, the elderly, or the disabled (who can be the most destitute people in India) do not have any explicit protection in the constitution, and not enough demand that any government - (whether local, state or national) take care of them, because there is no specific group or person to blame for their plight, and no Indian law has been explicitly violated. They are simply victims of harsh circumstances.

Yet, this chronic failure of Indian society to take care of it's most vulnerable and helpless citizens rarely draws media attention. In fact, any serious discussion of "refugees" ought to at least acknowledge that the millions of Indians who live in slums are also "refugees" - they are refugees of a peculiar economic situation where jobs are plentiful only where land prices are high, and affordable housing is scarce. Although anarchic growth is not a uniquely Indian problem, being so densely populated, the consequences of unplanned capitalist growth are much more intensely felt. But these victims of India's anarchic development cannot point a finger at any government body and say: "you have failed us - you must rehabilitate us too". They are rehabilitated only when the land they occupy is needed for something else, and they have enough political clout to resist being moved without compensation.

The truth is that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a conspiracy of silence concerning such fundamental human rights - those that are essential to a life of hope and dignity for all. Rarely does the subject of human welfare, of the duties of the state in ensuring a minimum standard of human existence enter the public discourse in India. And when a brave individual attempts to lead a discussion on the social responsibilities of the state, there is often a chorus of detractors, and the debate is quickly squelched by anti-communist baiters or market fundamentalists who wish to see the state retreat from all it's obligations except those pertaining to law and order and national defense.

Even those who might sympathize with the need for greater attention to public welfare give up - either because they conclude that there is no money for it in India, or because they have a concern that if the government can't even manage the PDS properly, how could it ever be expected to efficiently implement more expansive social security measures. They accept the rationalization that if socialism "failed" in Russia, how could such "socialist" measures work in much poorer India.

However, it is important to note that the manner in which the Indian government has implemented the PDS, it has been neither socialist, nor driven by free-market concerns. On the one hand, it has stepped in to procure and store grains from individual farmers (many of whom are not poor) - on the other hand, it has left the distribution of this grain to petty traders. But a truly socialist approach would require that the government not only procure and store the grain, it would also require that the government take charge of distribution - not leave it in the hands of corrupt and unscrupulous private traders. A genuinely socialist approach would also entail active government intervention in the production of grain, allocating land and resources in a way so as to ensure proper soil and water management, that a variety of grains in the right proportions were produced - not simply allow the anarchic over-production of wheat and rice (to the detriment of other crops - such as pulses and oil seeds).

To further compound things, the government has been pampering a small section of Indian farmers by constantly raising the minimum purchase price over and above the rate of inflation, making it inevitable that PDS and open-market prices will also have to rise in proportion. It should be noted that such an artificial increase in price is tantamount to an annual tax increase, which hurts the poorest Indians the most.

To describe this policy - which favors an army of petty traders, and only a minority of farmers (many of whom need no governmental help), but hurts the interests of the majority of the Indian masses as a "socialist" policy is simply absurd, and makes a mockery of socialist principles that are intended to uplift those who suffer from a lack of means and resources.

The truth is that the Indian government allows the Indian consumers of grain neither to profit from free-market practices that might at least result in lower prices during years of good harvests, nor to fully benefit from it's generous procurement policies.

In fact, it may be noted that India's medieval Rajput rulers followed more intelligent policies in this regard. During good harvest years, the Rajput kings procured only as much grain as was necessary to build buffer stocks for the bad years. Beyond that, grain was freely traded and sold in the 'mandis'. In the bad years, the state intervened in the distribution process to ensure that there was no starvation. In all years, there was strict monitoring of the traders to prevent hoarding and price-gauging.

Given India's geography and climate, state intervention in the procurement and distribution of grain has always been necessary, but clearly there are many ways of doing it - some more effective than others. But there could also be other means to ensure food security.

For instance, throughout the world, even unabashedly capitalist governments provide more social security options to their citizens than does the Indian government. Take just the US, as an example: there are food stamps for the poor, free schooling and public libraries, annual budget allocations for low-income housing, unemployment compensation for six months (extendible to nine months during a recession), social security for the elderly, as well as additional allocations for child safety and welfare. Although inadequate, such welfare measures have played a vital role in keeping poverty rates well below India's. Those who argue that India is too poor to afford such measures might note that India's GNP has grown considerably since independence. It is much more capable of meeting the needs of it's poorest citizens today than it was in 1947.

The problem of social security in India is no longer just a question of money, but how certain administrative practices prevent optimal use of resources, and blatantly favor special interest groups (such as politically influential grain traders and self-centered farmer's lobbies). If there was adequate concern, will and commitment to solve the problem, innovative and workable solutions could always be found.

It might be especially useful to note that the Mauryan state under Emperor Ashoka took special pride in it's welfare policies. Ashokan edicts and reports from visiting chroniclers attest to this concern for public welfare. Surviving chronicles from the Gupta period suggest that the state had a formula for calculating pensions - that all those who had performed some service to society may have been entitled to a pension. Chinese travelers like Huen Tsang also made note of welfare measures undertaken during the Harsha reign in Kannauj.

If pre-industrial India could provide pensions and other welfare measures to it's citizens, it seems astounding that a nation that is much more developed, and can now launch it's own satellites can't afford to be more charitable towards it's weakest citizens. Clearly, it is a question of priorities, and also a question of being enlightened enough to realize that attention to the social welfare needs of the poor and unfortunate can also lead to benefits for the rich.

Those who admire the successes China has enjoyed since it's economic "liberalization" might wish to consider how China's "liberalization" took place after 90% of the population was already well-schooled, and at least had some shelter. To this date, the Chinese government requires most new enterprises to build workers hostels in the special enterprise zones - so that growth in industry doesn't lead to a concomitant growth in slums. This has ensured that China's new urban areas look much more attractive - they are neat and clean, virtually free of the chaotic squatter settlements - of irregular markets and residential colonies, or unsightly slums that seem to proliferate throughout urban India.

Indians may have become inured to India's unseemly squalor - but many foreign investors aren't as tolerant. Time and time again, serious investors have been dissuaded from investing in India because India's cities appear ugly and uninviting. On the other hand, China's new enterprise zones gleam with attractively designed modern buildings situated along wide tree-lined boulevards. It's best cities now boast well-paved sidewalks with pleasingly maintained flower beds, separate bike lanes and a workforce that appears competent and well-dressed. Concern for public welfare is translating into much higher rates of international investment as well.

This is not to unconditionally or uncritically endorse the economic policies of the Chinese government (which are clearly leading to very lop-sided development and putting a severe strain on China's environment), but rather to point out how concern for public well-being and social welfare is not necessarily incompatible with economic development. Greater attention to housing and schooling, and improved public infrastructure are not just concessions to the poor - they can attract new entrepreneurs and industrialists as well. This has been the case with every other advanced economy - whether it be Korea or Japan, Sweden or Germany, or Singapore, or Hong Kong.

It is high time India's industrialists realize this, especially if they wish to seriously compete for international investment in any quantity. India is not like the US where land is plentiful, and there are no shortages of power or water. Rather than chafe at all regulations, Indian industry ought to be more open-minded to those that lead to better management of the country's scarce resources, and help raise living standards across the board, thus improving India's general investment climate.

Consider how today, land is allocated for industrial use without due concern for low-cost housing or availability of essential resources. Initially, this may not pose a problem, but soon enough the slums and the accompanying squalor develops. This then puts off new international investors.

However, with their powers to regulate and manage industry, state and local governments have all the tools to ensure that when industrial areas are developed, a certain amount of land is kept aside for low-cost housing, for transport arteries, for public parks and other essential facilities. State governments and the Centre can also be more proactive in steering new investment to smaller towns and cities where housing and other costs may be lower, rather than permit reckless new development in already crowded metros.

Instead of resisting such sensible trends, India's industry leaders should actively intervene to ensure that industrial growth occurs in a thoughtful and balanced way - so that scarce resources are not stressed - so that India's cities and industrial areas present a picture that is not only pleasant for India's citizens, it is also irresistible for any foreign investor. Citizens welfare and economic development need not always be contradictory goals.

It is imperative to recognize that economic development and social welfare are both essential pillars of a civilized society. Haphazard economic growth that does not raise the living standards of the vast majority cannot be an end in itself. The hallmark of any civilized society is the welfare of it's people. That must always be at the forefront of any discussion concerning India's future progress.

Related Essays:

Economic Growth and Quality of Life

Back for other selections from South Asian Voice for other articles on issues confronting India and the region.

Also see South Asian History or Topics in Indian History for relevant essays that shed some light on the history of the subcontinent.

(If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian Voice project and help us expand our reach, please click here)